Adaptation

Went to see Adaptation last night, and I have to say that it was a movie that does not fall into the typical genre. It took me a while to figure out exactly how to explain what the movie was about, but I think that have a fair description now.

It is about a man writing a movie about turning a book into a movie about turning a book into a movie. A true ouroboros, which is a depicted as a snake attempting to swallow itself. Not only was this concept clever and orignal, but the movie added a few jabs about the movie industry as a whole. The movie specifically says that movies are formulaic, predictable, and cliché. Remember that this is from the same people that made Being John Malkovich, which could be either a blessing or a curse, depending on the movie genre you enjoy. Being John Malkovich has been described as insanely brilliant and brilliantly insane. Adaptation falls in the same mold. However, if Charlie Kaufman makes too many more "not in a genre" movies, he will have created his own genre.

Darkness

I needed some time away from the house today, so I treated myself to a movie. I went to see Narc, which by the way is an excellent movie. While I was at the theatre, I noticed the signs above each movie's entrance that had the movie title and time listed. I looked up over one of them and saw this:

Darkness 8:00pm

This struck me as funny. To think that someone would pay good money to sit in a theatre to see nothing but Darkness.
(Turned out to be a truncated title for Darkness Falls)

Ali

Tonight was quite a rarity. HBO actually showed a movie that I wanted to see. Usually HBO will show Ocean's Eleven (which I've seen a dozen times) or Monkeybone (which I have absolutely NO interest in seeing). Tonight, however, I was treated to Ali. Believe it or not, this movie slipped through the cracks for me. Despite the fact that I wanted to see it, I did not see it in the theater nor did I rent it for home viewing. Serendipitously, I discovered Ali was on, and dedicated the evening to watching it. I'm so glad I did.

After watching this movie, I rediscovered what a phenomenal person Muhammad Ali really was. It was inspiring to see a world-class athlete with such conviction. He stood up for what he believed in, no matter the consequences. Ali was the heavyweight champion. He fought for and defended that title with skill and flair. He might have run his mouth a lot, but he could back it up. And if he said something, it was not to fill the silence; Ali had something that should be heard.

Triple Fakes

Just got back from watching Identity, which turned out to be quite an entertaining tale. I won't get into the specifics here to protect the plot and let you find out for yourself. There were more shocks and misleading subplots than you could shake a baseball bat at, which brings me to the point of this entry.

I believe that modern suspense movies put more efforts into disguising their mysteries than providing a quality swerve ending. The average movie viewer is probably thinking so overly analytically during the show that they eventually exhaust every possible logical ending to the movie. Therefore, if a suspense movie plays by the rules and uses *gasp* logic to answer the lingering questions in the movie, then most viewers will "figure it out." Now, it seems that your suspense movies provide so many curves and swerves they are trying to shake the viewer from the actual ending. It is the equivalent to a patented Matt Collins triple fake while under the basket at Cobb courts. If you have an interesting story to tell, especially if it has a surprise ending, you do not have to resort to gimmicky illusion tricks to deceive the viewers.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed Identity, but if I generalize the recent suspense offerings, I tend to get a little aggravated. I am talking to you M. Night Shyamalan!

The Matrix ReBloated

"The special effects and fighting scenes were great". Get used to that phrase, because you will hear it echoing in your head while you search for rationalization theories during this sub-par follow up to the original Matrix, Matrix Reloaded. I do not consider myself a huge Matrix fan, but I liked the first movie enough to want to see what the next two sequels had to offer. After sitting through the Matrix Reloaded yesterday, my need to see the third movie in this series diminished a little bit.

The special effects and the fighting scenes were great, but you need more than that to have a compelling movie. Character and plot development became lost in the myriad of philosophical double-talk about choice and predestination. Without the special effects and fighting scenes, you are left with long-winded soliloquies about how people are meaningless in the larger scheme of those in power. This movie completely ignores true character development when it is needed most. They attempt to introduce so many new characters, that you do not get to know any of them or any of their motives. This point is especially important when they create a cliffhanger ending to bridge into the next sequel, but base it on a character you know nothing about. I do not have to be spoon-fed my plot, but if the viewer is not sure about who the characters are, then the viewer loses interest. I certainly did.

I hope the final installment, Matrix Revolutions, picks up all the slack that movie #2 left behind. Reloaded comes across as a means to an end, rather than a movie that can stand alone. Despite my problems with the plot and character development, the special effects and fighting scenes were great.

2 Long Weeks

The movie adaptation of the Hulk comes out on June 20th, but until that date I will have a difficult time avoiding any commercials for the Hulk movie. Why? Because I have decided that I do not want to spoil the movie for myself by seeing any of the trailer/previews. Since I have been looking forward to this movie for a while, I do not want to see anything about it. Too many times I have seen so many trailers for an upcoming movie that when I finally see the full movie it hardly seems new to me. I would think to myself in the middle of the movie, "I still have not seen that one part that I saw during halftime of the Super Bowl", or something like that.

