Monthly Archives: March 2012
New Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles Movie Gets A Release Date, World War Z Moved To 2013
Paramount Reschedules ‘World War Z’ from December to June 2013
FLASH REVIEW: CASA DE MI PADRE (SXSW ’12)
SXSW 2012: CASA DE MI PADRE Review
Bill Paxton Discusses His ‘Kung Fu’ TV Show Adaptation
Psyclops unveils DARK SHADOWS from an early test screening… Sounds Like Fun!!!
SXSW 2012: “Super Troopers 2″ script “ready to go,” say Broken Lizard stars
World War Z to Transpire in 2013
What you see before you are a sampling of what the film blog-o-sphere believes you need to know before heading out the door this morning. The headlines have been culled from a variety of sources, focusing on the most popular well know film blogs in existence. What an existence it is. First off, aintitcool. Psyclops? Really? Enough with the pet names okay. We get that you guys are cool and on the edge, but after seeing names like Headgeek, Fathergeek, Hercules the Strong, Quint, Merrick, Capone, Amish Bug and Billy the Kid; Psyclops is just a little bit lazy. Would it be so bad to just use your real names. It works for Roger Ebert and Mark Kermode and Andrew Sarris. Would a little bit of professionalism be too much to ask? Also about all this “World War Z” nonsense. I understand that if you mention the word zombie most internet film nerds pee their pants in excitement, but could we please consider easing up a little bit on the coverage. How is it that World War Z can get over 100 news stories about it, just because its changing its release date, but “Casablanca”, which is being re-released to theaters for its 70th anniversary can only get about 5 news hits online? What a world. Lastly I just want to thank screenrant for letting me know that the guy who peed his pants in True Lies will be rebooting Kung Fu. Happy, Happy, Joy, Joy.
New BATTLESHIP Trailer Certainly Has Enough Explosions!!
New Battleship Trailer Bombards You With Explosions And Even More Alien Robots
NEW BATTLESHIP TRAILER PROMISES DANGER BY SEA & LAND
‘Battleship’ Trailer #3 Features Explosions & Global Destruction Galore
So there you go. More good news from the film blog-o-sphere. All of these headlines are culled from many different film blogs across the internet. Its not depressing so much as it is bewildering. Is this what all these film bloggers went to college and got their communication degrees for. To write about awesome explosions in the new battleship movies. To dissect stolen behind the scene shots of big budget effects films. To discuss “Independence Day” and “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles” and their reboots prospects. Doesn’t anyone want to discuss movies from a more artistic standpoint. Instead of just discussing box office grosses and nerdy stuff, how about a little film theory and history. I can enjoy a bit of junk food like anyone else, but I think the collective movie going culture has a few more cavities than healthy teeth. Lets raise our standards and write about something other than the next big sequel. Then maybe it wont hurt so much when you chew.
Now You Have The Option To Experience PROMETHEUS In IMAX 3D!!!!
Joss Whedon Wants A More Personal And Painful Avengers Sequel
LOOKS LIKE BLADE WILL FINALLY MEET TWILIGHT IN ALEXANDRE AJA’S UNDYING LOVE
Exclusive: First Poster for DARLING COMPANION Starring Kevin Kline and Diane Keaton
‘Casa de mi Padre’ Director to Helm Adaptation of ‘King Dork’ Novel
‘Avengers’ Interview Roundup: Iron Man’s Armor, Maria Hill, & Loki
Good morning. Just wanted to give people out there a general idea of what is considered. film journalism nowadays. If by journalism you mean sensationalist, scatterbrained, lightweight fluff. It seems like most of the film blogger and journalists have subscribed to the TMZ school of film writing. God help us all.
