Pixels from Patrick JEAN on Vimeo.
Pixels
Check it out!!!!!
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Great Short Found!!!
So, first post in well over a month!!!! Don't expect much, just wanted to share a link to a great short film I saw on Facebook.
Pixels
Check it out!!!!!
Pixels
Check it out!!!!!
Friday, July 23, 2010
Life In A Day - MUST DO FOR JULY 24, 2010!!
Hey all, heard about this amazing event happening tomorrow. It's a movie about "a day in the life of.....YOU!"
Kevin MacDonald and Ridley Scott are putting together a movie based on video submission from everyone around the world that showcase their lives on one day, July 24th! You have until July 31st to submit your video to YouTube and the most distinctive ones might get put into a YouTube movie. The best part if you will get credit if your submission is selected.
There are some guidelines described on the website, but the most important things to include are:
Step 1) Film your day!
Step 2) Answer these three questions;
- What do you love?
- What do you fear?
- What makes you laugh?
- What is in your pockets? Do the objects mean anything?
Otherwise, make the video your own. I plan on submitting a piece tomorrow, and I hope you all do too!
Check out this following link for more information, http://www.youtube.com/lifeinaday!!
Kevin MacDonald and Ridley Scott are putting together a movie based on video submission from everyone around the world that showcase their lives on one day, July 24th! You have until July 31st to submit your video to YouTube and the most distinctive ones might get put into a YouTube movie. The best part if you will get credit if your submission is selected.
There are some guidelines described on the website, but the most important things to include are:
Step 1) Film your day!
Step 2) Answer these three questions;
- What do you love?
- What do you fear?
- What makes you laugh?
- What is in your pockets? Do the objects mean anything?
Otherwise, make the video your own. I plan on submitting a piece tomorrow, and I hope you all do too!
Check out this following link for more information, http://www.youtube.com/lifeinaday!!
Friday, July 16, 2010
Reel Questions - July 16th, 2010
What was the Weekly Question, has been reborn as the "Reel Questions". Post your answer below as a comment!
IN THIS ERA OF REBOOTS AND REIMAGININGS, WHAT MOVIE WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE REMADE?
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
The Quest for Cash
Here is an article I wrote for the University of Waterloo's campus paper, IMPRINT, about my attempt (and failure) at getting bursaries. Hope you enjoy, it is impregnated with movie references.
Anyway, back to the quest for cash. With no OSAP acceptance or rejection I discovered a line on the bursary form further down that stated, “If you did not apply for OSAP, please provide parents Notice of Assessments and proof of extenuating circumstances”. It seemed to this hero that the first trial could be passed. All I have to do is show with the Assessments that my parents made much more money and tell the administration my reasoning for the expected rejection. With this victory under my Utility-less belt, I applied to Twenty-one different bursaries. Some were UW’s, while others were corporate or volunteer based. Content, I went back to studying and awaited the assistance sought by my quest.
Two weeks later I got my answer back…REJECTED; Failure to provide proof for not applying to OSAP. I felt like Indiana Jones might feel if the Germans got both the Ark and the girl. It seemed to me that my quest had failed. However, not willing to accept defeat, I called a Financial Aid Counsellor to talk about this rejection and provide support for my stance of “Expected Rejection by OSAP”. With an appointment three days hence, I called my parents again and asked them to take time out of their day (early morning no less) and bring me T4’s, pay stubs, notice of assessments (again), anything that could be used as weapons in my crusade against the administrations decision. Lastly with a printout of my OSAP rejection (along with my financial projects for that year) and an expenses budget showing an expected $2000+ debt form school expenses alone, I went to my appointment.
Surely with all this proof, this hero could have triumphed…WRONG! Upon entering the dragon’s lair, the belly of the beast (Needless Hell) I was rejected again in under two minutes. I was told that rejection is not an extenuating circumstance (something that was not well defined on the form). So to recap, I’ve now wasted hours of my time, and my parent’s time, preparing documentation for a defence that could have been rejected over the phone, or explained better on the form. I was told that only parents refusing to sign OSAP forms or an allergy to paper and technology (actually the latter is made up out of frustration) classed as good reasons.
The bad guy has won, the fire was extinguished, the princess has died, and this hero has failed. All because the University would much rather have students take government money that they have to pay back than to give them funds that have been allocated by themselves, alumni, corporations, etc. for students anyway. These funds will not cause worry to students because they do not have to be paid back. Bursaries sit unclaimed every year, and will again this year because of the apparent greed (seemingly to this hero) of the University to not give up more money.
Twenty-one bursaries applied to, one total and utter rejection. While my faith in this University has fallen to the lowest it has ever been, my faith that students will never get a break has further been strengthened. I should have gone to Mac; they offered at least a $750 scholarship.
Hollywood has drilled the idea of happy endings for any quest embarked upon by a main character. From “The Quest for Fire” with primitive humanity to Shreks epic quest to save Princess Fiona - happy endings are what we are used to. However, a happy ending was not waiting for me at the end of my quest for financial aid. All that awaited me was wasted time, no solutions, and loss of respect for this University.
It all started over a month ago when I began filling out a bursary application, and realized after reading the first line, that alas I had not previously applied for OSAP assistance. Not that this financially burdened hero (hero in my saga anyway) had not thought about it, on the contrary, I had put great thought into it. As first year (I am now a second year scholar/hero) I applied for OSAP but was declined because I fell into that income bracket between, “I have more than enough money and can laugh at tuition costs” and “I don’t have nearly enough to even laugh at the price of my lunch”. According to OSAP both my parents and I made too much and could effectively pay tuition. However, when Residence fees alone takes 95% of your bank account what is left for tuition, and more importantly, alcohol! Concordantly (Matrix, eat your heart out), I did not apply this year because everyone involved made more money and expenses were down.
Anyway, back to the quest for cash. With no OSAP acceptance or rejection I discovered a line on the bursary form further down that stated, “If you did not apply for OSAP, please provide parents Notice of Assessments and proof of extenuating circumstances”. It seemed to this hero that the first trial could be passed. All I have to do is show with the Assessments that my parents made much more money and tell the administration my reasoning for the expected rejection. With this victory under my Utility-less belt, I applied to Twenty-one different bursaries. Some were UW’s, while others were corporate or volunteer based. Content, I went back to studying and awaited the assistance sought by my quest.
Two weeks later I got my answer back…REJECTED; Failure to provide proof for not applying to OSAP. I felt like Indiana Jones might feel if the Germans got both the Ark and the girl. It seemed to me that my quest had failed. However, not willing to accept defeat, I called a Financial Aid Counsellor to talk about this rejection and provide support for my stance of “Expected Rejection by OSAP”. With an appointment three days hence, I called my parents again and asked them to take time out of their day (early morning no less) and bring me T4’s, pay stubs, notice of assessments (again), anything that could be used as weapons in my crusade against the administrations decision. Lastly with a printout of my OSAP rejection (along with my financial projects for that year) and an expenses budget showing an expected $2000+ debt form school expenses alone, I went to my appointment.
Surely with all this proof, this hero could have triumphed…WRONG! Upon entering the dragon’s lair, the belly of the beast (Needless Hell) I was rejected again in under two minutes. I was told that rejection is not an extenuating circumstance (something that was not well defined on the form). So to recap, I’ve now wasted hours of my time, and my parent’s time, preparing documentation for a defence that could have been rejected over the phone, or explained better on the form. I was told that only parents refusing to sign OSAP forms or an allergy to paper and technology (actually the latter is made up out of frustration) classed as good reasons.
The bad guy has won, the fire was extinguished, the princess has died, and this hero has failed. All because the University would much rather have students take government money that they have to pay back than to give them funds that have been allocated by themselves, alumni, corporations, etc. for students anyway. These funds will not cause worry to students because they do not have to be paid back. Bursaries sit unclaimed every year, and will again this year because of the apparent greed (seemingly to this hero) of the University to not give up more money.
Twenty-one bursaries applied to, one total and utter rejection. While my faith in this University has fallen to the lowest it has ever been, my faith that students will never get a break has further been strengthened. I should have gone to Mac; they offered at least a $750 scholarship.
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
The Best Movie You've Probably Never Seen - July 7, 2010
Hey all, here's a new section for Reel Geekz about really good movies that most people have never seen (I say probably in the title because some of you may have in fact seen them at some point).
The first movie for this topic is entitled The Tao of Steve, and for the record, "tao" is pronounced "dao". This is a 2000 romantic comedy by Jenniphr Goodman starring Donal Logue and Greer Goodman.
The first movie for this topic is entitled The Tao of Steve, and for the record, "tao" is pronounced "dao". This is a 2000 romantic comedy by Jenniphr Goodman starring Donal Logue and Greer Goodman.
Donal plays an overweight "womanizer" named Dex that always gets the girl with the foolproof "Tao of Steve", at least until Greer's character Syd comes to town. The Tao is simple:
- Eliminate your desires.
- Do something excellent in her presence, thereby proving your sexual worthiness.
- Retreat, for as Martin Heidegger said, "We pursue that which retreats from us"
This movie is based on the life and personal experiences of a college friend of Jenniphr. Impressed with his apparent success with women despite being an overweight kindergarten teacher (hey, I'm not knocking overweight kindergarten teachers, just saying it is surprising) and his life philosophy, decided to draft ideas for either a movie or a one-man TV show. After many revisions and delays, financial backing and the right mix of actors (which included Jenniphr's sister Greer) the movie began shooting on this day in 1999 (July 7th).
This is a must see movie for all movie lovers for many reasons!
- Donal Logue
- Great story
- The Tao!
Another reason I had for intro'ing with this move is because of a theory a good friend (and amazing Trivial Pursuit and Scene It player) of mine has. The theory is that EVERYONE must own at least one movie with their name in the title! He owns The Life of Brian and I therefore own The Tao of Steve. However, despite this reason for owning it, I would have bought it anyway since it is a great movie. So go out right now and find it, I promise you will love it!
Warning: Reel Geekz cannot actually promise you'll love it, just highly suspect that you will thoroughly enjoy it. However, if you do end up loving it, we promised you would! If you hate it, then oh well, there is always one.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Follow-up to 'Doc Ock'
For your reading pleasure, here is the awesome follow-up to my friend Melissa's article on being friends with Doc Ock. Read on for the answers to many of the issues introduced in the first one. Enjoy!
Okay, so, 'Doc Ock'... not so cool. Getting over the fact that he could potentially smack me around like never before, I was actually quite amped for our hangout. Let me tell you, my friend(s?), he is so boring! Not only was he unwilling to do anything remotely cool with his [six] arms (like get me my damn ingredients for baking cookies - he doesn't even like cookies!), but, he also just whined about how he wasn't as cool as Alfred Molina (Who portrayed him in the second installment of the most recent Spider-Man series). Come on! That guy didn't really have six arms! That guy was just green screen cool (though, his name is Alfred).
'Doc Ock' then went on about how being a doctor was "Mad boring" and that he truly wanted to "Be a magician!" Um, yes please! A magician with six arms sounds totally awesome, right? Well, he stinks at it. You can only watch a man pull out polka-dot scarves from a hat while using all six arms for so long. He could have the best slight of hand(s) trick(s) if he put in the same amount of effort as he does complaining about Spider-Man (Spider-Man partied with us, too, and was totally careful with his webbing). Totally called it on that guy complaining. He couldn't even entertain my roommates, and, believe me, at least one of them (Ryan) is easily amused - though, I heard that Ryan requested to be tickled by all six claws at once. Seriously, Ryan?
Anyway, back to 'Doc Ock's' issues (we can talk about Ryan's another time). As soon as he informed me that his favourite show was Jersey Shore, I knew I had to ditch him - he actually suggested that we go get Jersey Shore tans (Sidenote: I cannot tan). Jersey Shore tans! Ugh! I do not think that orange would suit me... or him, for that matter.
'Doc Ock': Boring; a cry baby; Jersey Shore lover; and, White Sox fan. Never be friends with a White Sox fan. Ever (Ha, ha, Dan!)
