So I met this guy yesterday. I ended up at lunch with him and some work colleagues (long story).
What is interesting about him is what he has done. He is experimenting with a new way to promote and screen independent movies!
The name of the movie is The Cult of Sincerity.
The movie is posted, full length, on YouTube!
They have partnered to bring you free music through AmieStreet, and if you sign up for credit, you get the movie, and $2 goes to Fount of Mercy, a charity working in Africa.
Is this cool or what? And don't worry, there is an introduction at the beginning of the film that tells you how all this works.
Now, I haven't seen the movie yet, so I can't vouch for it being good or bad or anything... but then again... you can see it for free, and you don't have to watch it to get some free music... so it is a win win situation:)
Showing posts with label film. Show all posts
Showing posts with label film. Show all posts
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Monday, April 07, 2008
Heston's Passing and stuff...
Not much to write about at this point. Nora and I are working, and that is going well. Taxes were done a few weeks ago (waiting for the refunds and rebate to come:)
Charlton Heston died. You can find obits everywhere on the web. My favorites were from the Ain't It Cool News gang (they're posted prominently here)
If you are interested... my personal favorite Heston films are Will Penny (a western which blew me away, he was so good in that role) Treasure Island (made for TV, directed by Fraser, Heston's son. He captures better than any of the other portrayals the menace and fascination that is Long John Silver) and probably Touch of Evil (he anchors the film, providing room for the others to really shine).
I haven't seen Ben-Hur in a while, but I remember it being a great film. Off topic Marx Brothers joke... "I played a part in Ben-Hur once... a girl, she played the part of Ben... I played Hur..."
I did NOT like The Ten Commandments at all. I just thought the whole thing was to hokey, and Heston was VERY hokey, especially after he becomes Moses the Prophet.
Heston will be missed. He was a good man, with a real heart for issues. He was a legend, a true star, one of the last really.
His autobiography is called "In The Arena" because he said he didn't want to be a spectator in life, he wanted to do important, worthwhile things. He wanted to be IN the arena.
Charlton Heston died. You can find obits everywhere on the web. My favorites were from the Ain't It Cool News gang (they're posted prominently here)
If you are interested... my personal favorite Heston films are Will Penny (a western which blew me away, he was so good in that role) Treasure Island (made for TV, directed by Fraser, Heston's son. He captures better than any of the other portrayals the menace and fascination that is Long John Silver) and probably Touch of Evil (he anchors the film, providing room for the others to really shine).
I haven't seen Ben-Hur in a while, but I remember it being a great film. Off topic Marx Brothers joke... "I played a part in Ben-Hur once... a girl, she played the part of Ben... I played Hur..."
I did NOT like The Ten Commandments at all. I just thought the whole thing was to hokey, and Heston was VERY hokey, especially after he becomes Moses the Prophet.
Heston will be missed. He was a good man, with a real heart for issues. He was a legend, a true star, one of the last really.
His autobiography is called "In The Arena" because he said he didn't want to be a spectator in life, he wanted to do important, worthwhile things. He wanted to be IN the arena.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Oscar Night In Hollywood (by Raymond Chandler)
So tonight is the Oscars. I still haven't decided if I will watch them. I may tune in for the opening monologue and funny video stuff. I have seen a few of the films, not enough to judge if any of them are better than any of the others.
The Atlantic has this article up, written by the amazing, talented Raymond Chandler (who wrote the script for Double Indemnity, which is a superb movie). Chandler wrote it in 1948, and though a few things have changed (the studio system, some of the ways the Oscars are presented) the meat of the article is still applicable to today.
Not only is the article interesting, it is well written, and that is a very "entertaining" thing:)
His point is well taken. Film is an art form, but unfortunately it is so expensive that much of the "art" gets pushed under the bus of commercialism.
I think (hope really) that Hollywood has realized the importance of the writer. I certainly had that importance reinforced as I saw all the shows on TV I enjoyed replaced by "reality" TV... and just wait till next season. We will also see the results of the strike on the movie business, but not for several months.
So... that's my Oscar night post:) Enjoy if you watch, if not... it really isn't that important!
Oh, hat tip to The Daily Dish...
The Atlantic has this article up, written by the amazing, talented Raymond Chandler (who wrote the script for Double Indemnity, which is a superb movie). Chandler wrote it in 1948, and though a few things have changed (the studio system, some of the ways the Oscars are presented) the meat of the article is still applicable to today.
Not only is the article interesting, it is well written, and that is a very "entertaining" thing:)
In painting, music, and architecture we are not even second-rate by comparison with the best work of the past. In sculpture we are just funny. In prose literature we not only lack style but we lack the educational and historical background to know what style is. Our fiction and drama are adept, empty, often intriguing, and so mechanical that in another fifty years at most they will be produced by machines with rows of push buttons. We have no popular poetry in the grand style, merely delicate or witty or bitter or obscure verses. Our novels are transient propaganda when they are what is called "significant," and bedtime reading when they are not..
But in the motion picture we possess an art medium whose glories are not all behind us. It has already produced great work, and if, comparatively and proportionately, far too little of that great work has been achieved in Hollywood, I think that is all the more reason why in its annual tribal dance of the stars and the big-shot producers Hollywood should contrive a little quiet awareness of the fact. Of course it won't. I'm just daydreaming
His point is well taken. Film is an art form, but unfortunately it is so expensive that much of the "art" gets pushed under the bus of commercialism.
On the occasion I attended [the Oscars], however, one of the Masters of Ceremony (I forget which—there was a steady stream of them, like bus passengers) announced that there would be no intermission this year and that they would proceed immediately to the important part of the program.
Let me repeat, the important part of the program.