So far, my boycott on seeing any Hulk previews has been a bumpy ride. This will be a highly marketed movie, so the trailers will come at me from all directions. Even tonight while watching the NBA Finals, I had to change the channel during commercials to overt my eyes from potential spoilers.

I faired pretty well with not seeing previews for Daredevil or X-Men 2 this year, so hopefully I can make it a clean sweep of all comic book movies. Lucky for me, I have memorized the first 3 seconds of all the Hulk trailers, so I can at least close my eyes once I have recognized them.

You Wouldn't Like Me When I'm Angry

My avoidance of Hulk trailers has finally come to an end. I caught the matinee showing Saturday afternoon. Why not opening night? Because the theater I usually attend is full of loud, obnoxious, hormone fueled teen-agers on Friday night. I choose to avoid them whenever possible.

However, my plot to circumvent distracting audience members was foiled by a 3 year old and the worst parents in the world. This hellion paraded the aisles of the theater with reckless abandon, treating the cineplex as her personal playground. Sounds of nonsensical toddler babble echoed throughout the building, while the "worst parents ever" were nowhere to be found. Their aloof attitude towards parenting allowed this twerp an unsupervised environment to gallivant aimlessly. Lucky for the kid and the parents that I was in the middle of the aisle, or else I would have treated them in a manner akin to how the Hulk treated the tanks in the desert scene. I was getting angry, and they wouldn't like me when I get angry. Apparently, I was not the only one with a pint-sized problem while watching the Hulk.

As far as the movie goes, I was pleased overall. Like every comic book adaptation, the movie takes certain liberties with the story. For example, the elder Banner (played by Nick Nolte) takes a much more significant role in the younger Banner's life. Despite these changes, this comic book fan left the movie satisfied.

I went into the movie a little concerned about the Hulk's appearance, since this has been a hot topic around the entertainment industry. Due to the Computer Generated Image of the Hulk comparisons to Shrek had been made which struck fear in my heart since I had only seen glimpses. (Read this post for explanation) Fortunately, I did not find myself distracted by a "cartoonish" appearance. Although the Hulk was not perfect (he looked a little cartoonish during one sequence), he delivered the goods for this fanboy. There are several special effects to dazzle the eye, but that is not the core of this movie. This movie actually has a story and character development, both of which seem lacking in most movies nowadays.

Spoon-fed Movie Plots

Thanks to my subscription to NetFlix, I have the luxury of seeing movies from categories other than "New Releases" rack at Blockbuster. Recently, I have taken in more movies from the 1970's than ever before, and I really enjoy them. I began to compare the storytelling techniques to recent releases and noticed that contemporary movies are so systematic that the viewer only has one interpretation of the movie......the director's. This spoon feeding tends to condescend to all viewers when the movie tries to get the point across. In most movies there is a "wrap up" scene where a character spells out all the details so that the movie watcher can catch up, instead of advancing the plot. The movie industry treats us viewers as idiots with this device, and the movie experience gets ruined in the process.

The next time you see a movie at the theatre, watch out for the "You see, Timmy" scene as explained in the movie Speechless, with Michael Keaton and Geena Davis. In one of the only moments of the movie I remember, Keaton explains to Davis that shows have a "you see, Timmy" scene to get the viewer up to speed so they can end the story. They did this all the time in the old Lassie television series. One of Timmy's parents would sit little Timmy down and invariably start off the last scene with, "You see, Timmy". For example, "You see, Timmy, little boys should not play in old wells alone because bad things can happen and we have to decipher Lassie's barking to figure out where you are."

While its nice to have a standard storyline, movies from the 70's allowed the audience to draw some of their own conclusions, instead of having it spelled out for them. Within the past few months I have seen Network, 3 Days of the Condor, All The President's Men, Marathon Man, and Apocalypse Now. All of these movies had a certain freedom about their story progression that I found truly refreshing. They allowed the viewer to come along for the ride, and make their own conclusions. They had a story to tell and it was up to you to keep up. I don't know if modern movie makers think that we are all idiots, or that the only way to tell a story is explicitly and without any interpretation.

Hollywoodized

I barely made my way through the movie Unfaithful tonight. This flick had style and a lot of promise. Diane Lane put on a break through performance, and deserved her Academy Award nomination. The story was riveting, the characters were interesting, the audience could not help but get pulled into the fray. This movie had my full attention, and I caught myself looking forward to the ending on several occasions. Suddenly, at the beginning of what I consider the third act, something awful happened. Hollywood sunk its teeth into this compelling story, chewed it up, then regurgitated it back to us into something disgusting. If you are not familiar with the common structure of a story, movie or play, it is quite simple. First, you introduce the characters. Unfaithful did this quite well, including background and motivation for each character. Second, you introduce a conflict. For those of you unfamiliar with this movie, Diane Lane cheats on her husband, Richard Gere. No spoilers here. Finally, the conflict is resolved or we see effects from the conflict. You will be hard pressed to find movies that do not follow this formula. Unfaithful follows this schematic as well, but they chose to go with the unthinking Hollywood ending instead of the cerebral ending that this movie is begging to have. I can pinpoint the exact second that this movie shifts from the art house movie into the summer blockbuster popcorn flick. I have hidden my explanation for those of you that do not want the movie spoiled for you. (Highlight the hidden text between this line and the End Spoiler line to find out) As soon as blood pours from the French boyfriend's head this movie goes to hell in a hand basket. They chose to turn this movie of heavy emotion and marital turmoil into a murder cover up full of every conceivable implausible coincidence known to man. By the end of it, I was begging someone to kill me by hitting me on the head with a snow globe. End Spoiler

