FRED Entertainment

Author: admin

  • TV Or Not TV: 12/21 – 12/27

    tvornottv-header.png

    Welcome to another edition of TV or Not TV where I apperently beat myself to the punch.

    After breaking out the family copy of It’s a Wonderful Life and sobbing uncontrollably I was ready to come here and extole the virtues of this movie that I still love after all of these years. I drafted several paragraphs talking about this movie and just when I sat down to commit them all here at Quick Stop Entertainment I discovered, to my horror, that I had already written about the movie this same time last year!

    Even though I clearly was in a smiliar frame of mind this time last year I looked back at last year’s article and find that I really scratched the surface of why I enjoy this holiday classic. I talked a bit about the plot, I talked a bit about what the film means to me, but what I really found was someone that was clearly not writing from the heart but was instead writing to meet a deadline. It happens from time to time. I sit down with the best of intentions but, usually, I’m well behind and I just try to crank out a few paragraphs to get to the listings so I can put the week behind me.

    I have to say, however, that I just can’t do that this year. Even though I’ve written about it I also just can’t not write about It’s a Wonderful Life this year. I’ve already put in a few paragraphs that would be a decent buffer before my snarky comments on the shows for this week,  but for some reason I connected with this movie a lot more than years past.

    When it comes to watching this film you could always count on Sam Wainwright‘s telegram choking me up, as well as seeing all of the townsfolk helping George Bailey out in his time of need. This year, however, the waterworks began well before that. Seeing the young George walk in to Mr. Gower’s drug store I already started to get choked up. I’ve seen the movie more years than not, I know what is coming with every single frame of the film, but this year I found the same thing happening with several scenes.

    Part of what was happening with me might be the appreciate that can only come with age. It’s a Wonderful Life captures several era’s that truly were simpler  and more innocent times. Seeing these moments on film must have made me reflect on my own simpler times as a child. I am sure that many of you from my generation can remember leaving the house during a summer morning and having only two requirements: be back for lunch and be back before the street lights come on. Our parents could trust us out in the world, having our own adventures, having our own fun. In today’s world I wouldn’t trust my daughter to be safe 10 minutes alone in my front yard let alone riding all over the neighborhood on her bike. Simpler and more innocent times, indeed.

    Watching the film I probably realized that I’m somewhere in the ballpark of having an equal number of years behind me as I do ahead of me (at least I hope) and I see the things that George does, the sacrifices he makes for his family and the greater good, and I start to wonder if I too have been making the right choices in life that will benefit my family and the lives that I’ve come to touch. Have I had a positive influence? Have I contributed to the greater good? Who would think that a movie could lead to deep innner-self examination?

    There is, also, one solid reason to having the emotional reaction to this movie that I did. Two years ago my father passed and the holidays are very tough times as is. He’s not there to share my thoughts with any more, at least not directly. I miss him and so many of the eras depicted in It’s a Wonderful Life I remember my Dad commenting on when we would watch the movie, since he had lived through a few of them. Even though I hadn’t realized it at the time I now know that my wanting to watch It’s a Wonderful Life so much this year was because I wanted to reconnect with my father again, and through this movie I was able to.

    I hope all of you that are nice enought to take the time to read this column have a great holiday season. Appreciate your loved ones that you have around, watch the TV shows or movies that remind you of them if they aren’t, and remember truly It’s a Wonderful Life.

    Now that I’ve set my emotional baggage out there for your to read let’s take a trip throught he listings that are available this week.

    MONDAY

    ABC – 8:00 PM: I’ve still never been to Needles, CA but Snoopy’s brother Spike drops by from there for I Want a Dog For Christmas, Charlie  Brown!

    NBC – 8:00 PM: Last week I’m sure I mocked The Sing-Off however I watched it every night it was on last week and tonight’s finale has got me as well. I’ll put my money on NOTA to win.

    TUESDAY

    FOX – 8:00 PM: Did you miss Carrie Underwood: An All-Star Christmas Special the first time around? Yeah, me too. Gonna watch it this time? Yeah, me either.

    ABC FAMILY- 8:30 PM: With the holidays comes nastalgia, and with nastalgia I sugged Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. Trust me, the snozzberries DO taste like snozzberries.

    WEDNESDAY

    SPIKE – 9:00 AM: If you really want to torture yourself you can take in all the Star Wars Prequels back-to-back-to-back not once but twice in one day! Befre you do, however, I strongly suggest watching The Phantom Menace Review‘s full seven parts.

    CBS – 8:00 PM: Just when you thought there couldn’t possibly be time for another celebrity concert on TV The 11th Annual A Home for the Holidays with Faith Hill sucker punches you.

    ABC – 8:00 PM: If you haven’t gotten your Who on yet than you’ve got one last chance to take in Dr. Suess’ How The Grinch Stole Christmas.

    THURSDAY

    FMC – 3:00 PM: I don’t know who thought that Home Alone would be a great holiday movie to have playing for the next 36 hours, but it’s gonna happen regardless.

    NBC – 8:00 PM: Yup, it’s Christmas Eve so they’ve rolled out the Frank Capra classic It’s a Wonderful Life to try to make me sob one more time.

    TBS – 8:00 PM: For the 13th straight year Ralphie‘s quest for an official Red Ryder carbine-action two-hundred-shot range model air rifle in A Christmas Story is on a 24 hour loop to bring more cheer to your holiday.

    FRIDAY

    ABC – 9:00 AM: If you just can’t wait to see Ryan Seacrest on December 31st than you can see him as the host of Disney Parks Christmas Day Parade.

    SPIKE – 9:00 AM: SPIKE goes the A Christmas Story route with Bad Santa for 18 hours.

    NBC – 8:00 PM: Nothing says home for the holidays like a sack of  Schwetty Balls. Don’t believe me? Here’s your second chance to watch Saturday Night Live Presents: A Very Gilly Christmas. Yeah it’s hit or miss but it’s better than… um… I really don’t know.

    SATURDAY

    E! – 8:00 PM: I guess it was inevitable since the network was featured in Knocked Up that it would eventually air on E!

    BBC AMERICA – 9:00 PM: It’s the next to last installment of David Tennant in Dr. Who: The End of Time Part 1.

    SUNDAY

    ABC – 7:00 PM: OK, this may finally be the year that I watch The Sound of Music. Maybe.

    AMC – 8:00 PM: Another of my favorite movies I was too young to appreciate is Jeremiah Johnson.

    ABC FAMILY – 8:00 PM: Can someone out there please explain to me how Billy Madison qualifies as family programming?

    – Will Wilkins never thought it was such a bad little tree.

  • Opinion In A Haystack: Looking At AVATAR

    haystackheader.jpg

    avatarposter

    LOOKING AT AVATAR

    He did it. James Cameron pulled it off. All of the praise and positive quips you’ve read, heard, and watched are spot on. Avatar is a behemoth spectacle to behold, a mighty game-changing cinematic dinosaur made of fire and fueled by Jolt Cola. The all-encompassing 3D CG environment coupled with the “BEST EVER” motion-captured actors is all numbingly realistic to the point of confusion. Take one of the greatest mainstream directors of all time, let him gestate on a film’s production for over a decade, then stir in a well-used $300 million and you will get Avatar. This is hardly the misfire, dream-project that so many feared. This isn’t James Cameron’s Legend (even though I like Legend.) It has all the markings of a wet-dream-big-director-project gone wrong, yet in the equation Cameron remembered one thing, to make the movie for himself AND the audience.

    sigourney

    The film is a triumph not because it’s perfect, which it isn’t, but because it’s succeeds as grand entertainment. When is the last time the public received a movie of this caliber, based on original material, with this level of passion behind it? The fact that this is an original script with a production of this magnitude, sadly, gives it a nostalgia factor of 15-20 years ago, regardless of the technology. It is a very welcomed feeling that makes us glad that Mr. Cameron is back, and worried that he will go away, possibly back to the obscurity of making ocean documentaries.

    The film’s plot, blue aliens, and overarching themes have obviously been heavily criticized for the past few months. The horrid advertising for the film should be to blame for this. What marketing department in their right mind thought that advertising a movie as “game-changing” was a good idea? Is “backlash” or “cynicism” not in their vocabulary? What is curious about all the criticism is that they are all more or less true, but not really in a detrimental form. Cameron’s script is simply playing on conventions as old as storytelling itself, which does lend the movie to being rife with cliché, but it’s cliché done well. Let’s take a closer look at the criticisms, from the point of view of someone who’s seen the flick:

    ***************EXTREMELY MILD SPOILERS**************

    Criticism 1: “It’s James Cameron’s Smurfs.”

    smurfs_l

    The Na’vi are blue.

    They Live in the woods.

    They are peaceful.

    The villain (Humans) send a “Smurfette” (Sam Worthington) to infiltrate them.

    The “Smurfette” is won over by the love and way of life of the Na’vi (thank you Donnie Darko, and Wikipedia .)
    The “Smurfette” yearns to become one of the Na’vi.

    The male leader of the Na’vi tribe has prominent RED body adornments much like Papa Smurf. (yes, seriously.)

    Conclusion: Yes, it is sort of like James Cameron’s mega-budget-ultra-serious Smurf movie. It should be pointed out that Saturday Night Live called it first, even down to the Celine Dion/Titanic joke. SNL guessed Cameron’s next movie over a decade in advance!

    Criticism 2: “It’s the exact same movie as FernGully, even down to the message.”

    ferngully

    The humans have come to sap resources (Unobtainium) from the land.

    The male lead gets physically transformed into a being much like the natives.

    A female of the forest dwellers befriends a member of the humans.

    The man and the native fall in love.

    The humans continue to collect the resources, without care or regard for the natives.

    There is a winged creature that helps the protagonists along the way.

    There is a clear message about humans destroying nature for the sake of progress.

    Conclusion: Ok, so it’s “sort of” like James Cameron’s live action FernGully remake. It probably even has more thematic/character similarities that I forgot to include, however that doesn’t mean its plagiarism. Do you honestly think James Cameron cares about, or even remembers FernGully? If so, do you think he’s seen this?

    Criticism 3: “It’s Dances With Wolves on an alien planet”¦with Smurfs”

    southparkavatar

    I’m going to cop out and just say watch the South Park episode entitled “Dances With Smurfs.” I doubt anyone could explain it as well as Eric Cartman.

    Conclusion: As usual, South Park is pretty much on the mark.

    Criticism 4: “The Delgo Comparisons.”

    delgo

    Look at them.

    Conclusion: Yes, it is pretty similar… but what movie was in production first?

    So what does all of that mean? Is James Cameron a plagiarist? No, certainly not. FernGully and Dances With Wolves are both stories built on conventions as old as time, and none of us are going back even further to see what they were “copied” from. If you are going to insult the film for something trivial, how about for using a title font, and subtitle font that is way to close (if not exactly the same) to the corny, over-used font known as Papyrus. As for the Smurfs comparison, yes, that is humorously close. James Cameron even said he found it funny in an interview, right before he went on to insult Jar Jar Binks, which should help us to give him the benefit of the doubt. When all is said and done, even if you think he stole from these other things (which he didn’t) he took the elements and made something great with them. Do you really think for the past 15 years he has been in his basement watching FernGully, Dances With Wolves, and Smurfs DVDs, while sipping cognac and laughing maniacally about his deceptive future plans? Is the theft of FernGully really worth creating revolutionary new technology for? No offense to FernGully, but no, it isn’t.

    cameron

    This column, Opinion In A Haystack, is often overflowing with disdain for special F/X of the computer generated persuasion. Bob Rose (me) is not a fan of CG. However, the level at which Avatar’s environments work, and the nigh-photo-realistic skin texture and muscle movements achieved by Cameron’s team make it so real, that it’s just that, real. By the second half of the film, the effects aren’t even a question anymore. Avatar doesn’t feel like Sin City, Sky Captain, or 300. There’s not this constant search to see the seams because there is no seams, it is one giant cohesive visual. The 3D is not gimmicky either. It is only used as a tool of depth and space, much like how Pixar’s Up utilized it earlier this year. 3D most certainly adds to the whole experience, but even now I think 3D should still be considered a gimmick. Avatar would work in 2D just as well as it does in 3D, if it didn’t then the whole film would be a gimmick itself. I don’t really care how much Cameron, Spielberg, and Jackson back the tech of 3D, until it can be accomplished without the viewer having to wear glasses then it’s not “normal” cinema. To me there is a fear that some movies will start being produced ONLY in 3D with no 2D counterpart.

    gunfire

    All the performances in the movie are top notch, perhaps except for Sam Worthington being a touch bland. The shining star of the movie is easily Stephen Lang as Colonel Miles Quaritch. Once again we have cliché in his facial-scars coupled with his hard bitten disposition, but Lang pulls out all the stops and goes for broke with the cliché. He is easily the most enjoyable character to watch through out the run time, and his physical appearance is baffling. It looks as though James Cameron told Lang to spend the last decade in physical training to play this role, it’s hard to believe that is Ike Clanton from Tombstone, or George Pickett from Gettysburg.

    lang2

    The question of whether or not this movie will prove successful is not really a concern of mine. It’s classic Cameron through and through, right down to the “revolutionary” effects, and it’s a damn entertaining flick. The downfall of this will be the aura of “pretension” surrounding it, most people will walk in thinking that Cameron himself is saying that he reinvented the reinvention of the wheel and he’s damn serious about it. However, after reading most interviews with him, he is much more concerned with the quality-entertainment aspect then the need to change cinema. He didn’t spend 15 years on a useless light show, he spent it on a story he felt people would want to experience, and how to tell that story. Avatar works because Cameron worked hard.

    Thanks for reading.

  • TV Or Not TV: 12/14 – 12/20

    tvornottv-header.png

    Welcome to another edition of TV or Not TV where I think I really am Better Off Ted.

    Last season, when Better Off Ted had it’s original 13 episode run, I didn’t give the show very much of a chance beyond the first two episodes. This really isn’t a commentary about the quality of the show itself mind you. I have a lot of television to watch both recreationally and professionally so you I’m sure what you are getting at here. There is a lesson to be learned here becuase, as with any show, you really have to get past the first six episodes before you decide whether you are going to stick with it or not because any show needs this time to flesh out their characters.

    Thanks once again to the amazing world of online viewing and last week’s premiere I went back and gave the show a second viewing and was very pleased that I did.

    Clearly after the first two episodes the show emerged as a very crips comedy that is well written and well timed. Jay Harrington plays the titles Ted who narrates and guides us through the mechinations of conglomerate Veridian Dynamics. It is almost scary to see how well Portia de Rossi plays the incredibly frigid boss Vivian and the rest of the ensemble cast comes together incredibly well. The comedy is good, the writing and pace are tight, and they’ve even kept things topical with elements like pention cut-backs top make the show a little more relatable.

    Even though the show is very entertaining it seems to be suffering from one little problem: a lack of viewers.  It’s second season premiere episode garnered only approximately 3.8 million total viewers which unfortunately put it in 4th place for the time slot it’s in. This is not exactly great news for a sophmore season starter.

    I don’t really know what ABC is thinking, especially when you look at their schedule. They seem to mix comedies and dramas left and right and for most of December it would appear that the comedies of Tuesday night all have Christmas Special lead-ins for most of the month. Right now Better Off Ted is following the returning/re-imagined Scrubs in this holiday special clean-up hour. In it’s final season, after moving from NBC to ABC, Scrubs didn’t exactly do gangbuster numbers. The fact that it is an ABC produced show is probably what weighed in on the decision to bring it back in this new form, even if it does come across as a barely visible shadow of its former greatness. I don’t think it helps Better Off Ted that its lead in is this new version of Scrubs and I partially wish the schedule were the other way around. I definitely think that Better Off Ted would be better off as the lead in and may help raise the numbers for the nine o’clock time slot as well as provide a better lead in for zombie Scrubs.

    I guess what I’m trying to say here is that Scrubs is tollerable and if you can make your way through it you’d do yourself a favor sticking around after for Better Off Ted.

    Now that I’ve done my arm-chair programming let’s take a look at the other shows that are available for you to view even if you don’t want to view them.

    MONDAY

    ABC – 8:00 PM: So let me get this straight: if you don’t win a big reality show you can win an Oscar and get your own holiday special like Jennifer Hudson: I’ll Be Home for Christmas. Somewhere Fantasia Barrino is seriously pissed.

    NBC – 8:00 PM: Nick Lachey hosts the first Glee inspired reality train wreck called The Sing-Off. I’m sure a cappella never sounded so good… on paper. Strap in folks because this is an all week event.

    THE CW – 8:00 PM: If you’ve never watched The Vampire Diaries (like me) than you can watch all this week to get caught up (which I probably won’t). Yup, nothing says the holidays like the blood-sucking undead.

    E! – 10:0o PM: The Dragon’s Den concept gets coupled with the vapid of the entertainment industry and their desire to wash away their sins by doing good in the world in Bank of Hollywood.

    TUESDAY

    ABC – 8:00 PM: Holiday special purists may be happy to know that the selective editing may be left out in this airing of A Charlie Brown Christmas.

    FOX – 9:00 PM: Get step-by-step instructions on how to prepare a three course meal with Gordon Ramsey: Cookalong Live. Real handy being able to do this at nine o’clock at night.

    SYFY – 8:00 PM: If you never caught The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy and you have SyFy than this might be your chance.

    ABC – 9:30 PM: Layoffs on Better Off Ted? In this economy?

    WEDNESDAY

     ABC FAMILY – 8:00 PM:  Having a six-year-old daughter I’ve seen Happy Feet at least 20 times. I’m still not sure how I feel about the mixed message that a developmentally challenged penguin saving the environment. I know, right?

    NBC – 8:00 PM: Well if you haven’t yet taken in The Sing-Off than I’m sure that the finalists being forced to perform medleys from popular artists. Yeah, me either.

    CARTOON NETWORK – 8:00 PM: See how Christmas isn’t something bought in a store with How the Grinch Stole Christmas.

    THURSDAY

    NBC – 8:00 PM: It’s been 2002 since we’ve seen a holiday special from SNL so wrap your d!@k in a box real nice and check out Saturday Night Live Presents: A Very Gilly Christmas. Sorry.

    CBS – 8:00 PM: It’s the last episode before the big finale. Will the evil Russell actually make it to the finale intact or will he be in the jury where everyone hates him?

    FRIDAY

    DISNEY – 7:00 PM: Once again you can relive the magic of The Santa Clause and The Santa Clause 2 back-to-back.

    FOX – 8:00 PM: Fans of Dollhouse will definitely want to watch the second hour of tonight’s show that is titled The Attic so we’ll finally get to see where no one wants to go.

    CBS – 8:00 PM: They just don’t come cooler than Frosty the Snowman. I remember loving this special as a kid and being shocked at the animation as an adult.

    SATURDAY

    NBC – 8:00 PM: A Muppets Christmas: Letters to Santa may not be the best special out there but it is certainly better than…

    NBC – 9:00 PM: WWE Tribute to the Troops. If you’ve ever wanted to see how desperate a network was to have a holiday special (or to fill time) than look no further.

    BBC AMERICA – 9:00 PM: It’s a shame that David Tennant’s tenure as the good doctor is nearing its end so be sure to catch Doctor Who: The Waters of Mars.

    NBC – 11:30 PM: Hopefully guest host James Franco will let us in on the reason he’s been doing that soap opera tonight on Saturday Night Live.

    SUNDAY

    CBS – 8:00 PM: It’s the two hour finale of Survivor: Samoa and at press time I’m hoping that Russell is a finalist just to hear the jury rip him a new one.