Perverse fellow that I am, I found myself intrigued by the unimportant part of the program also. I found my sympathies engaged by the lesser ingredients of picture-making, some of which have been enumerated above. I was intrigued by the efficiently quick on-and-off that was given to these minnows of the picture business; by their nervous attempts via the microphone to give most of the credit for their work to some stuffed shirt in a corner office; by the fact that technical developments which may mean many millions of dollars to the industry, and may on occasion influence the whole procedure of picture-making, are just not worth explaining to the audience at all; by the casual, cavalier treatment given to film-editing and to camera work, two of the essential arts of film-making, almost and sometimes quite equal to direction, and much more important than all but the very best acting; intrigued most of all perhaps by the formal tribute which is invariably made to the importance of the writer, without whom, my dear, dear friends, nothing could be done at all, but who is for all that merely the climax of the unimportant part of the program.
I think (hope really) that Hollywood has realized the importance of the writer. I certainly had that importance reinforced as I saw all the shows on TV I enjoyed replaced by "reality" TV... and just wait till next season. We will also see the results of the strike on the movie business, but not for several months.
So... that's my Oscar night post:) Enjoy if you watch, if not... it really isn't that important!
Oh, hat tip to The Daily Dish...
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Guillermo Del Toro To Direct The Hobbit?!
So this popped up on Ain't It Cool today...
If Guillermo (Spanish for William:) gets to do this... wow. If you haven't seen Pan's Labyrinth or Hellboy or even Blade II or another of Del Toro's films... go out and watch one. His visual sense is amazing (not to mention his sense of story and characters). He'd rival Jackson as a creator of film worlds (and even Terry Gilliam, if that can be done!).
Here's hoping...
If Guillermo (Spanish for William:) gets to do this... wow. If you haven't seen Pan's Labyrinth or Hellboy or even Blade II or another of Del Toro's films... go out and watch one. His visual sense is amazing (not to mention his sense of story and characters). He'd rival Jackson as a creator of film worlds (and even Terry Gilliam, if that can be done!).
Here's hoping...
Monday, January 28, 2008
Screen Actors Guild Awards...
Well... on the "road to the Oscars" the SAG Awards tend to be very good predictors (at least in the acting categories). Last year they predicted all but 1, the year before it was a sweep. The "Performance by a Cast" also is a decent predictor of what the actors are looking at for Best Picture (and they are the largest voting bloc in the Academy). With the strength of the Coen's direction and the tight script, I think it is definitely a favorite for Best Picture.
Here are the winners...
Outstanding Performance by a Cast in a Motion Picture
'No Country for Old Men' --WINNER
Outstanding Performance by a Male Actor in a Leading Role
Daniel Day-Lewis, 'There Will Be Blood' --WINNER
Outstanding Performance by a Female Actor in a Leading Role
Julie Christie, 'Away From Her' --WINNER
Outstanding Performance by a Male Actor in a Supporting Role
Javier Bardem, 'No Country for Old Men' --WINNER
Outstanding Performance by a Female Actor in a Supporting Role
Ruby Dee, 'American Gangster' --WINNER
I do think Day-Lewis deserves an Oscar, whether for this film or for his "body of work". He is consistently the best actor I know out there, always giving a tremendous performance in roles that are as different as oil and water. He disappears into a character, and everything about him changes, voice, manner, body language, and he always seems to internalize the character to the point of "becoming" him. Amazing.
Here are the winners...
Outstanding Performance by a Cast in a Motion Picture
'No Country for Old Men' --WINNER
Outstanding Performance by a Male Actor in a Leading Role
Daniel Day-Lewis, 'There Will Be Blood' --WINNER
Outstanding Performance by a Female Actor in a Leading Role
Julie Christie, 'Away From Her' --WINNER
Outstanding Performance by a Male Actor in a Supporting Role
Javier Bardem, 'No Country for Old Men' --WINNER
Outstanding Performance by a Female Actor in a Supporting Role
Ruby Dee, 'American Gangster' --WINNER
I do think Day-Lewis deserves an Oscar, whether for this film or for his "body of work". He is consistently the best actor I know out there, always giving a tremendous performance in roles that are as different as oil and water. He disappears into a character, and everything about him changes, voice, manner, body language, and he always seems to internalize the character to the point of "becoming" him. Amazing.
Friday, January 25, 2008
What Is The Difference Between A Film Director and Producer?
A lot of people ask a variation on the same question... what is the difference between a director and a producer?
The answer is a bit complicated, and the lines have been blurred a lot after the demise of the old studio system.
In the old days, the director was the one who took a script, actors and various other technical people, and put what was in the script onto film. He would rehearse the actors, tell them where to stand, how to say a line. He would talk with the cinematographer about how to set the lights. He would get involved with the costumes and sets.
He would not, however, have much input in the script itself, and he would not have much of a choice of what shots he took. The director had to make sure that each scene had certain angles and close-ups so that the editor would have a full choice in how the shots fit together. The director would not have any input in the editing process.
This is why old films tend to look very similar. A scene will start with a shot of the room. Then someone will enter. Two people will talk, and we see a shot of both of them, then shots of each in close-up as they talk. Shots don't move very much.
Directors always followed a formula. Master shot (the shot of the whole scene) close ups of each actor in the scene, and shots of action going from one scene to the next. Shots couldn't move to much because you might cause a problem with continuity for the editor (who would put a scene together from the elements the director shot) and you had to give the editor the maximum flexibility so that he could pick and choose what he needed to make a scene (and ultimately a film) work.
The producer was the one who found a script (or suggested an idea to a writer) pitched the idea and script to the studio, hired the director and actors and other crew and oversaw the editing and scoring and other post-production activities.
The producer was the man in charge. He often didn't do anything in particular (like set up a shot or choose a take in the editing process) but he would oversee everything, and the movie was usually his baby. He would make the final decisions, and had the final word on everything. A director might shoot a film every month or two, but a producer would be working on a film for several months, overseeing it from beginning to end. The producer could fire the director at any time (Gone with the Wind had at least 2 directors).
Now the roles have changed somewhat. A producer is still the one who oversees everything, and often still has final control over what is released. But the director has much more control over the creative aspects of film. A producer will often find a script, and then find a director who will mold the script and the other elements to fit his artistic vision. The director will work with the editor to make sure the film goes together properly (this is what allows for more creative shots and movement of the camera).