The worst part of this entertainment experience is that I felt betrayed more than Richard Gere did by his cheating wife. I was presented with an intelligent movie that had much to offer in the first two acts. Instead of continuing with the thoughtful flow of the first two acts, I was treated with some Hollywood drivel for the third. I think I would have rather the movie been bad from the beginning than to give me false hopes.

I'm Looking For A Sign....Any Sign

Mel Gibson is trying his hand at directing again, after having a huge success with Braveheart and limited success with A Man Without A Face. This time Mel tackles a more controversial subject when he directs The Passion of Christ, which details the final hours and crucifixion of Jesus Christ. Not surprisingly, church officials from around the world have noted their objections to this movie. Rabbi Eugene Korn, the Anti-Defamation League's Director of Interfaith Affairs suggests that this movie will "undermine Christian-Jewish dialogue." Making matters more difficult was Gibson's decision to have Arabic and Latin spoken throughout most of the movie. Obviously, Gibson's project has been met with some resistance. I bet Mel Gibson has thought to himself, "Should I really make this movie if so many people are against it? If I could only see a sign of whether to make this movie or not".

Perhaps he received his signal. According to this story, Jim Caviezel, who stars in The Passion of Christ as Jesus Christ, was STRUCK BY LIGHTNING! I'm not the most religious person by any stretch of the imagination, but when you get struck by lightning when you are portraying JC, I have to think you might need to reconsider your movie choices.

My Spider Sense is Tingling

Here we go again. Another superhero transitioning from the comic books to the silver screen. This time however we see our favorite webslinger head to the movies for a second time. Unlike Ben Affleck's Daredevil, this will be a sure fire hit, especially since the previous Spiderman installment did so well at the box office (Total Gross = $403M)

Interested to see what this movie has in store? Check out the just released preview trailer. I will not be looking at it. I only got as far as the "The following preview has been rated..." section. I will be taking the familiar road of movie trailer avoidance once again, like I did with The Hulk. Call me childish, but I don't want to have anything ruined for me by seeing too much in the trailer. This time may prove more daunting than the Hulk. With the first trailer being released in December, and the movie not coming out until July 2, 2004, its going to be a long 6 months.

Kids Today

I experienced a dichotomy of sorts this weekend. While viewing Return of the King on Friday, I was annoyed beyond all comprehension by a collection of middle school aged boys. They chose to do play by play and color commentary throughout the 3.5 hour movie. During the movie, I gritted my teeth and strangled the arm rests of my seat with much misplaced aggression. Since I did not want to be one of those people that shush during movies, I just dealt with it. On one hand I thought about when I was their age. They were just having a good time, joking around with friends, which I'm sure I did in the same situation. On the other hand, they were disrupting my movie going experience, and distracting me from a movie that I really wanted to see. So while the movie was playing, I was disgruntled but silent, although they rarely stopped their steady stream of exposition. Upon the movie's completion when the house lights came on and everyone was gathering their things, I had enough. I turned around to retrieve my coat, and saw these kids directly, which allowed me to relive my agitation. Which prompted this exchange:

Me: I'm curious. What is your record?
Loud Opinionated Adolescent: Record?
Me: Yeah. Your record for comments said during a movie. I'm sure you shattered your last record this time. Lucky for me, I was able to hear every comment you made during these 3 and a half hours.

Although the cathartic effect was quite enjoyable, I felt like I stooped to their level. I felt bad afterward about being a cantankerous old curmudgeon, but had I not said anything these kids would have continued to believe that their commentary was acceptable.

Keep To Myself

Not long ago, I voiced my disapproval to some kids that were talking too much during Lord of the Rings: Return of the King. I had mixed feelings about this incident, but after reading this, I might have gotten off easy. Who would have thought that asking someone to keep quiet during a movie would provoke a beating? Although I'm pretty sure I could have taken those kids, I'll be a little more cautious next time (I'm sure there will be a next time)

Movie Trailers Equal Movie Spoilers

I have some issues that continue to gnaw at me without a solution in sight. Billy Packer continues to do color commentary during the Final Four despite his hatred by a majority of basketball fans. Advertisements overrun every media outlet known to man usually at the cost of the content we actually want. The media treats the general public as idiots and reinforces its own manufactured stereotypes.