    TNT – 8:00 PM: Another celebrity packed holiday special with Christmas in Washington is hosted by George Lopez and features Usher, Justin Bieber, Sugarland, Rob Thomas, Mary J. Blige and the legendary Neil Diamond.

    ABC – 8:00 PM: Oh look, The Santa Clause 3 is on an ABC channel… again.

    – Will Wilkins had yellow eyes! So, help me, God! Yellow eyes! 

     

  • Trailer Park: Jason Reitman of UP IN THE AIR

    By Christopher Stipp

    The Archives, Right Here

    I was able to sit down for a couple of years and pump out a book. It’s got little to do with movies. Download and read “Thank You, Goodnight” right HERE for free.

    Check out my new column, This Week In Trailers, at SlashFilm.com and follow me on TWITTER under the name: Stipp

    PUBLIC ENEMIES – DVD Giveaway

    public-enemies_dvdShoot me a message at Christopher_Stipp@yahoo.com to be entered to win one of a few copies I have to give away.

    In the action-thriller Public Enemies, acclaimed filmmaker Michael Mann directs Johnny Depp, Christian Bale and Academy Award® winner Marion Cotillard in the story of legendary Depression-era outlaw John Dillinger (Depp) – the charismatic bank robber whose lightning raids made him the number one target of J. Edgar Hoover’s fledgling FBI and its top agent, Melvin Purvis (Bale), and a folk hero to much of the downtrodden public.

    No one could stop Dillinger and his gang. No jail could hold him. His charm and audacious jailbreaks endeared him to almost everyone – from his girlfriend Billie Frechette (Cotillard) to an American public who had no sympathy for the banks that had plunged the country into the Depression.

    But while the adventures of Dillinger’s gang – later including the sociopathic Baby Face Nelson (Stephen Graham) and Alvin Karpis (Giovanni Ribisi) – thrilled many, Hoover (Billy Crudup) hit on the idea of exploiting the outlaw’s capture as a way to elevate his Bureau of Investigation into the national police force that became the FBI. He made Dillinger America’s first Public Enemy Number One and sent in Purvis, the dashing “Clark Gable of the FBI.”

    However, Dillinger and his gang outwitted and outgunned Purvis’ men in wild chases and shootouts. Only after importing a crew of Western ex-lawmen (newly baptized as agents) and orchestrating epic betrayals – from the infamous “Lady in Red” to the Chicago crime boss Frank Nitti – were Purvis, the FBI and their new crew of gunfighters able to close in on Dillinger.

    Jason Reitman of UP IN THE AIR – Interview

    If you’re ever in a room with Jason Reitman and your job is to interview him, you need to bring good questions.

    This isn’t to say that asking the young lad the usual, empty questions like “What was it like working with George Clooney?” won’t get answered. They will. In fact, he’ll answer as he scribbles in a small notebook that keeps track of his commonly asked questions. He’ll then make a pie chart out of it. It’s not a problem if you’re really interested in knowing what it was like working with George Clooney, but if you’re trying to have a talk with the man in a honest, open way it’s as distracting as someone who is chatting with you as they hammer out an e-mail in the background. UP IN THE AIR is a wonderfully composed film that deals with one man’s journey who is trying to realize his goal of being the ultimate road warrior while also trying to indulge in the affections of a woman on his terms before the terms unexpectedly change.

    UP IN THE AIR opens in select markets today.

    jason2JASON REITMAN: I was in the bookstore and at the time I was looking for something to read. I liked the cover and started reading it and it completely spoke to me.

    QUESTION: Jason, the ending worked for me but at any time during the making of the movie or afterwards was there any talk of an alternative or different ending?

    REITMAN: No. The ending was one of the first things that came to me. I wanted to make a movie about a character who learned the importance of companionship through loss not through romance. There plenty of times when you look up on screen and say you know, I am kinda like that myself. But, I wanted a film where ““ it was right at the moment when you realize that she’s unavailable that not only did his character realize that he wanted something but the audience wanted it for him.

    QUESTION: What has the reaction been to the ending because it took me by surprise?

    REITMAN: Mixed. Half the people think he’s going on the road to find someone and spend his life with them and half the people think that he’s going to stay on the road for the company for the rest of his life. And, that’s kind of what I want. I want half the people to think one thing and half the people to think another. That’s when I think I’ve done my job when the audience is split. Like in Juno. Half the people thought it was pro choice and half the people thought it was pro life. And Thank You for Smoking, conservatives thought it was theirs, liberals thought it was theirs, so I really want you to see yourself in the film. And the end of this movie is just a shot of clouds and hopefully it’s a moment for the audience themselves to think about what they want for themselves. It really doesn’t matter what the character does ““ he’s fictitious.

    QUESTION: You felt good about the casting and meeting up with George Clooney?

    REITMAN: Yes. Certainly. I wrote it for George and I told his agent that and he said you should go see him in Italy. I thought that was an awful idea. And I got to his house and he had not read the script yet and spent a couple days at his house in Lake Como and he finally walked in and said to me I just read the script and it’s great. It was such a wonderful holiday. He’s lovely. Everything you hear about him is true. He’s magnanimous and makes you feel comfortable. Unlike most movie stars who want to create barriers he breaks that barrier down immediately. Within a group of people he’s working with, he makes you comfortable and that’s really nice. I work with all kinds of people and part of the job is understanding people and learning how to manipulate people ““ that’s the whole job.

    QUESTION: Were you the victim of any George Clooney practical jokes?

    REITMAN: No, that’s funny. Everyone asks me that and I kind of wish now that there had been some pranks on set because I have nothing to report. Guess he pranks people that deserve it and I guess he liked us.

    QUESTION: Are you keeping track of our questions?

    REITMAN: I’m keeping track of every question that I’m asked. I am going to show you a pie chart of all the questions I’m asked”¦..asked about Ghostbusters 3 twelve times in the last week. Make it 13…

    jason3QUESTION: How tough was it for you to make George kind of detached, kind of a propagandistic? He’s kind of hard to like in the beginning but obviously at the end we feel great, he warms by the end of it. Creating this character he’s very cold and very standoffish. It was a rift I would think to take a character like him and make him not so likeable in the beginning and then shift that towards the end.

    REITMAN: It’s funny, because I find that sometimes audiences find Michael likeable from the beginning and sometimes they don’t and it has a lot to do with your perspective of his lifestyle. If you kind of embrace his version of life at the beginning of the film then he doesn’t come off cold, he’s more likeable. There’s something oddly exotic being around strangers all the time instead of the same old people. I don’t get along very well with my family so I really think that character in the film is just as much me. Really, it’s not about making somebody likeable or unlikable or positive or negative. I don’t really believe in that. I think that human beings are grey, not black and white. Unlikable just means that one person”¦.hey, someone married Hitler. We’re all grey. So I just want to humanize his life as much as possible.

    QUESTION: What did you learn after this experience that you didn’t know before?

    REITMAN: I think I’ve become a better director. Just over my three films I’ve become more detailed in my filmmaking. I think my first film was basically a satire and lived in an elevated reality and was much more contrarian and funny. And over the last few films, Juno and now this one I’ve become more and more interested in the human experience rather than just being funny. This film has as much of me in it as any film I can imagine. And a lot has to do with trusting my instincts.

    QUESTION: There is a lot of depth and substance going on in this film.

    REITMAN: We are all faced with what we want in our lives and who we want in our lives and it’s becoming a more complicated question because of technology that we view ourselves oddly closer to more people ““ let’s say we have 1,000 friends on Facebook but we not ever see them. And because of technology we are actually distancing ourselves. We are in a strange moment in time where we can be everywhere and nowhere at the same time. And that raises a lot of questions as to who are you going to be lose to and how are you going to be close to them?

    jason4QUESTION: I was just going to ask you about Twitter. I see you tweet quite a bit.

    REITMAN: Yes.

    QUESTION: I’ve noticed in the last few days you tweet as much as I do.

    REITMAN: Is it entertaining?

    QUESTION: Yes it is actually.

    REITMAN: Am I tweeting too much? Should I hold back a little? It’s a very tricky entertainment form.

    QUESTION: So do you think Simmons is your good luck charm?

    REITMAN: Yes. He is. Woody Allen and Alfred Hitchcock had all these beautiful women as their muses and I have J.K. Simmons.

    (Laughs)

    REITMAN: He’s in every movie I do. He’s just my voice.

    QUESTION: It seems like J.K. Simons and Jason Bateman are always in the same movie. Are they a package deal?

    REITMAN: That’s true. They were in Extract. That’s funny. Do you know what it is? They are just great guys. Bill Macy also. When you start to see people cast over and over, there is a reason why. It’s one, they are great to be on set and two, they know how to do their job ““ cine-technicians.

    QUESTION: You said this movie is about the closest thing you’ve written to an original screenplay. I’ve seen your previous interviews where you said you have distilled more of your own life experience into this book ““ how did you approach writing this knowing that you had a book and also wanted to diffuse your own elements into that. How long was that process?

    REITMAN: It took six years to write and to give you an idea, Alex is not in the book, Natalie is not in the book, firing on line is not in the book, the backpack speech is not in the book, the wedding is not in the book, cardboard cut-out is not in the book, so, the plot is very much my own. I took a character philosophy that I really identified with and went from there and made my own film. It was a journalist who actually put it best, and I wish I could say I wrote this but I didn’t, he said to me the book is about a man losing it and the movie is about a man finding it. I thought that was appropriately said.

    QUESTION: How much did the economy affect the film?

    REITMAN: When I originally started writing this I saw it as a satire, a corporate satire and as I changed and the world changed, I realized that I need to be more authentic in the way I approach people losing their jobs and I’m sure you know this but we put ads in the paper and got real people to come in and go on camera as people get fired in the film.

    QUESTION: After the success of Juno it is still difficult to get movies made. Do you still have to struggle to execute your own particular vision?

    REITMAN: Juno really changed my life. That was a movie that was made for $7 million dollars and went on to earn $230 million. It’s so strange. I wrote the script and no one ever pushed me on anything. Paramount really supported me and the vision of this film and it’s harder and harder to make these kinds of movies these days but they really went to bat for me.

    QUESTION: Even your co-producer?

    REITMAN: My dad you mean? Yeah, my dad went to bat for me too.

    (Laughs)

    QUESTION: Did you meet Walter Kirn at all?

    REITMAN: Yes. Walter and I are friends now. I make a cordial reach out to the authors that I work with ““ Chris Buckley, Walter Kirn, Diablo Cody and I are very close and now I work with Jenny Lument and Joyce Major in two different projects. I have become close with both of them. Never really want to get into a Stanley Kubrick situation ““ there’s no point. So, I reach out and try to make it very clear from the beginning that look a movie and a book are two different things and I’m making a movie here and not a book but I have a tremendous amount of respect for the work they did and try to keep them in the loop but a movie is not a book. Some authors feel like they have been kicked aside and I try and make them feel the opposite.

    jason1QUESTION: I flew back from LA this morning and I used my Southwest Avis card to cut in line. What kinds of cards to you have that you feel powerful ““ cards with points?

    REITMAN: I am proudest of my Academy card. It is the most exciting to me. I carry that everywhere proudly. I took a flight from out of Chicago and back in the summer once just to retain my status.

    (Laughs)

    QUESTION: You mentioned the Academy ““ just before you came in we were talking about the best picture nominees, how do you feel?

    REITMAN: I don’t like it. It could wind up very favorable for me. I think that ““ look it’s been around for 80 years and call me a traditionalist but I like that there were five. That made it a more exclusive club and Juno got in when it’s was there was just five and doesn’t have an asterisk next to it. I would like to have been consulted. I’m a member of the academy. It’s not like I voted on this. I just woke up one morning and there was a new rule and it seems to have been done for the wrong reasons. The Oscars is one of the few achievements that seem to mean anything and it’s just sad ““ I don’t know what they were going after. I don’t think GI Joe is suddenly going to be nominated. I don’t buy it.

    QUESTION: Isn’t it also about the music?

    REITMAN: I think the music category is a little messed up and I’ve had two movies in a row with great songs and songs that are ineligible. Songs that were unpublished songs. The song from Juno, and the song that Brad Smith wrote for this movie. Never published. It is an original song and rules just made it ineligible. It’s a Disney rule.

    (Laughs)

    CHRISTOPHER STIPP: I read in an interview you related a great story about when you first started doing a lot of this film work in high school when you were investigating something going on in your school and you literally had a camera flipped on you. It struck me as interesting that a process of something so simple could suddenly change the way you view something. To a larger point, how do you keep things fresh about the way you see yourself as a director to make sure you are not going to stay in your own comfort zone?

    REITMAN: I just try to keep myself open to new experiences. I love going into places where I know nobody and talk to strangers and hopefully that constant influx of conversation will keep me a little bit fresh. Everyone runs out of things to say.

    QUESTION: Do you think you will?

    REITMAN: Every director. Except maybe Kubrick. I think everyone does and it’s just a fact of life. Musicians, every artist does. And at that point I hope I’ll find happiness from something else.

    CS: That speaks to the point of the movie that you’re doing it because you need ““ these people that are getting fired depend on these little jobs to keep their lives in balance and once these things go away people are like in freefall ““ did it have an effect on you personally or the way you look at your job?

    REITMAN: Yes. A real sense of purpose from the filmmaking. I do it 7 days a week and it’s what I live for. That’s the only way to be a filmmaker because it’s too competitive. If anyone took that away from me, it would be really tough.

    QUESTION: You mentioned Jenny Lument. Are you in a position to elaborate on that project?

    REITMAN: A little bit. Basically she written a wonderful screenplay ““ I’m working on it with her right now ““ she approached the girl who wrote Rachel Getting Married and I just love it.

    QUESTION: A period piece? Contemporary?

    REITMAN: Contemporary. I don’t think I could make a period piece. I don’t really care about people who lived in the past. I don’t understand why their stories need to be told and retold. If you’ve ever seen someone making a movie with someone in a petticoat ““ it’s”¦

    (Laughs)

    To be fair, Thank You for Smoking was a time piece and we made it to that time. It was about 1997 and Joyce Major’s book takes place in the late 80’s, but I have a point of view on those because I was alive during that time but I won’t be making a movie about an era I don’t have some sort of perspective on. Maybe that will change. I don’t know. You never say never.

    jason5QUESTION: The fashion design, you had the uniformity of the hotel rooms you had the sparseness of Ryan’s apartment and then cue up to the sequence in Milwaukee where you had that arcane, older chalet type hotel. Can you elaborate more on that?

    REITMAN: We made a decision that we were going to make an arch across the film that costumes, lighting, extras, shooting, design, everything in which the beginning of the movie was going to be beautifully lit and stylish and shot slickly and over the course of the film it would become more and more warmed it up and by the end of the film, we’d be shooting hand held, using long lenses, and warm lighting. Even the extras at the beginning of the film were chosen because they were better looking and in better shape. We were looking for more average at the end of the film, walking through the airport, it’s hand held, people are dressed sloppy, people are mopping the floor, the lighting is not as pretty and the movie goes through an overall transition from slick to real.

    CS: There’s the old adage that a movie is made three times, once when you write it, once when you shoot it and once when you edit it. Did you find along those lines you were discovering those things you weren’t expecting?

    REITMAN: Oh yeah. The movie tells itself. It’s even more than three times. One movie changes every day. I like to consider it one long process. Yea, I want to get it to the screen and it’s going to require me to do all these different things along the way ““ involving many different departments making thousands of decisions a day, whether you know it or not and it’s a constant discovery process. In other words, the process starts with an idea and then ends with the same idea.

    QUESTION: What’s your favorite Ivan Reitman movie?

    REITMAN: It’s tough because what was his most import film? What was his most influential film? It would be a different answer for each. If I was to sit down and watch any one of his films right now I’d pull up Stripes. That’s the most fun to watch. He’s the most culturally impactful film is either Ghostbusters or Animal House depending on what you’re looking at. And his best movie is probably, Dave.

    QUESTION: Did you take that patch that you found at the TV station?

    arizonaREITMAN: No, I’m not that rude. It was crazy to see that. The Arizona state flag / Ghostbusters patch where this ghost picks up this symbol of the cross that was made out of the Arizona state flag.

    QUESTION: What are your thoughts about film critics?

    REITMAN: Film critics, I think in my case, are very important because they are the reason people see my kind of movies. In increasing noise, they are one of the last voice boxes that give people to see movies that are made for adults. There’s plenty of marketing out there for films that are made for kids. So as one of the few people who try to make movies for adults, I am very grateful that the critic still exists and hold weight.

    QUESTION: Bet you weren’t impressed with GI Joe? Not your best picture nominee?

    (Laughs)

    REITMAN: GI Joe? I liked the scene when he puts his arm out and the venom finds it’s way out. That was pretty cool.

    CS: If you are a director, does Michael Bay through school saying, “I’m going to make Michael Bay kind of movies?”

    REITMAN: I don’t think you go through school thinking you’re going to make a certain kind of movie, you just start making movies and say, “Oh, I guess I’m that kind of a director.” I would love to co-direct a movie with Michael Bay. I’d like to do a movie where he directs all the drama and I direct all the action.

    (Laughs)

    “From the makers of Transformers and Juno”¦”

    (Laughs)

    I think that would be awesome. I did float that to Paramount. I’m still up for it but not sure Michael would be up for it.

    QUESTION: Would you be up for MTV music video awards or movie awards?

    REITMAN: No, no

    QUESTION: Oh, full feature length

    REITMAN: Yeah, gotta spend $500 million ““ should cost a fortune. But, again, if I run out of things to say, maybe I’ll direct one of those films. But in the meantime I like small personal films. That’s what gets me excited.

    QUESTION: I was there last night when you talked about that quote from the writer who made”¦

    REITMAN: I still have to do research. I work from the heart and it’s a story I want to tell. That’s more important to me than details of what actually happened. The story was, there was an interview and the guys asked “How to you figure out all these kinds of things that various explosives work” and he goes, “I don’t even know what a detonator is. I just like the word.” What a great quote, right? You can tell sometimes when a writer cares too much about the details and what happened and cares too little about real drama. But you guys are journalists; it speaks to what you do. Like Shattered Glass.

    (Laughs)

    CS: The movie itself is sort of a meditation on the nature of work of doing what you love or doing what you like or doing what you’re feeling comfortable in doing. Because I have a job and I like my little place and I don’t know what I’d do without it. I’ve been laid off 3 times before and I’m 34 and I’m not really big on “the man” but what is the nature of work to you?

    REITMAN: It defines me. It’s who I am. I’m a director. When you introduce me to someone, that’s the first thing you would say about me. It’s what I wake up and go to sleep thinking about. I think this film. Someone told me when a film works it’s a mirror. When any story works, it’s a mirror. You simply see yourself in it and that’s very important to me. I won’t let you see me in my work, I will only let you see yourself. Like when I did “Smoking”, I didn’t do The Insider. I didn’t make a movie to end up asking you a question – in the fact that the movie speaks to you in that way makes me happy because it speaks to you individually in that way. I don’t make movies to change people, I just want people to see themselves in them.

  • Trailer Park: Tao Ruspoli of FIX

    By Christopher Stipp

    The Archives, Right Here

    I was able to sit down for a couple of years and pump out a book. It’s got little to do with movies. Download and read “Thank You, Goodnight” right HERE for free.

