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?
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
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.
Sunday, February 7, 2010
A "Four-tnight" with Kevin Smith
Plot
One man, in jorts (jean-shorts) and a robe, fields questions from the audience while sharing a lifetime of experiences ranging from movie making to fucking his wife.
Cast
Kevin Smith - as himself
Stephen J. Fryers - audience member (seat L7)
Matthew J. Fryers - audience member (seat L8)
Review
OMG, this man is my hero. Kevin Smith, director/writer of such films as "Clerks", "Dogma" and "Chasing Amy" and creator of the Jay and Silent Bob characters (he plays the role of Bob) is a very approachable and outgoing guy's guy. Over the course of 3 hrs at Roy Thomson Hall in Toronto my friend Matt and I listened and laughed as audience members asked him questions and he in similar fashion to previous events (see any/all of the Evening with Kevin Smith movies) retorted with witty remarks, sometimes vulgar but always funny experiences and occasional reference to dick sucking.
The show started on a high point as a guy asked Smith how he had proposed to his wife (which was after a rather interesting sexual experience) and then proceeded to propose to his own girlfriend. She said yes by the way! Kevin shared his more recent experience of working with the likes of Bruce Willis on the upcoming movie "Cop Out" (once called "A Couple of Dicks") and then progressed almost seemlessly into discussions of his love of assholes (the body area, not the people).
His show is not for the faint of heart, but it a must see for all Smith fans - whether its of the man himself or his work. He has made an appearance in TO every year for the past 5 or 6 years and told his audience last night that he thinks of Canada as "his girlfriend to the north". For more information please see his website at http://www.viewaskew.com/ for more information or just type his name into any search engine.
Overall, I am a huge fan of his work in movies, television, comics and online and encourage everyone to check out a show. He will be back in Canada the first week in February next year.
Looking forward to it!
P.S. He will be in Brantford June 4-6th for the Walter Grettzky Street Hockey Tournament. If you are interested in playing (might even play against him) go online to sign up today.
Rating
10 "Joints" out of 5 (Reel conversion - 5 reels out of 5)
One man, in jorts (jean-shorts) and a robe, fields questions from the audience while sharing a lifetime of experiences ranging from movie making to fucking his wife.
Cast
Kevin Smith - as himself
Stephen J. Fryers - audience member (seat L7)
Matthew J. Fryers - audience member (seat L8)
Review
OMG, this man is my hero. Kevin Smith, director/writer of such films as "Clerks", "Dogma" and "Chasing Amy" and creator of the Jay and Silent Bob characters (he plays the role of Bob) is a very approachable and outgoing guy's guy. Over the course of 3 hrs at Roy Thomson Hall in Toronto my friend Matt and I listened and laughed as audience members asked him questions and he in similar fashion to previous events (see any/all of the Evening with Kevin Smith movies) retorted with witty remarks, sometimes vulgar but always funny experiences and occasional reference to dick sucking.
The show started on a high point as a guy asked Smith how he had proposed to his wife (which was after a rather interesting sexual experience) and then proceeded to propose to his own girlfriend. She said yes by the way! Kevin shared his more recent experience of working with the likes of Bruce Willis on the upcoming movie "Cop Out" (once called "A Couple of Dicks") and then progressed almost seemlessly into discussions of his love of assholes (the body area, not the people).
His show is not for the faint of heart, but it a must see for all Smith fans - whether its of the man himself or his work. He has made an appearance in TO every year for the past 5 or 6 years and told his audience last night that he thinks of Canada as "his girlfriend to the north". For more information please see his website at http://www.viewaskew.com/ for more information or just type his name into any search engine.
Overall, I am a huge fan of his work in movies, television, comics and online and encourage everyone to check out a show. He will be back in Canada the first week in February next year.
Looking forward to it!
P.S. He will be in Brantford June 4-6th for the Walter Grettzky Street Hockey Tournament. If you are interested in playing (might even play against him) go online to sign up today.
Rating
10 "Joints" out of 5 (Reel conversion - 5 reels out of 5)
Saturday, February 6, 2010
U of T Film Festival
Anyone interested in being a field writer for Reel Geekz? I am making plans to attend this festival on March 13th 2010 to check out this event and anyone interested in coming with me is more than welcome. I would love to post your thoughts on the festival afterwards (i.e. your thoughts on the event, the movies, etc.) The film fest is a free event.
If you are interested, post a comment below.
