Reviews, Awards and Festival Coverage, Trailers, and miscellany from an industry outsider
Friday, April 23, 2010
I can't believe I'm saying this...
Friday, March 12, 2010
Friday, February 12, 2010
The cinematic plague of the 21st century gets a life extension

Yes folks, it looks like the final installment of the Twilight series (I refuse to call it a "saga") is being split into two films, a la Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. These books (and their cinematic counterparts)...where to begin with this trash? I've ranted about the books before, and I'm not sure I feel like doing it again. So, if you want a brilliant take down of Meyer's work (specifically "Breaking Dawn"), go HERE, and pray for the writer's sanity, and maybe your own, as you read the jaw-dropping awfulness that is Twilight.

Source: unknown/IMDb forums
Breaking Dawn splits in two
Double saga bookend to be shot back-to-back...
BY Josh Winning Feb 12th 2010 8:08AMFILED UNDER: Movie news
User Comments (1)
In one of the most ironclad business decisions made this year, Summit Entertainment have confirmed that they have given the greenlight to filming the fourth and final Twilight novel, Breaking Dawn.
The hulking 700+ page book will be split into two films (ala Deathly Hallows), which we will be shot back-to-back. Filming is scheduled to begin in October 2010.
Summit are looking at “high end” directors for the project, though no names have been leaked just yet.
Breaking Dawn is the least popular book in the series - author Stephenie Meyer calls it the “Rob effect”, reasoning that fans can’t accept that the series had to come to an end, just as they couldn’t at first accept Pattinson in the role of Edward. Uh, okay. Whatever helps you sleep at night.
Scribe Melissa Rosenberg, who has adapted all of the Twilight films for the screen, is working on this final adap.
Obviously Summit are cranking these out as fast as they possibly can for two reasons: first to capitalise on their immense popularity (though Harry Potter hasn’t suffered from being a decade-spanning film series), and secondly to catch the actors while they’re still young.
David Slade’s third entry in the franchise, Eclipse, opens this June.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
SS Col. Hans Landa is a..
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Saturday, August 29, 2009
The top six most overrated things from Hollywood and the pop culture uniiverse: 2008 edition
When I made my list of the 12 most overrated things in movies for 2007, I knew that I wanted to do this for each year following. Unfortunately, one way or another, I kept getting distracted, and instead of posting such a list during or shortly after Awards Season, I now find myself making my list at long last. This one is only half as long as the list for 2007. But does that mean that 2008 was a better year for film and pop culture than 2007? Not exactly. But regardless of which year was better or worse, 2008 somehow managed to provide fewer things worthy of being on this list. What are they? Some of the picks may surprise you, especially the first one. So, without further delay, here are:
The Top 6 Most Overrated Films, Performances, and Pop Culture Sensations of 2008:
6. The Dark Knight: I’ve said it before and I’ll gladly say it again: I love Christopher Nolan’s “The Dark Knight”. The direction, the editing, the acting, the whole nine yards. So why would I put my recently decided favorite film of 2008 on this list? It comes down to one word: fanboys. Rabid, psychotic, blinded fanboys. It’s one thing to be really passionate about a film that you love. Why shouldn’t you be? But there are limits, and the hardcore Dark Knight fanboys crossed the line many times. Crime #1? Labeling the film as one of, if not THE greatest film/s EVER made. While I understand how this could be a person’s first reaction (it’s a larger than life, overwhelming movie), on closer inspection, the label of “One of the greatest EVER” is a bit much (though apparently that never bothered Ben Lyons…).
5. The Disastrous Duo: Brad Pitt and Taraji P. Henson in "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button": Okay, the word “disastrous” is a bit much, but I was in the mood for some alliteration. So why did I pick these two performances from one of the most unfortunately popular best picture nominees in recent years? Because they fell totally flat. Let’s start with Pitt. In my Inglourious Basterds review, I criticized Pitt for being cartoony and not blending into the movie. In Benjamin Button, it’s the exact opposite problem.Yes, Benjamin is supposed to be something of an “observer”; he doesn’t cause things to happen, things happen to and around him or people he knows. But even so, did Pitt have to be SO bland?
4. "Wanted": I had a feeling that Wanted would develop a fanbase in the weeks after its release. After all, it plays like the mentally deficient offspring of Fight Club and the Matrix. So why is it on here? Because, astoundingly, the critics liked it too, which baffles me. Despite a few good, tongue in cheek scenes, everything else is either totally over the top or ridiculously DUMB and inconsistent (the Fraternity’s motto is that by ending one life, you can save 1000, yet they have no problem or deep regrets when one of their operations ends with a train falling into a VALLEY filled with civilians).