The producer will still have input, and will usually organize everything and work on the marketing, getting investors and other things so that the director doesn't have to worry about them, but he won't creatively impact the film as much.
The old style system does survive in TV shows.
If you would like to find out a bit more, check out the Wikipedia articles on Film Director and Film Producer.
The answer is a bit complicated, and the lines have been blurred a lot after the demise of the old studio system.
In the old days, the director was the one who took a script, actors and various other technical people, and put what was in the script onto film. He would rehearse the actors, tell them where to stand, how to say a line. He would talk with the cinematographer about how to set the lights. He would get involved with the costumes and sets.
He would not, however, have much input in the script itself, and he would not have much of a choice of what shots he took. The director had to make sure that each scene had certain angles and close-ups so that the editor would have a full choice in how the shots fit together. The director would not have any input in the editing process.
This is why old films tend to look very similar. A scene will start with a shot of the room. Then someone will enter. Two people will talk, and we see a shot of both of them, then shots of each in close-up as they talk. Shots don't move very much.
Directors always followed a formula. Master shot (the shot of the whole scene) close ups of each actor in the scene, and shots of action going from one scene to the next. Shots couldn't move to much because you might cause a problem with continuity for the editor (who would put a scene together from the elements the director shot) and you had to give the editor the maximum flexibility so that he could pick and choose what he needed to make a scene (and ultimately a film) work.
The producer was the one who found a script (or suggested an idea to a writer) pitched the idea and script to the studio, hired the director and actors and other crew and oversaw the editing and scoring and other post-production activities.
The producer was the man in charge. He often didn't do anything in particular (like set up a shot or choose a take in the editing process) but he would oversee everything, and the movie was usually his baby. He would make the final decisions, and had the final word on everything. A director might shoot a film every month or two, but a producer would be working on a film for several months, overseeing it from beginning to end. The producer could fire the director at any time (Gone with the Wind had at least 2 directors).
Now the roles have changed somewhat. A producer is still the one who oversees everything, and often still has final control over what is released. But the director has much more control over the creative aspects of film. A producer will often find a script, and then find a director who will mold the script and the other elements to fit his artistic vision. The director will work with the editor to make sure the film goes together properly (this is what allows for more creative shots and movement of the camera).
The producer will still have input, and will usually organize everything and work on the marketing, getting investors and other things so that the director doesn't have to worry about them, but he won't creatively impact the film as much.
The old style system does survive in TV shows.
If you would like to find out a bit more, check out the Wikipedia articles on Film Director and Film Producer.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
The Oscar Nominees Announced
Well... It's that time of the year again. I don't know what is going to happen with the Oscar show (they say they are putting together 2 versions, one with writers, one without).
However, here's the list.
My thoughts are not all that interesting this time around. I saw only 1 of the Best Picture nominees... and I didn't really like it. Juno is a good film, well written, well acted, competently directed... but I didn't like it. It is to amoral, to smarmy and it really depressed me. Is this what kids are like now? Or at least what they aspire to be? We're doomed...
That said, I have heard good things about No Country for Old Men and There Will Be Blood (both violent films dealing with undesirable characters). Atonment won the Golden Globe, for what it's worth.
And I guess that is indicative of the way I feel about the Oscars this year. I have seen maybe 6 or 7 of the films nominated (Go Ratatouille!) I saw none of the Best Actor performances, 1 or 2 of the others.
It seems that my taste and the Oscar nominators taste has parted ways. Although I did like Sicko, and kind of hope Moore wins for Best Documentary... and I'm certainly not liberal:)
I do plan to check out a couple nominees. There Will Be Blood interests me. So does Eastern Promises and In The Valley of Elah. Even The Assasination of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford sounds intriguing (I am a sucker for westerns).
But even those are more because I want to see what the hype is about, not because they look so wonderful.
I think it is worth noting that none of the films nominated for the top 5 awards were big hits. Juno was a modest hit, and probably the most popular of the bunch. American Gangster was #1 it's opening week, but fell off after that (a great film by the way, especially if you like police procedurals).
In fact, I counted 9, maybe 10 films that were actually blockbusters among the whole slew of nominees.
Now, I will be the first to argue that just because something is popular doesn't mean it is good or noteworthy, or the best at it's craft. But I will say that it seems that people now equate "good, noteworthy, artistic, top of its craft" with unpopular.
So... I may watch the Oscars. But this may be the first year in quite a while that I don't. I have better things to do for 4 hours anyway...
However, here's the list.
My thoughts are not all that interesting this time around. I saw only 1 of the Best Picture nominees... and I didn't really like it. Juno is a good film, well written, well acted, competently directed... but I didn't like it. It is to amoral, to smarmy and it really depressed me. Is this what kids are like now? Or at least what they aspire to be? We're doomed...
That said, I have heard good things about No Country for Old Men and There Will Be Blood (both violent films dealing with undesirable characters). Atonment won the Golden Globe, for what it's worth.
And I guess that is indicative of the way I feel about the Oscars this year. I have seen maybe 6 or 7 of the films nominated (Go Ratatouille!) I saw none of the Best Actor performances, 1 or 2 of the others.
It seems that my taste and the Oscar nominators taste has parted ways. Although I did like Sicko, and kind of hope Moore wins for Best Documentary... and I'm certainly not liberal:)
I do plan to check out a couple nominees. There Will Be Blood interests me. So does Eastern Promises and In The Valley of Elah. Even The Assasination of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford sounds intriguing (I am a sucker for westerns).
But even those are more because I want to see what the hype is about, not because they look so wonderful.
I think it is worth noting that none of the films nominated for the top 5 awards were big hits. Juno was a modest hit, and probably the most popular of the bunch. American Gangster was #1 it's opening week, but fell off after that (a great film by the way, especially if you like police procedurals).
In fact, I counted 9, maybe 10 films that were actually blockbusters among the whole slew of nominees.
Now, I will be the first to argue that just because something is popular doesn't mean it is good or noteworthy, or the best at it's craft. But I will say that it seems that people now equate "good, noteworthy, artistic, top of its craft" with unpopular.