    Check out my new column, This Week In Trailers, at SlashFilm.com and follow me on TWITTER under the name: Stipp

    Tao Ruspoli – Interview

    FIX is one of those movies you didn’t know you needed to see until you’re ensconced in the reality that director Tao Ruspoli made a movie with a compelling premise, is shot with a style that blends fiction and reality in a real exciting way, and is a completely independent vision. People can get hung up on particulars when it comes to a movie’s presentation when you are saddled with a low budget but Tao completely bucks that by incorporating his low budget into a style that makes the movie feel more authentic. When you’re able to have Oliver Stone provide a pull-quote for your movie, things are going well.

    Based on a story where a filmmaker is on the hunt for his brother in order to find him and deliver him to rehab or have the guy shipped back to prison for a three year sentence, FIX happens all in one day and explores the nuances, pieces of Los Angeles that don’t normally get shown in films that use Tinseltown as a backdrop. The pace is furious, the clock is ticking, and the film couldn’t be any more enjoyable than it is. Tao Ruspoli spent some time talking with me about his film.

    FIX is now playing and will soon be out on DVD.  (Add it to your Netflix queue)

    tao4CHRISTOPHER STIPP:  Hello, Tao.

    TAO RUSPOLI: Hi, how are you doing?

    CS:  I’m doing fine.  What’s this process been like to finally get this movie out in the open, at least theatrically for you?

    RUSPOLI: Well, it’s been so gratifying.  I’ve gotten used to the idea that it’s an uphill battle for independent films these days, but it’s been gratifying throughout.  We’ve gone to 35 film festivals, traveled all over the world, and already, that was beyond anything I expected from the movie.  So now a year and a half later for it to come out is just the icing.  I’m so happy that the public will be able to see it at last.

    CS:  Please tell me ““ and I wanted to save this question for you ““ it says based on true events and I want to know how true is this movie, it has a great premise, how true is this?

    RUSPOLI: The premise is what’s true.  What happened was my brother’s battles with addictions throughout his life and he had gotten a deal (this was several years ago) from a judge that said, well, you can either go to rehab or I’m going to send you to prison for 3 years.  And of course he chose rehab and the judge gave him 10 days in the rehab.  On the 8th day he got arrested for something else.

    I was working in San Francisco working on a documentary and I got a call from his lawyer saying someone has to bail him out tomorrow and get him back to rehab by 8:00 o’clock tomorrow night he’s going to prison for 3 years because he’ll be in breech of this judgment.  So, that’s what happened.  I drove down overnight and picked him up and found out that $5,000 was needed to admit him to rehab and the way we got the $5,000 was not as exciting as it was in the movie.  It just was going around and borrowing from friends and my credit card a little bit.  So we dropped him off ““ and I don’t want to give away anything ““ but those are the true facts.  The structure is true but then all of the in between was scripted.  I got to spend some time with my brother.  Recklessness on one hand is scary for some people but he lives life to the fullest and takes risks that a lot of us are afraid to take and travel into worlds that many of us don’t travel in.

    I think our job as filmmakers is to expands people’s worlds a little bit and that’s what the lead character does in the movie.  His nickname is Hermes and the precept is it’s his graffiti writing name but actually Hermes was the god of crossing boundaries – guide to the underworld and that’s what he is to us.

    CS:  Now the film itself, obviously, Olivia was the main attraction in the film as she mentioned to me, you had to work around her schedule, like on the weekends and that sort of approach that we can only do these on certain days.  What was that like as a filmmaker to be constrained by when you could shoot this thing?

    tao2RUSPOLI: It turned out to be a blessing in disguise.  Two weeks before we started shooting she got the role on House, and of course I couldn’t ask her not to do that.  As much as she loves me I said, OK, we will change the whole schedule around hers.  The producer nearly had a heart attack but then what we ended up doing is shooting the film in order and then edited it during the week and could see how it was coming together and because of that and our style, we got to really learn as we went and learned what worked and how we could get the best of both worlds doing like the documentary film but in a dramatic, visceral style.

    So we would shoot for a few days and edit the first 10 minutes of the film or whatever it was and then the next weekend we would shoot the next 10 minutes of the movie.  It was a wonderful process because we really got to know what we had in the can before we kept going.  Usually you cram all this shooting together and then see what you have at the end.

    CS:  So I assume you were working with Paul Forte the whole time?

    RUSPOLI: Yes, exactly.  Paul would come on set and he’s here now actually.  He came for the premiere.  He’s a very close partner of mine and would be on set capturing the footage.  One crazy story is that we were in Watts shooting in the projects and Paul was in the RV and we thought it was so nice and welcoming and forgot that we in a rather dangerous part of town and so we let our guard down and someone came in with a gun and held him up and took the laptop he was using to capture the footage.  Luckily he had already backed it up and put it on a hard dive that was put away or we wouldn’t have been able to finish the movie because no one would have gone back.

    CS:   That kind of speaks to the film, showing a different side of LA that not a whole lot of people know about.  What was it like shooting in all these different locations?  Like you said, some were very welcoming.  Did you find anything unique that you never knew about living in LA?

    RUSPOLI: Absolutely.  First of all, that’s what I love about LA.  You have to understand that the movie is about a microcosm of the road movie.  It’s a road movie on concentrate.  You have to imagine that a road movie takes across a great distance and for a long period of time and you see the characters have all been changed as they proceed through different worlds.  Well, this takes that convention and strips it down to it’s essence because you traverse all these worlds that are all in one city and all in one day.  All in one 12 hour period.

    I think LA is one of the few places you can do that because it’s like a blank slate in a way and has all these local worlds that a lot of people don’t move from one to the other, so you have Boheminan artist community next to the isolated Beverly Hills community and there’s chop shops in east LA and downtown and rural areas and suburban and the lead character is one who easily goes from one to the other which is very unusual in real life to find somebody who can do that and that’s what’s so charming about him and so compelling that he can feel equally comfortable in a mansion in Beverly Hills as he can in the projects in Watts.  I always loved that about LA.  LA sort of becomes a main character of the movie because it has this very strong presence as this post modern city where there is no center and it’s what you make of it, all decentralized and amazing.

    CS:  Looking up on your IMDB page, it proclaims you as a documentary filmmaker.  To me it almost felt like if Michael Moore were to make a straight up a work of fiction that wasn’t strictly documentary ““ was this a different change for you as a filmmaker?

    RUSPOLI: Absolutely.  We wrote a script that was very tight but like about the documentary style is that a) I come from it so I felt comfortable telling a story in that way.  Of course a documentarian tells a story as well, right?  But it has this visceral immediate truthfulness I think that hopefully when people watch the film feel this is really happening.  They will wonder how much is real and how much isn’t and the wonderful thing is in the old day, we’ve come a long way since the Blair Witch Project when documentary style meant shaky camera and horrible image quality.

    tao1Now with HD you have the best of both worlds.  You have the immediacy of the documentary and you also have this rich color and cinematic quality that is so wonderful that you can achieve now with these high quality digital cameras.  So I really thought it was a great way to move from documentary into narrative.  It was a smooth transition into it.

    CS:  I think it’s a natural extension if you ““ I’m not comparing it to paranormal activity which did gang busters ““ but people are not used to it through reality television of consuming a story that is done with a verities style.  People are now more comfortable with it and I think there’s lots of things now ““ the movie itself and correct me if I’m wrong ““ but your film looks ahead of the curve in terms of presenting a narrative but not so much in the traditional style.

    RUSPOLI: I think the style is very avant-garde because it doesn’t look like armature camera people.  The filmmaker in the movie is a filmmaker so it makes sense that he would pay attention to structure and composition and go back and make the film as cinematically and in a structured way as possible.  And that’s what people have responded to so much about this movie is that it has an amazing visual style and incredible sound track and editing.  So it doesn’t shy away from making the most of the medium and that’s what I hope is groundbreaking about it.

    CS:  When you were getting it all together you were obviously creating a sound track adding, it’a like an exponential sum, and in having to keep the costs down, what did you turn to in order to create this musical bed to carry these characters through the film?

    RUSPOLI: Again, since we’re crossing all these worlds we had to use music to reinforce that journey.  The music also crosses from world to world and we have everything from old jazz to blues to like indie rock to hip hop.  Dick Prez did a song just for the movie.  We have I’m a Robot and Simon Dawes and all these incredible musicians.  We have a music supervisor named Bryan Ling who is just phenomenal and a composer named Isaac Sprintis who also just brought a lot of original compositions to the movie.  But, all of it supports that we’re taking a journey through very disparate worlds and the music kind of reflects that.

    CS:  Going forward with any new projects that you are doing, did you find that you, being ensconced in this world of sort of a hybrid of a documentary and traditional filmmaking, do you find now that you are inspired by different things or are you now “OK, let me get back to what I really feel comfortable with” and that’s documentary filmmaking?

    RUSPOLI: No, I’m moving straight up into narrative.  I’m working on a documentary now called Being in the World which was just submitted to Sundance, so I did go back to documentaries but I’m really excited to do another narrative.  I found the experience so gratifying working with actors.  I hadn’t done that before and it felt natural to me and really fulfilling.  I’ve been reading a lot of scripts now and I actually would like to do a film ““ if not in a documentary style, – do something very cinematic.  I would love to do something that has more time and with a bigger budget and do something more deliberate and more traditional and cinematic.  Hopefully that will come soon.

    tao3CS:  Well, sir, I have one more question and that would be, just looking at the path this has taken, it wasn’t done just six months ago, it was a long road for this film.  You mentioned the process was very fulfilling, the length, the ups and the downs, what did you take away from making this film?

    RUSPOLI: Again, I learned that the old world of distribution and finishing your film and hoping that someone just buys it and takes it off your hands ““ that’s over.  On one hand, that makes our job harder as filmmakers but on the other hand it keeps the control in our hands which is great.  You have a double edged sword on one hand.  A lot of the indie film structures are dying off and on the other hand through the internet and through these new modes of distribution you can have direct access to your audience and you need to do it.

    You need to carry the film like your child and nuture it and see it grow and be involved in the whole process being online and the social networks and go to your own fan base.  I think that’s daunting at first but then it’s great because you have this direct link to the people who like your work and they can be all over the world. And now, for example, we have this initial theatrical run in New York and if it does well it will spread to other cities.

    We have a DVD distributor putting it out in February.  It’s exciting and meanwhile while this is happening we have been able to do other projects.  Olivia keeps working on House, I’ve done this other documentary, Being in the World, so it hasn’t just been waiting around.  I’ve traveled to different festivals all over the world, which is a great way to show your films.

  • Trailer Park: Olivia Wilde of FIX

    By Christopher Stipp

    The Archives, Right Here

    I was able to sit down for a couple of years and pump out a book. It’s got little to do with movies. Download and read “Thank You, Goodnight” right HERE for free.

    Check out my new column, This Week In Trailers, at SlashFilm.com and follow me on TWITTER under the name: Stipp

    Olivia Wilde of FIX – Interview

    You just don’t bring up that Olivia Wilde was named #1 in Maxim’s Hot 100 list of nice looking ladies.

    I don’t know if this speaks to the fact I don’t read Maxim or that the only reason I know who she was, before seeing the wonderment that is FIX, was that she sat in on a press conference for TRON LEGACY at Comic-Con over the summer. So enamored I was to speak to Jeff Bridges that I completely gave Wilde the Heisman as I used my one question to talk to The Dude. I felt bad for doing that, as every geek in the room wanted to talk to Jeff about his role in the new TRON iteration but when I had the chance to talk to Olivia about this film I knew I had to address her presence there over the summer.

    I only wish all my interviews went as well as my talk with Olivia as chatting about how a movie that had to be shot on the weekends, being directed by your husband Tao Ruspoli and what that did to the relationship, and what this film means to her overall aims as an actress. Sure, playing a part in next year’s behemoth in-making, TRON LEGACY, won’t hurt but she handles herself with the kind of openness not usually seen from actors of her caliber. Just a delight.

    FIX is now playing and will soon be available through Netflix.

    tao41CHRISTOPHER STIPP:  Hi, Olivia.

    OLIVIA WILDE: How are ya?

    CS:  Doing fine.  How are you doing?

    WILDE: Pretty good.  Exciting weekend.

    CS:  I would imagine.

    WILDE: Yeah, we had a great premiere.

    CS:  Where was the premiere held?

    WILDE: The premiere was at The Tribeca Grand Hotel

    CS:  Really?

    WILDE: It was really, really fun.

    CS:  Which gets to the first question I have is that when I was researching this, this isn’t something that was one 6 months ago.  It seems like this movie ““ I should say it’s been out there for a while ““ but it’s seems like there’s a story why it’s taken so long for it to come out.

    WILDE: I think it’s like any true independent film. It’s a bit of a process to get widespread distribution because no sacrifices were made in making the film.  We weren’t trying to be commercial.  We were sticking true to the type of film we wanted to make or I should say, Tao wanted to make.  So when you have a film like that and haven’t made any sacrifices, you have to stick to your guns and keep it small.  And the great thing about film festivals is they really appreciate that.  The true indi, art house, honest film.  So we went around the world, went to 35 different festivals and won big awards at about 14 of them and won best actor (tape is blank here Christoph).  For a lot of independent films the last step is finally getting distribution and the great thing about film festivals is that they do provide a home for independent films and for people to see them and we were such a smash hit at these festivals, starting at Slamdance in 2008, it garnered a lot of attention and now we have theatrical distribution in New York on November 20th at the Village East for one week and if that goes well, they’ll go live.  So it’s really exciting.

    CS:  I would imagine.  Like you said, it is quite a process now to get these independent films out there to compete with the bigger dogs.

    WILDE: Yes.  But, I think people like them.  In a film world awash with G.I. Joe it’s refreshing to see a film that is very unique and very honest and really a labor of love.

    CS:  And it feels like that.  One of the questions I was going to ask Tao but I will ask you too, is that he’s primarily known for making documentary films.  This actually seems like a departure of what he’s really known for.  What did you see in this script?  What did he see in this story, and I don’t know how true ““ it says based on real life events, what did he take from that and what did he run with?

    WILDE: I think he has documentarian sensibilities which means I think he’s interested in finding the true experience ““ really capturing all the messiness of real life and I think that’s the spontaneity and immediacy that you feel with a documentary, you really feel that with Fix.  As an actor, it changed the process a lot and made it much more of an involved shooting process – meaning that you had to be on at all times.  You never knew when the camera was going to swing around and capture you.  And so it was a lot of fun.  It was more of a teamwork, family, project than anything I’ve ever done and I’ve witnessed it from it’s inception to the premiere.  I really now learned what goes into making a film, which is just extraordinary.

    I think Tao, as a documentary filmmaker, is able to really appreciate what we can capture by allowing the camera to linger and what kind of idiosyncrasies and little messy real life moments make a story interesting.  The film ended up being about 25% improvised and I think it’s only possible to have that much freedom if you are shooting in the documentary style because we don’t have to worry to much about continuity and such because it was a single camera and we weren’t covering one person’s coverage one at a time.  It was more of a fly by the seat of your pants process.  I think that’s why the experience of watching it is so exciting.  People aren’t sure what real, who’s an actor, who’s not.

    oliviaFor instance, the scene that happens in Watts is entirely made up of non actors except for the main characters.  I think you have a sense for that.  A sense that you are capturing real life.  I think that’s what makes it all so interesting and unique.

    CS:  You are used to being ““ like you said in the summer of G.I. Joes ““ you being on the set of big productions to now having to downshift to this independent world where now a catering truck isn’t there ““

    (Laughs)

    WILDE: It was great.  All those luxuries are great and they are comforting but you really forget what you want to do and that’s to make a story about something together and it involves everyone’s dedication.  I think the fact that we didn’t have hair and makeup, we didn’t have catering, we didn’t have trailers, everyone was completely present at every time.  When we moved, the actors would help the location scouts move a truck.  All the driving in the film is actually real driving.

    The line between real and fake is blurred in this film.  And it’s great to be a part of that.  I didn’t feel like I was downshifting.  I was shifting into high gear working harder than I’ve ever worked.  I was invested on an emotional level more than I’d ever been because I am close to the real person it’s based on and the story is something I am intimate with.  So for me it was a challenging experience and so much more personal than anything I’ve ever done.  It was extraordinary to be a part of and something I hope to do again.

    CS:  And how was it shooting in Los Angeles proper?  Were you seriously running and gunnng it or were you doing permits and other accruements?

    WILDE: We didn’t break any laws but we were definitely grassroots scurrilous style filmmaking.  It was really fun because we were seeing parts of LA that people never see and we were shooting 10 pages a day and really moving fast.  We actually shot mostly in order so it was kind of organic in the way that everything was developing.  I think you can really sense that in the story.  As the character sort of evolves, the filmmaking changes as well because since we were shooting on the weekend we were forced to shoot around my house schedule.  Each weekend we’d have edited the scene from the weekend before so we really had a sense of what we needed.  Everything became sharper by the end and I think that worked.  But that’s only because we were able to shoot in order.

    It was really a fascinating to be shooting a scene where I’m driving the 1960 Impala around LA and would actually stop at a fruit stand downtown, buy fruit, work that into the scene, and go to the next location.  Completely organic.  And lots of moments in the film when I watched it for the first time, I was like, oh my god, Tao, I didn’t know you were filming that.  It was kind of amazing that that was all captured and then left it in, which is a testament as well to our amazing editor.  A guy named Paul Forte, who was able to take all this experimentation and weave it together and create a film that feels so natural but you would never know how much work went into it.

    Sky 360 by DeltaCS:  That’s a curious thing you bring up to.  You obviously shot a metric ton worth of footage, when you got into the editing room, did Tao, did they see what movie they ended up with and were they surprised at what they eventually came up with?

    WILDE: Tao can actually answer that better than I can.  The editing room was actually the bottom floor of our loft so I witnessed a lot of that process.  I think they were amazed at how much was coming out of the shooting process.  The improvisation was adding life to certain scenes where we weren’t sure.  There were scenes that completely exploded hilariously.  One of my favorite scenes is when we go steal the espresso machine.  I love that scene.  It was such a simple scene When they wrote it it was a small tight little scene, maybe a page long and it turned into this fun and surprising moment and I think every actor there just ran with it and it had an energy that no one really expected.  So, surprise moments like that in the editing room were adding flavor and color to the film and they were just getting more and more excited as it went along.  It was such a different process.

    Not only did we not have trailers, we all traveled in one funky RV and followed the production car from location to location and the editor would sit in the back with his laptop and download the footage or capture the footage as we shot it.  It was really happening as we were shooting it.  It was amazing to see how far the film had come after we were done shooting it.  So experimental and unique.  People will have a sense of that when they watch it.  A sense of discovery.  I think it would be hard to re-create with a bigger budget or much slower production.

    CS:  And one thing about the film, it’s compressed timeline.  Like 16 Candles.  All happens with a tight timeline.  Was that difficult balancing continuity?

    WILDE: Yes.  Because whenever you have a film where everything happens in one day you have to think about things like daylight.  The good thing about LA is that the weather never changes so you can sort of lie.  But I think it’s impossible to match completely but I think we came pretty damn close.  We had amazing producers who sat there figuring it all out and timelining it and it was impossible to do but we did a really good job.  I think it’s kind of a real visceral experience of LA that a lot of people have never had.  Dragging from one location to the next and it’s completely how it feels spending the day with Tao’s brother in real life.  You feel you’ve been on this oddesy and you have to real relinquish all control and just learn and I think that’s what the audience has to do while watching Fix and definitely what my character has to do and I feel that she sort of becomes the eyes of the audience.  She represents the journey emotionally the audience goes on, initially skeptical and eventually game.  So it all feels in the end a really fun experience.

    olivia2CS:  And speaking of experience, I have to at least ask the question because I was there in July when you were there at Comi-Con.