Allow me if you will, to throw my fresh bait, into a already large bubbling pond. If you have been following modern film blogging for the past few weeks (lord help you) you probably have become aware of the situation involving the documentary “Bully” and its ongoing troubles with the MPAA. Usually when I post a piece about some topic, I can includes links to various blogs that are discussing it, but in the case of “Bully’ i’m facing an embarrassment of riches. Almost every film site/art and culture resource on the web has at least one or two running commentaries going on about the film “Bully” and its MPAA troubles. The trouble being that the MPAA gave this “supposedly” very raw and real look at bullying a very raw and real R rating. This did not sit well with the Weinstein brothers, the famous film producers who have taken on this project as part of their bleeding heart film division. Apparently, and this was big news to me, the Weinstein brothers care very deeply about the youth of America. They have a problem with this R rating because it means that a child will not be able to see this film without the accompaniment of a parent. They feel that there is a “need for kids to be able to see this movie on their own, not with their parents, because that is the only way to truly make a change”, and since the MPAA has rated the film R, the Weinstein brothers have taken a stand against the organization and decided to release the film without their approval. Part of their initiative involves asking “celebrities and personalities worldwide, from Lady Gaga (who has a foundation of her own) to the Duchess of Cambridge (who was a victim of bullying and donated wedding proceeds) to First Lady Michelle Obama (whose foundation has reached out to us as well), to take a stand with me in eradicating bullying and getting the youth into see this movie without restriction.”
Now, I’ve been following this saga for the last few weeks, and I just want to take a step back and reassess the current situation, because nobody seems to be asking some very obvious questions. Such as;
1. Why all this commotion over a film that may by all definitions stink. I understand that some people may hold positive beliefs about this films outlooks but you have a ongoing war of sorts happening about a film that may or may not live up to the hype. There are a lot of people being overly critical of the MPAA and of the Weinstein about the films content, but I just wonder how many of them have actually seen the film.
2. I alluded to this earlier in the article, but just to reiterate; When exactly did the children of America become the main concern of the Weinstein? I also don’t want to seem negative or overly critical but I kind of bristle at the conceit that just because the Weinstein bros suddenly find bullying distasteful, they can make a film that succeeds in finally “eradicating” it.
3. If the Weinstein’s care so much about the youth of America, why are they distributing this film at all? “Oh sure we want every kid to see this film so bullying can come to an end, but only if you kids can get eight bucks from your parents, other than that you’re out of luck”. Why not just release the film as a teaching tool to schools? Why all the Hollywood fanfare around it?
4. What exactly is the problem with parents getting a deeper understanding about bullying? Last time I checked, bullying can affect an entire household, and not just the kid. What good is it if a kid goes to see a film about bullying all alone? Who’s the first person that is called when something goes wrong at school; the parents. Who is the person who has to take care of the bullied child; the parents. Since bullying has such a widespread effect, beyond the walls of a school, and into the homes of children, why should the parents be excluded from seeing a film that is supposed to be the definitive statement about the topic of bullying? Perhaps the parents could benefit from a little understanding about bullying as well.
I have many more question, but at the risk of seeming overly critical, i’ll keep my remaining reservations to myself. I understand the Weinstein’s wanting to help the children of America. We should all want to look out for the younger generation, and make sure they don’t have to go into a warzone everytime they get on the big yellow bus in the morning. Its just that……..something about the Weinstein’s endeavors seems a bit off. Its like when George Lucas suddenly became a trailblazer for civil rights at the cinema, proclaiming the injustices that keep African American’s from headlining mainstream Hollywood films in America. Its not that what was said doesn’t have some truth to it. Its the person who is saying that is striking a wrong chord. You ask yourself why this person is all of a sudden so concerned about the subject civil rights or in our case bullying in school. Has it always been a concern of theirs or is it just a convenient bit of timing that a sudden onslaught of social consciousness occurs when they have a money making property to be released? A money making property that just happens to have a bit of social commentary inherent to the central story. As they say all publicity is good publicity. What better way to draw attention to the film than by leading your own righteous crusade against the MPAA? Also it probably wouldn’t hurt having the film be pg-13 since, an R rating is usually the kiss of death for a film, that is if you want your film to have any chance of breaching all demographics and making the maximum amount of money. Not that I don’t empathize with the Weinstein’s argument, that in order for the impact of the film to be great there must be no editing of the material, since bullying is usually not edited occurrence. Although even in its most unedited form, bullying is not always done with crude language and foul gestures. As odd as it seems the Weinstein brothers are giving a very negative stereotype to a very negative enterprise. Just because your cause may be just doesn’t mean you should stereotype and over accentuate the problem. Bullying is an awful enough occurrence without adding any sensationalism to it.