So... I may watch the Oscars. But this may be the first year in quite a while that I don't. I have better things to do for 4 hours anyway...
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
Thursday, January 03, 2008
Indiana in Vanity Fair
I love the Indiana Jones movies. All 3. I am looking forward to renting and seeing the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles.
And I am looking forward to this May when the next installment comes out!
Vanity Fair has an interesting look at the creators behind Indiana Jones, and a few spoilers on the movie (as well as pictures!).
Enjoy!
And I am looking forward to this May when the next installment comes out!
Vanity Fair has an interesting look at the creators behind Indiana Jones, and a few spoilers on the movie (as well as pictures!).
Enjoy!
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Jackson to Produce "The Hobbit"!
For all you Lord of the Rings Fans...
New Line has had some very bad luck this year, film release wise. "The Golden Compass" won't do as well as expected, and several other films, some very good, have underperformed as well.
"The Hobbit" will be a cash cow... but we have to wait till 2010... I'll be in line!
Relations between Jackson and New Line had soured after "Rings," despite a collective worldwide box office gross of nearly $3 billion — an enormous success. The two sides nevertheless were able to reconcile, with Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios (MGM) splitting "The Hobbit" 50/50, spokesmen for both studios said Tuesday.
"I'm very pleased that we've been able to put our differences behind us, so that we may begin a new chapter with our old friends at New Line," Jackson said in a statement. "We are delighted to continue our journey through Middle Earth."
Two "Hobbit" films are scheduled to be shot simultaneously, similar to how the three "Lord of the Rings" films were made. Production is set to begin in 2009 with a released planned for 2010, with the sequel scheduled for a 2011 release.
New Line has had some very bad luck this year, film release wise. "The Golden Compass" won't do as well as expected, and several other films, some very good, have underperformed as well.
"The Hobbit" will be a cash cow... but we have to wait till 2010... I'll be in line!
So I Saw A Christmas Carol - 1984...
So... I finally saw the 1984 version of A Christmas Carol starring George C. Scott.
I enjoyed it. I was impressed by Scott, a different portrayal than Patrick Stewart or Michael Caine. I think I still like the Patrick Stewart portrayal the best, but I did like Scott. He is gruff, mean, unlikeable. He plays it more inward, Stewart and Caine more outward (showing the difference between American and British acting technique). It was interesting to see how the same character can be played differently by very good actors, and each seems perfect for the part. They also found good actors who looked like Scott to play the younger versions of Scrooge (and even the father looked like him a bit.) One problem... Scott is trying to do a British accent, but it doesn't really stick. But I forgive him, I didn't notice much:)
The effects were definitely not as seamless as the Muppet version or the Stewart version, mostly because they were physical effects, lighting effects, or superimposed images (Marley in the door knocker, walking up stairs, the ghosts moving in time etc.) I don't fault the film for this, it was made in 1984:) I noticed, by the way, that Jacob Marley never blinks... freaky. They were quite good physical effects, except for one shot of the Ghost of Christmas Yet To Come moving across the screen... it looked like a man in a cloak on a dolly.
I thought the Ghost of Christmas Present was a bit to gruff, not joyful enough. It was similar to the whole film, it was very concerned with making sure you got the point. Scrooge says things to himself that should have been left in images ("those are my things") and the music was a bit overpowering. Subtlety is a wonderful thing. Yes, the Stewart version dumbs down some language, but it keeps that subtlety in the theme and message.
The Ghosts... Past was... fine. In the book it is described as a child who looks old. This was a woman... looked like a woman not a child. Whatever. Present... I thought was gruff, a bit less cheery than I like. Future... wooden and physical (you can tell they were going for an effect that would be easy now) but other than that, which is a result, again, of when it was made... I found the "voice" to be rather annoying. I like the silent, dark cloaked figure that looks like death idea.
I did like the Crachitt familiy portrayal all the way around. And Fred and his wife. "Tight as a drum".
But those are minor squabbles. It was a good film, well done, nicely filmed, well acted.
I still like the Stewart version best. I'll have to see that one again to make sure. But this was a worthy version, and definitely in the top 2.
I enjoyed it. I was impressed by Scott, a different portrayal than Patrick Stewart or Michael Caine. I think I still like the Patrick Stewart portrayal the best, but I did like Scott. He is gruff, mean, unlikeable. He plays it more inward, Stewart and Caine more outward (showing the difference between American and British acting technique). It was interesting to see how the same character can be played differently by very good actors, and each seems perfect for the part. They also found good actors who looked like Scott to play the younger versions of Scrooge (and even the father looked like him a bit.) One problem... Scott is trying to do a British accent, but it doesn't really stick. But I forgive him, I didn't notice much:)
The effects were definitely not as seamless as the Muppet version or the Stewart version, mostly because they were physical effects, lighting effects, or superimposed images (Marley in the door knocker, walking up stairs, the ghosts moving in time etc.) I don't fault the film for this, it was made in 1984:) I noticed, by the way, that Jacob Marley never blinks... freaky. They were quite good physical effects, except for one shot of the Ghost of Christmas Yet To Come moving across the screen... it looked like a man in a cloak on a dolly.
I thought the Ghost of Christmas Present was a bit to gruff, not joyful enough. It was similar to the whole film, it was very concerned with making sure you got the point. Scrooge says things to himself that should have been left in images ("those are my things") and the music was a bit overpowering. Subtlety is a wonderful thing. Yes, the Stewart version dumbs down some language, but it keeps that subtlety in the theme and message.
The Ghosts... Past was... fine. In the book it is described as a child who looks old. This was a woman... looked like a woman not a child. Whatever. Present... I thought was gruff, a bit less cheery than I like. Future... wooden and physical (you can tell they were going for an effect that would be easy now) but other than that, which is a result, again, of when it was made... I found the "voice" to be rather annoying. I like the silent, dark cloaked figure that looks like death idea.
I did like the Crachitt familiy portrayal all the way around. And Fred and his wife. "Tight as a drum".