3. Angelina Jolie in "Changeling": Yup, she’s back folks. But what makes this worse than her work in A mighty Heart, is that this time she actually snagged a nomination! While the suffering mother role is one the Academy loves, why did it have to be this one?
2. Sean Penn in "Milk" (please don't kill me): This one took me a while to come to terms with. While I certainly didn’t think that Sean Penn was GREAT in Milk, I still thought he was good, and if you look back at my personal nominations for 08, he’s in my best actor roster. So why did I feel extremely miffed when he won the Oscar? Well, after locking myself into a Cave of Meditation (for 10 minutes…yeah, I’m deep) the lightbulb went off and I knew why: I felt like I could see Penn acting. For an actor who is often praised for “becoming” his characters, I found his work here to be distracting. Every little gesture, every vocal inflection, I felt like I was seeing a work in progress (and a mechanical work in progress at that).
And the number one offender from 2008 is....*drumroll*
1. The “Twilight” phenomenon: Why is this schlock so totally popular? Whether film or book, this thing is filled with stupidity. Now, I have no problem with people liking the books for what they are: silly, gooey, fluff. But when fans starting touting them as “the next Harry Potter,” the vein in my forehead starts to bulge, and it isn’t pretty. There are so many wonderfully witty articles dedicated to dissecting the silliness of this franchise, so I’ll try my best to condense some of their points. First: The Writing. Easily the underlying problem to just about everything else wrong with this series is Stephenie Meyer’s prose, which at times is exceedingly purple (though never as bad as Christopher Paolini’s Eragon series). Having skimmed a copy owned by some cousins (who like the books but acknowledge them for the fluff that they are) it seems that Ms. Meyer can’t go two pages without mentioning how Edward’s (the vampire love interest) eyes “smolder”. They smolder in gold and amber, and all variety of yellow based colors, which makes me think that Edward’s sockets are inhabited not by eyes, but by kaleidoscopes. Worse, in addition to bludgeoning her readers with the same empty adjectives, she likes to use more adjectives than necessary. To paraphrase one such overwrought passage, “He lay there perfectly still, his muscled bare torso sparkling like some unknown material: smooth and cold like marble, glittering like crystal.” No, that’s not overwrought at all. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that passage. You are a true artist with words Ms. Meyer. Cormac McCarthy doesn’t have sh*t on you.
Problem #2: Sparkling vampires. I’m sorry, I think my brain just malfunctioned. Surely I’m getting something wrong. Hmm…nope. I’m not. The vampires, when hit by sunlight, instead of reeling in pain, SPARKLE. And this is somehow supposed to make Edward darkly alluring? Because he sparkles? What exactly is so intimidating or alluring about a man who sparkles? Common knowledge would seem to indicate that if a man sparkles and does nothing to change it, he probably isn’t interested in girls. Girls…that reminds me… Problem #3, the Protagonist: Bella Swan. First problem, she’s a classic Gary Stu (or in her case, Mary Sue). So what’s a Stu/Sue? It’s a lead character that is either A) a vague idealized version of the author, or B) a character so blank and uninteresting and lacking in identity that desperate readers can transfer themselves onto this bland canvas, instead of learning about a defined, multidimensional, interesting character. Bella Swan’s (Bella swan…Beautiful Swan…GET IT?) most interesting trait? She’s “adorably” klutzy. That’s it. Other than that, she’s kind of a bore, and a pretentious one at that: “The reading list [for school] was fairly basic: Bronte, Chaucer, Shakespeare, Dostoevsky, I’d read them all already.” And though she describes herself as being plain, awkward, and shy, she becomes the most sought after girl in school after what feels like a week. It only gets better. In the second book (New Moon), Edward feels that he needs to leave after an incident where his brother tries to attack Bella after being attracted to the smell of her blood when she gets a paper cut. So what happens when dear perfect sparkling Edward leaves? Bella’s whole life unravels. I’m not exaggerating. At some point she tries riding a motorcycle off a cliff, all because some guy who sparkles left her.