A new issue comes in the form of the movie trailer. As a self-proclaimed movie buff, I enjoy learning about upcoming movies, usually by way of watching movie trailers either in the 45 minutes before the actual movie I am about to see in the theater, or in the hip and cool fashion of watching trailers online. I have touched on movie trailer avoidance in the past, both here and here. However, I think this opens the door to the larger problem of movie trailers giving away too much of any given movie. Just recently, I had an inkling to watch Ben Stiller's latest movie entitled, Along Came Polly**. Before I got an opportunity to view it, Ed told me that if I have seen the trailer (which I had) then I knew everything about the movie. This happens a bit too often for me. Are movie trailers delving too deep into the movies nuances? Or are movies becoming so transparent that even a mere peek into the movie's story gives it all away?

I believe that giving away a movie via the movie's trailer has become more of an issue recently. I do not remember this being such a problem 10-15 years ago. You used to only need to know the actors, the movie's premise, and maybe the director to get people to see the movie. Now, you have to give away the movie's A material to convince people. How many times have you watched a movie, then told a friend "If you have seen the trailer, then you have seen the movie"? Too many times as far as I am concerned. One thing is for certain, closing my eyes and humming to myself so as not to learn about a highly anticipated movie doesn't seem childish anymore.

**(Ben Stiller is making a movie about Dodge Ball coming out in 2004 which I think will be hella cool)

Movie Thoughts

Sorry I have not updated in a while kids, but sometimes daddy has to work.

Anybody watch the Oscars last night, or the Lord of the Rings massacre, as I like to call it. Although I like the Return of the King, I thought that the Academy was giving the movie all of the awards by default. They recognized the tremendous work that director Peter Jackson put towards this movie and handed him an award no matter what the category. In other words, each category probably worked out in the following manner: Give the award to LOTR based on the trilogy (not the individual movie) then the other movies had to battle for second place. I mean in some of the periphery categories like sound editing and cinematography, LOTR's won without knowing exactly what made them stand out in the first place.

I thought that Return of the King was a good movie, but I did not think they deserved 11 awards. It just seemed to me that they were given recognition for the collection of the trilogy instead of the single movie.

Thanks for the Grift

For some odd reason, I have learned that movies which highlight the underworld of scams and grifting have me in their gravitational pull. Within the past few months I have seen The Sting, Confidence, and most recently (last night) Matchstick Men. Each of these movies were entertaining in their own right, but the underlying scams have tied them together. Of course, if these movies that are based on such a criminal element draw me to them like a moth to a flame, I have to question my own integrity for liking these films so much. Maybe I am compelled towards the story of a fool and his money will soon part, or perhaps I was a grifter in a former life, but I subconsciously cannot get enough of these movies. If you have any other flim flam films that I should see, please do me the favor of recommending them here.

Indie Movies

Within the past few weeks, I have enjoyed a slew of independent movies both in the theatre and at home thanks to Netflix. At the theatre, I have seen both Napolean Dynamite and Garden State. Both quirkly, light hearted jaunts that truly entertain. At home, I have seen Love Actually and The Cooler. Both compelling love stories that make the audience personally interested in the outcomes of the characters. My experiences as of late lead me to believe that any independent movie is a true gem for the right audience. Although I had a great time watching these movies, they were not for everyone. But they took a chance. A concept that has become foreign to the large, mainstream production companies. Where independent films focus more on characters and storylines, the larger productions are more interested in special effects, celebrities, and promotional tie-ins. I understand that movie making is a business, but this is still an art form, isn't it? In a time where most movies look like processed garbage, it is nice to know that there are serious filmmakers out there.

I Have Moore Information

As I have mentioned before, my political compass seems to be veering towards the left lately. After finally watching Fahrenheit 9/11 last night on DVD, I can assure you that my previous connections to the GOP will be completely ignored when voting for President come Election Day. I will not go into the descriptive details of Michael Moore's documentary so that you can witness it for yourself, but be rest assured that this film hits a nerve with most Americans. If you can continue to support George W. Bush after watching this movie, then you are either extremely loyal or oblivious to your surroundings. Of course, those that firmly support W will not even peak at this movie. Most Bush supporters will even go so far as to condemn this movie without even seeing it.

Up until now, I have thought of George W. Bush as a mediocre president that I have simply endured these past four years. But now, I have seen enough information to know that W has placed his agenda ahead of anyone else's. Instead of representing Americans, he is representing his own special interests at the cost of the American population. I will be doing my best to remove W from office.

I realize that Michael Moore's move plays up dramatic details to make his movie more interesting and make George W. Bush look like a schmuck. I'm not naive. However, it becomes increasingly difficult to discount information supporting Moore's claims when I see it over and over again. To be fair, I would be open to watch an anti-Kerry documentary. Oddly enough, there will be one played a week or two before the election. My point is that I have been convinced by the material presented to me in many forms that I do not trust Bush, and will not support him anymore. If there is similar information about Kerry, it would have to affect me directly to sway me back. Kerry's anti-Vietnam stance does not affect me like Bush's poor performance as Commander-in-Chief.