When he asked if he could play drums, people were pretty excited. That was until he decided to use all [six] arms at once, without drumsticks. Eff. That being said, it still sounded better than Fred Durst's attempted guitar solo (For your viewing (dis)pleasure: http://www.youtube.com/wat
As if that wasn't bad enough, he broke into Vince's room - now you know why the hinges were off, buddy - to "Be rid of that insipid noise [music]." Sorry, Vince. He also stole some of Enis' beer (I'm so not paying you for that).
The final straw was bringing him into the daycare. He didn't change [6] diapers; he just held [6] kids upside-down until they screamed "You're cooler than Spider-Man!"
Rest assured, the next time I get the bright idea to befriend a comic book villain... I'll just pick a better one.
Okay, so, 'Doc Ock'... not so cool. Getting over the fact that he could potentially smack me around like never before, I was actually quite amped for our hangout. Let me tell you, my friend(s?), he is so boring! Not only was he unwilling to do anything remotely cool with his [six] arms (like get me my damn ingredients for baking cookies - he doesn't even like cookies!), but, he also just whined about how he wasn't as cool as Alfred Molina (Who portrayed him in the second installment of the most recent Spider-Man series). Come on! That guy didn't really have six arms! That guy was just green screen cool (though, his name is Alfred).
'Doc Ock' then went on about how being a doctor was "Mad boring" and that he truly wanted to "Be a magician!" Um, yes please! A magician with six arms sounds totally awesome, right? Well, he stinks at it. You can only watch a man pull out polka-dot scarves from a hat while using all six arms for so long. He could have the best slight of hand(s) trick(s) if he put in the same amount of effort as he does complaining about Spider-Man (Spider-Man partied with us, too, and was totally careful with his webbing). Totally called it on that guy complaining. He couldn't even entertain my roommates, and, believe me, at least one of them (Ryan) is easily amused - though, I heard that Ryan requested to be tickled by all six claws at once. Seriously, Ryan?
Anyway, back to 'Doc Ock's' issues (we can talk about Ryan's another time). As soon as he informed me that his favourite show was Jersey Shore, I knew I had to ditch him - he actually suggested that we go get Jersey Shore tans (Sidenote: I cannot tan). Jersey Shore tans! Ugh! I do not think that orange would suit me... or him, for that matter.
'Doc Ock': Boring; a cry baby; Jersey Shore lover; and, White Sox fan. Never be friends with a White Sox fan. Ever (Ha, ha, Dan!)
When he asked if he could play drums, people were pretty excited. That was until he decided to use all [six] arms at once, without drumsticks. Eff. That being said, it still sounded better than Fred Durst's attempted guitar solo (For your viewing (dis)pleasure: http://www.youtube.com/wat
As if that wasn't bad enough, he broke into Vince's room - now you know why the hinges were off, buddy - to "Be rid of that insipid noise [music]." Sorry, Vince. He also stole some of Enis' beer (I'm so not paying you for that).
The final straw was bringing him into the daycare. He didn't change [6] diapers; he just held [6] kids upside-down until they screamed "You're cooler than Spider-Man!"
Rest assured, the next time I get the bright idea to befriend a comic book villain... I'll just pick a better one.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
The Vampire Epidemic - a prelude to the release of "Eclipse"
You'd have to have been living under a rock for the past few years to not notice that there's been a surge of vampire stories in various media: books, movies, tv shows, comics, the list goes on. I believe the surge happened just at the tail end of my second semester in college, or at least that's when I started to really notice it myself.
That semester I took a course called "Living with the Undead" and it was taught by the amazing Robert Price at Sheridan College. He taught us about the origin of the vampire myth, beginning with the eerie tale of Vlad the Impaler, touching on Elizabeth Bathory (shudder), and exploring a lot of fiction. We read Carmilla by Le Fanu, Anne Rice's Interview with the Vampire, and of course Bram Stoker's Dracula. We only briefly touched on the more recent film-flop-turned-successful-tv-series "Buffy the Vampire Slayer."
Since then of course I noticed the Twilight craze going on around me. I was at least five years older than the majority of my classmates so I chalked their fanaticism up to the same teenage excitement I had over "Buffy" and resisted. As I tried my best to ignore the ever-present Twi-hards, I got sucked into the world of Alan Ball's "True Blood" on HBO, based on the Sookie Stackhouse novels by Charlaine Harris (which I've now started to read).
Instantly I was drawn to the character of Bill, the tortured vampire struggling to mainstream in a world that just realized his kind existed. He was romantic, albeit from a completely different century and therefore had a thing or two to learn about a 21st century woman. But it was the old-fashioned, Southern Gentleman romanticism and charm that tugged at my heartstrings: holding open the door, guiding her with his hand at her back, defending her honour - sigh, I was a puddle of goo. So I think it has nothing to do with the fact that they're vampires - the vampire state is just a vehicle to make the story reach a wider audience than just hopeless romantics.
At this point, I will admit that I began reading the Twilight series by Stephenie Meyer, just to know what the fuss was all about (and to see if I might be too old to understand my younger counterparts). I was hooked. I read all four books in a matter of a week. I read them so fast that I bought the first one and was able to exchange it for the second and so on, not expecting to want to own them. By the time my birthday rolled around, I owned the box set and the first film on DVD. Edward is every woman's fantasy of a vampire or even a man. He is innocent and tortured at the same time. A little bit like Louis from Interview or Angel from "Buffy." Or even Stefan from the sleeper drama tv series "The Vampire Diaries" based on the books of the same name.
I put Louis, Angel, Edward, Stefan and Bill on the same plateau - the good guy you'd want to bring home to mom, if you could get Louis' diet under control. But then there's that whole other kind of vampire that can tug on your heartstrings and your libido at the same time - the bad boy. Lestat. Spike. Stefan's vampire brother, Damon. Eric. The vampire that makes you want to be the one that makes him want to be a better man, who makes you want to be Buffy, Bella, Elena or Sookie. (Or who makes you want to learn more about Vikings and the Scandinavidan culture).
It's a passing fantasy, but a really fun one. What makes you come back down to Earth is the realization that, save for Spike, these characters were written by a female. Spike was created by a man, but his lines were inspired by the female audience. It's definitive proof that they are a woman's fantasy man, because what man knows how to write like that, or shape a character like that? If anyone knows of a heterosexual man who writes this way, let me know. Maybe, if we're so drawn to these characters, it is evidence of a deeper need in women globally: a need for passion and desire and to be cherished and loved and completely ruined for any other man.
With that said, the Twilight series' third film "Eclipse" is coming out a week today, on June 30. I know I'll be there with some girlfriends despite my firm dislike for the second film as a piece of drivel, not exactly bringing the story to life in the way that I'd hoped. Apparently I'm very much alone in that opinion, save for the poor saps who were dragged to go see it by their girlfriends or wives - sorry Sean. So here's hoping that "Eclipse" is everything I want it to be, including the proposal and tent scenes - you know what I'm talking about.
That semester I took a course called "Living with the Undead" and it was taught by the amazing Robert Price at Sheridan College. He taught us about the origin of the vampire myth, beginning with the eerie tale of Vlad the Impaler, touching on Elizabeth Bathory (shudder), and exploring a lot of fiction. We read Carmilla by Le Fanu, Anne Rice's Interview with the Vampire, and of course Bram Stoker's Dracula. We only briefly touched on the more recent film-flop-turned-successful-tv-series "Buffy the Vampire Slayer."
Since then of course I noticed the Twilight craze going on around me. I was at least five years older than the majority of my classmates so I chalked their fanaticism up to the same teenage excitement I had over "Buffy" and resisted. As I tried my best to ignore the ever-present Twi-hards, I got sucked into the world of Alan Ball's "True Blood" on HBO, based on the Sookie Stackhouse novels by Charlaine Harris (which I've now started to read).
Instantly I was drawn to the character of Bill, the tortured vampire struggling to mainstream in a world that just realized his kind existed. He was romantic, albeit from a completely different century and therefore had a thing or two to learn about a 21st century woman. But it was the old-fashioned, Southern Gentleman romanticism and charm that tugged at my heartstrings: holding open the door, guiding her with his hand at her back, defending her honour - sigh, I was a puddle of goo. So I think it has nothing to do with the fact that they're vampires - the vampire state is just a vehicle to make the story reach a wider audience than just hopeless romantics.
At this point, I will admit that I began reading the Twilight series by Stephenie Meyer, just to know what the fuss was all about (and to see if I might be too old to understand my younger counterparts). I was hooked. I read all four books in a matter of a week. I read them so fast that I bought the first one and was able to exchange it for the second and so on, not expecting to want to own them. By the time my birthday rolled around, I owned the box set and the first film on DVD. Edward is every woman's fantasy of a vampire or even a man. He is innocent and tortured at the same time. A little bit like Louis from Interview or Angel from "Buffy." Or even Stefan from the sleeper drama tv series "The Vampire Diaries" based on the books of the same name.
I put Louis, Angel, Edward, Stefan and Bill on the same plateau - the good guy you'd want to bring home to mom, if you could get Louis' diet under control. But then there's that whole other kind of vampire that can tug on your heartstrings and your libido at the same time - the bad boy. Lestat. Spike. Stefan's vampire brother, Damon. Eric. The vampire that makes you want to be the one that makes him want to be a better man, who makes you want to be Buffy, Bella, Elena or Sookie. (Or who makes you want to learn more about Vikings and the Scandinavidan culture).
It's a passing fantasy, but a really fun one. What makes you come back down to Earth is the realization that, save for Spike, these characters were written by a female. Spike was created by a man, but his lines were inspired by the female audience. It's definitive proof that they are a woman's fantasy man, because what man knows how to write like that, or shape a character like that? If anyone knows of a heterosexual man who writes this way, let me know. Maybe, if we're so drawn to these characters, it is evidence of a deeper need in women globally: a need for passion and desire and to be cherished and loved and completely ruined for any other man.
With that said, the Twilight series' third film "Eclipse" is coming out a week today, on June 30. I know I'll be there with some girlfriends despite my firm dislike for the second film as a piece of drivel, not exactly bringing the story to life in the way that I'd hoped. Apparently I'm very much alone in that opinion, save for the poor saps who were dragged to go see it by their girlfriends or wives - sorry Sean. So here's hoping that "Eclipse" is everything I want it to be, including the proposal and tent scenes - you know what I'm talking about.
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Why I want to be friends with 'Doc Ock'
Found this on a friends Facebook page and loved it. Thanks to Melissa for giving me permission to post it here for all of you to enjoy.
People are endlessly going on and on about how cool Chuck Norris and Mr. T are. Not me, though. I'm all about - at least for today, anyway - 'Doc Ock'. That's right, the bad dude from Spider-Man. Really, I wouldn't consider him a bad dude; just a really smart, yet misunderstood dude. I mean, the guy has six arms! Think of how hand that is. "Hey, 'Doc Ock"', I would say, "I need you to grab me these specific ingredients [insert specific ingredients here] from the cupboard so that I can bake cookies. Do you mind?"
"Obviously, I do NOT!" he would respond, enthusiastically, of course. Clearly, the man loves cookies (My cookies are awesome, FYI).
He would also be awesome for assisting at the daycare. Six arms to change diapers. Six arms to separate fighting kids with. If we had [6] swings, six arms to push kids on swings with! Mind blowing, right?
I could get six puppies and he could walk them all. No one would dare approach us. I mean, really, I'm hanging with 'Doc Ock', yo.
I would also like to think that he would be able to explain everything. Cause he's smart, you see. Really smart. Doctor smart.
Obviously, we'd have to work on his feud with Spider-Man; cause, Spider-Man also seems like a rad dude - although, I imagine that when he's drunk, he's not so careful with his webbing. Gross. I also don't want to listen to endless whining about how Spider-Man won, yet again; and, how he ruins everything. Seriously, not my problem, guy. Of course, I wouldn't dare say that to 'Doc Ock'. That guy totally has six arms that he could potentially smack me around with.