And then, to get out of having to write scenes that explore the mental state of her protagonist, Ms. Meyer “cleverly” has pages written with only the name of a month. Bella is so distraught, that a month goes by without anything of remote importance because OH NOES, MY SPARKLY BOYFRIEND IS GONE!! Y’know instead of focusing on school (although she probably doesn’t need to try in school because she’s sooooooooo intellectual) or trying to make new friends (again, based on what’s been said earlier, this shouldn’t be hard), she just sulks around. Really Ms. Meyer, are you serious?
This is supposed to be your protagonist, someone who’s supposed to be something of a role model for tween girls, and yet you’re saying that if your boyfriend leaves you should just give up on life? How is this remotely healthy? You’ve basically just set feminism back a century or two. Hell, Jane Austen wrote more progressive female leads back in her day.But the one moment in this unfortunately popular series that tops them all in awfulness comes in the fourth book. Having finally been married, Bella and Edward finally get horizontal with each other, and she becomes pregnant with his human/vampire spawn. First off, if the vampires’ bodily fluids have all be replaced with their “venom”, how can the sparkly one impregnate Bella? Even better, the spawn grows so fast that Bella begins showing after barely 3 weeks, and is ready to pop a few weeks after that. Oh, wait, we’re not even close to the “best” part, because nothing…NOTHING can compare to the insanity that arrives when Bella has to give birth. The spawn has gotten so big that as it’s coming out it breaks Bella’s ribs and pelvis, and even threatens to kill Bella. So what does good ole’ McSparkles do? He runs over and uses his fangs to help get the baby out. Let me repeat. He uses his FANGS to help give birth. Bloody, pelvis-shattering, torn-flesh-including, birth that basically amounts to an oral C-section. Y’know…for TWEENS!
So at the end of the day, the most popular literary phenomenon for tween girls is a story about a bland, weak, backwards girl who falls in love with a guy who has taken relationship advice from the Abusive Guy’s Handbook, and falls apart when he leaves, even if it’s for her own good? And making it worse, in the same year that the film version of “Twilight” descended upon us, a much better vampire flick “Let the Right One In” only raked in a few million dollars at most, and is now being faced with the ultimate insult: an English language big budget remake. Is sparkling the future of vampires? Bela Lugosi is rolling over in his grave. I won’t post any direct clips from “Twlight”. Instead, I’ll let the geniuses at Rifftrax do it for me. I’ve seen this video several times and I crack up each time; that “Twin Peaks” reference is sheer brilliance.
Friday, July 24, 2009
There is...SO much wrong with this picture...mommy, I'm scared
Saturday, November 22, 2008
I'm slowly losing faith in humanity

My only hope is that this will suffer from "High School Musical" syndrome and have a huge opening weekend, where 90% of its audience swarms to it, and then box office intake nose dives. The book and its sequels are, to quote a great critique, "the great literary plague of the 21st century". Great, now His Dark Materials gets to lie broken and unfinished, and this schlock with its infinitely inferior source material is going to have the whole series filmed (the movie only cost about $40 million). To help me express my outrage once again, Mr. Peter O'Toole....
Source: Yahoo Movies
Bigger than the latest Indiana Jones. Bigger than the biggest James Bond. That's how big Twilight was yesterday.
The $37 million vampire flick, expected to have a killer opening day, had a monster opening day, grossing an estimated $35 million, Exhibitor Relations reported. One-fifth of that gross, or $7 million, came from Friday midnight screenings.
The box-office tracking firm said a $75 million Friday-Sunday gross was now a possibility. Going into Friday, $60 million was considered the movie's best-case scenario.
When the counting's done, Twilight's Friday take may rank as the 14th or 15th biggest opener of all time, having surpassed the debuts of Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull ($25 million) and Quantum of Solace ($27 million), to name two recent blockbusters.
Bolt, the animated talking-dog movie, was curbed by Twilight, grossing $7 million on Friday, Exhibitor Relations said.
For a great critique of Stephenie Meyer's literary bubonic plague, click HERE (I want to kiss this person's feet).
Saturday, August 16, 2008
"Twilight" takes over weekend vacated by Half Blood Prince
Looks like the bizarre postponement of Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince has caused yet another schedule changing frenzy in Hollywood. In addition to Disney's animated "Bolt" being bumped back to Friday November 21st, "Twilight" the (unbelievably stupid looking) adaptation of Stephanie Meyers' vampire teen novel has been pushed back to the same weekend. No offense to Twilight's legions of screaming teen girl fans, but I still hope that this movie completely tanks. Even some of the fans must be troubled by the cheese-tastic trailer.....