But those are minor squabbles. It was a good film, well done, nicely filmed, well acted.
I still like the Stewart version best. I'll have to see that one again to make sure. But this was a worthy version, and definitely in the top 2.
Monday, December 17, 2007
Horton Hears A Who!
So... a new trailer is out for the Blue Sky Animation Studios film, "Horton Hears A Who!" from the Dr. Seuss book! Blue Sky brought us Ice Age and Robots.
A friend of mine is a lighting director over there (Blue Sky is headquartered in White Plains, NY) and worked on a couple of the shots in the trailer! He said he lit several of the Horton dialogue scenes, and the scene with the Mayor and a chandelier.
Enjoy!
A friend of mine is a lighting director over there (Blue Sky is headquartered in White Plains, NY) and worked on a couple of the shots in the trailer! He said he lit several of the Horton dialogue scenes, and the scene with the Mayor and a chandelier.
Enjoy!
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Christmas Films
These are some of my favorites.
Please feel free to post others in the comments!
Elf - Just fun, funny, good little message. Nora loves it too!
A Christmas Carol - the one starring Patrick Stewart. I know, many say the George C. Scott version is the best, and one of these days I will have to see it, but this one perfectly captured the essence of the book to me. The old Alistair Sims version is also great, and the Muppet version is fun (and reasonably accurate!).
White Christmas - yes, the story is stupid. The dancing and singing are fun! You can tell this wasn't a role written for Danny Kaye (originally Fred Astair actually), but he seems to have fun with it and makes some memorable moments happen. I have fond memories of this film.
Holiday Inn - Again, stupid story. Fred dances, Bing sings... more about the memories I have than the strength of the film.
Christmas in Connecticut - The 1940's version. For the record, this vision of CT is nowhere near what it is like now, and I kind of doubt it ever was that way. A funny screwball comedy.
It's a Wonderful Life - Nora doesn't like this one. It is a classic, and a great film at that. Great message, well done, funny, heartbreaking... I think all those who have had dreams about what they want to do identify with Jimmy Stewart.
While You Were Sleeping - Funny, romantic, crazy... reminds you why Sandra Bullock is a star (her more recent efforts might make you forget.)
Miracle on 34th Street - don't bother with the modern Richard Attenborough version. The original, with Edmund Gwen as the definitive Santa Claus, is funny and heartwarming and ever so much better. Gwen won an Oscar for his portrayal. And make sure you watch it in black and white. Color ruins the cinematography. Santa can be a way we introduce children to the idea of Jesus... just don't lie and tell them he is real:)
Home Alone - honestly, I haven't seen this since the 90's. But I remember it being funny:) Every kid wants to do this stuff to someone!
Die Hard - yes, it takes place on Christmas Eve! A classic action film, and darn good. If you liked the most recent outing, check out the original. Beware, not so great language abounds.
Some I don't like!
The Grinch - HORRID. Not funny, a waste of film and talent.
Christmas With The Kranks - funny at points, but what a horrible message about Christmas being about the parties, decorations and presents.
The Santa Clause Sequels - the original is funny and pretty good. The sequels are a waste of time.
Anyway, again, feel free to post your favorites in the comments! I left out the TV specials from this list, mostly because I don't consider them films.
Please feel free to post others in the comments!
Elf - Just fun, funny, good little message. Nora loves it too!
A Christmas Carol - the one starring Patrick Stewart. I know, many say the George C. Scott version is the best, and one of these days I will have to see it, but this one perfectly captured the essence of the book to me. The old Alistair Sims version is also great, and the Muppet version is fun (and reasonably accurate!).
White Christmas - yes, the story is stupid. The dancing and singing are fun! You can tell this wasn't a role written for Danny Kaye (originally Fred Astair actually), but he seems to have fun with it and makes some memorable moments happen. I have fond memories of this film.
Holiday Inn - Again, stupid story. Fred dances, Bing sings... more about the memories I have than the strength of the film.
Christmas in Connecticut - The 1940's version. For the record, this vision of CT is nowhere near what it is like now, and I kind of doubt it ever was that way. A funny screwball comedy.
It's a Wonderful Life - Nora doesn't like this one. It is a classic, and a great film at that. Great message, well done, funny, heartbreaking... I think all those who have had dreams about what they want to do identify with Jimmy Stewart.
While You Were Sleeping - Funny, romantic, crazy... reminds you why Sandra Bullock is a star (her more recent efforts might make you forget.)
Miracle on 34th Street - don't bother with the modern Richard Attenborough version. The original, with Edmund Gwen as the definitive Santa Claus, is funny and heartwarming and ever so much better. Gwen won an Oscar for his portrayal. And make sure you watch it in black and white. Color ruins the cinematography. Santa can be a way we introduce children to the idea of Jesus... just don't lie and tell them he is real:)
Home Alone - honestly, I haven't seen this since the 90's. But I remember it being funny:) Every kid wants to do this stuff to someone!
Die Hard - yes, it takes place on Christmas Eve! A classic action film, and darn good. If you liked the most recent outing, check out the original. Beware, not so great language abounds.
Some I don't like!
The Grinch - HORRID. Not funny, a waste of film and talent.
Christmas With The Kranks - funny at points, but what a horrible message about Christmas being about the parties, decorations and presents.
The Santa Clause Sequels - the original is funny and pretty good. The sequels are a waste of time.
Anyway, again, feel free to post your favorites in the comments! I left out the TV specials from this list, mostly because I don't consider them films.
Friday, November 16, 2007
Thursday, June 28, 2007
SiCKO
So I got my hands on a pre-release copy of Michael Moore's latest film SiCKO. Don't ask how...:)
Anyway, just finished watching it. Let me just say this... It is one of his best, at least as good as Bowling for Columbine, and in terms of the arguments he makes, better.
You will hear all sorts of criticisms of the film. He painted to rosy a picture of Cuba, France, England and Canada or whatever.