    WILDE: Were you really?  Great.

    CS:  I was in that room for the press conference and intrinsically I felt bad because no one was asking you or Garrett anything?

    WILDE: I think it was appropriate this year, but next year it’s going to be a different experience.

    CS:  How as that?  I’m always curious to know what’s it like to be besieged by screaming geeks and nerds and that experience of what these people love about this movie?

    WILDE: I think it’s really an honor at a place like Comi-Con.  They are really discerning fans and I think they feel a certain ownership of a film like  Tron, it’s a part of their lives and feel they know it well and they are sensitive to the recreation of the Tron world and are interested in knowing if it will maintain the integrity that the original had.  It was really fun to reassure them that it indeed would and be able to show them just a tiny bit of evidence of that.

    CS:  It was a shred”¦it was just enough.

    WILDE: Yes, just enough.  I think it’s good to keep them wanting more and I think next year I think San Diego might explode.  It will be a lot of fun.

    (Laughs)

    CS:  If I had one more question for you it would be based on your experience in doing this.  Your resume is so impressive.  You have been so accessible.  A movie like this and doing an independent film had to at least put you in check in terms of realizing there is still lots to learn.

    WILDE: Yes.  I think it’s important to do that throughout the rest of my career.  I look up to actors who go back to their roots and continue to do small independent small budget films.  Someone like (Parka Pozie?)who is constantly doing small independent experimental films and it’s often where she really gets to shine.  She takes more risks and someone like Catherine Keener is the same.  Kate Blanchett I look up to too, she appeared in Lord of the Rings, and then a Jim Jarnosh film.  So I really look up to that and it does keep you in check.  I certainly learned a lot about the filmmaking process and learned to really respect the independent filmmakers and all that they go through in order to bring their art to the world.  I was certainly humbled by it and can’t wait to do it again.

  • TV Or Not TV: The Morning After for GLEE

    tvornottv-header.png

    Welcome to another very special episode of TV or Not TV where I’m feeling very GLEE-ful.

    That's a wrap.... until the Spring.

    Last night the mid-season finale of GLEE aired and I have to admit that the show really impressed me with what it was able to deliver on.  There was tension, there was drama and there was redemption. Oh yeah, there was also a lot of singing and dancing, but those are to be expected.

    First and foremost I would like to say that it was nice to see a lot of the more soap opera like story lines coming to a close and I hope that they are able to carry the last nine episodes of the season in a bit more grounded fashion. The drama surrounding Quinn and her baby, the craziness of Will Schuester‘s wife Terri and her baby-faking, the depressing wedding plans of mysophobic Emma, and the ever escalating level of delusional superiority by Cheerios head coach Sue Sylvester all lead to many moments where I was wanting to yell at my television rather than watching it.

    Yes I know that a show requires drama to carry itself along week-to-week and the characters need elements to create tension between them, but some of these story lines have in many ways distracted me from the show itself. A great example would be the episode titled BALLAD where we had the “A” story of Rachel developing a crush on Will and the “B” story of Finn being doubtful of his ability to sing a ballad in front of everyone and how to deal with the parents of his pregnant girlfriend. The “A” story kept me engaged and connected to the show because it was entertaining, comical when appropriate while being serious where needed and didn’t at any time take me out of the “moment” of just being a passive participant. The scene where Will sings to Rachel with Emma there was perfect in the way that the entire plan backfires on Will both with Rachel AND Emma. In contrast the “B” story left me extremely uncomfortable since I was first assaulted by a boy singing to the sonogram of an unborn child that, I knew, wasn’t his. Later when Finn sings to Quinn in front of her parents to get the message out that there’s a bun in the oven I was completely detached from the show because of the awkwardness of the scene and the pure unbelievability that anyone could be as much of a buffoon as Quinn was being at that given moment.

    Last night’s finale was very well balanced and almost never took me out of the moment. Almost every storyline that has been dangling out there was resolved. Finn knows the truth about Quinn‘s baby, all of Sue‘s past transgressions were brought to light, Will dealt with last week’s fallout with Terri, NEW DIRECTIONS! went to sectionals and things seem to have majorly changed for Emma. In many ways this thirteenth episode of the show seemed to have taken a show that has had it’s head a bit in the clouds and brought it firmly back to Earth for a very stellar episode. The sub-plots that were set in motion in HAIROGRAPHY played out nicely in allowing us to see NEW DIRECTIONS! perform new musical numbers instead of the ones that were planned, which I am sure helped to fill out the two soundtracks that are now available from the show. We were even handed a nice little gift with the panel of judges for sectionals. It was an amusing contrast to have the hopes and dreams of the show choir in the hands of a group made up of quasi-celebrities and a city official, none of which really seemed to care about the job at hand.

    My only complaint in last night’s episode was the choreography of the final musical number as Will is treated to the Kelly Clarkson hit My Life Would Suck Without You. Some of it was a little too risque for me to handle, but then again I’m a 38 year-0ld male that isn’t the real demographic here.

    I don’t know what new directions NEW DIRECTIONS! will be taking us in the spring of 2010 but I hope this break will give the writers and producers a chance to help level out some of the characters and do something constructive with the feedback they’ve been given. The show truly is one of my guilty pleasures and if they can get it to where there are less moments where I shake my head in disbelief and frustration it may almost be perfect in my mind.

    – Will Wilkins’ life would also suck without you.

  • TV Or Not TV: 12/7 – 12/13

    tvornottv-header.png

    Welcome to another week of TV or Not TV where I just can’t wait until January.

    If you are one of the few people that actually watch NBC you know that Chuck is coming back earlier than expected. The show, which was given a new lease on life thanks to avid fans and their feverish purchasing of Subway sandwiches on Monday nights, was originally supposed to return some time in March of next year. It was also originally just given a 13 episode pickup with the possibility of more episodes happening if the show did well in the ratings.

    Approximately four weeks ago two interesting bits of news began to trickle down the line. The first bit of exciting news was that the show was getting the go-ahead for an additional six episodes, bringing the total episode count up from 13 to 19. This made fans, and me, very happy. This made the schedule, however, a bit confusing since the extra episodes would take th show well into the summer. What exactly was NBC up to?

    About two week’s ago that question was answered when NBC let us know that Chuck would be coming back in January instead of March. This is good news for the fans and it makes me happy, but at the same time trepiditious. I’m thankful the show will be taking over the Monday at 8 time slot for the on life-support Heroes. The fact that Heroes hasn’t faired so well in the time slot itself, and both shows have a similar demographic.

    As with any TV show the only real choice out there is to simply embrace hope. People will either watch or they won’t.  I hope they will.

    Let’s now turn our attention away from the Intersect and instead look at the viewing options out there for this week.

    MONDAY

    ABC – 8:00 PM – Once again a stop motion Fred Astaire tells us the origin of Ol’ Saint Nick (voiced by Mickey Rooney) in Santa Clause is Coming to Town. Our kids may have no idea who the narrators are but they’ll still love it if they’re 10 or under.

    FOX – 8:00 PM – OK, want something a little more modern for your holiday? Try out Carrie Underwood: An All-Star Holiday Special and hope it is better than some of the more recent celebrity fodder put out.

    TNT – 10:00 PM – Not sure if Ray Romano, Scott Bakula or Andre Braugher can make mid-life seem interesting in Men of a Certain Age so we’ll just all have to watch together and see.

    TUESDAY

    ABC – 8:00 PM – ABC keeps comes out swinging for the family demographic with A Charlie Brown Christmas followed immediately by the Disney Studio original 3D animated special Prep & Landing.

    NBC – 8:00 PM – I have a love/hate relationship with The Biggest Loser since the accomplishments of these people can be both inspiring and capable of making me feel like I can do more both at the same time.

    ABC – 9:30 PM – I have to admit that I was pretty hard in the beginning of Better of Ted but given some of the other sitcoms out there this one is good quirky fun. Oh yeah, it’s season premiere is tonight. 

    WEDNESDAY

    FOX – 9:00 PM – It’s the new winter finale for Glee tonight and if you had good money on the fact that Quinn’s little secret about who her baby daddy really is comes to light tonight I’d say you had a winner.

    ABC – 10:00 PM – Once again those with the best publicists, holiday movies or albums coming out get catered to in Barbar Walters Presents: The 10 Most FAscinating People of 2009.

    ABC FAMILY – 10:30 PM – I don’t know how you get from a classic poem about a visit from Santa Claus to a story where a mouse  writes a letter that ticks the big man off to make him boycott the town? If this description boggles the mind than you’ll just have to watch ‘Twas the Night Before Christmas yourself to see if you can figure it out.

    THURSDAY

    FOX – 8:00 PM – I don’t know what the team over at Bones has against Santa but once again another gruesome holiday catastrophy overcomes one of the jolly men in read. Very special guest casting happens with a visit by Zooey Deschanel, Brennan’s real life alter-ego’s sister.

    NBC – 8:00 PM – OK, the entire night of NBC’s lineup is always a solid recommendation for me but tonight on Community we get to meet a campus bully played by none other than Anthony Michael Hall. I hope this guest spot leads to his being cast on a certain CBS sitcom so I can make some kind of joke about NPH vs. AMH. Oh to dream.

    FOX – 9:00 PM - Winter finale time for Fringe as well and we get to tap into Walter’s brain as well as see Leonard Nimoy one more time as William Bell. 

    FRIDAY

    FOX – 8:00 PM – What more do you need for me to say other than another two hours of Dollhouse tonight? I know, right?

    CBS – 8:00 PM – Speaking of NPH, he lends his voice talents to the animated Yes, Virginia. This 3D holiday special fictionalizes the real life story of a little girl’s letter to the New York Sun in 1897.  Based on that description I just bet you can’t wait to see it (will it help if I tell you it was animated by the same group that animated the Tim Burton Produced 9?)

    MTV – 10:00 PM – I have no idea who green lit this one but in Bam Margera Present: Where the #$&% is Santa? Bam gathers up a crew and heads to the Arctic Circle to try to find the man in the red suit.

    SATURDAY

    NBC – 8:00 PM – I’d have to be an idiot to admit that every time the ending of It’s A Wonderful Life  happens I become a blubbering mess. Oh wait…

    SPIKE – 8:00 PM - Hey, you’ve already lost countless hours to playing video games, what’s two more hours paying tribute to them in Spike TV’s Video Game Awards 2009? 

    TLC – 9:00 PM – OK, you know that reality TV has hit the wall when you get something like Ghost Intervention. No, Casper doesn’t have a drinking problem, mediums show up to help troubled ghosts we can’t really see. I’d probably recommend just watching The Frighteners instead.

    SUNDAY

    ABC FAMILY – 8:00 PM – Well, Dad wants to hand over the family business to his daughter Jenny McCarthy in Santa Baby 2: Christmas Maybe.

    SHOWTIME – 9:00 PM – Dexter has to go toe to toe with the Trinity Killer in tonight’s season finale. One look at the show’s title may tell you who wins.

    ABC – 10:00 PM – I guess we now know the true cost of a celebrity endorsement during your Presidential campaign: Christmas at the White House: An Oprah Primetime Special. 

     – Will Wilkins even took their last can of Who-hash.

  • Trailer Park: Michael Shannon of THE MISSING PERSON

    By Christopher Stipp

    The Archives, Right Here

    I was able to sit down for a couple of years and pump out a book. It’s got little to do with movies. Download and read “Thank You, Goodnight” right HERE for free.

    Check out my new column, This Week In Trailers, at SlashFilm.com and follow me on TWITTER under the name: Stipp

    Michael Shannon of THE MISSING PERSON – Interview

    It’s not every day when you are lucky enough to talk to an actor who was not only nominated for an Academy Award for his work in a film like REVOLUTIONARY ROAD, getting edged out by Heath Ledger for his role in THE DARK KNIGHT, but who was also in GROUNDHOG DAY. Honestly, between the former and the latter I am not sure what warrants more kudos but I do know that his work in the new film THE MISSING PERSON is one of the brightest spots in films for 2009.

    To talk with Michael is to really love the guy. He speaks with the kind of thoughtfulness and consideration you wish people in your everyday life would use and seems to exude the sense that he’s always observing, always taking in his surroundings. Being an Academy Award nominee ought to have put him in rarefied air but as he expresses below, he does look forward to the day when he can play a role where people aren’t instinctively afraid of him.  I floated the idea of a romantic comedy but I think we both agree that project might be a wee premature. Regardless of the personas he puts on like a finely tailored suit, Michael Shannon still is one to watch and in THE MISSING PERSON he is effortless in the way he navigates a film that showcases his best talents as an actor.

    THE MISSING PERSON is now showing.

    missing-poster1MICHAEL SHANNON: Hey Chris.

    CHRISTOPHER STIPP:  Hey Michael.

    SHANNON: How are you?

    CS:  I’m doing fine.  How is your press day going?

    SHANNON: Good.  We are having fun.

    CS:  Is this really a fun part of making a movie that you get to answer the same questions over and over again?

    SHANNON: You know, I don’t mind it.  It’s been a while since I made the movie so it’s fun to go back and think about it.

    CS:  How is that?  That it takes a while for a movie to get made and takes a little while for it to get out there ““ do you ever get anxious for people to see what you’ve done or are you kind of off doing your next thing once you’re done with a film?

    SHANNON: For me it’s like pushing a little boat onto the lake or something.  It sails away and you’re not sure if you are going to see it again.  You just move on and go onto the next thing.  A lot of actors won’t even watch their own movies.  I’m not of that school.  I actually try to enjoy watching the movie if, and when, it comes out because you work really hard on a movie and I like to see the end result.  But I certainly don’t wait around waiting for it to happen.  You have to go on and do the next thing.

    CS:  Getting the part seemed ““ just to read it on the surface seems like it was relatively easy.  You had a friend in Amy Ryan and she just happened to pull you along where you got to meet Noah.  Was the process just as smooth as the story makes it out to be?

    SHANNON: Well, I did a reading of it and reading are always kind of weird.  I don’t like doing a reading of a screenplay.  It’s such a visual medium.  We sat around and read it and it really read well.  The dialogue was cryptic and it was just a really fun night.  And I think Noah, for whatever reason after the reading, he just felt comfortable with me doing the part.  Obviously, at least at that time, he could have hired profile names for that part and it would have made it easier to finance and distribute but Noah doesn’t really care about any of that.  He goes with his gut.  He’s a very instinctual person.

    CS:  Yes.  I talked with him about the film and yes, he amazes me that someone like that can still survive in this business, where it’s not a commodity that can be packaged and bubble wrapped, it makes it a tough sell but it seemed like he still got on the film what he intended to have there with his script.

    SHANNON: In his own quiet way, he’s a real warrior.  He had to deal with a lot of uncertainty and doubt from a lot of people but he had a vision and held to it.  That’s why I’m so happy that this film is going to get a life.  If anyone deserves to have a film out there it’s him.

    CS:  It absolutely is and it was no hyperbole yesterday when I told him it was one of the better movies I’ve seen this year.  It’s wholly original, wholly it’s own, and you just unfortunately don’t get to see a lot of these films that aren’t spawned by a sequel, or prequel or reboot or rehash.

    shannon1SHANNON: Right.

    CS:  It must have been appealing to you as an actor to take something that was completely, start from scratch.

    SHANNON: There are two instances for me when I have just been blown away by reading the screenplay without even going into production or anything.  And this one, was one of them and the other was Shotgun Stories.  Both of them, just on the page, were very substantial and original and about something meaningful.  In a way, instead of Noah and Jeff Nichols from Shotgun Stories, there are some similarities.  They are both very quiet, very thoughtful and they are really two of my favorites.  I hope to work with Noah a lot more.  It’s hard to tell what his next move will be.  It’s hard for him in this business because he has some standards that he’s not going to let go of.  He’s also not a showy person by nature.

    CS:  Right.  I don’t see him directing the next installment of X-Men anytime soon.

    (Laughs)

    SHANNON: Exactly.

    CS:  The character for you was obviously on the page but you had to interpret it in your own way.  What did you see in this character?  What humanity did you bring to it off the page?  What did you see in it?

    SHANNON: To me it starts with 9/11.  It’s starts with a man who’s life was ruined on 9/11 and was not able to carry on, which is something that all identify with, at least in our imaginations, if we have not experienced it personally.  A huge sense of loss and a huge sense of giving up and at the beginning of the film he’s in this pit of darkness and despair and living in a haze of booze and cigarette smoke.  And Miss Charley comes to begin to pull him out of his funk because at the end of the day that’s the bottom line that 9/11 happened.  The world didn’t stop and we all had to figure out a way to deal with it and move on.  Noah is from New York, born and raised and 9/11 was a huge deal for him and I think in a lot of ways this is his way of trying to deal with it.

    CS:  In my notes I have that it doesn’t feel like a statement about 9/11 but just happens to be like a fact.  It’s not something that needs to have a spotlight shown on it.  It seems like it’s important to the character because that’s how he starts out.  That’s how we get to know him.  But it feels like something that has happened but nothing that needs any more context other than that.

    SHANNON: There certainly isn’t any moralizing going on.  It’s not like lessons being taught.  It’s just about the people.  It’s about John and the other missing person.  The person I’m trying to find.  It’s about the decisions that they make.  It’s not, will I be able to love again or feel again.

    CS:  It almost feels like, and not to be cliché about it, but he literally has nothing else to loose.  If any number of things could have been put in front of him to do that might have been slightly dangerous or some kind of thrill, he’s got to feel like there is nothing else there ““ just kind of numb to everything around him.  It’s interesting that he choose to couch this film sort of with a noir tinge and I can’t think of any recent films that want to try and marry the modern experience with noir but it fits right in.  How did he explain it to you?

    SHANNON:  Noah didn’t explain much of anything to me.  I think a lot of times the contract between an actor and director is basically if you are able to mesh them and give them the confidence that you will show up at a reasonable facsimile in their imagination, which I think I did at the meeting, they don’t really get in your face too much when you’re working.  For me, a film noir is dark, black.  I can’t think of an even that would make more sense to marry film noir than 9/11.  It seems almost a childlike simplistic marriage.  So I wasn’t very conscious of trying to act in any particular style.  But, I’m sure a lot of it comes from the subconscious.  We all like to play and pretend and this detective is an art type in our collective consciousness.  I can’t name any person that I’m trying to copy or emulate but I know it’s all in there and when I put that suit on and stumble around I’m just playing at the same icon that other people have played before me.

    shannon2CS:  But it’s not one we’ve seen in a long time.  At least if you were to open up the paper and look at the movie listings it’s not something that’s really in vogue to do.

    SHANNON: I guess there’s a risk of it seeming dated ““ if people can see something coming I guess they are more likely to find it distasteful.  It’s a hard thing to pull off without seeming like you are weeping about it.  So I guess that’s why I didn’t want to go back and watch any of the classic movies because I didn’t want to go back and then show up imitating someone.  I wanted to show up and be there and react.

    CS:  Was it a fluid process on the set?  This isn’t a Pearl Harbor, it wasn’t a mega production.  Is there an intimacy, to put it like that, when you are on a set this size that you don’t get on a major film set?