Hm. Perhaps I need to rethink this possible friendship.
People are endlessly going on and on about how cool Chuck Norris and Mr. T are. Not me, though. I'm all about - at least for today, anyway - 'Doc Ock'. That's right, the bad dude from Spider-Man. Really, I wouldn't consider him a bad dude; just a really smart, yet misunderstood dude. I mean, the guy has six arms! Think of how hand that is. "Hey, 'Doc Ock"', I would say, "I need you to grab me these specific ingredients [insert specific ingredients here] from the cupboard so that I can bake cookies. Do you mind?"
"Obviously, I do NOT!" he would respond, enthusiastically, of course. Clearly, the man loves cookies (My cookies are awesome, FYI).
He would also be awesome for assisting at the daycare. Six arms to change diapers. Six arms to separate fighting kids with. If we had [6] swings, six arms to push kids on swings with! Mind blowing, right?
I could get six puppies and he could walk them all. No one would dare approach us. I mean, really, I'm hanging with 'Doc Ock', yo.
I would also like to think that he would be able to explain everything. Cause he's smart, you see. Really smart. Doctor smart.
Obviously, we'd have to work on his feud with Spider-Man; cause, Spider-Man also seems like a rad dude - although, I imagine that when he's drunk, he's not so careful with his webbing. Gross. I also don't want to listen to endless whining about how Spider-Man won, yet again; and, how he ruins everything. Seriously, not my problem, guy. Of course, I wouldn't dare say that to 'Doc Ock'. That guy totally has six arms that he could potentially smack me around with.
Hm. Perhaps I need to rethink this possible friendship.
Friday, June 11, 2010
The Search for the Coco Loco
Please check out this stupidly fun little documentary that Laurie and I made in Cuba. It's about a drink we saw around called a "Coco Loco". Basically its a drink the gardeners make by collecting fallen coconuts from the grounds of the resort, then using a machete to cut a hole in the top and flatten the bottom. I think they then add Rum (or leave it to us to add rum, we've not sure). It was shot all on the last day and then pieced together with other unrelated clips we had but I think it turned out okay.
Friday, May 21, 2010
Reel Talk with...
So Reel Geekz is launching a new section. We will be taking your suggestions of people in the movie business to interview!!!! This could be filmed, over the phone, via webchat or email. You pick the person (with a few suggestions thrown in by us), we attempt to get a hold of them and you enjoy the experience as we blog about our success and failure along the way.
If successful, we will then take suggestions for questions (within reason as there may be some topics that are taboo). If you were the first to suggest the interviewee (or gave us a hand in securing an interview), then we will make sure your question gets asked for sure (again, within reason).
There is however, one major rule. A rule by which we will abide by while attempting to get a hold of the possible interviewee.
If successful, we will then take suggestions for questions (within reason as there may be some topics that are taboo). If you were the first to suggest the interviewee (or gave us a hand in securing an interview), then we will make sure your question gets asked for sure (again, within reason).
There is however, one major rule. A rule by which we will abide by while attempting to get a hold of the possible interviewee.
We will not pester them! No more than 2 follow ups in regards to the same contact attempt.
Other than that, we will do whatever it takes to try and set something up with them. If the need for other rules come up or you suggest a rule that makes the section "more entertaining", then we reserve the right to augment the rules. So stay tuned to Reel Geekz as we will be announcing the first person on our list (oh yes, we have a list already!!!) very shortly.
Friday, May 14, 2010
A Nightmare on Elm Street, 2010
Hello! This is my first post on Reel Geekz and I'm super excited. First, because I have a lot of opinions that I usually refrain from sharing, and second, because my first post is about a topic that I usually do not enjoy discussing. Ever.
Growing up, I was not a fan of the horror genre. My first experience with a scary movie was Pet Cemetery 2 (yeah, I know, not even the original) at a birthday party when I was about 9 or 10. I had to not just leave the room, but leave the party. I raced home on my bike, in the middle of broad daylight, only stopping when I was forced to at a traffic light. I felt like I was being watched and followed, and of course I imagined I was being followed by a big dog with glowing yellow eyes. I turned and nearly had a heart attack at the sight of a squirrel about 5 feet behind me. Yeah, I was that bad.
That wasn't even the worst experience. When I was about 13, at another birthday party the movie for the night was A New Nightmare, my first Freddy Krueger film. Needless to say, I didn't last long sitting for that movie either. I ended up in another room playing cards with my friend's sister. I suffered weeks of sleepless nights (and extremely annoyed parents) as a result of that night.
Since then I've become much more comfortable with horror films. Sure, I might be kept up an hour or two after I would normally go to sleep, but being scared is part of the fun. I've since seen almost all of the Nightmare on Elm Street, Friday the Thirteenth, Scream, Halloween, and Saw series of films. Most recently, my husband and I went to see A Nightmare on Elm Street, the reimagining of the original. So let's get to the review:
Freddy Krueger? Check.
Nightmares? Check.
Elm Street? Check.
Make you jump out of your seat scenes? Check.
Gory death scenes? Check.
Cheesy one-liners? Check.
If you were hoping to see any one or more of these things when you bought your ticket, then you got what you paid for. The story was essentially the same as the original 1984 version, only updated to fit in the 21st century, and there was ample opportunity for your date to cling to you in fear. Let's face it, that's the only reason you'd bring a girl that's not your sister to a movie like that. Worked for my husband.
This film was the epitome of a cheesy horror franchise revival: lots of fantastically gory effects, and groan-worthy one-liners. What I found endearing about the film was how it embraced and owned the cheese and made no efforts to claim otherwise.
Anywho, what was different about this film was the explanation of the back story. If you've seen the original films, you know what happened to Freddy and why he picks on the Elm Street kids. This time around, you get to see more of the past and Freddy becomes humanized...for a short while anyway.
Another fantastic difference is the leading actor. Of course Robert Englund will always be "Freddy Krueger" but the man is in his 70's now. The mantle was passed to whom I consider to be the best choice: Jackie Earle Haley. This man has played some real creepers lately and has the best voice for inducing chills. I'd love to meet this man in real life; he's probably the nicest guy in the world, which would mean he does his job well. I was reading a story shortly after seeing Nightmare and in a really tense scene I picture Haley as the bad guy and it totally creeped me out. Again I was up until about 4am...I guess some habits die hard.
***SPOILER ALERT***
I'm not going to tell you how the movie ended, though it was very similar to the original. What I am about to tell you is how it didn't end in a segment I'll probably be sharing with you often: "How My Husband Thinks it Should Have Ended". He's not much for the reviews of how the film was, but how the film should have played out. In sharing these ideas with you, I might imply how the film did end so if you haven't seen it, STOP READING NOW!
So, he thinks it should have ended with the father of the lead boy being the actual pedophile and Freddy is getting revenge for being framed and killed by said father and the other parents, by terrorizing and killing their children in their dreams. At the end, the kids discover that the father is guilty and bring Freddy from the dream world into reality just in time for Freddy and the father to come face to face. Freddy would make quick work of the father but, in order to keep the franchise alive, will decide he prefers his hack n' slash self.
I hope you enjoyed my first review! More to come.
Growing up, I was not a fan of the horror genre. My first experience with a scary movie was Pet Cemetery 2 (yeah, I know, not even the original) at a birthday party when I was about 9 or 10. I had to not just leave the room, but leave the party. I raced home on my bike, in the middle of broad daylight, only stopping when I was forced to at a traffic light. I felt like I was being watched and followed, and of course I imagined I was being followed by a big dog with glowing yellow eyes. I turned and nearly had a heart attack at the sight of a squirrel about 5 feet behind me. Yeah, I was that bad.
That wasn't even the worst experience. When I was about 13, at another birthday party the movie for the night was A New Nightmare, my first Freddy Krueger film. Needless to say, I didn't last long sitting for that movie either. I ended up in another room playing cards with my friend's sister. I suffered weeks of sleepless nights (and extremely annoyed parents) as a result of that night.
Since then I've become much more comfortable with horror films. Sure, I might be kept up an hour or two after I would normally go to sleep, but being scared is part of the fun. I've since seen almost all of the Nightmare on Elm Street, Friday the Thirteenth, Scream, Halloween, and Saw series of films. Most recently, my husband and I went to see A Nightmare on Elm Street, the reimagining of the original. So let's get to the review:
Freddy Krueger? Check.
Nightmares? Check.
Elm Street? Check.
Make you jump out of your seat scenes? Check.
Gory death scenes? Check.
Cheesy one-liners? Check.
If you were hoping to see any one or more of these things when you bought your ticket, then you got what you paid for. The story was essentially the same as the original 1984 version, only updated to fit in the 21st century, and there was ample opportunity for your date to cling to you in fear. Let's face it, that's the only reason you'd bring a girl that's not your sister to a movie like that. Worked for my husband.
This film was the epitome of a cheesy horror franchise revival: lots of fantastically gory effects, and groan-worthy one-liners. What I found endearing about the film was how it embraced and owned the cheese and made no efforts to claim otherwise.
Anywho, what was different about this film was the explanation of the back story. If you've seen the original films, you know what happened to Freddy and why he picks on the Elm Street kids. This time around, you get to see more of the past and Freddy becomes humanized...for a short while anyway.
Another fantastic difference is the leading actor. Of course Robert Englund will always be "Freddy Krueger" but the man is in his 70's now. The mantle was passed to whom I consider to be the best choice: Jackie Earle Haley. This man has played some real creepers lately and has the best voice for inducing chills. I'd love to meet this man in real life; he's probably the nicest guy in the world, which would mean he does his job well. I was reading a story shortly after seeing Nightmare and in a really tense scene I picture Haley as the bad guy and it totally creeped me out. Again I was up until about 4am...I guess some habits die hard.
***SPOILER ALERT***
I'm not going to tell you how the movie ended, though it was very similar to the original. What I am about to tell you is how it didn't end in a segment I'll probably be sharing with you often: "How My Husband Thinks it Should Have Ended". He's not much for the reviews of how the film was, but how the film should have played out. In sharing these ideas with you, I might imply how the film did end so if you haven't seen it, STOP READING NOW!
So, he thinks it should have ended with the father of the lead boy being the actual pedophile and Freddy is getting revenge for being framed and killed by said father and the other parents, by terrorizing and killing their children in their dreams. At the end, the kids discover that the father is guilty and bring Freddy from the dream world into reality just in time for Freddy and the father to come face to face. Freddy would make quick work of the father but, in order to keep the franchise alive, will decide he prefers his hack n' slash self.
I hope you enjoyed my first review! More to come.
Monday, May 10, 2010
Artistic Licence
Alright so I saw Iron Man 2 last night and I must say "AWESOME F'ING MOVIE". However, it does brig up a topic I want to talk about. Artistic Licensing according to Wikipedia (I know, not a great source) as "a colloquial term, sometime euphemism, used to denote the distortion of fact, alteration of the conventions of grammar or language, or rewording of pre-existing text made by an artist to improve a piece of art." Basically when a director or writer change details of something from the source material.
Recently this can be seen in the majority of comic book, novel, televisions and video game adaptations or movie remakes. Often these the details of these movies do not match the original work or are pieced together in a way that changes the overall look, feel or message of the story. I won't say exactly how this applies to Iron Man 2 as many of you reading this may not have seen it yet, but rest assured, some characters are not exactly as they were in the comics (*cough* Mickey Rourke's character). Another example is Spider-man shooting webs from his wrists. This did not happen in the comics until after the movie came out (and in fact, has since been ret-coned out of existence) and Spider-man had mechanical devices that shot the webbing from cartridges. The reason he makes the characteristic hand motion in the movie and comics is in reality based on the fact that the mechanical devices relied on a pressure button in his palm to activate. However, this is an example of good artistic licensing. Whats the difference? Let me example.