That doesn't matter. Maybe universal health care isn't as rosy as he says. But if it is half as good, it is WAY better than the health care we have here. Having had to deal with it on a limited basis, I know that I would hate to have to deal with it on any level ever again. Our system is broken beyond repair. Period. And I think any private, for profit system will inherently have the same problems (which is part of his argument).
He does a great job of appealing to emotion. He does a great job of being fair. He doesn't hit you over the head, he just shares stories, and asks questions, and let's you hear from people living under universal health care in several countries.
His message isn't just one of universal health care (an idea I am very open to after seeing the film) he is also sending the message that all sorts of "costs of living" are actually ways for the government and businesses to exercise control over people. Most have huge college debt, need health insurance, and so are less likely to quit their jobs even though they hate it, and end up being apathetic about changing the government or messing with the system. I think that rings true...
Anyway, you owe it to yourself to see the film. Forget Die Hard, or Transformers, or any other film this weekend or next.
Let's start the revolution...
Anyway, just finished watching it. Let me just say this... It is one of his best, at least as good as Bowling for Columbine, and in terms of the arguments he makes, better.
You will hear all sorts of criticisms of the film. He painted to rosy a picture of Cuba, France, England and Canada or whatever.
That doesn't matter. Maybe universal health care isn't as rosy as he says. But if it is half as good, it is WAY better than the health care we have here. Having had to deal with it on a limited basis, I know that I would hate to have to deal with it on any level ever again. Our system is broken beyond repair. Period. And I think any private, for profit system will inherently have the same problems (which is part of his argument).
He does a great job of appealing to emotion. He does a great job of being fair. He doesn't hit you over the head, he just shares stories, and asks questions, and let's you hear from people living under universal health care in several countries.
His message isn't just one of universal health care (an idea I am very open to after seeing the film) he is also sending the message that all sorts of "costs of living" are actually ways for the government and businesses to exercise control over people. Most have huge college debt, need health insurance, and so are less likely to quit their jobs even though they hate it, and end up being apathetic about changing the government or messing with the system. I think that rings true...
Anyway, you owe it to yourself to see the film. Forget Die Hard, or Transformers, or any other film this weekend or next.
Let's start the revolution...
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Scene from SiCKO...
Let me say, right off the bat, that I loved "Bowling for Columbine". I think more people on the "right" should see the movie. I don't necessarily agree with some of the tactics of the film, but it made me think, and I think it actually had a very balanced view of violence and guns and American culture. Not perfect, but fun, interesting and thought provoking.
I did not see "Farenheit 9/11", though I have heard that it lacked what made "Columbine" and the earlier "Roger and Me" so good.
Well, it appears that Michael Moore has come back to form. His latest filme "SICKO", which is about the American health industry and the problems it has, is getting lots of buzz. The film seems to pull no punches, though it probably does offer a slightly rosy view of the more socialist health systems in Canada, England and Cuba. It's main point, however, seems to be the failings and greed that are in the American system.
Well, here is a scene from the film...
I am looking forward to it.
I did not see "Farenheit 9/11", though I have heard that it lacked what made "Columbine" and the earlier "Roger and Me" so good.
Well, it appears that Michael Moore has come back to form. His latest filme "SICKO", which is about the American health industry and the problems it has, is getting lots of buzz. The film seems to pull no punches, though it probably does offer a slightly rosy view of the more socialist health systems in Canada, England and Cuba. It's main point, however, seems to be the failings and greed that are in the American system.
Well, here is a scene from the film...
I am looking forward to it.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Pan's Labyrinth - REVIEW
Pan’s Labyrinth
Nominated for 8 Academy Awards, including Best Foreign Language Film
Director: Guillermo Del Toro
In Spanish with English sub-titles
I was stunned by this film. I was prepared for it to be good. I was prepared for it to be a fairytale fantasy film. But I wasn’t prepared for how good, and I wasn’t prepared for the engaging real world side of the film.
The story is relatively simple. It is about a girl who loves fairytales, who, along with her pregnant mother, goes to live with her step father, a ruthless fascist commander in Spain during the 1940’s. The film is about her, and the rest of the characters, coping with pain and suffering, freedom and obedience, life here on earth and the promise of eternal life, responsibility and desire.
I’m not going to recount much of the story, as you can find that in other places. What is amazing about this movie is how seamlessly it moves between the real world of revolutionary Spain, and the horror and violence that is there, and into the realm of fantasy and fairytales. I found myself wanting to know what was going on in the fantasy world during the real world sequences, only to find I wanted to know what was going on in the real world during the fantasy sequences!
The movie is magical, but also brutal and honest. The real world sequences are about the fight of the republicans against the better armed and organized fascists. We see most of it from the point of view of what is going on in the fascist headquarters through the eyes of the heroine, the mistress of the household, and the fascist Captain Vidal. He is a villain, only concerned about his legacy. He is a monster.
However, some of the fantasy sequences are just as disturbing. I have always said that most fairy tales would be horrible to have to live through. Peter Pan is all fun and games when you are dreaming or reading about what happens. But if you were there, it would be terrifying.
Well, this is the same way. One character is a monster called The Pale Man, and he eats children. Pan himself is somewhat frightening, and you never know exactly what his motives are.
This is a fairy tale film for mature adults. It is not for kids, it is much to violent, and it doesn’t shy from showing it. But the reasons, and the themes the film is dealing with, necessitate that violence.
How important is freedom? How much do you question authority? How do you know when to obey? What is life really? Is it all easy? Even in fantasy, isn’t there risk and danger before you get the “happily ever after”? Isn’t that what this life is like, pain, suffering, and good times, that lead us into eternal life?
This is a film that made me remember what I loved about fairy tales and fantasy as a kid, but also engaged me on an adult level, and created an intensely satisfying experience.
Nominated for 8 Academy Awards, including Best Foreign Language Film
Director: Guillermo Del Toro
In Spanish with English sub-titles
I was stunned by this film. I was prepared for it to be good. I was prepared for it to be a fairytale fantasy film. But I wasn’t prepared for how good, and I wasn’t prepared for the engaging real world side of the film.