Oscar Aftermath

Like most movie buffs, I watched the Academy Awards last night.  I have to say that I was less than impressed.  The lack of drama was ironically missing from the award ceremonies.  There were no surprises of any kind, save the cruel treatment of Martin Scorcese by giving The Aviator every tertiary award, but ignoring him specifically.  My interest level waxed and waned throughout the night, eventually leading to an early slumber somewhere around the Sound Editing and Sound Mixing (why the hell are these not the same category?).  While most people would blame new host, Chris Rock, for the drop in audience interest, I think he did his job.  His style does not really match this event though.  Taking pot shots at the actors might work in a stand-up routine, but at an awards ceremony, it comes across as a little snarky.   People are used to Steve Martin or Billy Crystal doing parodies, usually set to music.  Rock was not at fault, he just didn't match the event.

I do have other critiques of the evening, most notably the inclusion of Beyonce.  While she is a fine singer and quite easy on the eyes, her last minute substitution for Minnie Driver was in poor taste.  Driver sang in the actual movie but was not allowed to sing during the Oscars.  Although I do not know the real reason for this substitution, it was not worth trouncing on Minnie Driver to get more Beyonce exposure. 

Secondly, I found the inclusion of The Incredibles in the Original Screenplay as an oversight.  Although I found this movie charming, delightful and extremely worthy of its Best Animated Feature award, as a recent reader of Alan Moore's The Watchmen, I have to question the originality of that movie.  While not a direct adaptation of The Watchmen, the Incredibles borrowed several ideas and themes, not to mention the obvious similarities with Marvel Comics' Fantastic Four.  This does not make me hate the Incredibles, far from it.  I simply do not believe that it should be recognized for its originality when it had very little.

Finally, I saw Million Dollar Baby just hours before the Oscars on Sunday, which won for both Best Picture and Best Director (not the exact title of the awards, but you get the gist).  I enjoyed the movie, and would list it as above average.  I just don't think it was the best movie this year.  It felt more like a movie from the Lifetime network than a crowning moment in cinema. 

Feel free to include your own critiques of Oscar night.

Skywalker Survives Deadly Fall

After watching part of Empire Strikes Back on network television the other day, I had some questions building up that needed answering.  I bring attention to the memorable face off between Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader.  These two warriors make their way to some cat walk during their historic lightsaber duel some several hundred feet above some abyss.  Luke gets housed by Vader, eventually leading to Vader behanding Luke and making Luke call him "daddy".  Assumingly embarrassed by this ass whooping and the possibility of the most evil dude in the universe being his papa, Luke decides to take the wussy way out and takes a swan dive into the great unknown.   Luke fortuitous gets sucked into some air vent to the outside of Cloud City where he is hung out to dry on some weather vane.  Twin sis, Leia rolls up in the Millennium Falcon to pick up Luke in one of the most fortunate turn of events for young Luke.  Quite amazing in retrospect.

This brings me to my quandary.  What does Darth Vader think of Luke's amazing feat?  The next time Luke meets up with Vader, which is in Return of the Jedi, they talk about good and evil and family issues.  Mainly doing the usual good guy / bad guy schtick.  Not once did Vader ask how in the hell did you survive the 1,000 foot drop into the great unknown?!?  Vader watched Luke take the plunge into a seemingly unavoidable rendition of an egg hitting concrete.  However, Vader goes on about his bad guy business without even a mention of how Luke survived.  Perhaps the Jedi act like smug magicians that can never reveal how they pulled off their illusion.  Too bad neither Emperor Palpatine nor Darth Maul had the benefit of an air vent to save them from their respective falls into oblivion.

Star Wars Concluded

Twenty eight years it took to finally tell the Star Wars story.  After much anticipation, I saw Episode III, Revenge of the Sith on opening afternoon by way of the Star Wars flu (playing hooky from work).  I had originally planned on writing up a review immediately after watching the final installment, but thought better of it.  The larger issue was that I knew that I would see this movie again in the near future, which would allow me a clearer vision of this movie.  Well, my second viewing occurred this evening, so I can now offer my opinions to you.

My review is spoiler filled, so for the three of you that have not seen ROTS yet, do not continue on

As opposed to retelling the story and my take on each plot twist, I have decided to itemize a couple positives and negatives. 

Negatives:
-Note to George Lucas:  Just because you CAN, does NOT mean you should.  Too many times, it seemed to me that GL was flexing his digital imagary and special effects when he really did not need to.  (Obi Wan riding the dragon, surfing on the lava,
-Oblivious to timeframe of original trilogy.  How is it that the Emperor and Yoda are decreped old men in Return of the Jedi, but merely 20 years prior, (which is nothing to something 800 years old), Yoda and Palpatine flip and jump with the greatest of ease?
-Any dialog with Anakin and Padme.  I cringed every time the two of them were in a scene by themselves. 
-Jedis got punk'd.  I know the Emperor is all powerful and all, but all the Jedis got killed a little too easily for me.  The Emperor knocked out 3 without breaking much of a sweat. 