Good Artistic Licensing
This is when details are changed due to copywrite laws on the source material, to modernize a story or to make the story more believable. Such examples are Spider-man's webbing. This was done to make the story more believable as it was felt that a teenager being able to develop a substance like his webbing when the government could not was a problem. This type of licencing I am okay with as it helps the story out. However, the other side of the coin is changes made for no apparent reason or that twist the source material.
Bad Artistic Licencing
In the Transformers comics, the Matrix of Leadership is possessed by Optimus Prime as a symbol of his leadership not a key to start a machine. Or how the Allspark is transformer heaven, not an advanced jumpdrive and source of all transformers. Or in Spider-man, the character Venom speaks in the third person because it's a combination of the symbiote and the mind of Eddie Brock. However, in the movie he calls himself "I". There was no reason for these changes and I say they tend to ruin the movies for die hard fans. It could be said that changes in the source material are sometimes for the benefit of the new audience rather than die hard fans so that they can better understand whats going on or enjoy the work with no idea of the history already established. However, some changes like in Transformers or Spider-man does not make the movies any easier to follow or get into and just anger fans (like me). I am sure there are more examples of good and bad artistic licencing but right now those came to mind. If you don't have to make a change....DON'T!!! The source material is good, that is why people make them into movies!
Place a comment below if you have any other examples of good or bad licensing.
Recently this can be seen in the majority of comic book, novel, televisions and video game adaptations or movie remakes. Often these the details of these movies do not match the original work or are pieced together in a way that changes the overall look, feel or message of the story. I won't say exactly how this applies to Iron Man 2 as many of you reading this may not have seen it yet, but rest assured, some characters are not exactly as they were in the comics (*cough* Mickey Rourke's character). Another example is Spider-man shooting webs from his wrists. This did not happen in the comics until after the movie came out (and in fact, has since been ret-coned out of existence) and Spider-man had mechanical devices that shot the webbing from cartridges. The reason he makes the characteristic hand motion in the movie and comics is in reality based on the fact that the mechanical devices relied on a pressure button in his palm to activate. However, this is an example of good artistic licensing. Whats the difference? Let me example.
Good Artistic Licensing
This is when details are changed due to copywrite laws on the source material, to modernize a story or to make the story more believable. Such examples are Spider-man's webbing. This was done to make the story more believable as it was felt that a teenager being able to develop a substance like his webbing when the government could not was a problem. This type of licencing I am okay with as it helps the story out. However, the other side of the coin is changes made for no apparent reason or that twist the source material.
Bad Artistic Licencing
In the Transformers comics, the Matrix of Leadership is possessed by Optimus Prime as a symbol of his leadership not a key to start a machine. Or how the Allspark is transformer heaven, not an advanced jumpdrive and source of all transformers. Or in Spider-man, the character Venom speaks in the third person because it's a combination of the symbiote and the mind of Eddie Brock. However, in the movie he calls himself "I". There was no reason for these changes and I say they tend to ruin the movies for die hard fans. It could be said that changes in the source material are sometimes for the benefit of the new audience rather than die hard fans so that they can better understand whats going on or enjoy the work with no idea of the history already established. However, some changes like in Transformers or Spider-man does not make the movies any easier to follow or get into and just anger fans (like me). I am sure there are more examples of good and bad artistic licencing but right now those came to mind. If you don't have to make a change....DON'T!!! The source material is good, that is why people make them into movies!
Place a comment below if you have any other examples of good or bad licensing.
Friday, April 23, 2010
To 3D or Not to 3D? That is the question!
WE'RE BACK....so I have finally got my affairs in order enough to post again. I thank those who stuck with us here at Reel Geekz and hope we can win back those who may have lost interest.
So lets get right to the point...so 3D is here! It started officially with the release of Avatar which was filmed with a special camera as to give it a sense of depth, and has now expanded to the newly released 3DTV's and a slew of other movies. However, is the technology really that good? Well, that is a bit of a yes and no answer.
A recent visit to a local Futureshop that had a Samsung 3DTV on display was an eye opening experience. The picture is incredible. Media designed specifically for 3D is smooth and crisp and literally appears to jump off the screen. The TV even has a mode that will convert your favourite 2D TV shows into 3D. Imagine Baywatch in 3D??? eh??? I know the scene you are picturing too. Pam Anderson or the Hoff running in glorious slow motion 3D. Sorry, I digress. True you have to wear special glasses in order to see the 3D effects and these can give some a slight headache (yours truly included), but incredible none-the-less. When combined with movies such as Avatar makes for a truly amazing viewing experience.
However, the problem arises when other movies try to capitalize on the 3D phenomenon that were never originally in 3D. Take Clash of the Titans for example. The movie was filmed in traditional 2D with 2D effects and were never originally meant to be in 3D as the Director felt the technology was too expensive. However after witnessing the conversion process, felt the 3D enhanced the look of the film and the movie was converted for theaters. I am here however to humbly disagree with the Director. There are many points in the movie where the film looks better when you take the glasses off. Whenever something passes between the main subject and the viewer, you loss your focus for a moment. This is particularly bad during the movies many fight scenes...in fact, it is so bad that sometimes you cannot tell who is winning until the very end. Furthermore, the glasses have a slight tint and darkens the film noticeably.
Overall, I saw if you are interested in seeing this 3D craze, then go see the movie. It is still an enjoyable movie that differs much however, from the original AND the source material. As more movies come out that are filmed in 3D, my opinion may change but right now I think a great 2D movie is far better than a mediocre 3D.
So lets get right to the point...so 3D is here! It started officially with the release of Avatar which was filmed with a special camera as to give it a sense of depth, and has now expanded to the newly released 3DTV's and a slew of other movies. However, is the technology really that good? Well, that is a bit of a yes and no answer.
A recent visit to a local Futureshop that had a Samsung 3DTV on display was an eye opening experience. The picture is incredible. Media designed specifically for 3D is smooth and crisp and literally appears to jump off the screen. The TV even has a mode that will convert your favourite 2D TV shows into 3D. Imagine Baywatch in 3D??? eh??? I know the scene you are picturing too. Pam Anderson or the Hoff running in glorious slow motion 3D. Sorry, I digress. True you have to wear special glasses in order to see the 3D effects and these can give some a slight headache (yours truly included), but incredible none-the-less. When combined with movies such as Avatar makes for a truly amazing viewing experience.
However, the problem arises when other movies try to capitalize on the 3D phenomenon that were never originally in 3D. Take Clash of the Titans for example. The movie was filmed in traditional 2D with 2D effects and were never originally meant to be in 3D as the Director felt the technology was too expensive. However after witnessing the conversion process, felt the 3D enhanced the look of the film and the movie was converted for theaters. I am here however to humbly disagree with the Director. There are many points in the movie where the film looks better when you take the glasses off. Whenever something passes between the main subject and the viewer, you loss your focus for a moment. This is particularly bad during the movies many fight scenes...in fact, it is so bad that sometimes you cannot tell who is winning until the very end. Furthermore, the glasses have a slight tint and darkens the film noticeably.
Overall, I saw if you are interested in seeing this 3D craze, then go see the movie. It is still an enjoyable movie that differs much however, from the original AND the source material. As more movies come out that are filmed in 3D, my opinion may change but right now I think a great 2D movie is far better than a mediocre 3D.
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Site Changes
Hello all readers,
So I know I haven't posted anything for a while and I apologize but life is making it hard to keep up with he pace I set for myself when I created this blog. My goal is to post something by the weekend and then make a post a week instead of three.
I there is anyone interested in being a writer with me please let me know. Maybe as a team or small group we can produce a steady flow of material and expand our reader base together. Not that I don't appreciate each and every one of you already following the blog from the beginning. THANK YOU EVERYONE!
Anyway, heading to bed after a long night shift. I'll have something posted shortly, I promise.
So I know I haven't posted anything for a while and I apologize but life is making it hard to keep up with he pace I set for myself when I created this blog. My goal is to post something by the weekend and then make a post a week instead of three.
I there is anyone interested in being a writer with me please let me know. Maybe as a team or small group we can produce a steady flow of material and expand our reader base together. Not that I don't appreciate each and every one of you already following the blog from the beginning. THANK YOU EVERYONE!
Anyway, heading to bed after a long night shift. I'll have something posted shortly, I promise.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
DVD, HD and Blu-Ray...oh my!
So, you may be asking yourself "Self..what is the difference between my current DVD's and the new HD format disc?" Go ahead, I'll wait for you to ask.
Finished? Good, okay well I happen to have found the answer. In the new world of HD digital media there were two main formats produced: the failed HD-DVD and the champion the Blu-ray disc. Described in this post is what makes the formats different from regular DVD's and from each other. We will also discuss why the Blu-ray media format won the HD format war.
The Basics
So, if you've ever seen inside a CD or DVD player you will know that there is a little red laser that reads little pits on the surface of the disc. In the case of rewritable media, the pits are replaced by burn marks (hence, burning a disc!). The laser of a CD driver has a wavelength of 780 nanometers (nm) and general use recordable DVD is 640 nm. The CD laser reads the pits/burns as 1's and 0's, or binary and translates that to the information the computer displays or the stereo projects. The need for a new HD format was answers by Sony and Toshiba. Sony created the Blu-ray and Toshiba created the HD-DVD. The main difference between regular DVD/CD's and HD media is the type laser used. HD media use a blue laser with a smaller wavelength, 405 nm to be exact. This means that smaller pits can be used since the laser is smaller and more information can be saved. However, both HD-DVD's and Blu-rays discs use the same 405 nm blue laser. If this is true, what should you ask, is the difference between the two? Furthermore, why did Blu-ray win over HD-DVD? Good questions, you ask and I'll wait right here.
Good to go? Okay, lets continue.
The Difference
The distinguishing difference between these two formats is the coating on the disc. HD-DVD's have the same coating as regular DVD's. The coating is 0.6 mm thick and allows the HD-DVD to focus at a certain length close to the surface and record so much information. The coating of a Blu-ray disc is 0.1 mm thick and allows for a longer focus length and therefore store more layers of information. In the end, Blu-ray won the format war because it could store more information, the production methods were new and the technology to record them was not available to the public (which would limit the ability of criminals to pirate the media) and with the adoption of the format into the Sony PS3, the backing of several prominent movie companies and Disney pushed the market in Sony's favour. The War was over.
Finished? Good, okay well I happen to have found the answer. In the new world of HD digital media there were two main formats produced: the failed HD-DVD and the champion the Blu-ray disc. Described in this post is what makes the formats different from regular DVD's and from each other. We will also discuss why the Blu-ray media format won the HD format war.
The Basics
So, if you've ever seen inside a CD or DVD player you will know that there is a little red laser that reads little pits on the surface of the disc. In the case of rewritable media, the pits are replaced by burn marks (hence, burning a disc!). The laser of a CD driver has a wavelength of 780 nanometers (nm) and general use recordable DVD is 640 nm. The CD laser reads the pits/burns as 1's and 0's, or binary and translates that to the information the computer displays or the stereo projects. The need for a new HD format was answers by Sony and Toshiba. Sony created the Blu-ray and Toshiba created the HD-DVD. The main difference between regular DVD/CD's and HD media is the type laser used. HD media use a blue laser with a smaller wavelength, 405 nm to be exact. This means that smaller pits can be used since the laser is smaller and more information can be saved. However, both HD-DVD's and Blu-rays discs use the same 405 nm blue laser. If this is true, what should you ask, is the difference between the two? Furthermore, why did Blu-ray win over HD-DVD? Good questions, you ask and I'll wait right here.
Good to go? Okay, lets continue.
The Difference
The distinguishing difference between these two formats is the coating on the disc. HD-DVD's have the same coating as regular DVD's. The coating is 0.6 mm thick and allows the HD-DVD to focus at a certain length close to the surface and record so much information. The coating of a Blu-ray disc is 0.1 mm thick and allows for a longer focus length and therefore store more layers of information. In the end, Blu-ray won the format war because it could store more information, the production methods were new and the technology to record them was not available to the public (which would limit the ability of criminals to pirate the media) and with the adoption of the format into the Sony PS3, the backing of several prominent movie companies and Disney pushed the market in Sony's favour. The War was over.