The story is relatively simple. It is about a girl who loves fairytales, who, along with her pregnant mother, goes to live with her step father, a ruthless fascist commander in Spain during the 1940’s. The film is about her, and the rest of the characters, coping with pain and suffering, freedom and obedience, life here on earth and the promise of eternal life, responsibility and desire.
I’m not going to recount much of the story, as you can find that in other places. What is amazing about this movie is how seamlessly it moves between the real world of revolutionary Spain, and the horror and violence that is there, and into the realm of fantasy and fairytales. I found myself wanting to know what was going on in the fantasy world during the real world sequences, only to find I wanted to know what was going on in the real world during the fantasy sequences!
The movie is magical, but also brutal and honest. The real world sequences are about the fight of the republicans against the better armed and organized fascists. We see most of it from the point of view of what is going on in the fascist headquarters through the eyes of the heroine, the mistress of the household, and the fascist Captain Vidal. He is a villain, only concerned about his legacy. He is a monster.
However, some of the fantasy sequences are just as disturbing. I have always said that most fairy tales would be horrible to have to live through. Peter Pan is all fun and games when you are dreaming or reading about what happens. But if you were there, it would be terrifying.
Well, this is the same way. One character is a monster called The Pale Man, and he eats children. Pan himself is somewhat frightening, and you never know exactly what his motives are.
This is a fairy tale film for mature adults. It is not for kids, it is much to violent, and it doesn’t shy from showing it. But the reasons, and the themes the film is dealing with, necessitate that violence.
How important is freedom? How much do you question authority? How do you know when to obey? What is life really? Is it all easy? Even in fantasy, isn’t there risk and danger before you get the “happily ever after”? Isn’t that what this life is like, pain, suffering, and good times, that lead us into eternal life?
This is a film that made me remember what I loved about fairy tales and fantasy as a kid, but also engaged me on an adult level, and created an intensely satisfying experience.
Monday, January 29, 2007
Amazing Grace: The William Wilberforce Story - REVIEW
Director: Michael Apted
Release date: 2/24/07
I have seen this twice. No, it doesn’t come out for another month. You see, Amy and I were invited to a test screening back in August, where I was really impressed with the film (as was she). And then, two weeks ago, we were invited to a pre-screening of the now finished film. And we were equally impressed.
This is the story of William Wilberforce. Who, you say? William Wilberforce is the man who spearheaded the cause of the abolition of the slave trade in England back in the late 1700’s and early 1800’s.
At that time the culture was much like ours now, very hedonistic, very sold out to pleasure and power. And on top of it, they had no desire to help those who were less fortunate. No desire at all. It wasn’t a matter of how to deal with them, Republicans saying the private sector should do more, Democrats saying the government should do more. There was no debate. No one wanted to help the poor. And slaves? Forget it.
And into this comes Wilberforce, and highly educated, very articulate, young wealthy merchant, who is in the House of Commons. He has an encounter with God, and almost decides to become a priest. However his mentor, John Newton, who wrote Amazing Grace, says to him that the work of God and the work he can do in Parliament are the same.
And so, into this climate of moral relativism and apathy, jumps Wilberforce. And the rest is history.
The story is amazing, the character is amazing, and the film is really good. The direction is quite good, not showy, but very careful, seemless in the way it flows. Apted is a well respected director, having done Coal Miner’s Daughter, Nell, and The World Is Not Enough and he is very equal to the task here.
The acting is also superb. Albert Finney, who plays Newton, is perfect. He is gruff, but also kind, strong, but also has a tender and broken heart over what he had done (Newton was a slave trader before he came to salvation). Michael Gambon, who you would know as the new Dumbledore in the Harry Potter films, is also amazing. Both lend a weight and gravitas to the film. Ciaren Hinds plays the leader of the opposition, and does a great job as well. All three lend weight and gravitas to the film.
But the other younger actors, Ioan Gruffud, Rufus Sewell and Romola Garai also do standout work. Sewell is perfect playing a slightly eccentric abolishionist named Thomas Clarkson. Garai, playing Wilberforces love interest and later wife, hits perfectly a 18th century woman, without seeming to be out of step with the 21st century. This is a tricky thing to do.
And Ioan Gruffudd is perfect as Wilberforce. He shows the galvanizing force that Wilberforce had, and yet the vulnerability he had as well. He also ages well, giving the impression of the many years that went by.
Others in the film are great as well, and make the film that much better.
The whole film is great. What is also neat to see is that it doesn’t shy from the Christian content. Wilberforce was a Christian, as were most of the abolishionists of the time. And Newton is a pastor. The film adequately shows this, and doesn’t back away, but doesn’t ram it down the throat of the audience.
The producer on this film is Ken Wales, backed by Bristol Bay Films, a division of Walden Media, which produced Ray last year. Ken is a committed Christian, who brought the series Christy to life on CBS in the 90’s. But he is good enough to realize that if he makes a good film with a great story, he doesn’t have to make it “Christian”. Other producers listed include Terrence Malick, of Thin Red Line and The New World fame.
This man, William Wilberforce, was an example to everyone of what it means to engage your culture and to be a Christian in the world. The effects of his work are still felt today.
Release date: 2/24/07
I have seen this twice. No, it doesn’t come out for another month. You see, Amy and I were invited to a test screening back in August, where I was really impressed with the film (as was she). And then, two weeks ago, we were invited to a pre-screening of the now finished film. And we were equally impressed.
This is the story of William Wilberforce. Who, you say? William Wilberforce is the man who spearheaded the cause of the abolition of the slave trade in England back in the late 1700’s and early 1800’s.
At that time the culture was much like ours now, very hedonistic, very sold out to pleasure and power. And on top of it, they had no desire to help those who were less fortunate. No desire at all. It wasn’t a matter of how to deal with them, Republicans saying the private sector should do more, Democrats saying the government should do more. There was no debate. No one wanted to help the poor. And slaves? Forget it.
And into this comes Wilberforce, and highly educated, very articulate, young wealthy merchant, who is in the House of Commons. He has an encounter with God, and almost decides to become a priest. However his mentor, John Newton, who wrote Amazing Grace, says to him that the work of God and the work he can do in Parliament are the same.