    SHANNON: Oh yes.  It was very intimate.  What I enjoyed about it was that it was hard.  There were long days.  We shot the movie very quickly.  We typically would do a couple, maybe three, scenes a day.  I was always working.  I wasn’t sitting around much which I enjoy.  I think it helps the film.  It’s a better atmosphere.  More conducive to good acting than sitting around for hours and hours doing nothing.

    CS:  I know that this question seems sort of far off field but looking to see how you got your start with Ground Hog Day and I lived in Illinois and actually visited the set when I was still in high school.  Just as an idea or a thought, Amy has been in the office and your roles as of late has been quite heavy and dramatic, any romantic comedies coming out of you any time soon?

    SHANNON: I don’t know.  It’s a hard time in the business in general.  There’s not a lot of people making big risks right now.  I got real close on a James Brooks film actually.  I was in a callback and it went through my mind while l was auditioning that this would really surprise people.  This would be the thing that would dispel all these lines of thoughts that I’m some crazy guy.

    (Laughs)

    And I think because I had that thought consciously, it made me very nervous and wasn’t able to audition well enough to get the part.  So, it’s kind of like, I don’t know, maybe I need to go to a sport psychologist or something to fix the pitcher that can’t throw his curve ball anymore because he’s so worried about it getting knocked out of the park.

    But, I don’t want to spend my whole life playing people that other people are scared of.  The thing is, John is a funny guy and a sweet guy.  He certainly ends up being sweet and funny with Miss Charley and he gets his stuff together in the end and stops drinking so I think it’s kind of uplifting in a way, this film.

    CS:  It absolutely is and I know my time is done but it is a great film that showcases what you are really capable of doing and your whole body of work does that and I really do hope that it opens the eyes to some people who might see you now in a more kind light.

    SHANNON: Thank you Chris, I really appreciate that.

  • The Wonderful World Of Talkies: MYSTERY TEAM Review

    talkies-header.png

    Hello interweb, you bright shining bastion of sexy. I’m Matt Cohen… And you’re my everything.

    It’s been a while. Without going into detail, I had some errands that needed taken care of. Space errands. “How’s space,” you might ask? Cold, lonely, shitty TV reception – but surprisingly good bagels. Enough of that, though. You can read the mission report from NASA. That’s not why I’m here. “Why is he here,” you might be asking yourself? (I totally set you up for that). What could possibly pull me back from the outer reaches of the heavens to join you here, once again, in the written form?

    Movies. Movies, movies, movies. What in the heck are movies? Scholars maintain that they were first discovered in the early fourteenth century, when a small Latvian boy named Unter Vander-Wool stumbled and accidentally fell into a pile of celluloid while reciting a monologue from A STREETCAR NAMED DESIRE at the same time a passerby just so happened to be shining a 6-K light in Unter’s face while, serendipitously, a small neighborhood cat held a boom pole over the whole scene.  And with that calamitous (and extremely bloody… We’ll miss you Unter) event the motion picture industry was born. And like any growing American child, the film industry has gone through its share of changes and phases. At first, the audience was fine with just a man getting squirted by a hose. That’s all there was – “Man vs. Hose” films for four hundred odd years. And then on one fateful day, someone realized “Hey, why doesn’t that chap try and reason with the hose?!!!” And like that… The world met a good friend named “Talkie”.

    “But what’s the state of Talkies today?!?!” you may be screaming at the top of your lungs while making repeated stabbing motions. “How can I, the discerning Joe Local or Nancy Small-ville, decide which motion picture is worth my hard-earned and/or illicitly gained scrap?” Well, governor (or governess, no judging), I’ll tell ya… Right here is where you’ll find out. With this here nifty column, the fine folks at Quick Stop have set me up with a newfangled computing box, a carton of hand rolled cigarillos, and an all access E-Ticket pass to… The Wonderful World Of Talkies!

    To kick this hootenanny (it’s a word) off with a kneepuddler (not a word), let’s take a gander at the new feature length talkie MYSTERY TEAM!!! And, lucky for us, it’s a good’un.

    ———————————————————————————————

    mysteryteam

    Every few years it seems like a new batch of sketch comedy troupes pop up, seemingly out of the ether. In the early 90’s you had KIDS IN THE HALL, MR. SHOW, and THE UPRIGHT CITIZENS BRIGADE. Then again, a few years ago we were presented with THE WHITEST KIDZ U KNOW, HUMAN GIANT, and TIM AND ERIC AWESOME SHOW. And besides these, the “big ones”, there are countless other groups on the internet and locally, performing sketch comedy and building up loyal followings.

    What I’m trying to get at is that we live in a world flush with sketch comedy. And we also live in a world flush with mediocre sketch comedy. For every group that succeeds, there are fifty that fail miserably. It seems to be the toughest genre of comedy to not only produce at a level of high quality, but to sustain that quality over a long period of time. With all these things being said, a very different, very funny sketch troupe appeared out of the night about three years ago with a video about BRO-RAPE. And, to an extent, the world has never been the same.

    Yes, I’m talking about DERRICK COMEDY. Founded at NYU, nurtured on the stages of various New York City comedy clubs, and currently the undisputed reigning champions of “Internet Comedy”. At the time of this article, a glance at their YouTube page reveals god-like numbers (if god was in the internet funny game, ya know?). BLOWJOB GIRL has 14,988,093 views. If BLOWJOB GIRL was a nation, it would be the 66th most populous nation on earth. BRO-RAPE, with 7,048,104 views would be the 98th most populous country, right between Israel and Hong Kong. And those are no-joke countries. Like, I’ve heard of them.

    So it’s established that DERRICK has a following, and one based solely on the quality of their work and not celebrity cameos and topical titles that generate viral views. These five (performers DC Pierson, Dominic Dierkes, Donald Glover, director Dan Eckman, and producer Meggie Mcfadden) very young and very talented filmmakers have shown to the world that they’ve mastered the “short film” (or “sketch”, depending on what crowd you’re in). And that’s all well and good. Things were looking bright for DERRICK.

    And then they foolishly decided to take a gamble.

    They decided to write, star, produce, and direct their own feature film. To branch out from 3-7 minute videos to a full “real deal” movie, a transition that is notoriously rocky at best (MISS MARCH, KIDS IN THE HALL: BRAIN CANDY, LEAGUE OF GENTLEMEN’S APOCALYPSE, or pretty much ANY SNL film ever made). They decided to throw all caution to the wind, and to do what many have tried and few have succeeded at. How did they fare? Well, here’s a hint… I was joking about it being a foolish decision.

    Ladies and germs, I am both proud and thrilled to report that MYSTERY TEAM, the debut film from DERRICK COMEDY, is not only good… it’s pretty damn great (and it’s playing in NYC at the Quad Cinema starting December 4th). The fact that such a young team of filmmakers made this film is quite frankly astonishing… and kind of frustrating. Why are they so much better then me? Is it cause of that time I stole that DVD at K-Mart? I apologized AND cried!

    As some of you know, my brain works better in bullet point format. I am a strange bird. Without further ado, let’s get into the specifics of what make MYSTERY TEAM such a hilarious and original film.

    ———————————————————————————————

    BOFFO! (The Good):

    The Script/Plot: Based on a story by all five members and written by DC, Dominic, and Donald, MYSTERY TEAM is a love letter to early Spielberg, childhood detective novels, and super-heroes. Basically, all of the important things in life. MYSTERY TEAM takes place in a small New Hampshire town that is home to a trio of friends, Jason (Donald Glover), Duncan (DC Pierson), and Charlie (Dominic Dierkas). Whereas typical 18-year-old seniors in high school would be spending their summer partying away and getting ready for college, we find the three friends operating as they always have – Formed when they were children, Jason, Duncan, and Charlie are still, as adults, the owners and members of the MYSTERY TEAM, a rag-tag detective agency (with shades of ENCYCLOPEDIA BROWN galore) that specializes in all cases elementary (school), from missing cats, lost marbles, and noogies to double-murders (we’ll get to that one in a moment). And they love what they do. Though their schoolmates torment them as losers and their parents don’t understand them, THE MYSTERY TEAM is dedicated to solving their town’s crimes, no matter how small.

    Each member comes equipped with a “power” and color code (I love comic-books). Jason, is a self-branded master of disguise. Duncan, the resident boy genius, and Charlie is the “strongest kid” in town. At the beginning of the film it seems life will not change much for these kids, which is sad because they’re so likable, but understandable because they’re… well, weird. They don’t curse, they don’t smoke or drink, and girls are still yucky. Yet, they have each other. Three kindred odd souls. And they seem happy.

    Their lives are shaken when a young girl shows up at the MYSTERY TEAM’s doors one day with their most important and challenging case to date: A double-murder. No more kid stuff. The MYSTERY TEAM is going big time. I don’t want to go into spoiler heavy territory, as I recommend you should see it with completely fresh eyes. The inevitable ensues, of course, and the boys are thrown way over their heads into a situation from which they can’t escape. Throw a love interest into the mix, some tension amongst the team, and an overhanging murder and you’ve got a film that works not only as a comedy but as an actual murder mystery.

    I can’t think of how many times I’ve seen films from comedians I love only to wind up laughing yet hating the plot. Rarely do the two meet, it seems, in level of quality. Yes, MYSTERY TEAM is hilarious and unique and very much indicative of the DERRICK COMEDY brand, but the plot holds up on its own, as well. It never feels tacked on like it does in so many comedies where laughs are the ONLY focus. This is a real movie. And I hate to sound so dismissive, like I assumed it wouldn’t be, but I gotta be honest – I expected to laugh, but I never expected to become invested in the plot… And I did. As a genre fan, this movie totally functions on its own as a mystery. Now, mind you, not a ground-breaking, game-changing type one, but a solid throughline for a very funny film. Speaking of the funny…

    the_mystery_team_movie_image

    ———————————————————————————————

    The Comedy: And this is where it counts. Mind you, comedy is very personal affair so you may not agree with me laugh-wise, but MYSTERY TEAM, in my not-humble-at-all opinion, is not only the funniest movie of the year, but one of the funniest debut offerings I’ve seen from a comedy group in my life. Now, I’m not gonna rank it against those films, but in terms of importance and exposing the world to a new “kind” of laughter, MYSTERY TEAM is right up there with the HOLY GRAILs and SUPER TROOPERS of the world. From minute one we, as an audience, are absolutely inundated in DERRICK-style comedy. And you go with it. Sure, it helps to have seen their youtube videos to familiarize yourself a bit with their particular brand of madcap, but their comedy is so accessible and immediately “familiar” that you kind of just go “Sure. This is a DERRICK movie. Makes sense.” In a world where everyone wants to be PYTHON or MR. SHOW, DERRICK is decisively themselves. And I happen to be a huge fan of them. A mix of “one-liners” and hilarious situations, the laughs fly at you from all fronts. As far as a joke-to-laugh ratio, this film is one of the better ones I’ve seen in recent years. For instance, I can’t really think of any bits or jokes that “fell flat”. I mean sure, some hit more than others, but what DERRICK does (and is quite skilled at) is to imbue the film with a level of consistency throughout, in every aspect. One could describe comedy like a wine, I think, in its particular notes and flavors. And if I’m playing sommelier, I would bring MYSTERY TEAM to your table like this: “A tremendously smart blend of cerebral and gross out humor coupled with a base foundation of randomness that doesn’t pander to the ‘bizarre’ side, MYSTERY TEAM (and DERRICK) is masterful in its ability to create elaborate and unexpected laughs while maintaining a simplicity that excludes no one.”

    Oh shit… I should totally be a comedy sommelier. I could wear a bow tie and everything!!!!

    ———————————————————————————————

    The Performances: Like any comedy, MYSTERY TEAM is only as good as the comedians making it. Lucky for everyone involved that the assembled talent is not only ridiculously funny, but all “work” on the big screen. Not a single performer feels out of their range. I’d like to spotlight each of the main boys for a moment, if you’ll allow.

    Donald Glover/Jason: By now, most of you will be familiar with Donald’s work on NBC’S COMMUNITY, and though you may not know his name yet, I can’t tell you how many rave reviews I’ve heard about “the black dude from COMMUNITY”. MYSTERY TEAM, and his lead role of Jason, WILL make you remember this gentleman’s name.

    Donald manages to be instantly likable and charismatic. Maybe a lot of that is due to that smile of his, which disarms and makes you chuckle all at the same time. DERRICK comedy is very much a five person group, and MYSTERY TEAM is very much a three person ensemble, but I don’t think even the filmmakers would argue that the character of Jason is the glue that holds the team together, and in many ways Donald Glover’s performance does the same with the film. Natural doesn’t begin to describe this young man. To realize that this is his first feature, let alone his first “lead” role, impresses immediately. This dude was born to be on screen. In the coming years I’m sure we’ll hear lots and lots from Mr. Glover and his work here will be the role people talk about when they first discuss how they “discovered Donald”. As Jason, the master of disguise, he gets to wield a sense of naivete and childish hope while never going into the realm of parody. Jason (as do Duncan and Charlie) feels like a “real kid” even though he’s obviously not your traditional teenager. I think not taking this character “over the top” would be a challenge for many actors, especially ones as young as Donald Glover, but he handles the role with the grace and charm of a 20 year vet. Also, though they are admittedly ridiculous, his “disguises” are some the highlights of the film.  I would see a movie starring the Mexican Plumber, and gladly. Look for a lot more from this young man in the near future.

    DC Pierson/Duncan: If Donald/Jason is the mouth of MYSTERY TEAM, then DC/Duncan is the brains. Playing the “boy genius” (when in reality he just memorized a book of random facts when he was younger) of the group, DC manages to bring so much nuance and quirk to the role that in many ways Duncan is rendered the most real of all the characters. And I think that’s a credit to Mr. Pierson. Everyone remembers that know-it-all kid from school, and most not in a fond light. For MYSTERY TEAM to work, we had to like these characters. Had to. And who likes the kid who thinks he knows everything? DC makes me like that kid. Another actor would have NAPOLEON DYNAMITE-d this role, which would have been a colossal mistake, whereas DC plays Duncan with such a sense of child-like wonder and yet a weird level of pragmatism, that a character who may appear sort of one-dimensional on paper springs to life on the screen with fantastic results. To transition from small stages and the world wide web into such a large roll in a feature film would seem daunting to most performers, whereas DC seems like he’s had Duncan “in his pocket” for years. DC gets most of the heavy lifting from a dramatic standpoint, as well, and thrives at every opportunity. Without spoiling, there is a moment in the third act where Duncan undergoes a pretty significant character change and we see a drastically different side to the boy. For an actor to be able to pull this off without it feeling unnatural or uncharacteristic is a truly great skill, and one DC has in spades. This guy can do it all. I would wager that if you cast Mr. Pierson in a dramatic role, he would bring the same level of professionalism and subtlety that he gives in all his comedic performances. A mop-topped horse of different colors, and a much welcome addition to the forefront of today’s comedy scene.

    Dominic Dierkes/Charlie: Jason’s the mouth, Duncan’s the brains – Charlie is one giant, walking heart. The “Strongest Boy in Town” (though we don’t get to see if this is true or not… or do we? OH, THE SUSPENSE!) and third member of the MYSTERY TEAM is pretty dim. And that is a huge understatement. Alright, let’s not mince words; Charlie is functionally retarded. If any of the MYSTERY TEAM was late to “bloom”, it’d be Charlie, who comes off like a kindergartner to Jason and Duncan’s fourth-graders. And though his character is admittedly dumb, Dominic Dierkes, like all the other DERRICK boys, never takes him to a level of parody. It doesn’t feel “sketchy”. Yeah, Charlie’s dumb – so what? You know dumb people, as do I. The thing that Dominic does brilliantly is offset that “thickheadnessness” with a level of enthusiasm and child-like abandonment. If any member of the MYSTERY TEAM is really a child, it’s Charlie. And as such, Dierkes does a phenomenal job playing him. In other comedies with characters like Charlie, you often groan and roll your eyes at the new levels of stupidity they manage to succumb to. The contrary happens here, and when Charlie/Dierkes has his moments, you almost want to hug him and say “Oh, Charlie!!!”  It’s a testament to the actor that I’d actually want to hang out with this kid, despite knowing his particular “eccentricities”. A lot of this has to do with specific choices Mr. Dierkes made for Charlie, a big part of that being the characters physicality. Charlie’s walk, or bound, is so damned “happy” you know this kid doesn’t have a dark though in his head. In a world obsessed with mean spirited comedy (myself, guilty and included) it’s such a refreshing change of pace to see a genuinely goodhearted laugh-out-loud film, filled with characters you actually care about. And though Dierkes doesn’t get quite as many “one-liners” as his compatriots, it’s just that overall Charlie sensibility that makes the character and the actor performing him so winning. One of the most charming and flat out likable roles in recent comedy history. Very well done.

    mystery-team-comic-con_

    Aubrey Plaza/Kelly: You may know her from her work in FUNNY PEOPLE or on NBC’S PARKS AND RECREATION – and if you don’t, trust me… you will soon. One look at Aubrey Plaza and we know she is physically stunning. And not in a traditional Hollywood starlet way, either. This young lady is something special. And in the world we live in, she’d probably get work based on her looks alone. Ms. Plaza, while a stunner, also happens to be one of the funniest and most talented young actresses working in comedy today. She, in everything I’ve seen her in, relays such a sense of realism that I constantly feel like I’ve “met” her characters before, or someone much like them. Kelly, in MYSTERY TEAM is no different. That smart, beautiful, edgy, semi-dangerous, semi-sad girl we all crushed on in high school but who we assumed lived on “another planet” from us – Kelly, is that girl. One doesn’t wonder for a moment what Jason sees in her, as we all see it ourselves. Rarely does someone with such a presence come along, especially someone working in comedy, that you are drawn to the screen like a moth to the flame. The fact that we like Kelly goes along way in making us understand Jason’s motivations throughout the film. Often times i watch movies where I could care less about the “love interests” and they feel like superfluous subplots. Very much the opposite here. Plaza’s grace and kindness as Kelly keep us as motivated to solve the crime and save the day as the MYSTERY TEAM themselves are.

    Bobby Moynihan/Jordy: Oh my word, Bobby comes this close to stealing the whole show. Though Jordy does not have much screen time, I can guarantee you will be quoting his lines in the weeks after you see the film. Mr Moynihan, now a two season veteran of SNL is, in my opinion, on a shortlist of the top 10 funniest people working in the industry today (check out my interview with Bobby on Bagged & Boarded). And if you weren’t already on the Bobby-Wagon, get ready to buy your ticket. I still don’t know what or who Jordy is. EVERYTHING about this character is off… and off in an amazingly hilarious way. The freaking cadence of his sentences made me laugh till I was tearing up. In a movie filled with “freaks”, Jordy is the king freak. And in many ways I feel like he has his own personal movie going on behind the scenes. If they were to give the film a prequel treatment I, for one, would pay an obscene amount of money to watch what happens to Jordy when the boys aren’t in his store. Look, I love MYSTERY TEAM, I love DERRICK COMEDY, but Bobby’s performance in this film is worth the price of admission alone. Quite possibly my favorite on-screen character of the year.

    Others To Watch For: First, a special note about Xavier Salazar as Eric , the crazy, foul-mouthed eight-year-old. Bobby J doesn’t have anything on this kid. Man, I love when little kids curse. The rest of the ensemble is basically a UCB roll-call of the nation’s most talented improvisers and comedians. While not show-stealing, they provide the backbone of the film and they do it wonderfully. Standouts include Will Hines, Ellie Kemper, John Lutz, Matt Walsh, Jon Daly, and Neil Casey, in what may be my favorite role in recent film history.