The film as it stands now is rated R. Would it really hurt to just release the film as R? Is it really so hard for a school to obtain permission slips to go see a movie or have it shown in school? I’ve watched many R rated films in school over the years. We were allowed to because the content of the film was deemed acceptable in light of the educational properties afforded by the picture. Why wouldn’t a film as “apparently” social radical and reforming as “Bully”, not be allowed in schools, regardless of its rating? Also, would it really be so bad if parents accompanied their children to see the movie. Don’t they empathize with their children and try to understand their pain and what they are going through to better help them. Is a pg-13 rating gonna stop parents from seeing the film. They’ll see it anyway. It seems the more rationally you look at the hubbub surrounding this picture the more hollow the claims of the Weinstein’s seem. You ask yourself if they really care about the kids or just about having a famous world changing documentary. That is if the movie doesn’t stink.
For this evening, instead of picking out a particular bit of news and critiquing the regular asinine film blogger response to it, I thought I’d go ahead and publish some random headlines headlines from around the film blog-o-sphere and let you draw your own conclusions. I expect the conclusions to be negative and sad because of what passes as film news and journalism these days, as I’ve been saying is laughable.
Lets see what our good friends at Aintitcool.com have for us:
“The Japanese Trailer For BRAVE Is The Best One Yet!”
The Behind the Scenes Pic of the Day could get you diseases. You’d like that, wouldn’t you?
Sylvester Stallone would like you to know – that he is absolutely not editing BULLET TO THE HEAD!!!
Is Universal Back To Making A OUIJA Movie? Y-E-S!!
Some Amazing And Rare Behind The Scenes Shots From The Original STAR TREK Series!!
Jason Segel Won’t Be Appearing In THE MUPPETS Sequel
Meanwhile at Slashfilm.com we can see that:
The /Filmcast: Bonus Ep. – Re-Assessing Take Shelter (GUEST: Brandon Lee Tenney from Firstshowing)
Kristen Bell Lands Lead in Disney’s Snow Queen Adaptation ‘Frozen’
Watch The First 10 Minutes of ‘The FP’
Sequel Bits: Danny DeVito Totally Wants to Do Another ‘Twins’, Plus: ‘Scream 5′, ‘Salt 2′, ‘Friday 4′, ‘Iron Man 3′, ‘Men in Black 3′,JackRyan
Sony To Distribute ‘RoboCop’ Remake
‘Animal House’ Heading To Broadway With Music By Barenaked Ladies
Heading over to CinemaBlend.com we are told about:
Rose Byrne And Anna Faris Join I Give It A Year
Dakota Fanning Tackles Bucket List In Now Is Good Trailer
Bill And Ted 3 Script Is Finished, Needs The Greenlight
Frankie Go Boom Poster Shows Ron Perlman Like You’ve Never Seen Him Before
RoboCop Remake Finds Distribution
Finishing up at Firstshowing.net we learn that:
Review: ‘ATM’ is a 15-Minute Idea Trapped Inside a 90-Minute Movie
‘Men in Black 3’ Suits Are Real Viral Update + New Subway Ad Found
Kristen Bell Voicing Lead in Disney’s ‘Frozen’, Starring in ‘Some Girls’
‘Bullet to the Head’ Delayed So Sylvester Stallone Can Recut the Film
Zoe Saldana Joining Christian Bale for ‘Out of the Furnace’ Thriller
Watch: Blue Sky’s ‘Ice Age 4: Continental Drift’ Full Theatrical Trailer
Thank you film bloggers. Now I can sleep soundly knowing that “Ouija” is moving forward into production. Also knowing that Bill and Ted 3 is getting ready for green-light takes a big load off as well. In all seriousness all of this represents why filmcycle.wordpress.com is in existence. Now I don’t want to make any grand statements about the state of film, but how can you look at these headlines and not be a little bit morose. Aren’t there other things to discuss besides sequel news about “Scream 5” and “Friday 4”, and whether or not the makers of Men in Black 3 are giving away free suits. Not to say I can’t have fun with film news sometimes, but as someone who has spent a lot of time surfing the net looking at many different film blogs, I can honestly tell you that this sensationalist drivel is what is driving most of the internet film community today. It would be nice for a popular film site to be devoted to discussing cinema in a slightly more critical, academic, and conversational way. I want more sites like the museum of the moving image http://www.movingimagesource.us/. which is a great place to go for interesting think pieces on film and the history of cinema. More sites like that giving healthy meals out instead of the junk food we’re currently being fed. If you know of any more sites serving better cuisine please leave a link to it in the comment section. Until then have a good night and watch out for cavities.
Lets take a look around the film blog-o-sphere and see what is passing for news this morning.