Friday, March 26, 2010
Weekly Question - Mar. 25th, 2010
Feeling uncreative this week, sorry all.
WHO IS YOUR FAVOURITE MOVIE HERO?
Post your answer below.
WHO IS YOUR FAVOURITE MOVIE HERO?
Post your answer below.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Lights, Camera....Problems with Action!
Alright so, this week I felt like writing an opinion piece, more specially, my thoughts on some common action movie issues.
The first major problem (especially in 007 movies) is that the bad guys always have such bad aim. I mean seriously, is there no marksmanship criteria for henchmen? What would happen if the first time Bond pops out from cover he gets killed with a head shot? Or what is the German sniper in Enemy at the Gates got the Russian officer on the first attempt (now I admit I've never seen the movie completely, so I am partially guessing here)? In fact, one of the only movies I can think about where the bad guy (we are initially lead to believe he's bad) has amazing marksmanship is Phone Booth. Kiefer Sutherland plays a sniper who keep Colin Farrell trapped in a Phone Booth (creative name eh?). In a good deal of action movies, the villains will run through entire clips and never once hit the protagonist, yet often with a single clip the protagonist can eliminate a room full of henchmen. Wheird! And yes I am aware of the "h" in "wheird"! Watch the movie Hot Rod.
Another major problem the henchmen cannot seem to get is logistics of a group fight. It is not uncommon for the hero to find themselves surrounded by henchmen who then proceed to attack ONE AT A TIME. I mean come on! Of course you will lose since this now becomes a series of one-on-one fights in sort of Mortal Kombat styled series of battles. If they had any sense, they would swam the hero all at once. True, a few henchmen might get injured but it would be minimal and the hero would be taken no problem. If I ever get jumped by a gang of people, I hope they follow this common action movie issue (and of course they don't know martial arts or carry weapons).
Not all of the problems in action movies are the fault of the henchmen. Sometimes the issue is the people making the movie. I love movies with montages. The point of a montage is to show progress of the main character through progressive clips that give the illusion of time passing while at the same time, remind the audience about what is going on. Listen to "You Need a Montage!!" from the movie Team America:World Police if you require more help with montages. The audience is basically left with one conclusion...that the main character is somehow allowed to learn and improve in a Matrix like fashion and speed by being a part of a montage. If that was all it took in real life I'd learn every though montages. I would be a super genious and have awesome soundtracks playing in the background while I do.
Anyway, these are just of the few great things about action movies. If you think of one, we would love to hear about it. Post a comment below with your thoughts below and thanks for reading.
The first major problem (especially in 007 movies) is that the bad guys always have such bad aim. I mean seriously, is there no marksmanship criteria for henchmen? What would happen if the first time Bond pops out from cover he gets killed with a head shot? Or what is the German sniper in Enemy at the Gates got the Russian officer on the first attempt (now I admit I've never seen the movie completely, so I am partially guessing here)? In fact, one of the only movies I can think about where the bad guy (we are initially lead to believe he's bad) has amazing marksmanship is Phone Booth. Kiefer Sutherland plays a sniper who keep Colin Farrell trapped in a Phone Booth (creative name eh?). In a good deal of action movies, the villains will run through entire clips and never once hit the protagonist, yet often with a single clip the protagonist can eliminate a room full of henchmen. Wheird! And yes I am aware of the "h" in "wheird"! Watch the movie Hot Rod.
Another major problem the henchmen cannot seem to get is logistics of a group fight. It is not uncommon for the hero to find themselves surrounded by henchmen who then proceed to attack ONE AT A TIME. I mean come on! Of course you will lose since this now becomes a series of one-on-one fights in sort of Mortal Kombat styled series of battles. If they had any sense, they would swam the hero all at once. True, a few henchmen might get injured but it would be minimal and the hero would be taken no problem. If I ever get jumped by a gang of people, I hope they follow this common action movie issue (and of course they don't know martial arts or carry weapons).
Not all of the problems in action movies are the fault of the henchmen. Sometimes the issue is the people making the movie. I love movies with montages. The point of a montage is to show progress of the main character through progressive clips that give the illusion of time passing while at the same time, remind the audience about what is going on. Listen to "You Need a Montage!!" from the movie Team America:World Police if you require more help with montages. The audience is basically left with one conclusion...that the main character is somehow allowed to learn and improve in a Matrix like fashion and speed by being a part of a montage. If that was all it took in real life I'd learn every though montages. I would be a super genious and have awesome soundtracks playing in the background while I do.
Anyway, these are just of the few great things about action movies. If you think of one, we would love to hear about it. Post a comment below with your thoughts below and thanks for reading.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Weekly Question - Mar. 17th, 2010
Nice and easy this week. Post your answer below as a comment!
WHAT PIECE OF WORK (NOVEL, COMIC, PLAY, FABLE, ETC.) WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE MADE INTO A MOVIE?
WHAT PIECE OF WORK (NOVEL, COMIC, PLAY, FABLE, ETC.) WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE MADE INTO A MOVIE?
My Rational
Hey guys, sorry there was no post on Sunday. This has been a crazy weekend with work and life. I will be posting something shortly and a new Weekly Question tonight. Stay Tuned!
In the meantime here is a picture from the Our Lady Peace concert I went to last night plus my rational for why it works on a blog about movies, enjoy!
Picture = Jeremy Taggart = OLP Drummer = Naveed Album = Starseed = Armageddon Soundtrack = A MOVIE = Reel Geekz material!
In the meantime here is a picture from the Our Lady Peace concert I went to last night plus my rational for why it works on a blog about movies, enjoy!
Picture = Jeremy Taggart = OLP Drummer = Naveed Album = Starseed = Armageddon Soundtrack = A MOVIE = Reel Geekz material!
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Weekly Question - Mar. 10, 2010
For this weeks Weekly Question I want everyone to look deep into their soul and answer this from the darkest part of yourselves. The area inside yourself that is so deep that only one movie has ever entered. What I want to know is....
WHAT IS THE WORST MOVIE YOU HAVE EVER SEEN?
This can be a movie that had a horrible story, bad acting or major plot holes. It could even contain all of those and others only you can think of. Post your answer below as a comment!
WHAT IS THE WORST MOVIE YOU HAVE EVER SEEN?
This can be a movie that had a horrible story, bad acting or major plot holes. It could even contain all of those and others only you can think of. Post your answer below as a comment!
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Movies App for Blackberry and iPhone
So this post is directed to all you Crackberry and iPhone (still looking for a Crackberry type name of the iPhone) addicts out there who are into movies. I recently found a movie app that in general, is one of the best mobile device applications I have ever used. The app is called "Movies" and it is free for Apple and RIM products. The app is run by Flixster, the social site that allows users to share information about movies and utilizes ranking from both Flixster themselves and Rotten Tomatoes. The app is visually pleasing and very user friendly. Did I meantI will detail the different functions of this app below but can already say this app is a must have.
Box Office
The main page of this app gives you information about Movies now in theatres. This information includes both Flixster and Rotten Tomatoes ratings, movie synopsis and cast and user reviews. There are also links to get showtimes, IMDB pages as well as watch the trailers.
Theatres
If your phone is GPS-enabled you can search for theatres nearby, otherwise you have to give the app a city or postal code to search in. However, once your location is set you can search nearby theatres or search theatres by name (you can even set a favourite theatre to save time). Selecting any of the listings gives you theatres information and a list of all movies playing there with times up to a week ahead.
Upcoming
This section gives you similar information to Box Office but with soon to be released movies.
DVD
This section, which can be sorted by New Releases or Coming Soon, is once again like the Upcoming and Box Office sections but with information regarding DVD's.
Search
The Search section allows you to find Flixster information on movies, actors, or directors in a very organized fashion.
Cons
Only real con I can find with this this app is that the trailers only work with Curve 8900's and Bold 9000's currently but the developers have stated they are working on changing that.
Screenshots
Blackberry App World Album - Movies Screenshots
Download
Blackberry: Blackberry App World - Movies
iPhone: iTunes Store - Movies
Reel Geekz is always looking for interesting movie software and apps so if you have anything you'd like to review (or have us review) email us at reelgeekz@gmail.com or leave us a comment below or on Facebook.
Box Office
The main page of this app gives you information about Movies now in theatres. This information includes both Flixster and Rotten Tomatoes ratings, movie synopsis and cast and user reviews. There are also links to get showtimes, IMDB pages as well as watch the trailers.
Theatres
If your phone is GPS-enabled you can search for theatres nearby, otherwise you have to give the app a city or postal code to search in. However, once your location is set you can search nearby theatres or search theatres by name (you can even set a favourite theatre to save time). Selecting any of the listings gives you theatres information and a list of all movies playing there with times up to a week ahead.
Upcoming
This section gives you similar information to Box Office but with soon to be released movies.
DVD
This section, which can be sorted by New Releases or Coming Soon, is once again like the Upcoming and Box Office sections but with information regarding DVD's.
Search
The Search section allows you to find Flixster information on movies, actors, or directors in a very organized fashion.
Cons
Only real con I can find with this this app is that the trailers only work with Curve 8900's and Bold 9000's currently but the developers have stated they are working on changing that.
Screenshots
Blackberry App World Album - Movies Screenshots
Download
Blackberry: Blackberry App World - Movies
iPhone: iTunes Store - Movies
Reel Geekz is always looking for interesting movie software and apps so if you have anything you'd like to review (or have us review) email us at reelgeekz@gmail.com or leave us a comment below or on Facebook.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Weekly Question - Mar. 3, 2010
This weeks Weekly Question is connected to Sunday's post.
WHAT IS YOUR FAVOURITE MOVIE SOUNDTRACK?
Use the Comment Section below to answer.
WHAT IS YOUR FAVOURITE MOVIE SOUNDTRACK?
Use the Comment Section below to answer.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Best Selling Soundtrack of All Time
Recorded here is a list of the Top 10 selling soundtracks of all time as best I can tell from Amazon.com. Please read through for some information on each album and then follow the directions at the bottom to reveal the #1 soundtrack. Enjoy!
10. Waiting to Exhale: Original Soundtrack Album
The album was released the same year as the movie and includes all Afriacan American performers. Talent on this ablum includes Whitney Houston, Brandy, Toni Braxton, Aretha Franklin, Patti LaBelle, Mary J. Blige, SWV and TLC. The album went seven times platinum.
9. Grease: Original 1978 Motion Picture Soundtrack
It is funny to note that the album actually credits John Travolta and Olivia Newton-John, the two main cast members, even though they only sing on seven on the 24 tracks. The rest of the album is sung by other cast members and Sha Na Na, with the title track recorded by Frankie Valli, who had no other connection with the film. The most successful songs from the soundtrack are "You're the One That I Want" and "Summer Nights". The songs went to #1 and #3 respectively and feared even better in the UK. "You're the One That I Want" was in 1st for nine weeks and "Summer Nights" for seven. Overall the ablum has sold over 28 million copies.
8. Top Gun: Soundtrack
"RIGHT INTO THE DANGER ZONE"!! Danger Zone = Awesome song! The original album was released in 1986 with a special edition being released in 1999 that included five additional songs. Bryan Adams was approached to included his song "Only the Strong Survive" but declined because he felt it glorified war and didn't want to be associated with it. Judas Priest was also asked to include a song but declined because they thought the film would be a flop (interestingly, they went on to record the title track for the movie Johnny Be Good which did flop). Toto was supposed to record "Danger Zone" but due to legal conflicts the song was passed to Kenny Loggins. Total sales are over $353,816,701.00
Interesting Note: On the Special edition there are a few songs by Steve Stevens! Great name.
7. Footloose
Not much to say, the album has reach #1 numerous times through several re-releases. How can you go wrong with Kevin Bacon.