    ———————————————————————————————

    QUICK HIT LIST:

    The Directing: It’s hard to gauge a director’s mark on a comedy oftentimes, and especially on one that stars the folks who wrote it. Comedies are really about the laughs, and for the most part that comes down to writing/acting (and editing). How would one judge a director’s impact on a hilarious film? Here’s an easy way – Remove the laughs. Does the move still hold up? Structurally, visually… does it have a constant? For those reasons, I must commend director Dan Eckman in creating not only an obviously funny film, but quite a cinematically sound one as well. For a group of debut filmmakers working on an independent budget, Eckman manages to deliver a film devoid of the tell-tales signs of indie-filmmaking. Rather, as soon as the movie starts, you are presented with a polished, professional, and all together quality product. Directing a film is a huge undertaking, and I can’t imagine the pressure on someone’s first big feature. Eckman shows a real talent for nurturing the funny and an extremely strong penchant for simple, solid filmmaking.

    The Score: The film’s score, created by Donald Glover, is dope. Like… dope dope. Dude makes some good beats. Also manages to get some real “old school” 80’s kid’s movie transitions and what not in there. Good stuff.

    The Color: This movie pops! Lots of bright colors on the boys, tons of lush green grasses, and beautiful idyllic New England landscapes. For an “independent” film, it looks damn pretty.

    mystery_team450x500

    The Production: Though it may not be apparent on screen, producing a feature film is a gargantuan task I wouldn’t wish on my greatest enemy. One needs to be organized, extremely task oriented, and have an ability to roll with any and all punches. Meggie McFadden pulls this off. For an indie production, this film looks, feels, and plays like the “real” thing, and the ensuing campaign and online marketing blitz has been nothing but masterful. It’s a tough gig, but one Ms. McFadden seems destined for greatness in. I also love to think that her skills as a producer will grow alongside the talents of the rest of the group, and sooner or later, due to these confluences, DERRICK is going to be a force to be reckoned with… yo.

    ———————————————————————————————

    OH, HAM-SPLATTER! (The Bad):

    I got nothing. A wholly and completely enjoyble experience on every front.

    ———————————————————————————————

    OVERALL: I honestly think this film will be remembered as the movie that brought DERRICK to the table of American comedy and kept them there for a very long time. And if nothing, it will be remembered as a hilarious, weird, unique, one-of-a-kind little comedy that proved America’s big talents can come from nontraditional venues. I am incredibly excited to be a fan of DERRICK and to see where this group of insanely talented artists can go in this world. Look, I knew I would like this movie. I am floored at just how much I did. I can’t say enough how polished and experienced everyone involved comes off, and honestly, I think this movie gives hope to all those kids sitting at home with the ideas and the determination, but lacking the direction. DERRICK has taught us that if your product is good enough, people will want it. Regardless of where they have to get it. This movie is round one in an epic comedy battle for the ages and a veritable showcase for the people who will be making us laugh in the near future.

    Quite simply: One of the freshest, funniest and original debut films I’ve ever seen.

    America, meet your new way to laugh.

    mysteryteam_000

    MYSTERY TEAM is now playing in NYC at the Quad Cinemas and will hit DVD worldwide sometime in 2010 via Lionsgate.

    For More DERRICK, check out my interview with DC Pierson and Maggie McFadden on Bagged & Boarded 40: A Brief Respite with Derrick Comedy

    Matt Cohen is currently solving the mystery of where his pot went. Main suspects: His Lungs.

    Check out Matt Cohen on a weekly basis on his podcast “Bagged & Boarded“, only at QuickStop and iTunes.

    Want to stalk Matt Cohen? Check out Camel Toad Productions or catch him on twitter at @Cameltoad

  • TV Or Not TV: 11/30 – 12/6

    tvornottv-header.png

    Welcome to another edition of TV or Not TV where it’s time to say good-bye to the DEFECTIVE DETECTIVE.

    I have to admit that when MONK originally premiered I hadn’t seen it. Thankfully a lazy Sunday and a marathon that first season enabled me to catch up very quickly with the show and I admit that from the pilot on I was hooked.

    The most important thing about MONK was that it consistently kept me entertained. Tony Shalloub never had me doubt he was Adrian Monk and I enjoyed every moment of pain that he put into each awkward moment that his character had to endure.  I was a fan of his cab driving character on WINGS however that character seems long faded from my mind as I now, and probably forever, will recognize Shalloub as Monk.

    Another actor who always turned in a great performance, and who has had me forget the other character he was well known for, is Ted Levine as Captain Leland Stottlemeyer. In the beginning of the show there seemed to be more annoyance in his dealings with Monk, however over time the characters have evolved and the adoration and respect that Stottlemeyer has for Monk has really come across over the last three seasons. Congrats Ted Levine for finding the role that would shake the recognition Buffalo Bill earned you all those silent lambs ago.

    As a show MONK also overcame lots of changes that many shows aren’t able to overcome. The exit of Bitty Schram in the third season as Monk’s assistant Sherona could have sunk the show if fan’s hadn’t embraced Traylor Howard’s Natlie Teeger. Howard’s own pregnancy introduced challenges to the production. Most notable in hurdles to overcome was the unexpected loss of Stanley Kamel as Monk’s therapist Dr. Kroger. Thankfully quality is able to overcome any hurdle and this show did so in spades.

    Although Shalloub has said that he feels that eight seasons is enough and he feels good about the end of the series I think if his character were given the option he’d want to go for at least two more seasons. You know, because it’s 10.

    Given the return of Dollhouse this week on Friday as well I’m going to be very torn on what I watch live and what I watch on DVR. Given our long relationship maybe I’ll be spending the evening with MONK one last time.

    Now that I’m done talking about a fictional detective let’s investigate what this week’s television viewing holds for us.

    MONDAY

    ABC – 8:00 PM: ABC gives us a one-two punch with the classic How The Grinch Stole Christmas followed by the newer and not so classic Shrek the Halls. With a six-year-old I’ll be watching like it or not.

    NBC – 8:00 PM: Time to finally say good-bye to Nathan on HEROES, that is if you are still even watching.

    AMC – 8:00 PM: Speaking of holiday classics I hope you all might agree that National Lampoons Christmas Vacation fits the bill.

    TUESDAY

    NBC/ABC – 8 E/5P: There is one good thing about tonight’s Presidential Address, it is forcing NBC to not air The Jay Leno Show. I guess that’s the second turkey the president has repriteved in under a week.

    ABC FAMILY – 8:00 PM: Tonight the ABC FAMILY network kicks off their 25 Days of Christmas with the cable premiere of The Santa Clause 3: The Escape Clause. I hope this isn’t setting the bar too low.

    NBC – 9:00 PM: Tonight we will finally find out who two out of the three final contestants are on The Biggest Loser.

    ABC – 9:00 PM: After a great series finale last season it turns out Scrubs only had a season finale. A few old faces are back to try to beat the dead horse just a bit more.

    CBS – 10:00 PM: I have yet to watch The Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show and I don’t think I’ll be breaking the streak this year either.

    WEDNESDAY

    ABC FAMILY – 7:00 PM: Some of the most entertaining short films you may never have seen are free for you to view tonight with Pixar Short Films.

    CBS – 8:00 PM: Outcasts and misfits alike can rejoice with tonight’s airing of Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer.

    FOX – 9:00 PM: There’s only one more episode after this one for Glee so either prepare for a heck of a winter finale or be relieved you won’t be hearing about the show for a while.

    DISCOVERY – 9:00 PM: Tonight on MythBusters they test out two myths, inluding Antacid Jail Break. Sounds more like what was going on in my stomach last Thursday.

    THURSDAY

    FX – 8:00 PM: I think that Deck the Halls will, over time, prove never to be a holiday classic.

    ABC FAMILY – 8:30 PM: I remember when The Polar Express first came out the visuals were just creepy. Five years later the opinion hasn’t changed.

    NBC – 9:00 PM: Tonight’s episode of The Office is titled Scott’s Tots and Michael has to tell some kids he made a promise too ten years ago that he can’t hold up his end of the deal. At his most awkward is when he is at the best of his worst.

    FRIDAY

    FOX – 8:00 PM: Even though Dollhouse hasn’t been picked up for anything more than this season’s original 13 episode order (I just can’t bring myself to say cancelled), the show is back all December long for 2 hours every Friday night. Strap in for a thrill ride folks.

    ABC – 8:00 PM: What better way to promote the upcoming release of The Princess and the Frog than to bundle it in a nostalgic look back at 75 years in Dreams Come True: A Celebration of Disney Animation.

    USA – 8:00 PM: If you didn’t watch Monk last week than you can watch the series finale of one of cables most entertaining shows the way I feel it was meant to be watched. Good-bye Adrian and thank you for 8 amazing years.

    SATURDAY

    COMEDY – 8:00 PM: Two reasons to watch Comedy Central tonight. Futurama: Into the Wild Green Yonder followed by Hot Fuzz. How’s that for a slice of fried gold?

    FMC – 9:00 PM: Yes I can definitely say an airing of Miller’s Crossing may be enough to divert my attention.

    USA – 9:00 PM: One night you are airing the series finale of one of cable’s most entertaining shows and the next you are airing I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry.

    SUNDAY

    FX – 8:00 PM: If they can have Christmas in July why can’t we have 4th of July in December? If you’re with me than tune in for Live Free or Die Hard.

    FMC – 8:00 PM: If last night’s viewing of Hot Fuzz peaked your interest in seeing Point Break again than tonight you are in luck.

    ABC – 9:00 PM: Seriously, Wisteria Lane has got to be one of the un-safest fictional places to live. Think I’m wrong? Tonight the Desperate Housewives a plane crashes there.

    – If Will Wilkins woke up tomorrow with his head sewn to the carpet he wouldn’t be more surprised than he is right now.

     

  • Opinion In A Haystack: Buck Shots Round 3 & THE ROAD Review

    haystackheader.jpg

    buckshotstroll2quicksize

    Money Shot (Wikipedia): provocative, sensational, or memorable sequence in a film, on which the film’s commercial performance is perceived to depend.

    Buck Shot: moments on which a film’s cheese-factor is based, often underlining the tone of the entire production and providing the viewer with the opposite effect intended.
    Round 3: The Wizard of Speed and Time and The Greatest Film Ending Ever (which is a fact.)

    (Here’s Round 1 and Round 2)

    Taglines:

    • His Life Is a Special Effect…
    • This is the kind of movie you would make, if you had nothing better to do!

    wizposter

    Here at the Opinion In A Haystack Department, we make it our goal to purport the message of “opinion isn’t fact” concerning the world of cinema. This notion is only null and void on a single subject: the greatest film ending ever. Sure, you would have to be some type of megalomaniacal-fizzlebottom drunk on your own power to claim that anything in the world of “art” is “the greatest” (let alone, to use the word “fizzlebottom.”) We are going to go out on a broken limb (glued with oatmeal) and proclaim that The Wizard of Speed and Time has the absolute monopoly on greatest endings ever, with the one ending it has. The unique dilemma, and triumph, of this fact is that the ending doesn’t necessarily take place at the end, nor is it part of the narrative reality of the movie. If we were face to face, here is the subsequent conversation that would take place:

    (You reach in your pocket, worriedly grasping your canister of mace.)

    “If it’s not at the end, than it’s not the greatest ending.”

    “No, I assure you it is.”

    “I’m not listening to anymore of this nonsense.”

    “You just listened to a whole paragraph of nonsense.”

    “How did you know it was a paragraph?”

    “I write out all my conversations beforehand.”

    “Even what the other person will say?”

    “A 1985 Chrysler minivan, gray interior with several apple juice stains in the wheel well.”

    “I guess not.”

    “It’s the greatest ending, I can prove it; you don’t need to mace me.”

    “How did you know I had mace in my pants?”

    “Well, you are a mace salesman, and this is a mace factory.”

    “An odd place to walk around discussing The Wizard of Speed and Time, hence why I hold my mace in defensive preparation”

    “Perhaps if I worked here you would be less aggressive.”

    “Perhaps.”

    (You proceed to mace me.)

    Confusion is probably setting in, which is a perfectly instinctual response we assure you. Director Mike Jittlov is the all-encompassing wizard of speed and time in his movie (you guessed it,) The Wizard of Speed and Time. His 1988 feature film, which took over five years to complete, is his big headed baby. He is the head writer, director, producer, actor, animator, editor and all-around deity of his gloriously bitter film, which tells the story of a special effects filmmaker, named Mike “The Wizard” Jittlov, who is trying to make it in the corrupt corporate world of Hollywood. Surprisingly, it’s apparently based on his real life experiences. The stop-motion animation in this film alone makes it a B-movie rental worth its weight in gold-plated space-diamonds (the fancy ones, usually found in black holes.) Remember earlier, before the mace, when I said that the “greatest ending ever” doesn’t take place at the end nor in the reality of the narrative of the film? Well, that’s because the ending, the one being discussed, is actually Mike Jittlov’s (the character, not the real person. Don’t worry, it gets more complex,) film reel, the effects sequence he makes to prove his talent. Needless to say, it’s a total brain-melting tesla-coil to the eye sockets in style, scope, and content.

    fantasticfilmsrobe-thumb-400x289

    We, at the Opinion In A Haystack Department, came across TWOSAT long before we, I, Bob, started referring to myself as we (weself?) Jump into the wayback-machine and travel to the triumphant age of 2005, where your humble reviewer stood stoic behind the counter of a video store desk grasping for a reason to live. One day, a random VHS tape was chosen for in-store viewing. It had non-sexually nipple erecting cover art:

    wizposter2

    Eighty minutes later, my attention unable to be pulled from work, I had stopped watching Mike Jittlov’s peculiar film. Soon, I was awakened from the dark stupor of retail slavery with cries of:

    “Bob, are you seeing this? Are you seeing what is happening on screen?”

    “REWIND!”

    No less then five VCR malfunctions later, the entire crew, all two of us, of the mostly-porn-mom-and-pop video store were mesmerized by the sights and sounds of a wizard running all over the planet spreading his magical “positive” deeds. Have you ever wanted to see night change into day? Poverty into riches? Struggle into fame? Tanks into Taxis?! This is the film sequence for you. Mike Jittlov’s Wizard runs at the speed of pleasantness, his mere presence makes flowers bloom, women become famous, and entire foreign cities explode with sunlight regardless of the possibly severe environmental effects. There’s more blood, sweat, and tears in this one sequence then in all of Michael Bay’s most action-packed nightmares (even the ones where his penis is a refurbished Howitzer that can dance.) Mike Jittlov accomplishes a feat that no known filmmaker ever has or ever will, one that deserves respect, adulation, and many surprise fruit baskets: He made a movie in which a guy slips on a banana peel so hard that he shoots out into space. See for yourself:

    A Short Review of The Road

    the-road-poster

    Plot Summary (taken from IMDB):

    A father and his son walk alone through burned America. Nothing moves in the ravaged landscape save the ash on the wind and water. It is cold enough to crack stones, and, when the snow falls it is gray. The sky is dark. Their destination is the warmer south, although they don’t know what, if anything, awaits them there. They have nothing: just a pistol to defend themselves against the lawless cannibalistic bands that stalk the road, the clothes they are wearing, a rusting shopping cart of scavenged food–and each other.

    Based on the book (which this reviewer hasn’t read) by author Cormac McCarthy, The Road stars Viggo Mortensen and a vicious world of grime and, frankly, sadness. This post-apocalyptic drama might just be able to wiggle its way into the Oscars unlike most movies concerning its subject matter. The Road is a movie of depression and hopeless existence; it is the story of a father and son being suffocated by no options to survive. There are many films that end on a note of hopelessness, the credits roll right after we learn that the disease has spread, or the asteroid can’t be stopped. This film takes place after that moment. The heroes of the world, the leaders of the planet, already fought the battle with nature, lost, and now we are brought into the story.

    road123

    Beautifully photographed with unending grayness, Javier Aguirresarobe’s cinematography perfectly compliments John Hilcoat’s extremely nuanced direction. Our main characters look as though they are about to cry at every moment, and the movie gives us several different reasons why. Everything, everything, is covered in a thick layer of grime, which dampens all the color out of the frames. The dirt, grime, and struggle of this film make it a great companion piece to Werner Herzog’s Rescue Dawn, even though the genres are admittedly very different. The main characters of the film don’t ever let on to their names, they are Man and Boy, which makes it all the more dark, since they both are essentially deer with broken limbs, walking through a world comprised of wolves in the form of cannibals and thieves. Since the movie takes place well after civilization has ended, the cannibals aren’t the mentally-shocked crazies we normally see, they have grown accustomed to this life, killing and eating people is now the norm, which is all the more scary, of course. Robert Duvall gives an almost chameleon-like performance as the “Old Man.” His make-up is so outstanding that the credits are the only way to know it’s actually him.

    the-road_l

    The movie felt very truncated at times, which could either be a complaint or a type of praise. While there were many situations that came and went without much fanfare or especially colored reactions from the characters, which is what makes the movie feel so “real.” It doesn’t feel like a movie most of the time, excluding flashbacks, because the action/thematic beats don’t happen at the length and speed of a script we’re used to, especially the ending, to which there is no real build up. While all of this enhances the experience, and while all of the acting and craft of the movie is top-notch, Oscar worthy even, I wouldn’t really recommend it for anyone looking for escapism. It’s one of the best films I’ve seen all year, yet not one I would want to voluntarily revisit too often.

    Thanks for reading.

  • TV Or Not TV: 11/23 – 11/29

    tvornottv-header.png

    Welcome to another edition of TV or Not TV where I’m just plain confused thinking about LOST.

    In case you didn’t hear last week the premiere date for LOST’s sixth and final season has been set in stone on February 2nd, 2010. After we just encountered the trippy time travel season I have to chuckle at the fact that the season premiere is on Groundhog’s Day, which is now a day almost synonymous with the time repeating day from the movie of the same title. I’m sure this is completely coincidental and if not the choice of the day has to be completely tongue in cheek.

    Even thought his next season coming up is the final season it probably will be one of the most confusing as well. Unfortunately I am one of those Internet addicts that just can’t seem to stay away from TV news spoilers so I am unfortunately aware of scenes that have been shot for the final season, partly due to my appreciation of Ryan and Jen’s THE TRANSMISSION podcast, and I really hope some of what I’ve learned turns out to be a very elaborate and expensive prank performed to throw Internet snoops off. Sadly reality dictates that this isn’t likely.

    I’m not actually going to talk about some of these things that I’ve learned and instead I’m going to set them all aside and pretend that I don’t even know them. Instead I wanted to talk a little bit about possibilities. Where could this all possibly go based on what we saw and what we know? How will this new season possibly start and where will the time travelling LOSTies that were thrown back to the 70’s find themselves after last season’s finale? Also be forewarned, if you haven’t seen the fifth season of LOST and plan to this will ruin things for you so you may just want to skip ahead to the TV listings.

    As those of us that watched the season finale we know that two distinct things were going on at once. We had a story unfolding in 1977 and we had a story unfolding in 2007 (as well as a bunch of flashbacks to the mysterious JACOB popping up in the lives of the show’s characters at some point or another, but that part we don’t need to focus on). The events of one story actually lend to some of my thoughts on the other story. I suppose I should actually get into the dissection now, huh?