Positives:
-Wookies.  Although they did not get enough screen time, the Wookies almost made up for the Teddy Bear picnic in Return of the Jedi.
-First appearance of Vader.  The coolest villian in the universe sheds his whiny adolecent and brooding teenager predecessors and dons the black helmet like he should.  Once the mask was in place, I got shivers down my spine.
-Lightsabers galore.  No shortage of lightsabers in this one.  Hell, I would not have been surprised if Jimmy Smits or Natalie Portman got into a duel. 

Summary:
By far better than Episodes I and II.  Better than Return of the Jedi.  But it falls short of Star Wars and Empire Strikes Back.  Most of the questions were answered and this fan boy saw enough Easter Eggs to be happy.  (saw what looked like the Millenium Falcon the second time around)

I'll leave it up you folks to post your questions and comments..

Movie Twists

With all due respect to Dr. Collins, I have decided to create a collection of the best movie twists.  Actually, I had originally planned on creating a list of best movie endings, but that would simply rehash the Usual Suspects.  Everyone has a Sixth Sense about these types of movies and would have a list with at least Seven movies leaving the reader feeling like there was No Way Out.  (All puns well intended)

I have ultimately decided to put a twist on the best movie endings list and provide my personal list of Best Movie Twists.  Spoiler Warning!  I will discuss the twist of these movies after listing the movie title, so read with caution.

I have listed each movie and a brief explanation why this twist was so awesome. (Highlight the text after the movie titles to get my spoiler filled commentary)
Usual Suspects - We are setup to believe that Keaton was the mastermind, Keiser Soze and Verbal Kent was the stupid one.  Turns out that Kent was Soze, and like that, he was gone.
Se7en - The levels of complexity needed to write the final outcome in this movie makes my head swim.  In one scene, we see Greed and Wrath personified, with Brad Pitt reacting to seeing his wife's head in a box by shooting John Doe in the head, which completes the seventh sin.
The Sixth Sense - We are so caught up in watching Malcom Crow trying to help young Cole deal with his visions of dead people, we don't even notice that Crow is actually dead too!
The Others - Had the wind taken out of its sails by the Sixth Sense, but still quite a twist.  Quirky inhabitants of an old house that are presumably being haunted by ghosts and in fact ghosts themselves unwittingly haunting others.
Planet of the Apes (1968) - George Taylor finds himself on planet completely habitated by apes.  However, this is not a new planet at all, it is Earth!
Primal Fear - Scizophrenic Aaron Stampler is accused of murder.  After his star lawyer, Martin Vail gets him off, we learn that Stampler is not the true identity, the evil Roy is in charge, and that he DID commit the murder!
Identity - 10 strangers are trapped in a secluded motel and get killed off one by one.  The strangers are not actual people, but specific personalities of a man with Multiple Personality Disorder "cleansing" himself of other personalities.  When it seems that the murderous personality is gone, we find out that the young (assumingnly innocent) boy personality is the murderous personality, and he is about to kill the last remaining personality.
The Game - Nicholas receives a birthday gift from estranged brother, Conrad, which is supposed to be a game, but leaves Nicholas running for his life.  In what should have been a fall to his death, Nicholas crashes into his own birthday party thrown by Conrad, proving that all the events were part of the game.
Chinatown - I don't think I can do this one justice.  Too many things going on to explain in a summary.  Go rent it.
Frailty - Fenton Meiks confesses to FBI Agent Wesley Doyle about his father's religious visions leads him to kill "demons" that have taken over individuals.  We learn that Adam has taken over the identity of his slain brother, Fenton and was behind these killings.  Then we learn that Doyle was really a demon, and that Adam is doing the right thing by killing him.
Secret Window - Mort Rainey gets a visit from John Shooter, accusing Mort of stealing his story.  Rainey made up the persona of John Shooter to help him commit several murders.
Fallen - An evil spirit, Azazel takes control over any living being to commit murder.  Detective Hobbes attempts to kill Azazel by poisoning himself while possessed by the evil spirit.  Just before Hobbes dies, Azazel "jumps" over to a stray cat to continue on.
Mulholland Drive - If I couldn't do Chinatown, did you really think that I could do this non-linear escapade?
Matchstick Men - Con man Roy Waller gets conned himself by his long time partner, Frank, who brings in a young girl to play the part of Roy's long lost (non-existent) daughter to help get Roy's money.
The Player - Hollywood producer Griffin Mill is being harassed by a writer whose script he recently rejected.  During a fit of rage from the harassment, Mill kills the writer, but it turns out to be the wrong one.
The Devil's Advocate - Lawyer Kevin Lomax dreams up an elaborate tale of being the son of Satan when he considers cashing in his integrity to win a case, although the devil still has plans to intervene, albeit subtlely.
Deathtrap - Playwright Sidney Bruel and his student Clifford successfully hatch a scheme to kill Sidney's wife.  In the process, Sidney steals Clifford's play to use as his own.  They end up murdering each other, found by mystical neighbor Helga, who uses these events in her own play which ends up as a smash success.
Crying Game - IRA fugitive Fergus escapes to London and creates the persona of Jimmy and meets another prisoner's lover, Gil. Turns out that Gil is a man, man!
No Way Out - Lt. Cmdr. Tom Farrell spends the entire movie trying to prove that he is not the mysterious Russian spy, Yuri.  At the end, you find out that Farrell is in fact, Yuri!
Arlington Road - Terrorist expert and college professor Michael Faraday is convinced that his new neighbor, Oliver Lang is a terrorist.  In a strange turn of events, Lang dupes Faraday into suicide bombing an FBI building and taking the blame.
Fight Club - (thanks Kristin) Tyler Durdin is actually The Narrator (he never has a real name, unless you count "Jack"). In a montage of flashbacks, we see that all the scenes involving Tyler, were in fact the Narrator by himself.