6. The Lion King: Special Edition
The album which was record in three countries: the US, the UK and South Africa did very well on the charts and even won several awards including Academy awards for Best Original Score and Original Song and Golden Globes for the same. In international editions, the Elton John versions of all but "Can You Feel the Love Tonight" are replaced. The album has since gone 12 times platinum.
5. Titanic: Music From the Motion Picture
The films signature song "My Heart Will Go On" sung by Celine Dion was written by James Horner and was never meant to be played during the end credits. Unbeknownst to director James Cameron, Horner went ahead and recorded the song with Dion and Cameron changed his mind as soon as he heard it. Go Canadian talent (Dion of course)!! Since a review in 1997, the album has gone on to sell over 30 million copies.
4. Dirty Dancing: Original Soundtrack
Not only did the original album do well on the charts, it also spawned a second album entitled More Dirty Dancing released in 1988. The original though has sold over 42 million copies worldwide and even still appears in some Irish charts spending a total of 230 weeks in the Top 30.
3. Purple Rain: Music from the Motion Picture
Purple Rain has topped Greatest Soundtrack charts as well as being hailed one of the best rock albums in rock music history. Who doesn't like Prince (or the "artist now represented by a symbol, formally called Prince"). As of 2008, the album was ranked #1 by Entertainment Weekly on their Top 100 best albums in the last 25 years. The RIAA states the album has gone platinum 13 times over.
2. Saturday Night Fever: The Original Movie Soundtrack
The album has gone platinum over 15 times and along with the original movie, revived the disco phenomenon in the US.
To reveal the final entry in our count down simply HIGHLIGHT THE TEXT BELOW. The number one best selling sound track of all Time according to Amazon.com is:
1. The Bodyguard: Original Soundtrack
The album was co-executive produced by Whitney Houston and Clive Davis. Houston sold more than a million copies of an album in a single week. This would be the first act (solo or group, male or female) to achieve this. The soundtrack later went on to win a Grammy Award for Album of the Year and the the RIAA has certified it 17 times Platinum as of November 1, 1999, making it the best-selling soundtrack of all time. To date, it has sold over 44 million copies worldwide.
10. Waiting to Exhale: Original Soundtrack Album
The album was released the same year as the movie and includes all Afriacan American performers. Talent on this ablum includes Whitney Houston, Brandy, Toni Braxton, Aretha Franklin, Patti LaBelle, Mary J. Blige, SWV and TLC. The album went seven times platinum.
9. Grease: Original 1978 Motion Picture Soundtrack
It is funny to note that the album actually credits John Travolta and Olivia Newton-John, the two main cast members, even though they only sing on seven on the 24 tracks. The rest of the album is sung by other cast members and Sha Na Na, with the title track recorded by Frankie Valli, who had no other connection with the film. The most successful songs from the soundtrack are "You're the One That I Want" and "Summer Nights". The songs went to #1 and #3 respectively and feared even better in the UK. "You're the One That I Want" was in 1st for nine weeks and "Summer Nights" for seven. Overall the ablum has sold over 28 million copies.
8. Top Gun: Soundtrack
"RIGHT INTO THE DANGER ZONE"!! Danger Zone = Awesome song! The original album was released in 1986 with a special edition being released in 1999 that included five additional songs. Bryan Adams was approached to included his song "Only the Strong Survive" but declined because he felt it glorified war and didn't want to be associated with it. Judas Priest was also asked to include a song but declined because they thought the film would be a flop (interestingly, they went on to record the title track for the movie Johnny Be Good which did flop). Toto was supposed to record "Danger Zone" but due to legal conflicts the song was passed to Kenny Loggins. Total sales are over $353,816,701.00
Interesting Note: On the Special edition there are a few songs by Steve Stevens! Great name.
7. Footloose
Not much to say, the album has reach #1 numerous times through several re-releases. How can you go wrong with Kevin Bacon.
6. The Lion King: Special Edition
The album which was record in three countries: the US, the UK and South Africa did very well on the charts and even won several awards including Academy awards for Best Original Score and Original Song and Golden Globes for the same. In international editions, the Elton John versions of all but "Can You Feel the Love Tonight" are replaced. The album has since gone 12 times platinum.
5. Titanic: Music From the Motion Picture
The films signature song "My Heart Will Go On" sung by Celine Dion was written by James Horner and was never meant to be played during the end credits. Unbeknownst to director James Cameron, Horner went ahead and recorded the song with Dion and Cameron changed his mind as soon as he heard it. Go Canadian talent (Dion of course)!! Since a review in 1997, the album has gone on to sell over 30 million copies.
4. Dirty Dancing: Original Soundtrack
Not only did the original album do well on the charts, it also spawned a second album entitled More Dirty Dancing released in 1988. The original though has sold over 42 million copies worldwide and even still appears in some Irish charts spending a total of 230 weeks in the Top 30.
3. Purple Rain: Music from the Motion Picture
Purple Rain has topped Greatest Soundtrack charts as well as being hailed one of the best rock albums in rock music history. Who doesn't like Prince (or the "artist now represented by a symbol, formally called Prince"). As of 2008, the album was ranked #1 by Entertainment Weekly on their Top 100 best albums in the last 25 years. The RIAA states the album has gone platinum 13 times over.
2. Saturday Night Fever: The Original Movie Soundtrack
The album has gone platinum over 15 times and along with the original movie, revived the disco phenomenon in the US.
To reveal the final entry in our count down simply HIGHLIGHT THE TEXT BELOW. The number one best selling sound track of all Time according to Amazon.com is:
1. The Bodyguard: Original Soundtrack
The album was co-executive produced by Whitney Houston and Clive Davis. Houston sold more than a million copies of an album in a single week. This would be the first act (solo or group, male or female) to achieve this. The soundtrack later went on to win a Grammy Award for Album of the Year and the the RIAA has certified it 17 times Platinum as of November 1, 1999, making it the best-selling soundtrack of all time. To date, it has sold over 44 million copies worldwide.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Weekly Question - Feb. 24, 2010
Thank you to all those who answered last weeks question. It was awesome to see what your favourite movies are. This weeks question is a little bit more superficial but should be interesting. Please leave your answers below as a comment.
WHO DO YOU THINK IS THE HOTTEST CURRENT MOVIE CELEBRITY?
WHO DO YOU THINK IS THE HOTTEST CURRENT MOVIE CELEBRITY?
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Avatar - 3D
Plot
The story takes place in the year 2154 on Pandora, a lush, Earth-like moon of the planet Polyphemus in the Alpha Centauri star system. The RDA corporation is mining a valuable mineral called unobtanium. However, the indigenous people of Pandora (the Na'vi) are at odds with the humans, so human controlled Avatars are sent in to attempt peaceful negotiations and research. One such human grows to understand the Na'vi and has to decide what side he is on.
Cast
Humans
Sam Worthington as Corporal Jake Sully.
Sigourney Weaver as Dr. Grace Augustine.
Michelle Rodriguez as Trudy Chacón.
Giovanni Ribisi as Parker Selfridge.
Joel David Moore as Norm Spellman.
Stephen Lang as Colonel Miles Quaritch.
Na'vi
Zoe Saldana as Neytiri.
C. C. H. Pounder as Mo'at.
Laz Alonso as Tsu'tey.
Wes Studi as Eytucan.
Review
WOW! Normally when I walk out of a movie I can usually find at least one thing wrong with what have just seen. Whether is be, but not limited to, a plot hole (or lack of plot altogether), bad acting or bad special effects (I cite X-men Origins: Wolverine as worst movie ever! I’ll write about why in an upcoming post). However, this movie contains none of the aforementioned issues. Let me detail to you why you have to go see this movie, especially in 3D.
The plot of the movie has been compared to Pocahontas in space but I don’t think its fair to compare this movie to another since the overall idea is universal. The story is about the representative of a conquering people meets the representative of indigenous people and begins to learn about their ways. Eventually the conquering representative begins to realize their people cannot take the land or materials from the indigenous people and vows to fight for the indigenous people because it is the right thing to do. I’m sure this story sounds familiar to many of you because the basic story is not unique to Avatar; however the way the story is told is unique. The plot is well paced and robust. James Cameron has written a very enjoyable film, but this is only one of the reasons to see the movie.
The emotion in this movie is enthralling. You really do grow to feel for the characters - both real and digital. Throughout the movie you are constantly on the seat of your pants wanting to know more about the characters and their motivations. I found myself actually saddened at the destruction caused by the human people and excited when the Na’vi were holding their own in the end battle. You get so engrossed in the movie that you don’t realize the 2.5 hrs passing. The sign of a good movie is not just when it can entertain you, but when it can grab you (not in a sexual way) and keep you wanting more.
Lastly, let me talk about the visual effects. Most of the movie contains at least some if not all computer generated effects. Motion capture technology was used to not only recreate the actors movements but facial expressions too. The Na’vi and Avatars move so naturally that is they were not blue, cat-like in appearance and 9 to 12 feet tall, you wouldn’t know they were animated. The landscapes are beautiful and the wildlife breathtaking. The 3D aspect of the film adds a level of “hyper-realism” to the film that has to be seen as I cannot put into worlds what it is like. Cameron wrote the first draft of this story in 1994 but had to wait until now for the technology to catch up to his vision. Pandora is so well drawn and animated that it really could be a place and if so, I would love to go visit.
All I can say is go see this movie! Right now. Get up and go, I’ll watch the kids, and get your ass to the theatre before it is too late.
Rating
5 Reels out of 5
The story takes place in the year 2154 on Pandora, a lush, Earth-like moon of the planet Polyphemus in the Alpha Centauri star system. The RDA corporation is mining a valuable mineral called unobtanium. However, the indigenous people of Pandora (the Na'vi) are at odds with the humans, so human controlled Avatars are sent in to attempt peaceful negotiations and research. One such human grows to understand the Na'vi and has to decide what side he is on.
Cast
Humans
Sam Worthington as Corporal Jake Sully.
Sigourney Weaver as Dr. Grace Augustine.
Michelle Rodriguez as Trudy Chacón.
Giovanni Ribisi as Parker Selfridge.
Joel David Moore as Norm Spellman.
Stephen Lang as Colonel Miles Quaritch.
Na'vi
Zoe Saldana as Neytiri.
C. C. H. Pounder as Mo'at.
Laz Alonso as Tsu'tey.
Wes Studi as Eytucan.
Review
WOW! Normally when I walk out of a movie I can usually find at least one thing wrong with what have just seen. Whether is be, but not limited to, a plot hole (or lack of plot altogether), bad acting or bad special effects (I cite X-men Origins: Wolverine as worst movie ever! I’ll write about why in an upcoming post). However, this movie contains none of the aforementioned issues. Let me detail to you why you have to go see this movie, especially in 3D.
The plot of the movie has been compared to Pocahontas in space but I don’t think its fair to compare this movie to another since the overall idea is universal. The story is about the representative of a conquering people meets the representative of indigenous people and begins to learn about their ways. Eventually the conquering representative begins to realize their people cannot take the land or materials from the indigenous people and vows to fight for the indigenous people because it is the right thing to do. I’m sure this story sounds familiar to many of you because the basic story is not unique to Avatar; however the way the story is told is unique. The plot is well paced and robust. James Cameron has written a very enjoyable film, but this is only one of the reasons to see the movie.
The emotion in this movie is enthralling. You really do grow to feel for the characters - both real and digital. Throughout the movie you are constantly on the seat of your pants wanting to know more about the characters and their motivations. I found myself actually saddened at the destruction caused by the human people and excited when the Na’vi were holding their own in the end battle. You get so engrossed in the movie that you don’t realize the 2.5 hrs passing. The sign of a good movie is not just when it can entertain you, but when it can grab you (not in a sexual way) and keep you wanting more.