Some mild buzz is stirring over the new Men In Black 3 trailer.
Nothing really of note here. The bloggers for the most part are indifferent to the trailer, citing its overall blandness and flashy but hollow appeal. In their defense, the trailer really doesn’t really make me wanna go see “Men in Black 3”. Sadly, it still looks like the sly sharp humor of the first film has been replaced by an overload of ridiculous camp and overused special effects. Basically, the film looks like it was directed by George Lucas, with a dash of irony. The one thing that is kind of interesting, concerning the film bloggers response to the trailer, is how the public perception of Will Smiths acting ability has shifted. If you remember when the Fresh Prince first made his foray onto the big screen, there was nobody, bigger, more charismatic, more likable, and more bankable than Mr. Smith. People were in love with his style and swagger, his irreverence, good looks, and undeniable comedic ability. Such attributes made his roles in shows and movies like “The Fresh Prince of Bel Air”, “Six Degree’s of Separation”, “Made in America”, “Bad Boys”, “Independence Day”, “Men in Black”, “Enemy of the State”, and “Hitch” a success. Now however, the very things that people used to admire about a Will Smith performance, seems to have become irksome to the general movie watching public. At least as far as the film bloggers are concerned. AICN correspondent The Kidd writes in his review of the new trailer that “it’s a lot of the usual Will Smith playing Will Smith playing his character, in this case Agent J”. Katey Rich of Cinemablend also comments, in reference to an exchange in the trailer between Andy Warhol and Smith’s Agent J character that its “jarring nonsense Smith saying he will “slap the shiznit out of Andy Warhol. She wonders “when did Agent Jay start speaking in dated mid-90s slang?” Renn Brown over at C.H.U.D also comments on the exchange saying that “perhaps there is some context for the painfully out of date reference to a piece of slang that was never actually funny, but still… ew”
Think back a little over a decade ago to how in love everybody was with Will Smith and his comedic sensibilities. Now the films bloggers seemed to have summoned their vast knowledge of urban slang and comedic stylings to condemn Will Smiths newest performance based on the staleness of his jokes. I would argue first that the use of shiznit is not entirely that dated seeing as the use of the term first rose to prominence in the early to mid aughts (as popularized by the rapper Snoop Dogg) and not the mid 90’s. Secondly, I understand the argument of a joke being stale, but I don’t see how that applies to this movie being good or not. Isn’t that just you arguing your own comedic taste over whether or not the performer was able to pull the joke off. The art of the comedic performance has a more timeless quality than the current topic that is being lampooned or parodied. This is why films by Harold Lloyd, Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, The Marx Brothers, and The Three Stooges have stayed around so long. This is why the Fresh Prince of Bel Air is still on the air 16 years after the show ended. Its because the comedic performances on the show are such a joy and pleasure to behold. There is so much talent and comedic skill on display that people could care less if the slang that was used is no longer around.
So if you didn’t like the trailer, then that is fine, but don’t blame it on Will Smith’s inability to tickle your funny bone. Believe me, this film looks like it has a lot more bigger problems than that.
By the way the whole Will Smith playing Will Smith comment is really a hollow criticism. Did we ever say something like that about Cary Grant, or Clint Eastwood. I understand someone not finding his work as appealing as they used to, but don’t blame a movie’s failure on the stars natural display of personality. I won’t begrudge a person some tokens their own identity in a performance, because when I go to a movie, I go to see the artistry that a person can bring to a particular role, both through and in-spite of their own personal nature. I don’t go to judge who they are as a person, and then use that judgement to condemn a film.
Whats is gonna take. In the end, whats gonna be the final straw. Will it be when they announce the male and female roles for the lead in the remake of “Casablanca”. Or maybe when they announce who will be playing the part of Norma Desmond in the remake of “Sunset Blvd”. Sounds preposterous. Well with news like this;
-is it really such a stretch to think news like that may not be far down the road. Now look, I’m a little bit late to this whole remake debate. Some balk at the very hint of a whisper of the word remake. It stirs their emotions and boils their blood, invoking very passionate and possessive reactions among the fans of the original property. “Why can’t people come up with new ideas”, they say, “instead of remaking great films that don’t need to be remade, or films that haven’t even had time to age yet”. Others, overtime, seemed to have warmed to the general idea of remakes. They say, “there, have always been remakes, and always will be, so why complain. “Besides its not like it tarnishes the original film”. Both are valid points I suppose, although with the benefit of very recent hindsight, its tough not to side with the remake naysayers. I have never, taking into account what I know of film history, seen a period in the movies, where so many properties have been optioned for remakes, re-imaginings or re-tellings. Films and film franchises that haven’t yet been in the public consciousness for even decade have already been optioned for a remake. Take Sam Raimi’s “Spider-man” trilogy of films, which started in 2002 and ended in May 2007. A short three years later, in December of 2010 production on “The Amazing Spider-man” began. New director, new writers, new actors, new story, new everything. Now do I begrudge a group of filmmakers the chance to put there own unique vision into the world? No of course not. The only think that kind of puts up a red flag is how quick its all done now. Its like the films studios want to capitalize on our recent memories. Or in the case of Spider-man 3, our recent tragedies.