    The first big question that everyone has, after seeing the finale, is if setting off JUGHEAD at the future location of the SWAN station successfully somehow changed things for everyone in the future? The principal that I think they were trying to play out with this line of thought was that the INCIDENT that tapped into the strong electro-magnetic anamoly that would necessitate the need to further dissipate the energy from that anomoly every 108 miniutes would be undone. No one would have to enter the numbers into the computer, DESMOND wouldn’t have to be there to accidentally not enter the numbers on time and OCEANIC FLIGHT 815 wouldn’t be hit with that same energy and crash on the ISLAND. Cause and effect, right?

    If we take the above theory to be true, the ripple effects that occur bend my brain and make me feel a little wonky. If OCEANIC FLIGHT 815 never crashed on the ISLAND than none of the events that we have seen up to this point have transpired. No WALT getting snatched off a raft, no LOCKE being obsessed with opening the hatch, no OCEANIC 6 getting off the ISLAND right before BEN turns the frozen donkey wheel and starting the time hopping on the ISLAND. The time travelling not happening is probably one of the most important elements because it means that no one goes back in time, BEN doesn’t get shot by SAYID and possibly never joins THE OTHERS since he had no wound to be healed. Could all of this possibly happen? Can all that we’ve known be undone in a flash of solid white light?

    For the long time LOST viewer I don’t really have a solid answer. The fifth season proved that the writers and producers of the show really are capable of taking this show in any damn direction that is possible. I think that there are also certain hints that this isn’t the exact direction that they will be taking the last season of the show based on the story that was occuring on the ISLAND in the “present” story line set in 2007. LOCKE (or Evil Locke, Un-Locke or whatever you want to call him), SUN and FRANK are all on the ISLAND in a future where they are handed a photo from 1977 showing their friends as members of the DHARMA INITIATIVE. This means that they are living in a time line where their friends have already bene back to 1977. Whatever events that happened in 1977 have already transpired in their past, they have played out because it’s already 30 years later. SUN is still on the ISLAND looking for JIN when she’s handed that picture so she’s already been through her entire ordeal. I have to cling to this as the item of hope that they won’t try to do an entire reset for the last season. To be honest this show always has so much going on I really don’t think I can handle any new information.

    Now that I’ve pontificated about nothing important at all let’s get on to something else in no way important… this week’s TV offerings!

    MONDAY

    CBS – 8:00 PM: During this time of year we get to enjoy many holiday television traditions and it would appear that How I Met Your Mother is starting their own as we get another year of Slapsgiving2: Revenge of the Slap.

    NBC – 8:00 PM: I may have broken up with Heroes a little too soon since tonight the most awkward family Thanksgiving will be happening at the Petrelli home. How do you handle eating dinner with the woman that covered up your own death while dealing with having a serial killer stuck in your head? I’m sure if they can get to dessert it will be fine, pumpkin pie cures all.

    TLC – 9:00 PM: After many seaons and an entire year of tabloid torture the series finale of Jon & Kate Plus 8 is finally here. If this means I never have to hear the name Jon Gosselin again I’ll be happy.

    TUESDAY

    ABC – 8:00 PM: Just when things on V are getting really good ABC does what any good network does: put the show on hiatus until March. Didn’t hurt Prison Break their first season though.

    NBC – 8:00 PM: It’s the contestant’s last week on the ranch on The Biggest Loser so be sure to bring a tissue because this will be a real tear jerker.

    WEDNESDAY

    DISC – 7:00 PM: Even though some of it are repeats there’s nothing like four hours of MythBusters.

    FOOD – 7:00 PM: In a panic about how to prepare your bird for the big day? Procrastinators out there may take something away from Dear Food Network: Thanksgiving Turkey.

    NBC – 8:00 PM: If Tuesday’s showing of The Biggest Loser wasn’t enough to guilt you ahead of time for Thanksgiving than this special Where Are They Now? edition won’t help much as we see the people that have kept the weight off, and the few that haven’t.

    THURSDAY

    NBC – 9:00 AM: Two years ago the entire nation was Rick Rolled by the Cartoon Network float at the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade. What will happen this year? Based on the AMA’s let’s hope Adam Lambert won’t be on a float.

    FOX – 8:00 PM: It would appear FOX is putting on their own holiday tradition with another holiday showing of Night at the Museum.

    SCIENCE – 8:00 PM: In case you can’t wait for the gourd tossing goodness of Punkin Chunkin 2009 than you can watch Road to Punkin Chunkin to get the mood started. It’s so nice to see a competition where the nerdiest and the dirtiest of mankind can get together, isn’t it?

    USA – 9:00 PM: It’s the first official season airing of the newer holiday classic Elf.

    FRIDAY

    NBC – 8:00 PM: I still haven’t seen the edited-for-television cut of The 40-Year Old Virgin. Is it like 20 minutes long?

    CBS – 9:00 PM: The whacky life of Medium continues as Alison is suddenly in a coma and her consciousness is trapped into the body of Jeffrey Tambor (Hank from The Larry Sanders Show). Better yet, he/she insists on staying home with the JOE and the kids. Hopefully he/she doesn’t want to spoon.

    HIST – 8:00 PM: It may not be a holiday classic but there’s something to be said about Surviving the Holidays with Lewis Black.

    SATURDAY

    NBC – 8:00 PM: If you missed Merry Madagascar than I’d recommend catching it this time around, especially since it is immediately followed by one of the best super hero movies to date: The Incredibles.

    ABC FAMILY – 9:00 PM: One of the Peanuts specials that I used to look forward to every year as a child was Snoopy, Come Home. If you are in the mood you can catch this as well as A Boy Named Charlie Brown two hours prior at 7 PM.

    USA – 9:00 PM: If you didn’t catch Elf yet this week this is your last chance until… well, next week I’m sure.

    SUNDAY

    ABC FAMILY – 8:00 PM: A cunning canine protects his owner’s home from two bumbling thieves in The Dog Who Saved Christmas. So is this HOME ALONE with a dog?

    CBS – 9:00 PM: The dog theme continues as a mentally challenged man tries to find every pooch a home for the holidays in A Dog Named Christmas.

    HGTV – 8:00 PM: Even though there is no dog directly involved their may be a shot of a guy in a PLUTO costume in Behind the Magic: Disney Holidays.

    – Will Wilkins wrote this with visions of turkey and stuffing dancing in his head.

  • Trailer Park: Daniel Cudmore & Charlie Bewley of TWILIGHT: NEW MOON

    By Christopher Stipp

    The Archives, Right Here

    I was able to sit down for a couple of years and pump out a book. It’s got little to do with movies. Download and read “Thank You, Goodnight” right HERE for free.

    Check out my new column, This Week In Trailers, at SlashFilm.com and follow me on TWITTER under the name: Stipp

    Daniel Cudmore and Charlie Bewley of Twilight: New Moon – Interview

    I realize this is the backhanded way of going about introducing these two actors in what is one the most hyped releases of 2009 but their appearance in the last third of the film’s running time is the best part of the movie.

    Really, by the time Edward is thrashed by a very thick and mean Daniel Cudmore who plays part of the vampire royalty in Stephenie Meyer’s series of books about vampires who sparkle in the sun you are just aching for something to happen. The promise of vampiric strength is never really examined at all until we see Daniel provide what is the most delightful moments of the movie. The Volturi, led by the rapturous Michael Sheen who just shines in a role that could have been camped up in keeping with the books themselves, are not only mysterious but actually deliver on the promise of being that community’s judge, jury and executioner. While it would have been delicious to have seen more of this clan it was nonetheless a fantastic experience to sit down with Cudmore and newcomer Charlie Bewley and talk about their roles in this new film.

    From the attention, adoration, and scrutiny of teen fans, to knowing how to act when you’re being filmed in slow-motion, to not getting a comp of your own action figure this interview was, at the very least, rewarding to participate in when you consider how casual the two of them treated this experience.

    (Special thanks to The Massie Twins of GoneWithTheTwins.com who provided the transcription below)

    new-moon-poster-2_volturi_500The Massie Twins: How are you enjoying Arizona? You came here for the one day out of the year when it’s cold.

    Daniel Cudmore: I know. It’s supposed to be summer all year here, and it’s a little chilly. It’s better than Vancouver now, which is all rain. I can’t complain.

    MT: How was the mall tour yesterday?

    DC: The mall tour was wild. They’ve been very, very cool. You see these people who are so passionate about these great books and they haven’t even seen what we’ve done with the characters that we play. They’ve got this blind faith and it’s flattering but also nerve-wracking. You hope you’ve done all your homework.

    MT: How many have you gone through so far?

    Charlie Bewley: We’ve been to Philly, Seattle and this is the final leg of the tour. They’ve got their actors in the field right now.

    Christopher Stipp: Usually as an actor you say “it’s just a job, this is what I do,” but this has its own little sphere of”¦

    CB: Yeah, this is an amazing thing to be involved in. As my first real project, it’s great because there is so much extracurricular obligation. I’ve just signed a contract for next year to do a bunch of appearances. For such a small but great role there are so many things you can do away from the film to keep yourself busy.

    MT: Were you guys familiar with the novels before you got involved?

    DC: I’d heard some rumblings on the internet when they were casting the first one that I should go out and audition. I didn’t know the world that well. I knew of it, but as soon as I was in the process of auditioning, I sort of delved into it and educated myself on it. I can’t say enough about Stephenie Meyer’s writing.

    MT: Had you seen the first movie?

    CB: I watched the first movie on the day of my audition. The 27th of January I believe. In an acting sense I had prepared for the role, but I find it’s always useful to watch the films. I had to download the thing because I couldn’t get to the cinema that early in the morning. There’s a very definite style to the way she interprets this world. It’s ethereal yet it’s real.

    87979328SG018_TWILIGHT_FAN_That probably has a lot to do with the way it was shot ““ very dingy, very overcast. The first film is a cult film and when it was finished I had an idea of what I needed to do ““ take that forward and be this Demetri guy. New Moon is very much a Hollywood blockbuster movie and an action film. It should bring a whole new demographic to the Twilight world. I don’t think anyone really understands how big this is going to be. After a week you’re going to get some spare seats in theaters and they’re going to get filled up with guys looking for a good action movie.

    MT: Can you guys give us a quick intro into your characters and the Volturi?

    CB: Volturi are brought into this because of what happens to Edward. He, very selfishly (the more I think about it, the more angry I get), goes out and tries to dispose of himself. He goes to the Volturi and wants them to kill him. Volturi are the only people who can kill him. He thinks Bella has committed suicide, and”¦ you know the story. But they want his powers and want to take him on board. He says he’ll go out into the world and screw up the whole vampire nation by exposing himself ““ so he puts his whole family at risk, and everyone else in the vampire kingdom. Aro sends us out to bring him back. We make and enforce the laws.

    MT: What are the special powers that each of you have?

    CB: I’m a tracker, very much like James’ character in the first one, but my tracking abilities are unlimited which makes me a much more formidable threat, which you’ll see in Breaking Dawn. Demetri gets the standard skill set of being immensely strong, fast, aesthetically pleasing and highly dangerous. I am very much the “good cop” where as Felix is”¦

    DC: Each character gets an extra power, whether it be a tracking ability or mind power, but my character isn’t given a specific power except that he’s just brutally vicious and strong. There isn’t a vampire at his same level and he knows this, so he can have fun with tearing apart other vampires. He knows what he can do and enjoys the heightened strength.

    CB: I think that goes for the whole of the Volturi. We’re a very arrogant bunch.

    CS: Is it ever difficult to play a superhero type character? Do you ever start laughing after you’ve read a script before you sit down and think, “okay, I’ve got to play this straight. I’m a vampire, I’ve got these superpowers.” Is there every a moment, at least initially, where it’s funny?

    DC: For me, sometimes you do get a character who on the surface, you’re like “how am I going to do this?” But you break it down and find the emotion, to the most minimal base. How do I connect. What can I bring to make this real for me. I start with a basic foundation and build it up from there. Everything else is just extra. You make it real to you and everything else goes with it. It doesn’t feel campy. You’ve identified with the emotion. You’re there and everything else builds up the character.

    charlie_bewley_2662205CB: I think if it weren’t for the fact that this is such a huge, phenomenal success and everyone wants to be a vampire right now, then there might be cause for going, “okay, I’m a vampire. This is weird.” But I never got to that stage. I’m a badass vampire! I call my friends at home and say, “Guess what! I’m a vampire!” When I go out onto the street I don’t act like an actor ““ I think it’s the same for vampires. They are badass vampires, so they don’t have to go out and act like it. These are real people with superhuman abilities and idiosyncrasies that come with being a vampire. Yes I eat human flesh, yes this, yes that. We don’t carry it around like some sort of a tag. Especially the Cullens, they’re real people ““ that’s why so many people can get into it. When the primal urges come out, you have to act vicious and aggressive. That’s when you can show the vampire side. I’m looking forward to that because it’s a massive contrast to the charming Demetri that I’ve played in this one.

    MT: What’s the tone like on the set? Is anyone a prankster? Is Kristin Stewart incredibly eccentric?

    CB: Not really. (laughs) There’s not that much to talk about behind-the-scenes. It’s an incredibly professional set. It’s a very high-stakes film with some huge industry talent. There’s not that much room for a prankster running around putting whoopee cushions on Aro’s chair. Case in point, on the set, Chris Weitz, who is normally very calm ““ we were doing a take and some extras were talking behind the set. Chris lost it. When the nicest guy in the room loses it, you know he’s angry. Off set, there’s some great characters. It was really nice meeting all the Cullens and putting personalities to faces. There’s some nice people, but I wouldn’t say there’s a guy running around pulling people’s pants down.

    MT: What’s the craziest or coolest thing a fan has done so far?

    DC: Wow. Last night this little girl was crying. It was the most terrible moment of her life mixed with the most emotionally charged, happy moment. It was such a strange feeling. I looked up and”¦

    CB: Yeah, she could have gone any way (laughs)

    DC: She like almost fainted, but I touched her hand and she wobbled away. It was the strangest thing, but it was really, really cool.

    CB: It’s really hard to understand. We must be like the gods were to the Greek peasants back in the day (laughs).

    aro_caius_alec_volturi_new_moon_twilightDC: (laughs) I don’t see myself like that!

    CB: (laughs) I’m trying to fathom it in my head, the power status there is between fans and movie stars that could justify the extreme female behavior. Something I can’t get my head around.

    DC: And then you go back home and your buddies tear you apart. (laughs) They instantly put you back in your place. It’s hugely flattering, especially when they haven’t seen what you’ve done. It’s also great to have your friends and family knock the pegs right out from underneath you.

    CS: Last year Taylor [Lautner] was sitting where you are now. Before that, no one knew who he was. Now he’s on the cover of US Weekly. What’s it like to go from 0 ““ 100 mph in six months? Are you prepared to be in the same situation with the attention?

    CB: I don’t know the answer to that.

    DC: I very briefly got to meet and chat with him, but the kid is smart and he’s got a good head on his shoulders. It’s just part of the business and I think he’s done a great job with it. Are you ever ready for this kind of thing? I don’t think so, but if you know who you are, then you’re fine. You’re the product and you promote it like anything else.

    MT: Who would win in a fight: Felix or Colossus?

    DC: (laughs) Oh man. I think it would”¦ I don’t want to upset anybody. I think it would go on for a very long time and it would be a very cool fight scene. And it would cost a lot of money if they wanted to do that in a movie.

    MT: Are you getting your own Twilight action figures, and if so, will you own them?

    CB: Damn right! That’s immortalization! This is stage one on my way to my statue! (laughs) We did a publicity day, which we missed for New Moon ““ which is why you’re not seeing us on all the paraphernalia going around ““ but we got to go to Italy. We went up on this mini stage and there was some technological setup that took our front, side, profile. And someone was like, “this is for your action figure.” And at that point I was like”¦ Wicked! Sweet! (laughs)

    DC: I got one for Colossus, but I didn’t get one. Those guys didn’t send me one, and I’m upset. I want you guys to get this out here and have whoever made those things to send me one.

    CB: Just go buy one!

    DC: I’m not going to buy one. It’s bull!

    CB: I’m going to go to a store and pick one up off the shelf and walk to the cashier and say, “that’s me! That is me.”

    DC: Why couldn’t they have just sent me one so I could have it!

    MT: Have you guys seen the final cut of the movie?

    DC: No. Monday’s the premiere. I’m really excited. It’s going to be huge. Sometimes I don’t want to see it before the premiere.

    CB: I’m on the other side ““ I wish I’d seen it. I’ve got like three agents coming with me and they’re going to be watching me. That’s pressure. I know I’ve made some pretty weird choices in the film. I don’t know if they’re caught on camera or not. Here’s actor naïveté for you:  It’s when we rip apart the vampire and Aro’s got the head and we had to film the bit where we have an arm each. We’ve just ripped his arm off and I played the scene in my head and I said “This is one of those slow motion scenes, massively dramatic.” So I thought, “I’ve got to play it in slow motion.” (Charlie acts out ripping apart a vampire in super slow-mo). And I forgot you do everything in real time and they slow it down afterwards. (laughs) So I’m in the car at night with Dan and I’m like, “Shit. I did that scene in slow motion! Was I supposed to? NO!”

    DC: I was looking over thinking, “Is he in slow motion? What did he have for lunch?” (laughs)

    MT: Well hopefully they can speed it up to put it back into real time.

    CB: I can picture someone up at 2:00 in the morning correcting my screw-up. (laughs)

  • Opinion In A Haystack: Eric Lichtenfeld Part 2

    haystackheader.jpg

    Interview: Eric Lichtenfeld Part 2 of 2

    bookcoveraction

    This is the second half of my talk with Eric Lichtenfeld, author of Action Speaks Louder: Violence, Spectacle, and the American Action Movie. Please don’t forget to check out the first half of this interview or my original review of his book.

    gse_multipart58306

    BOB ROSE: Do you enjoy action film satires such as True Lies, Shoot ‘Em Up, or Hot Fuzz?

    ERIC LICHTENFELD: I like True Lies a lot.

    BR: It’s definitely a satire, at least to some degree.

    EL: Yes, a loving one. It’s one of those films that works both ways. I think Robocop is an even better example than True Lies, but both of them illustrate this well: it’s a satire that works as a movie even if you don’t get the satire. You don’t watch them and think that there is something you’re missing.

    BR: Robocop is a movie that I don’t feel has been fully appreciated for what’s under its skin.

    EL: I think the critical thinking concerning Robocop over the years has matured to the point where it has gotten its due. Obviously not in all corners–I’d be surprised if Michael Medved went for it, though he might; I honestly don’t know.

    BR: Sequels have diluted the way it is remembered.

    EL: The sequels really have very little to do with the original, and what made the original special.

    BR: I agree, however, when people view a franchise as a whole they tend to have trouble separating the installments in their mind.

    EL: Rocky and the Rambo franchise are great examples of that. You might be right about that with Robocop, but, I think anyone who spends any time thinking about this even remotely seriously would still look at Robocop as its own entity.

    BR: Sure, I was just saying that, for instance, Robocop 2, which I admit to enjoying as an action film, made the “joke” of Robocop the point of the movie. It makes people forget.

    EL: Yeah, you’re right.

    BR: My life experience has been, when I tell people I’m interested in film and that Robocop is one of my favorite films”¦I get funny looks. You actually start your book with a quote from Robocop. Clarence Bodeker quipping “guns, guns, guns.”

    EL: I was always a very big fan of Robocop. I remember a very close family friend, a friend of my parents, watched it on my recommendation and told me, “Your taste is up your ass.”