Letter to Hollywood

Dear Hollywood,

Stop blaming every possible outside influence for your latest Hollywood slump.  You sound like a 4th grade kid coming up with excuses why his book report on Treasure Island is late.  Just like the kid needs to learn about responsibility, you should look no further than your own inferior product.  Fix yourself before pointing your fingers elsewhere.  Piracy doesn't account for all of your short-comings at the box office.  DVD sales should enhance, not detract from, a movie's bottom line.  Video games and the Internet are just additional media outlets, so get used to them being around.  Allow me to address some of your issues that you have direct control over repairing...

-Ticket Prices: The time honored tradition of going to the movies becomes increasingly difficult each time the ticket prices increase.  Personally, I limit my trips to the movie theatre to matinee showings whenever feasible.  Opening night viewings are limited to a couple summer blockblusters.  Why should I pay up to 50% more for a ticket simply to see it at night?
-Advertisements:  Consumers are bombarded with advertisements in our everyday lives.  We tend to go to the movies as an escape from life, except we are forced to view commercials before watching any of your movies.  I don't fault the inclusion of movie trailers.  You are promoting your own product.  Ease up on the pre-movie commercials or lower the ticket price.  You can't have them both.
-Astronomical Salaries:  There's no question that big stars warrant a large price tag.  Just like major professional sports, the "event" is being held hostage by the star's salaries.  Perhaps a Collective Bargaining Agreement is needed?  Guaranteed salaries from a big name star will strangle the financial equation of any movie.  Will Smith or Tom Cruise will require enormous bank to star in your 4th of July blockbuster.  I understand that.  Its a huge weekend.  But those same salaries should not be needed for the side projects like Hitch or Collateral.  You have to ask yourself, do we really need to have Julia Roberts in our movie, or will Juliane Moore work?  (That decision alone saves you at least 10 million dollars)
-Fear of Risk:  Notice all the remakes and sequels lately?  Hollywood invests a lot of money in a movie and wants to guarantee success.  Both sequels and remakes insure a movie audience based on previous films.  Same goes for comic book movies.  The fan base has already been established, so let's fleece them for the latest eye candy on the big screen.  Not a bad strategy, but its growing tired.  Lost is the original, innovative screenplay in exchange for the same ol' cliche superhero origin story (except Batman Begins, which was freakin' sweet)
-Bad Movies:  Let us not ignore the obvious.  Lately, movies are mediocre with the occasional good movie and infrequent great ones.  Throwing some big names in front of the camera does not a movie make.  Captivate me.  Is that too much to ask?  I would prefer to have fewer movies released each week if I knew that would equal better movies overall.
-Loss of Vision:  Entertainment is losing out to commericalism.  Seems like each movie has a fast food or soft drink marketing tie-in.  Makes you wonder if the intent of the movie is to tell a story, or to move product off the shelves.

I understand the movie making is still a business, but trust that movies can make their own money if they are well made.  If a movie is bad, no amount of marketing will correct that.  So what if my strategy sounds like Kevin Costner in Field of Dreams?  If you build it, they WILL come.  And we will all be better off for it.

Sincerely,
A concerned movie-goer

No Cell Phones in Theaters

National Association of Theater Owners (NATO) has asked the FCC for permission to block cell phone signals in theaters according to this article.  This could be the best news I have heard in a while.  However, the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association opposes this measure.  They argue that they are against any signal blocking technology that prevents using wireless devices in emergency situations. 

Cell phone usage is a relatively recent occurrence in relation to movie theater existence.  We went for several decades without cell phone usage in movie theaters, so this is not a drastic measure by any stretch.  If you absolutely must have your cell phone connection during a movie, then I would suggesting staying at home where you can tally up your cell phone minutes with reckless abandon.  The "me me me" generation that has to have every option available to them probably hates the idea of movie watching and cell phone usage as mutually exclusive, but get over it.  If you hate the idea so much, then don't go to the movies.  This way, you are getting back at those that put the cell phone restrictions in place by not giving them your hard earned money. 