Robocop, as of March 2012, is official 25 years young. Doesn’t seem like its been that long does it. Is it because of the timeless quality of the work, or is it just fast paced nature of the culture. Either way Robocop is still around and in our consciousness. The satire is still as sharp as it was in 87, the directing still as assured and the violence still as shocking. It all really makes you question, as is the routine with every mention of a remake, what is there really to improve on. What is there left to say. Of course there will always something to say. As long as we live and breath there are themes and ideas worth exploring in film. Yet in this case, I have to wonder why are we using the artifice of Robocop yet once again to explore these supposedly new ideas? Is the studio really that inspired by the basic story of the part man part machine all cop super crime fighter, or are they just capitalizing on the name of Robocop, adding a new sheen and polish to the story, to make a quick eighty million at the box office domestically, before crapping out. You see its that name that still holds the weight. Its that name that can draw people. If you were to tell people that if they come to the theaters this weekend they can see Robocop, but with a fresh new design and updated story, then who wouldn’t be excited by that. People think that if they carry that name with them into the new film, that they will be seeing something worthy of the weight and prestige that name has acquired in both the public and their own personal consciousness. However, as we have seen, most remakes as of late have worn the name of their forefather dishonestly. They were not out to explore any new ideas or explore any relevant themes. They were out to tell a very simple, truncated, version of the story their predecessor told more honestly, if only because they were working from their original inspiration. I’ll leave the more detailed research to you readers, but take my word, in the last few decades the number of good remakes of past films pales in comparisons to the awful derivative time wasters remakes that have increased in production in the last few years.
So what do we make of this new casting announcement? Its a familiar story; we have a young, talented actor trying to make his way in the business, you have a few small parts here and there, grow a fan base around have some stand out performances. Your agent says you’ve been offered the role of Robocop and faster than you can say artistic integrity, our young talented actor says yes. It is only for his benefit that I hope this remake is at least halfway successful, because if it tanks, its all gonna fall in his lap.
“Alfred Hitchcock and the Making of Psycho” Or How A Movie Studio Got The Public To Pay 12 Dollars To Watch An Overproduced Dramatized Special Feature Documentary
When somebody gives up, the signs are usually pretty evident. Say you are watching a basketball game, and the fourth quarter arrives. The star player who has been giving his all for the past three quarters starts to play poorly. He’s not making his jumpers, his ball handling is becoming shoddy, and he can barely make it up and down the court. All signs point to someone who is finished. They have no more to give, and what they are currently giving isn’t enough to get it done. Everyone of course gets tired, but this is different. There is no spirit left in their game, no fight, no vitality. They’re not missing shots because they are tired but because they don’t believe anymore. They’ve given up. They just don’t have it in them.
The current state of cinema is also showing signs of giving up as well. Now, I don’t mean to make big grand statements about the cinema as a whole. I’ll leave that to the guys with the Ph.D’s (yes their are doctorates in film). It doesn’t take a genius however to recognize when there is a problem, and tt doesn’t take a rouge scholar to see that something just isn’t right.