Lastly, let me talk about the visual effects. Most of the movie contains at least some if not all computer generated effects. Motion capture technology was used to not only recreate the actors movements but facial expressions too. The Na’vi and Avatars move so naturally that is they were not blue, cat-like in appearance and 9 to 12 feet tall, you wouldn’t know they were animated. The landscapes are beautiful and the wildlife breathtaking. The 3D aspect of the film adds a level of “hyper-realism” to the film that has to be seen as I cannot put into worlds what it is like. Cameron wrote the first draft of this story in 1994 but had to wait until now for the technology to catch up to his vision. Pandora is so well drawn and animated that it really could be a place and if so, I would love to go visit.
All I can say is go see this movie! Right now. Get up and go, I’ll watch the kids, and get your ass to the theatre before it is too late.
Rating
5 Reels out of 5
Monday, February 22, 2010
Rules on How to Survive a Horror Film
1) Do not be the new guy, token minority, the slutty girl or a character with no last name.
2) If insistent on losing your virginity, do not do so as part of a long courting ritual or before/after the big game/prom.
3) Once you've determined you're in a horror movie, locate all buildings/rooms loaded with sharp objects and avoid them.
4) Once people start dying - JUST LEAVE!!
5) Always leave a man behind.
6) Never run from the killer, they never do but always catch up to you anyways so running will just tire you out.
7) Avoid dense foliage.
8) If you're topless - you're a target.
9) If you have the killer at gunpoint, go for the headshot.
10) Repeat #9 - twice!
11) Avoid long monologues.
12) Upstairs is the worst direction to run.
13) Never go anywhere alone if you're sure you're in horror movie.
14) Never say "I will be back".
15) Yelling for help only attracts the killer(and your friends should already be gone if they have followed the rules).
16) The least liked person usually survives so stick with them. Unless they die early, then stick with the most popular/good looking person with the worst personality.
17) Take heed of local legends, myths or America's Most Wanted broadcasts, they could save your life.
18) Never linger once you're sure the killer is dead, cause they're not.
19) If you have to call your friend's name five times, they're hurt. If you have to call them ten times or more, they're dead.
20) The killer is never the person you most suspect. It's the person you least suspect working with the person you most suspect.
21) Flesh wounds may be painful, but they shouldn't stop you from running (or walking if you follow rule #6).
22) Barricading yourself in a small room just means the killer knows where you are but you have no idea where they are.
23) The killer can only be killed by a combined lethal weapon and a witty remark (and double tap, see rule #10)
2) If insistent on losing your virginity, do not do so as part of a long courting ritual or before/after the big game/prom.
3) Once you've determined you're in a horror movie, locate all buildings/rooms loaded with sharp objects and avoid them.
4) Once people start dying - JUST LEAVE!!
5) Always leave a man behind.
6) Never run from the killer, they never do but always catch up to you anyways so running will just tire you out.
7) Avoid dense foliage.
8) If you're topless - you're a target.
9) If you have the killer at gunpoint, go for the headshot.
10) Repeat #9 - twice!
11) Avoid long monologues.
12) Upstairs is the worst direction to run.
13) Never go anywhere alone if you're sure you're in horror movie.
14) Never say "I will be back".
15) Yelling for help only attracts the killer(and your friends should already be gone if they have followed the rules).
16) The least liked person usually survives so stick with them. Unless they die early, then stick with the most popular/good looking person with the worst personality.
17) Take heed of local legends, myths or America's Most Wanted broadcasts, they could save your life.
18) Never linger once you're sure the killer is dead, cause they're not.
19) If you have to call your friend's name five times, they're hurt. If you have to call them ten times or more, they're dead.
20) The killer is never the person you most suspect. It's the person you least suspect working with the person you most suspect.
21) Flesh wounds may be painful, but they shouldn't stop you from running (or walking if you follow rule #6).
22) Barricading yourself in a small room just means the killer knows where you are but you have no idea where they are.
23) The killer can only be killed by a combined lethal weapon and a witty remark (and double tap, see rule #10)
The Invention of Lying
Plot
The film is set in an alternate reality in which no one has ever lied and where people speak their minds, blurting out very blunt remarks and opinions that people in the real world would normally keep to themselves. However, one man develops the ability to lie and discovers the power it wields.
Cast
- Ricky Gervais as Mark Bellison
- Jennifer Garner as Anna McDoogles
- Rob Lowe as Brad Kessler
- Louis C.K. as Greg Kleinschmidt
- Jonah Hill as Frank Fawcett
- Christopher Guest as Nathan Goldfrappe
- Tina Fey as Shelley Bailey
- Jason Bateman as Doctor (cameo)
- Stephen Merchant as Home Owner (cameo)
- Philip Seymour Hoffman as Jim The Bartender (cameo)
- Edward Norton as Traffic Cop (cameo)
Review
Funny movie! Imagine a world where exaggeration, religion and ideas of the after life and other forms of fiction (yes, i did just call religion fiction, but stick with me here) are no possible because no one can ever tell a lie. Now imagine another world where this was true but everyone also absolutely had to say what was on their mind, all the time...this is the world where The Invention of Lying resides.
This world is depends on two ideas: not being able to lie and everyone else not every considering you could be wrong. This means that whatever Ricky says, people believe. It's almost like their feelings change if he says so (i.e. "You're not sad." "Oh, you're right. I'm not. Oh well.").
In order to really drive home the idea that no one can lie, Ricky Gervais has created a world where everyone tells the truth not matter what at all times. They have no mental filter and are forced to say every blunt thought no matter how inappropriate. However, everything else about this movie rocks. Also for some reason, mating is purely based upon genetics which infers that love is entirely a lie. You can marry and mate for reasons other than love (i.e. money) with no thought about genetics. Not that I did, I'm just saying. If my wife is reading this, I love you honey and I love your genetics.
I especially got a kick out of the retirement home being called "A Sad Place for Hopeless Old People" where the nurses hold a daily death pool. There is not pretension of such a facility being a "retirement castle" or people movie there to live for 20-30 years. I also got a kick out of their idea of God, or "The Man in the Sky", and churches being a "quiet place to contemplate the Man in the Sky". Best lines in the movie: "Man in the Sky forbid!" and "I say, fuck the Man in the Sky!".
Watch for a couple that is always at the same cafe (at the same time everyday) and a women that consistently comes to work to never go in for the entire span of the movie.
In conclusion, good movie! Watch it!
Rating
4 Reels out of 5
Gamer
Plot
The film stars Gerard Butler as an unwilling participant in an online game in which participants can control human beings as players, and Logan Lerman as the player who controls him.
Cast
- Gerard Butler as John "Kable" Tillman, the highest-ranked warrior in the game Slayers
- Amber Valletta as Angie "Nika" Tillman, Kable's wife, a controlled avatar in Society
- Michael C. Hall as Ken Castle, creator of the games Society and Slayers
- Logan Lerman as Simon Silverton, the 17-year-old gamer playing Kable
- Kyra Sedgwick as Gina Parker Smith, famous talk show host
- Ludacris as Humanz Brother, spokesperson and leader of the Humanz
- Aaron Yoo as Humanz Dude, a member of the Humanz
- Alison Lohman as Trace, a member of the Humanz
- Jonathan Chase as Geek Leader, leader of Castle's technical team
- John Leguizamo as Freek, an inmate who befriends Kable
- Terry Crews as Hackman, an inmate sent to kill Kable
- Zoe Bell as Sandra, an inmate
- Ramsey Moore as Gorge, the gamer playing Nika
- Keith David as Agent Keith, a CIA-agent
- Johnny Whitworth as Scotch, the first person to receive a Nanex-implant
- Milo Ventimiglia as Rick Rape, described as "Moonraker, silver grill, with a latex outfit making him look like a bumblebee."[3]
- Sam Witwer as the Caseworker on Angie's custody case
Review
I don't really have anything bad to say about this movie, or anything overly positive for that matter, but the movie does bring up a very interesting point I would like to comment on. This movie revolves around the idea that if a prison inmate agrees to be implanted with technology that allows him/her to be controlled remotely by another player and then survives 30 violent games - they are freed from prison. These games involve war scenarios where it is kill or be killed (but again, not by the inmate but by the player).
This brings up a very important moral question - is killing another human being through a remotely controlled inmate actually murder. If someone where to kill another person using a kitchen knife, we don't arrest and sentence the knife. The movie supports a world where the general public can in effect take the live of another free of charge (minus the cost of the game). In reality they are executing (no pun intended) capital punishment. Now agree that in the context of the movie, these are all criminals who have hopefully had a fair trial and were proven guilty - but its doesn't make it right. Furthermore, the movie also sets up the situation that a violent offender could in fact be released back into the world with no rehabilitation simply because their player was good enough or lucky enough to win 30 games. This person could then offend again and more innocent lives will be lost.
Despite these two glaring problems with the idea of the movie, all in all it was very enjoyable. I highly suggest watching for any and all Gerard Butler fans and all sci-fi fans. The effects are good and the plot well paced. P.S. Michael C. Hall is creepy (and not Dexter creepy/lovable but seriously creepy)!!!
Rating
3.75 Reels out of 5
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Weekly Question - Feb. 19, 2010
Since this is the first question posted to the blog, we'll start with an easy one. Post your answer as a comment below with your name or home country as well.
WHAT IS YOUR FAVOURITE MOVIE OF ALL TIME?
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Who really is the Bigger Franchise?
Star Trek vs. Star Wars!
In the end, there can be only one...oh wait, that's an immortal thing. Seriously though, phaser vs. blaster, the force vs. the Q...who has the bigger franchise. Lets look at the numbers and see who wins the title of "Best in Franchise".
Movies
Star Wars - 7 movie releases
Star Trek - 11 movie releases WINNER
In general, the only reason to release a sequel is if the preceding movie make a profit and was moderately successful (the exception to this is making a movie to reboot or rejuvenate a series if the preceding movie tanked in the box office). If all you consider is the number of movies released as a show of how popular a franchice then Star Trek wins. A phenomenon in Hollywood is that every odd numbered Star Trek is cursed to failure. Wrath of Khan (II), Voyage Home (IV), Undiscovered County (VI) and First Contact (VIII) kept this phenomenon alive until the release of Nemesis (X) which marginally made more than it cost to make. With the recent release of Star Trek (2009) as a reboot to the franchise with talk of further sequels it appears Star Trek is going strong.
Financial
Star Wars - $3,487,952,687 WINNER
Star Trek -$1,334,226,925
What is the one thing that matters most to the Hollywood big wigs? Money! Surely it doesn't matter how many movies you make as long as you make a lot of money. Well in this case, Star Wars wins by far. At over $3 million since the original release of Star Wars: A New Hope in 1977 Star Wars has made a combined that is just under 3x what Star Trek has made. George Lucas must be sleeping on three king sized mattresses covered in $1000 bills. I know I would. If money is all that matters to you, you need a life, and it would be obvious that Star Wars is the winner.
*Please note that figures used in this blog are from IMDB.com and uses rental totals, estimated costs and worldwide gross as up to date as possible.
Cost
Star Wars - $415,000,000 WINNER
Star Trek - $483,800,000
If you are going to give gross money made in this argument, you must then consider what the movies cost. The less the movies cost to make, the more you collect as profit from your gross. This is basic economics and business. Once again, Star Wars is again the winner. The eight films cost $415 million with Star Trek a close runner up at just shy of $5 million. However, this is a combined total for the each franchise in their entirety. If one does the math on average cost per film then you get a very different outcome. In this case Star Wars films cost an average $51,875,000 and Star Trek films an average of $43,981,818.18 - actually less per film. Now one could argue that a bigger budget makes for a better film, but a "better" movie has far too many variables to consider so as sheer costs go this batter goes to Star Trek.
Star Wars - Avg. $51,875,000/film
Star Trek - Avg. $43,981,818.18/film WINNER
Rentals
Star Wars -$2,233,100,000 WINNER
Star Trek -$644,000,000
Lets try this from the point of view of rentals. Many movies don't gain major acceptance in the theaters but do develop a cult following later in rentals (both VHS, DVD and more recently Blu-ray). Once again, Star Wars is the winner. It has made more than double what Star Trek has made in roughly the same time (Star Wars debuted in 1977 and Star Trek: The Motion Picture in 1979). Kudos Star Wars!