And so, into this climate of moral relativism and apathy, jumps Wilberforce. And the rest is history.
The story is amazing, the character is amazing, and the film is really good. The direction is quite good, not showy, but very careful, seemless in the way it flows. Apted is a well respected director, having done Coal Miner’s Daughter, Nell, and The World Is Not Enough and he is very equal to the task here.
The acting is also superb. Albert Finney, who plays Newton, is perfect. He is gruff, but also kind, strong, but also has a tender and broken heart over what he had done (Newton was a slave trader before he came to salvation). Michael Gambon, who you would know as the new Dumbledore in the Harry Potter films, is also amazing. Both lend a weight and gravitas to the film. Ciaren Hinds plays the leader of the opposition, and does a great job as well. All three lend weight and gravitas to the film.
But the other younger actors, Ioan Gruffud, Rufus Sewell and Romola Garai also do standout work. Sewell is perfect playing a slightly eccentric abolishionist named Thomas Clarkson. Garai, playing Wilberforces love interest and later wife, hits perfectly a 18th century woman, without seeming to be out of step with the 21st century. This is a tricky thing to do.
And Ioan Gruffudd is perfect as Wilberforce. He shows the galvanizing force that Wilberforce had, and yet the vulnerability he had as well. He also ages well, giving the impression of the many years that went by.
Others in the film are great as well, and make the film that much better.
The whole film is great. What is also neat to see is that it doesn’t shy from the Christian content. Wilberforce was a Christian, as were most of the abolishionists of the time. And Newton is a pastor. The film adequately shows this, and doesn’t back away, but doesn’t ram it down the throat of the audience.
The producer on this film is Ken Wales, backed by Bristol Bay Films, a division of Walden Media, which produced Ray last year. Ken is a committed Christian, who brought the series Christy to life on CBS in the 90’s. But he is good enough to realize that if he makes a good film with a great story, he doesn’t have to make it “Christian”. Other producers listed include Terrence Malick, of Thin Red Line and The New World fame.
This man, William Wilberforce, was an example to everyone of what it means to engage your culture and to be a Christian in the world. The effects of his work are still felt today.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Oscar thoughts...
So... the Oscar nominations were announced. My personal view on the Oscars is that they are very political, in the sense that the films and people that win (at least in the non-technical categories) often win because they schmooze the best, or have the most "edgy" statement or position on something or what have you. Very rarely is there a film or actor that jumps out as being The Best.
So I think that it is more of an honor to be nominated than to win.
Anyway... here are my thoughts on the nominations:)
Best Picture: I only saw one of these... so I would have to pick it:) Kudos to the person who guesses which...
Best Director: I saw a few of them. I have to say that Scorsese did a great directing job, and the film was quite good. However Paul Greengrass showed me what happened on United 93 and 9/11, and didn't politicize it at all. So I don't know. I think Scorsese deserves it for his body of work:)
Best Actor: Hands down, Peter O'Toole. Again, body of work. Didn't see any of the performances, so who knows how accurate that will be:) Expect the SAG winner to win (they almost always do).
Best Actress: Eah... didn't see any of them. Again, the SAG winner will probably win.
Best Supporting Actor: Alan Arkin. Just because. "Egermency, egermency, everyone please to get from street!" Seriously though, Wahlberg did a great job. Again, SAG will determine the winner.
Best Supporting Actress: Jennifer Hudson, because she came out of nowhere and upstaged Beyonce (which probably isn't that hard to do, but...) SAG...
For the rest... I have little or no knowledge. I think Pan's Labyrinth deserves any awards it can get. It blew me away. The sound editor on Apocalypto has been nominated 19 times now... time for him to win:) Cars is definitely the best of the animated features, but money does talk, so look for Happy Feet to stage an upset. I sincerely hope Al Gore wins nothing. That film is so full of errors... how can they nominated as a documentary? It is FICTION people! And I think it is very cool that Ennio Morricone is getting an honorary Oscar. He is a great composer.
So those are my thoughts. I have more, but eah... probably not going to bother to watch the awards. None of the films really pique my interest except Pan's Labyrinth. Seriously, that is an AMAZING film. Great message and ideas, great execution... just amazing.
So I think that it is more of an honor to be nominated than to win.
Anyway... here are my thoughts on the nominations:)
Best Picture: I only saw one of these... so I would have to pick it:) Kudos to the person who guesses which...
Best Director: I saw a few of them. I have to say that Scorsese did a great directing job, and the film was quite good. However Paul Greengrass showed me what happened on United 93 and 9/11, and didn't politicize it at all. So I don't know. I think Scorsese deserves it for his body of work:)
Best Actor: Hands down, Peter O'Toole. Again, body of work. Didn't see any of the performances, so who knows how accurate that will be:) Expect the SAG winner to win (they almost always do).
Best Actress: Eah... didn't see any of them. Again, the SAG winner will probably win.
Best Supporting Actor: Alan Arkin. Just because. "Egermency, egermency, everyone please to get from street!" Seriously though, Wahlberg did a great job. Again, SAG will determine the winner.
Best Supporting Actress: Jennifer Hudson, because she came out of nowhere and upstaged Beyonce (which probably isn't that hard to do, but...) SAG...
For the rest... I have little or no knowledge. I think Pan's Labyrinth deserves any awards it can get. It blew me away. The sound editor on Apocalypto has been nominated 19 times now... time for him to win:) Cars is definitely the best of the animated features, but money does talk, so look for Happy Feet to stage an upset. I sincerely hope Al Gore wins nothing. That film is so full of errors... how can they nominated as a documentary? It is FICTION people! And I think it is very cool that Ennio Morricone is getting an honorary Oscar. He is a great composer.
So those are my thoughts. I have more, but eah... probably not going to bother to watch the awards. None of the films really pique my interest except Pan's Labyrinth. Seriously, that is an AMAZING film. Great message and ideas, great execution... just amazing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