Alright lets take a moment and think this through. The life of Marilyn Monroe is such that ten movies could probably be made about it. Her life, her celebrity, her loves, and her death, are the stuff of Hollywood legend and that legend has become modern folklore. When there is any talk of recent popular american history, or famous urban legends, or contemporary style icons, there is usually always mention of the original material girl. She is part of the American consciousness, just as much as Ronald McDonald or Superman or even Christ. Taking into account the scope of her life and the sphere of influence she had, I would not begrudge any movie studio an option to make a film about Marilyn Monroe. “My Week With Marilyn” was a fine idea for a motion picture. There were probably legions of Marilyn fans, both rabid and casual, around the globe yearning for a big screen biography of Norma Jean. It was also a stroke of genius to make the film about what happened to Marilyn during the production of “The Prince and the Showgirl” as we get to see a rare glimpse of what Marilyn was like doing work, and how her personal problems conflicted with her professional gifts. For the most part, people seemed happy with the final product. I haven’t seen it yet, but if its as good as people say it was, I’ll have to check it out in the future.
Looking down the road at a similar project,”Alfred Hitchcock and the Making of Psycho” is a film that I don’t think I’ll be checking out in any foreseeable future. Am I the only one that thinks this is a bad idea on a purely conceptual level? I can understand the appeal of a movie about Marilyn Monroe, but Hitchcock? Now its common knowledge that in the history of cinema, the movie “Psycho” is a seminal film. A landmark in motion picture history, that is at once a breakthrough thriller/horror film, but also a timepiece signifying the changing tastes and dynamics of not just the movie going culture but the culture as a whole. Even the lay person with the most rudimentary understanding of cinema has at least a general knowledge of “Psycho” and its impact on popular culture, if not by seeing the film itself, than by seeing one of the many films or pieces of popular entertainment that “Psycho” has personally influenced or been parodied by/paid homage to. So its understood that “Psycho” is important. Can I ask then what is so important about what when on behind the scenes of “Psycho”. Unless I’ve missed a something, the making of “Psycho” isn’t something that is very…….storied or talked about in our modern culture. I don’t hear famous stories about its production, like I do the production of movies like “Apocalypse Now”, “Cleopatra”, “Heaven’s Gate”,any Stanley Kubrick film, “Alien 3”, or even projects like “Popeye” and “Cutthroat Island”. Not that Psycho isn’t discussed and mulled over, just never usually with the production as the main point of focus. Usually any talk (outside of film school) about “Psycho” is about the films impact on popular culture. It usually tells of fights with the censor board and the audiences changing tastes in regards to the film and movies in general. It never speaks of great behind the camera drama, power struggles, fights, or production catastrophes. In fact, in researching Psycho, aside from some very thrifty spending and inventive filming, there is not really too much of note about the production, except when viewed through the eyes of history. Hitchcock was an amusing personality with a brilliant craft but I don’t see him working as the main subject of a expository film about his life and work, and its not like Janet Leigh had a life or career that has since given birth to post mortem superstar status and fandom like Marilyn, not to say she wasn’t an exceptional actress, but worthy of big screen bio-drama; I don’t think so. Taking all this into account, I don’t really see too much, in the making of “Psycho”, that is worthy of dramatization in regards to a major motion picture. Film geeks will love it, as Hitchcock is one of their patron saints, but I fail to see, from the studio’s point of view, how this has any appeal to the average film-goer. Why would they want to see a movie about the making of a great movie that they would have been better off watching in the first place? Are the studios that desperate for ideas or so lazy that they just want to make multi-million dollar elongated special feature documentaries? Have they given up on seeking out fresh, new captivating stories for the every-man to enjoy? Why not just put your efforts into making a great film with a good story, or at least find a product that isn’t only palatable to extreme film nerds? Maybe in time that fresh new project will receive the kind of admiration “Psycho” usually gets.
Then again, push comes to shove, I guess Mr. Every-man wouldn’t mind seeing Scarlett Johansson in a shower.
Being that the film blog-o-sphere has set the bar so low as far as movie journalism goes, with their sub-par writing, general poor taste, and puddle deep knowledge of film history, its always a point of amusement when they suddenly want to try and grow up and become serious film critics. This sudden onslaught of higher standards is usually brought upon by news of a upcoming project that is deemed detestable to anyone who knows anything about movies.
What better project, of course, but an Adam Sandler movie? Opinions about Sandlers’s work has always pretty much been in the toilet as far as popular criticism is concerned, so people responding poorly to a new project of his isn’t unheard of, especially in the light of his latest failure “Jack and Jill”. Its just that when the film blog-o-sphere does responds to a comedy, its seems to never be about whether the film works as a good movie, but rather what that particular blogger may or may not find funny. Check out this trailer review from Slashfilm writer Angie Han.