Investment
Star Wars - +1378.57% WINNER
Star Trek - +413.03%
It can be argued that above all else, it must only matter how well your gross or average money spent on films gives you are good return in the end. When you do the math of gross earnings plus rental divided by cost - Star Wars again! A return of over 1000% - George Lucas you rich bastard.
Television Success
Star Wars - 55 combined months on TV
Star Trek - 306 combined months on TV WINNER
With 5 mainstream series and one animated series, Star Trek kills Star Wars by a long shot. Traditionally, Star Trek has dominated television where Star Wars has dominated the film industry. Not only has Star Trek been on TV longer, each individual series has had longer runs than any Star Wars television series. It is interesting to point out that Star Trek used motion pictures as a vehicle to continue stories and characters that viewers grew to love on TV, while Star Wars used television as a vehicle to grow the SW Universe that had been developed in the movies. Congratulations Star Trek.
I would love to go on, but I have to admit that any other comparison I look at gives me the same outcome (e.g. merchandise totals - Star Wars!) so I have to give this epic battle to....
Star Wars (however, with honorable mention to Star Trek as the runner up). If anyone has anything else to add to this discussion, leave a comment below or send me an email to reelgeekz@gmail.com and tell me your thoughts.
In the end, there can be only one...oh wait, that's an immortal thing. Seriously though, phaser vs. blaster, the force vs. the Q...who has the bigger franchise. Lets look at the numbers and see who wins the title of "Best in Franchise".
Movies
Star Wars - 7 movie releases
Star Trek - 11 movie releases WINNER
In general, the only reason to release a sequel is if the preceding movie make a profit and was moderately successful (the exception to this is making a movie to reboot or rejuvenate a series if the preceding movie tanked in the box office). If all you consider is the number of movies released as a show of how popular a franchice then Star Trek wins. A phenomenon in Hollywood is that every odd numbered Star Trek is cursed to failure. Wrath of Khan (II), Voyage Home (IV), Undiscovered County (VI) and First Contact (VIII) kept this phenomenon alive until the release of Nemesis (X) which marginally made more than it cost to make. With the recent release of Star Trek (2009) as a reboot to the franchise with talk of further sequels it appears Star Trek is going strong.
Financial
Star Wars - $3,487,952,687 WINNER
Star Trek -$1,334,226,925
What is the one thing that matters most to the Hollywood big wigs? Money! Surely it doesn't matter how many movies you make as long as you make a lot of money. Well in this case, Star Wars wins by far. At over $3 million since the original release of Star Wars: A New Hope in 1977 Star Wars has made a combined that is just under 3x what Star Trek has made. George Lucas must be sleeping on three king sized mattresses covered in $1000 bills. I know I would. If money is all that matters to you, you need a life, and it would be obvious that Star Wars is the winner.
*Please note that figures used in this blog are from IMDB.com and uses rental totals, estimated costs and worldwide gross as up to date as possible.
Cost
Star Wars - $415,000,000 WINNER
Star Trek - $483,800,000
If you are going to give gross money made in this argument, you must then consider what the movies cost. The less the movies cost to make, the more you collect as profit from your gross. This is basic economics and business. Once again, Star Wars is again the winner. The eight films cost $415 million with Star Trek a close runner up at just shy of $5 million. However, this is a combined total for the each franchise in their entirety. If one does the math on average cost per film then you get a very different outcome. In this case Star Wars films cost an average $51,875,000 and Star Trek films an average of $43,981,818.18 - actually less per film. Now one could argue that a bigger budget makes for a better film, but a "better" movie has far too many variables to consider so as sheer costs go this batter goes to Star Trek.
Star Wars - Avg. $51,875,000/film
Star Trek - Avg. $43,981,818.18/film WINNER
Rentals
Star Wars -$2,233,100,000 WINNER
Star Trek -$644,000,000
Lets try this from the point of view of rentals. Many movies don't gain major acceptance in the theaters but do develop a cult following later in rentals (both VHS, DVD and more recently Blu-ray). Once again, Star Wars is the winner. It has made more than double what Star Trek has made in roughly the same time (Star Wars debuted in 1977 and Star Trek: The Motion Picture in 1979). Kudos Star Wars!
Investment
Star Wars - +1378.57% WINNER
Star Trek - +413.03%
It can be argued that above all else, it must only matter how well your gross or average money spent on films gives you are good return in the end. When you do the math of gross earnings plus rental divided by cost - Star Wars again! A return of over 1000% - George Lucas you rich bastard.
Television Success
Star Wars - 55 combined months on TV
Star Trek - 306 combined months on TV WINNER
With 5 mainstream series and one animated series, Star Trek kills Star Wars by a long shot. Traditionally, Star Trek has dominated television where Star Wars has dominated the film industry. Not only has Star Trek been on TV longer, each individual series has had longer runs than any Star Wars television series. It is interesting to point out that Star Trek used motion pictures as a vehicle to continue stories and characters that viewers grew to love on TV, while Star Wars used television as a vehicle to grow the SW Universe that had been developed in the movies. Congratulations Star Trek.
I would love to go on, but I have to admit that any other comparison I look at gives me the same outcome (e.g. merchandise totals - Star Wars!) so I have to give this epic battle to....
Star Wars (however, with honorable mention to Star Trek as the runner up). If anyone has anything else to add to this discussion, leave a comment below or send me an email to reelgeekz@gmail.com and tell me your thoughts.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Moon
Plot
Moon is a 2009 science fiction-psychological thriller about a solitary lunar employee who experiences a personal crisis as the end of his three-year stint nears.
Cast
- Sam Rockwell as Sam Bell
- Kevin Spacey as GERTY (voice)
- Robin Chalk as younger Sam
- Dominique McElligott as Tess Bell
- Kaya Scodelario as Eve Bell
- Benedict Wong as Thompson
- Matt Berry as Overmeyers
- Malcolm Stewart as The Technician
Review
Let me be the first in saying that it is nice to see what I believe is a truly unique movie idea. Secondly, let me say what a pleasure it is to see the work of new talent (in this case Duncan Jones, the son of David Bowie). However, as positive as this review starts I have to say overall I was unimpressed.
I will start with the positives...the visual effects are stunning. This is especially impressive considering the films $5 million budget. Jones and staff worked hard to create the effects on a low budget by resorting to miniatures and onset work as much as possible. Overall the look of the film is desolate and cold which only adds to the atmosphere of the film. Further on this thought is the movie contains many quiet points that also add to the isolation factor. For most of the movie I did find myself engrossed in what was transpiring, however this could not save the film from it’s negatives.
Overall, I did not find that I felt for the character at all. I am not sure if this is simply Sam Rockwell’s acting, the writing, the brief periods of quiet or a combination of all of these but the outcome is the same - there is no emotional connection to the character. The plot, while unique, is also very transparent. The viewer can often already be several steps ahead of the character even with the same information at their disposal.
I say, go see it if you think you might be interested but I wouldn’t expect much.
Rating
2.5 Reels out of 5
Monday, February 8, 2010
Trilogies? or Two-logies?
So, here is my first real post! I hope you will enjoy it and follow along as long as this blog is alive, so with no further delay, lets get started.
Has anyone noticed that often trilogies are not in fact trilogies but two movies cleverly disguised as three? I have noticed a trend in Hollywood that I would call a "testing the water" philosophy. With a good many movies, Hollywood will release the first movie to test the water and see if people actually like the film. I submit Star Wars as the peoples exhibit "A" as my first example. George Lucas released Star Wars: A New Hope (Episode 4 of a series of 6) on May 25th, 1977. While the original concept underwent many revisions, A New Hope, was always the first movie of what would be a three part trilogy. However, as time progressed, Lucas realized that the tale of Star Wars could not be contained in three movies but as many as nine (divided into three trilogies). Near the end of the revisions of A New Hope, Lucas made subtle changes to make the movie a self-contained film in case audiences did not like it.
Has anyone noticed that often trilogies are not in fact trilogies but two movies cleverly disguised as three? I have noticed a trend in Hollywood that I would call a "testing the water" philosophy. With a good many movies, Hollywood will release the first movie to test the water and see if people actually like the film. I submit Star Wars as the peoples exhibit "A" as my first example. George Lucas released Star Wars: A New Hope (Episode 4 of a series of 6) on May 25th, 1977. While the original concept underwent many revisions, A New Hope, was always the first movie of what would be a three part trilogy. However, as time progressed, Lucas realized that the tale of Star Wars could not be contained in three movies but as many as nine (divided into three trilogies). Near the end of the revisions of A New Hope, Lucas made subtle changes to make the movie a self-contained film in case audiences did not like it.
On May 21st, 1980 Lucas released Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back (Episode 5) which ends in a cliffhanger with Han Solo trapped in frozen Carbonite and leaving audiences with the sentence, "Luke...I am your father." Fans around the world would have to wait until May 25th, 1983 to find out what happens to the hero's they grew to love but this in itself is my point. The first movie of this "trilogy" is a self contained film and the second and third movies are actually one longer movie cut in half making the series a "two-logy".
I offer you the peoples exhibit "B", the Matrix trilogy. The Matrix was released on March 31st, 1999 by the Wachowski brothers and was a critical success. In fact, it was the success of the first film that lead to the drafting and eventual production of the second and third films in the series. The Matrix: Reloaded and The Matrix: Revolutions were shot at the same time but released May 15th and November 5th, 2003 respectively. You could very well watch The Matrix and be perfectly happy that humanity will rebel and stop the evil machines, or you can then watch The Matrix: Reloaded and be forced to then watch Revolutions in order to discover what happens to the characters and the history of humanity and the machines. You are left to wonder how did Neo stop the machines with only his thoughts, what is Agent Smiths plans (now inside the mind of the character Bane) and will Morpheus get a new ship since the Nabuchadnezzar was destroyed.
The Back to the Future trilogy shall be entered as peoples exhibit "C". The first movie ends with Marty returning to the future and Doc Brown using the note he left to prevent his eventual murder. Left alone, this would be a great stand alone movie. Back to the Future 2 and 3 however cannot be watch alone but must come as a set. In fact, they were filmed together and clips from the third film can be seen at the end of the second movie. Part II ends with Doc Brown missing in the old west and Marty approaching the younger Doc Brown for help. Part III details Marty's journey to the old west despite the older Brown's express instructions not to come and their eventual return to the future. A trilogy (or at least a three part film) that is really two main movies.
The Pirate of the Caribbean can be weakly thought of in the same vain. Peoples exhibit "D" shows the first film, The Curse of the Black Pearl, as ending with Captain Jack sailing off in search of some treasure with the East India Trading Company in close pursuit. This could be considered a cliffhanger, but in typical Disney fashion this is also a happy way to end a movie. However, the sequels are in fact continuations of the same movie. Dead Man's Chest and At World's End detail the entire journey from the discovery of the heart of Davey Jones and the apparent death of Captain Jack to the rescue of Jake from Davey Jones locker and the downfall of the greedy East India Trading Company. Two, maybe three films, but you get the idea.
I leave you with a few trilogies that do break this rule but with some rationale. The Lord of the Rings is in fact one long-as movie broken into three parts (roughly equal to the same volumes of J.R.R. Tolkien's novel). This breaks the trend as it was never intended to "test the waters". Hollywood knew there would be an audience and so released in pieces so that each was a "viewable" 3 hours. Quentin Tarantino's Kill Bill is also an example of a movie that is far too long if seen together so was released in three "volumes". My final example of a rule breaker is movies that are basically just multiple stories of the same character. Superman and Spider-man are such examples. These movies based on comic books can tap large databases of story ideas that they know fans will go see and so do not have to "test the waters" either.
Conclusion
Does one really need to make three movies to have a trilogy? or can you simple cut a longer idea into two pictures (both of whom can then no longer be truly enjoyed on their own) can call that a trilogy. I do not presume to be able to make that decision but I submit to you the evidence and will let you decide for yourselves.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)