Information
The U of T Film Festival celebrates the University of Toronto’s rich contribution to the arts through its student and alumni film and video makers. Now in it’s eight year, the festival also welcomes films and videos from all emerging and established filmmakers (though we have not lost our focus on student work). U of T alumni who have presented work in person include Atom Egoyan (Family Viewing), Don McKellar (Childstar) and David Sector (Winter Kept us Warm).
If you are interested, post a comment below.
Information
The U of T Film Festival celebrates the University of Toronto’s rich contribution to the arts through its student and alumni film and video makers. Now in it’s eight year, the festival also welcomes films and videos from all emerging and established filmmakers (though we have not lost our focus on student work). U of T alumni who have presented work in person include Atom Egoyan (Family Viewing), Don McKellar (Childstar) and David Sector (Winter Kept us Warm).
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Pandorum
Plot
Two astronauts, Bower (Foster) and Payton (Quaid), wake up from suspended animation to find themselves alone, with no memory of who they are, what they are doing, or what has happened to the crew of their 60,000 passenger sleeper ship, the Elysium
Cast
- Dennis Quaid as Lt. Payton
- Ben Foster as Corporal Bower
- Cam Gigandet as Gallo
- Antje Traue as Nadia
- Cung Le as Manh
- André Hennicke as Hunter Leader
- Norman Reedus as Shepard
- Wotan Wilke Möhring as Young Bower's Father
Review
Very good movie! The action is well paced throughout the film and there are enough twists to keep you engaged from start to finish. The visual effects are amazing, the ship itself is well designed and its the little things that make this movie a good vision of the future. Crank systems to power individual consoles (however, if this crank system powers up the console if the main systems are down...how does it get information or connect with other systems throughout the depowered ship? Plot hole!) and little things like seats that recess into the floor to conserve space are such examples. What I am getting at is that the designers thought of things that make me actually believe that this could be what the future of space travel might actually be like.
My only real complaint about the movie that keeps it from getting a 5 out of 5 reels is the ending. There is such a huge lead up to the end, the odds or thought to be insurmountable and the task at hand overwhelming but within the last 20 minutes.....the plot is resolved with only a few lingering questions (such as what happens to the antagonists? or how will they rebuild when everything they need is under water?).
Overall, rent this movie!!! You will not be disappointed.
Rating
4 reels out of 5
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Legion
Plot
After God loses faith in humanity, the Archangel Michael (Paul Bettany), who has become a fallen angel, is the only one standing between mankind and Armageddon. This time using angels to execute the Last Judgment, God's wrath descends on Earth to exterminate the world's population. In a desperate, last-chance gambit, Michael leads a group of strangers in a small New Mexico diner to become unlikely heroes to protect a young waitress (Adrianne Palicki) who is pregnant with what is believed to be Earth's only hope for survival.
Cast
- Paul Bettany as Michael, the archangel and leader of the human fighters.[2]
- Tyrese Gibson as Kyle Williams[2]
- Charles S. Dutton as Percy Walker,[2] the one-handed cook
- Dennis Quaid as Bob Hanson,[2] the diner's owner
- Adrianne Palicki[2] as Charlie, a waitress.
- Lucas Black as Jeep Hanson,[2] Bob's son.
- Kate Walsh as Sandra Anderson[2]
- Kevin Durand[3] as the archangel Gabriel, leader of the angel army and the main antagonist.
- Willa Holland[2] as Audrey Anderson
- Jon Tenney as Howard Anderson,[2] Sandra's husband and Audrey's father.
Review
So I watched Legion last night and wanted to share my thoughts. I warn in advance that this review will contain spoilers, so if you want to be surprised by the film - DO NOT READ. The movie starts off with little to no explanation of what is going on which in effect lets the audience discover the plot more or less as the characters do. After this the movie, while enjoyable and unique in its premise, goes down hill. The action is late to develop and limited to random 1-1:30 minute episodes of possessed victims being shot. Near the end of this extremely long 100 minute film are three "epic" scenes with a general in God's army who with all his might and stature cannot capture a baby boy from the hands of three average mortals. Please note the us of quotations around epic - SARCASM!!! Lastly, the movie leaves many questions unanswered like why is the baby so important? Who are the prophets? What was God's breaking point with mankind? and how can an infallible God be wrong about humanity?Overall, I am glad I watched the movie as it was fun, but with little to no substance that teases you with action snipits and then abruptly ends leaving you wanting more.
Rating
3.5 reels out of 5
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)