“From here, it looks like the folks involved decided to replace actual jokes with lots of cursing and bodily fluid humor. There are spit takes, vomit, semen, blood, and like ten “fucks”, but none of that makes up for the fact that “It tastes like fucking dick infused with balls!” only sounds clever to a ten-year-old.”
What Angie Han, may I ask, is an actual joke? Can you define it for me. Can’t cursing and bodily fluid humor be funny. Were we not all praising the use of cursing and bodily fluid humor in “Bridesmaids”? Why is it okay when Kristen Wiig does it but not Adam Sandler. Also why would the saying; “it taste like f——- d—- infused with my b—-“, only be funny to a ten year old. Adults laughed at Will Ferrell putting his penis on a drum set in “Step Brothers”.
I don’t claim to be an authority on comedy. However when I am looking for an opinion on a comedic film, I don’t need a rundown of what you consider low and highbrow humor. Please just tell me if it looks like a good movie or not. Jokes only work if they have a good base, just like the humor in a movie only works if the film-making is sound. The base maybe a very simple one but this is why the most simple stories can have the most hilarious payoffs. A lot of the greatest films Sandler has done have been very simple stories. He takes what would be an ordinary motif or trope (helping grandma, growing up and taking responsibility, fatherhood, ect) and explores the basis of these motifs and tropes, getting to the bottom of them revealing often hilarious warped universal truths or at least his bizarre take on what the truth might be. Now in the end, I may not always agree with the basis for a lot of Adam Sandler’s humor, but I will give him credit if he was able to pull off the joke.
It has been one whole day since the new trailer for “The Avengers” dropped. For a brief moment the internet community came to life as thousands of film bloggers had a collective nerd-gasam in front of their computer screen. Reports soon flooded in from all the major film sites.
These were only six of about over five hundred reports covering every single frame of this new trailer. Reaction was overwhelmingly positive. Admittedly some of the shots in the trailer look great. Seeing Stark walking and having the armor taking off at the same time, as well as the hulk catching iron man in mid-air was pretty cool. I just hope all of these great shots are accompanied by a great film. Not just a great experience for the nerds. I understand that this movie is the realization of many a childhood (and adult) fantasy, and that seeing the original “Avengers” on the big screen fighting together is a dream come true. Its just that, when all the fervor has died down, and the nerd sheen has worn off, I want the film to be good on its own merits, and not because its an “Avengers” movie. We’ve been fooled over and over again with all the superhero movies that have come out recently. They all have really fun and exciting trailers but in the end turn out to be pieces of garbage (“Thor”, “Captain America”, “Green Lantern”). The people behind those films weren’t out to make good movies but instead made superhero set piece melodramas with poorly acted and realized characters, misjudged scale, and weak narrative. That is why, no matter how many explosions are in the new trailer, no matter many great one liners we’re shown, no matter how many circling hero shots we’re treated too, and no matter how cool it was to see the hulk catch iron man, the most exciting thing about this whole project, the thing that gives me the most hope for its outlook, is the fact that Joss Whedon is directing. Let me just say that I am in no way a Whedon fanatic. I’m not a fan of “Buffy”, “Angel”, or “Firefly” or anything that he has done in TV. I am however a huge fan of “Serenity”. What “Serenity” showed me, is that this guy is a very gifted director. He is great at establishing narrative, keeping his characters grounded (no matter how fantastical the situation), and directing action with a very accomplished and steady hand. If you watch “Serenity” you’ll be very surprised at how good the movie is, regardless of if you know the mythology.
Following the release of “The Avengers” trailer, the film blogger named Nordling reported for AICN, that “this… this is “Let’s play Avengers in the backyard! I’ll be Iron Man! You be Hulk!” stuff. Straight out of the childhood bliss of just loving comics for the joy of it. This one… this is what I’ve wanted to see since I was 8 years old. So, so great.”
That is wonderful, and I’m very happy for him. I hope his childhood dreams are realized. I know for me personally, the “Avengers” movie I always pictured in my head would cost one hundred billion dollars and be ten hours. Rather than seeing either of our childhood fantasies translated to the big screen, I would rather see a motion picture that is so well constructed, so well written, so well directed and acted, that it transcends age, race, and culture and is able to touch us deeply and makes us experience something profound. Great art can do exactly that. It can tap into the collective imagination and capture it (like Lucas did with the original “Star Wars”). I guess if I could have all that, then I wouldn’t mind having all the nerd stuff in there as well.