I see this as a win-win situation.  Actually, just a win situation.  Any measure to improve the movie going experience is alright with me.  Movie theaters are running the risk of losing me anyway.  Although this is a baby step, at least its a step in the right direction to movie watching enjoyment.

Spiderman 3 Review

***Warning: Mild Spoilers***
Abby and I watched Spiderman 3 the other night (our 2nd movie of the year).  Abby thought it was OK, but I hated it.  I had so many problems with it, but to summarize my feelings they did to the Spiderman franchise what Batman and Robin did to kill the previous Batman franchise. Too much eye candy, not enough substance.  Too many villains and no character development.  Those that do not know their history are doomed to repeat it.

To be fair, I liked the physical representation of Sandman/Flint Marko.  I liked how Venom looked when Topher Grace's head was covered with the black stuff.  And.....well, thats about it.  The rest was an amalgam of non sequential, disjointed events.

Characters
-Gwen Stacy.  She was originally Peter's first girlfriend before Mary Jane.  Gwen died in a historically monumental event at the hands of Green Goblin in a battle with Spiderman on a bridge (which was cribbed from in Spiderman movie #1).  Her late inclusion throws off the sequence of events.
-Flint Marko.  He was a petty thief that had a heart of gold, which was mentioned in the movie.  However he had no connection to Uncle Ben's death.  Completely fabricated for the movie.
-Edward Brock, Jr.  One of the best villains in comic book history is diluted down to a punk who got his feelings hurt.  They at least got the part right about the suit jumping onto Brock due to his hatred towards Peter Parker.  The "suit" felt betrayed by Peter, so it attached to Brock for revenge.  Venom (suit + Brock) went on to harass and torment Peter and his family, which never happened.  It was that torment that made the character great.  Plus, Venom did not trigger Spiderman's "Spidey Sense", a plot line that makes Venom much more interesting.  Barely a mention in the movie.  Venom's lifespan on film is about 15 minutes.  They never even call him Venom in the movie.  The conspiracy theorist in me thinks that director Sam Raimi killed the best story line on purpose so the next Spiderman director would not use the Venom stories.
-Harry Osborn.  Not sure what this Green Goblin 2.0 thing was all about.  Historically, Harry uses his father Norman Osborn's GG gear after having relationship and school problems, which led him towards drug addiction.  His addictions triggered a similar muliple personality disorder like his father.  Much more interesting than just having flashbacks when he sees his father's portrait, huh?

Actors
-Kirsten Dunst.  How did she ever get work?  She's horrible.  Not to mention that Mary Jane is supposed to eventually become a supermodel after her "B movie" career.  I just don't buy her as Mary Jane anymore.  As a high school alpha female abused by her father?  Sure.  The struggling Broadway singer?  Not a chance.
-Topher Grace.  He comes across as his typical smarmy typecast persona.  Not what I envisioned for Brock.  In my mind, Brock is more of a brute with a chip on his shoulder.

Reoccuring Themes
-Maskless.  Can't a superhero or super villain go 2 minutes without taking off their mask? 
-Falling from building physics.  All the action sequences seemed to be a full acrobatic routine while falling from a building.  Spiderman is highly athletic and acrobatic, but that does not mean he falls from the rooftops slower than anyone else.
-Uncombed hair = Evil.  What a lazy motif!  The suit makes Peter evil, therefore lets give him a goth look with his hair in his eyes.  They might as well have given him a goatee and a sinister cackle.

The special effects were good, but not enough to cover up the lack of a decent plot and new paper thin characters, but I will still go see the fourth movie.

Cruise-ing

I caught some of Tom Cruise's interview with Oprah Winfrey this weekend.  The interviewed reeked of damage control.  Last time Tommy talked to Oprah we were treated the infamous "couch incident" which was when we got to see that Cruise was a touch crazy.  After spraying some angry comments at Brooke Shields and Matt Lauer, Tom's public perception went from "a little crazy" to "full on bat guano crazy".  This change in the public perception affected Tom's movies since Mission: Impossible III brought in a lot less money than originally predicted.  With Cruise's next big budget movie, Valkyrie coming out soon, I'm thinking that the producers want to hedge their bets and maximize their box office revenue.  So after a call to Oprah, Tom is treated with an image makeover.  He gets to look approachable by being comfortable in his own home.  He gets to set the record straight about his crazy comments last time around.  (Funny how he was so passionate about what he originally said at the time he said them)  After the interview, he looks like a family man thats just trying to make a living to provide for his kids who lives down the street...in his multi million dollar estate.

Although Tom came closer to this side of normal on the "crazy" spectrum, I still think he has a screw loose.  I did not see this interview as a redemption, I saw it as protecting an investment in an upcoming movie.  My hat's off to him if he can pull off getting America to like him again.