    BR: [laughs]

    EL: I thought, “ok, they just didn’t get it.” One of the clichés I really hate is when people talk about movies and say that some inanimate object was “like another character in the movie,” but in Robocop, violence really is like another character: it goes through a lot of changes and progression. Almost every major violent episode of Robocop has a distinctly different tone. Sometimes the violence is darkly comic, such as when ED209 kills the executive in the boardroom–

    BR: Which is even longer and more violent in the unrated cut.

    EL: Right, and even funnier. In the drug warehouse or the showdown at the steel mill, the violence is heroic. When the gang converges on Murphy it’s very tragic. So Verhoeven crafted a lot of violence in the movie, but always found a way to give it different emotional flavors, and that’s just one facet of how smart that movie is.

    BR: Do you think that is affected by how Paul Verhoeven views the movie, as a form of Christ’s story? Murphy’s death is played so serious and sad, like as if it’s his crucifixion, even though it preceded by something as funny as ED209 malfunctioning.

    EL: Well, Verhoeven has described himself as a Christ scholar. So, the short answer to your question is “sure.” I’m sure that how he treats Murphy is a reflection of his investment in the Christ story. At the same time I’m hesitant to make too big a deal about that because all action movies are Christ stories. Most hero stories involve the basic building blocks. Most heroes have–I’m saying this figuratively–an almost supernatural quality. Dirty Harry is set apart from other men. Martin Riggs is set apart from other men. An action hero is set apart from others, has special abilities, has a divine purpose (again, I’m speaking figuratively,) is forsaken by his community (that’s a really important point,) and rises again. So I think that Verhoeven’s fascination with Jesus is certainly informing that scene, but I think you would read the same thing into the movie even if that wasn’t a particular interest of his.

    BR: Yeah, I would have never singled out Robocop specifically for that if he had not said “This is my version of the Christ story.”

    EL: I’m certainly not disagreeing with Verhoeven on this, but that would have probably been in there to one extent or another, even if –

    BR: He’d not been trying.

    EL: Exactly, because it’s the nature of the genre. Cobra is a very similar thing. It depends on how “literal vs. figurative” you want to be with some of your language about martyrdom, and about being forsaken and so forth. But the building blocks of that story are present in most these stories.

    BR: In keeping with the topic of the hero story, in your book you discuss the archetype of “the man that knows Indians.” The hero as the outsider.

    EL: Yeah, he is one of us, except that he has a very intimate knowledge of “the other.”

    BR: Like Travis Bickle?

    EL: Travis Bickle is certainly based on that archetype as Taxi Driver is very much an inverted The Searchers. Rambo is a perfect example, he’s a guerilla fighter.

    BR: Yet he fights for the norm of the people he doesn’t know.

    EL: Not just the people he doesn’t know, he fights to protect a society that will not integrate him into it.

    BR: What I like about your book is that it shows how Taxi Driver is part of the evolution of the action movie, even though it isn’t really part of the genre.

    EL: It’s very interesting: when I would tell people that I was including Taxi Driver in the book, some people got kind of pissed.

    BR: Because they thought you were diluting what Taxi Driver is?

    EL: Exactly, like I was defacing Taxi Driver by including it in this un-scrubbed mass of movies.

    BR: Which you weren’t at all.

    EL: Thank you. Once again, that insult kind of goes to the standing of the action genre, in terms of how people validate it, or not. The fact that some people were annoyed that I put Taxi Driver in with this sort of un-washed, un-scrubbed genre says a lot about the standing that the genre enjoys.

    BR: Especially now. I admit I don’t remember a lot of criticism from 20 years ago, but do you think that with what action has become, it is respected less?

    EL: I think in terms of most critics, action has stayed pretty much where it’s always been, on one of the lower tiers, critically speaking. There are films that break out, and there are ones that over time can grow in stature. I think most critics would argue that Die Hard is one of the great action movies, but if you go back to 1988 and read the reviews, they were mixed.

    BR: But, in hindsight, Die Hard can be looked back at as simply a great movie.

    EL: I agree. Going back to Taxi Driver, people were very irritated. I wouldn’t reduce Taxi Driver to just an action movie; I think it is a lot more then just that.

    BR: Sure, it’s a drama or a dark comedy much more then an action film.

    EL: It’s a lot of things. It’s a modern day western. It’s a horror movie. Taxi Driver is one of those films that is such a complicated, but ultimately organic, constellation of genre elements, there are many different ways to parse it.

    BR: It’s a film that could be analyzed till judgment day and still not be fully cracked.

    EL: It’s made by cinephiles, by true cinephiles. What I tried to do was say that in addition to all the ways that Taxi Driver has been looked at up to this point, you can also look at it as this stepping stone in the evolution of the modern action movie. An important one especially in how it directly engages the idea of the vigilante. That is such an important part of the transition from westerns to modern day action films, and an important transition from basically everything that had come up to “˜70s, in terms of film history, to the “˜80s and what would become that classical period.

    BR: Movies like Taxi Driver, and even say, Dirty Harry, compared to the action films of the present day almost feel like dramas.

    EL: I would agree with you about Taxi Driver; Dirty Harry less so. I think what you’re probably picking up on is that idea you were discussing earlier that the movies have gotten so much bigger that when you look at Dirty Harry today it’s hard to know how to classify it, because it doesn’t look like the actions movies we’ve grown accustomed to.

    BR: I hate to be one of the people that have grown accustomed to it, but we are bombarded so consistently how can you not?

    EL: [Laughs] I’ll give you another good example of this idea. I was teaching my class, and that particular semester, our genre unit was on the action movie and we had a 35mm print of Lethal Weapon. Now I have seen Lethal Weapon numerous times, but I hadn’t seen it projected since 1987. So I was very excited to see it in 35mm again for the first time in about 20 years. Know what amazed me? That foot chase over Hollywood Blvd., It’s a great sequence, there isn’t a frame wrong with it. But I kept thinking about how conceptually small it is, and wondering how often you could get away with making it the big third-act sequence today.

    BR: Compared to today, that is the action-equivalent of the first act of a movie.

    EL: Very true. That made me sad; it made me lonesome for that time.

    BR: Yes, but the subtext of that scene is big. The subtext of a mammoth action scene, let’s say of a movie like Transformers, is nil, where as the subtext of the action in Lethal Weapon’s climax is enormous.

    EL: [Laughs] I wouldn’t call it subtext in that case, but I would call it intensity. You have characters you really care about, that you are really invested in. I mean, yes, the whole movie is kind of comic-book like, especially the third act, but the performances are real, the dynamic is real, you feel something for these people. I hate reducing the movie or the genre to this issue, but there’s something to it. Yes, the concept might be small, but it does allow for a much more visceral, kinetic experience. That’s why, throughout the book, I try to write so much about craftsmanship and this is the point I concluded on: that what I think is missing today is that physical investment in what’s happening on screen. When I look at something like the first Transformers, and I look at those action sequences, I don’t know what it is I’m suppose to be feeling.

    BR: Or what it is you are even looking at”¦ [laughs]

    EL: Sure, but one issue is more fundamental than the other. Yes, I don’t always know what I’m looking at, which is a problem, and that’s a big issue with not just Michael Bay, but other filmmakers.

    BR: The action-geography influences the physical investment of the scene as well.

    EL: Exactly. What I believe is that without a clear sense of geography there’s not a clear sense of jeopardy. So when I look at something like Transformers, and I see the action sequences, I don’t know what I am supposed to be feeling. Am I supposed to feel excited, the way you feel excited when you watch the foot chase in Lethal Weapon, or in First Blood? Or are you just supposed to feel kind of generally overwhelmed (which is a completely different feeling)? I can’t speak for anyone else, but I prefer to be excited over being bombarded.

    BR: Overwhelmed is sort of the mantra of the Transformers franchise as well. The goal of the sequel seems to be, “How big can we go? How much can we throw at them, and how fast can we do it?” The movie doesn’t want you there for the characters; it wants you there for the experience.

    EL: Yes, Lethal Weapon works in part because we care about the characters and that is all great, but as I was talking about before it was all about sheer craftsmanship. In his review of Lethal Weapon, I think, Roger Ebert said it absolutely beautifully that the pleasure of the action movie is in the choreography of bullets and bodies and all of these elements. There is an aesthetic pleasure that can be gotten from all that. Look at the first Die Hard. Also, and this is a movie that gets knocked around a lot, but I was watching Die Hard With A Vengeance yesterday, and there is some stuff in there that I think is just incredible. It’s all about basic film style and craftsmanship. That is one of the points that I concluded the book with. When it’s done right, the pleasure of the action movie is that it truly physically makes you feel alive. You sense these things on your flesh, you sense these things on your nerve endings and in your gut. Thinking about how filmmakers have the power to do that is really an extraordinary thing and it makes me sad that it’s so forsaken.

    BR: It’s dying.

    EL: Yeah, probably. I like to think that there are filmmakers that just aren’t on my radar right now, who are, frankly, on lots and lots of other people’s radars. I saw Star Trek and I saw glimmers of that alive in that film. I thought Star Trek was a really good movie. I remember when Waterworld came out, and not unlike Last Action Hero, Waterworld was a movie that had a lot of the story behind the movie dogging it and following it”¦

    BR: The biggest budget ever.

    EL: Right, and when the movie came out it wasn’t even it hype, it was like anti-hype.

    BR: It was also part of the Kevin Costner backlash.

    EL: At that point, yes. When it was released, Steven Spielberg was being interviewed about something else, and they asked him “have you seen Waterworld?’ and he said “yes” and they said “was it worth 300 million dollars?” and I loved his answer. His answer was “It doesn’t have to be worth 300 million dollars, it has to be worth seven dollars.” I thought that was just perfect. I thought so much about that after I saw Star Trek, because we can talk about this stuff all day long, but what does this all ultimately come down to? You went to a movie, you bought a ticket, you either had an experience or you didn’t. When I came out of Star Trek, I think we paid about $15 to see it, I said “You know, that was worth my money, I had an experience.”

    BR: Flaws aside, I agree it worked as great entertainment.

    EL: Yeah, and how often can that be said of these very impressive light shows? You know Transformers was a very impressive light show, but did I have an experience? If I had one, is it a worthwhile one?

    BR: Was it worth $10?

    EL: Was it even worth the time? I’d say no.

    BR: There’s a reason we needed movies like District 9 and Inglourious Basterds this summer. People are all too often are going to films like Transformers, and saying “why did I just pay money for that? What did I just watch?” Seeing something like Basterds, or District 9, which is a light show plus more, at least gives you your money’s worth. I think it has a lot to do with passion. While all “big” movies are product, some movies, like Transformers, feel like only product. At least with Basterds or District 9, even if you didn’t like those movies you can still feel the passion behind them, and that in turn inflates the experience. It makes you say “that was worth my money.”

    EL: Yeah, I think that’s a fair way to put it.

    BR: This has been a very droll summer. Every film looks like G.I. Joe or Transformers, and while I didn’t see G.I. Joe, I think I can get a picture of what G.I. Joe would be.

    EL: [Laughs] Like everyone else, I heard it wasn’t as bad as they thought it would be.

    BR: Is that ever really a compliment? [Laughs] One of the chapters of your book is titled “Terror and the Confined Area,” dealing with the sub-genre created by Die Hard. This decade we have sort of seen the confined area die. I guess we could blame the rise of fantasy and comic book films. Do you think audiences have forgotten that an action scene can take place in an elevator just as easily as a battlefield?

    EL: [Laughs] Well, let’s start broad and narrow our focus. I would say that the last significant movie in that Die Hard vein was Air Force One.

    BR: That long ago?

    EL: Yeah. I don’t really even think Live Free Or Die Hard follows the format. When you talk about that state of all those movies coming out on top of each other in the “˜90s, it was because we had a few dominant trends and that was one of them. That cycle ended with Air Force One in July of 1997. That is a movie I really admire. We were talking about craftsmanship; that is a very finely crafted movie. I think the trend died out for two reasons, the rise of CG making other things possible as we talked about before, but also there was such a distinctive trend that had been going on for so long it had to stop. Genre is a funny thing. It’s about formula and variation and carefully controlling that balance between the familiar and the new. This is no fault of the concept, it happens all the time; the cycle just reached its end. I’m glad it went out with a movie that was so well-crafted in that it really got the idea of geography, which is what made the first Die Hard so effective.

    BR: Ironically, the biggest criticism of Air Force One is the CG plane crash.

    EL: Yeah, that sequence doesn’t work very well. The technology wasn’t that far along yet, they overshot their capability. Air Force One is not one of those widely-admired movies necessarily. I’m usually on the leading edge of its cheerleaders.

    BR: Honestly, I was expecting you to be very negative toward it. I love the movie, but in my experience, it usually isn’t greeted with much welcome. [Laughs]

    EL: Yeah, I think that’s really unfortunate. In fact, I’ll give you a great illustration of what I’m talking about. A few weeks before Air Force One came out, there was the summer’s other terrorists-take-over-a-plane-movie which was Con Air. I saw it with friends, and I said to them, “You know in the interior of the plane, there’s that cage where they keep the dangerous psychopath?”

    BR: Danny Trejo, the rapist character, Johnny 23.

    EL: I said, “Where was that cage in relationship to the seats?” and everybody had a different answer. Now how hard would it have been to very clearly map out the geography of the plane? If John McTiernan had directed that movie, one shot would have taken care of all of that. A stedi-cam shot. When the concept is absolutely dependent on your sense of geography, that kind of frenetic style ran roughshod over it. Go back and watch the dogfight where it’s Air Force One between the F-16s and Migs. Whenever they cut into a cockpit the pilots are always facing the direction their planes were facing. Screen direction is preserved there and really, really well. There’s a certain level of craftsmanship there, a lot to admire and learn from in Air Force One between [the director Wolfgang Petersen] and Michael Ballhaus’s cinematography. So that cycle had ended, and your question was about if we had forgotten that action can take place in an elevator or a confined space.

    BR: We have such epic action now. I think if you said “action scene” to a 12-15 year old right now, they would think of a battlefield or a desert covered in billions of minions. There’s nothing wrong with that sometimes, but action scenes don’t always have to be a fully filmed war, or a CG equivalent of a classic Godzilla battle in fast motion.

    EL: I think that is a fair observation. Again, I think it’s because of CG. It allows you to do things on such a grand scale without paying for it like you had to in the past.

    [Both Laugh]

    It allows these spectacles to happen, and filmmakers take advantage of it. Yes, there probably has been a loss of more intimate kinds of sequences, which is a pity because I think one of the things that filmmakers most often would tell you is that as much as they always want more time and more money, less time and less money is what often forces them into sharper, more innovative thinking.

    BR: You get Jaws out of that.

    EL: You get Die Hard.

    BR: Do you consider the fantasy genre when you think about action? Lord of the Rings has plenty of action, but do you include it in the category?

    EL: I don’t. My general way of looking at this is that since so many genres involve physical action, battles, combat or whatever you want to call it, if you were to talk about all the movies that have action in them as “action movies” the label would stop meaning anything. I talk a little bit about that in the introduction to the book. So, no I wouldn’t. If a movie with action more immediately belongs to another genre, and visually and in everyway you instinctively know it belongs to another genre”¦it probably belongs to that genre, or several genres. I don’t talk about Aliens very much in the book, even though it has a lot of the genre’s elements because Aliens is much more immediately a science fiction movie or a horror film.

    BR: I agree. It’s confusing when Entertainment Weekly puts Aliens as the second greatest action film of all time on their list.

    EL: Exactly, what does “action” mean then? I talk about science fiction and superhero movies in the book because over time the genre does expand to incorporate these other types of movies, especially with technology and so forth. But no, I don’t consider fantasy to be action movies. It doesn’t mean I dismiss them, and it doesn’t mean they are unrelated. Like I said, all these genres exist on sort of a family tree, some branches are further apart, some are much closer together.

    BR: Your book talks about something I’m embarrassed to admit I’ve never realized. That is the tendency of huge action films, specifically concentrating on Armageddon, to have a fear of intellectualism.

    EL: An outright disdain for it. [Laughs]

    BR: Yeah, you dissect Armageddon in your book, a movie I have seen many times, and you really, successfully, point out how the movie outright makes fun of science and scientists.

    EL: In what is inherently a science-fiction scenario.

    BR: From every vantage you look at the conflict in the movie it’s fully encapsulated by scientific knowledge.

    EL: Remember the line that Bruce Willis says “You guys at NASA, aren’t you the guys who are thinking stuff up, and behind you there are guys thinking stuff up.” Well, we know what Michael Bay thinks about “guys who think stuff up.”

    BR: Do you think that is a way of trying to pander to the audience? Not that the audience is inherently stupid, but everyone can’t be an astronomer or a physicist. I know I’m not.

    EL: Yeah, and I think it’s committed by Michael Bay in particular. I think it is part of a very broad, very caustic, very noxious form of pandering. What [Bay] does in his movies, he also does in his interviews when discussing his movies and the critics, and he does it when talking about his past. There’s a theme running through all of that, which kind of separates the intellectual realm from “the people.” He positions himself as kind of the vanguard of the people, and of the people’s tastes. He “doesn’t make movies for the critics, he makes movies for the people,” as though critics aren’t people.

    BR: I know he believes that quality should be based on financial success.

    EL: Right, which is absurd. I wish I could take credit for this, but concerning the new Transformers movie someone wrote, “When people tell me to shut off my brain and have fun, I tell them I can’t because my brain is where I have fun.”

    [Both Laugh]

    BR: That should be on T-shirts.

    EL: It should. I wish I could take credit for it, because it’s absolutely brilliant and perfect. I think what Michael Bay does is beyond pandering. It is consistent with the anti-intellectualism that has blighted our country cyclically for generations. I’m certainly not saying Michael Bay is to blame for all this, but if you look at what’s happening with the environment, economically, to the country, to the planet, this really isn’t a time when we want to be saying that intellectualism isn’t cool. When National Treasure came out, critics really savaged it, and I will say that it’s a pretty imperfect movie, but there was one aspect of it that I really, really liked, and wished more critics had picked up on and championed. This is a movie that made being smart cool. There are lots of critics who rightly dump on action movies because they’re so mindless, and mind-numbing. So when an action movie comes along, imperfections aside, that makes being smart cool, the intellectually honest thing to do is to call out the movie for that and champion at least that aspect of it. I really respected the first National Treasure for doing that. We are really at a point in our history when the smart people need to show up. People in general need to know that intellectualism is a good thing.

    BR: In your book, you point to the much less successful movie The Core as almost the inverse of Armageddon, due to how it shows intellectuals in such a positive light.

    EL: Yeah, the intellectuals solved the problem, and the writer of The Core, John Rogers, is a brilliant guy, a first class intellect. Yes, The Core is kind of a wonky movie, but he’s a good writer and he’s a physicist; he studied physics for crying out loud. The Core might be wonky, but give me that attitude over Armageddon’s any day.

    BR: The entire point of Armageddon is almost saying: scientists can’t stop a giant asteroid from destroying the planet, but John McClane can.

    EL: [Laughs] I don’t even mind the fact that “John McClane” is doing it, because these are action movies it’s the way science is portrayed. Why couldn’t science be portrayed in a healthier, more positive light? My problem is funny, because how do you reconcile being very passionate about anti-intellectualism, while being a scholar of action movies? It’s two things that shouldn’t exactly go together. Most people would argue that the action genre is inherently anti-intellectual, and to that my argument is “no,” action movies are not anti-intellectual, they are non-intellectual. They don’t care one way or the other about intellectualism, and that’s fine. What Bay does so often is refuse to sit on the sidelines, which Die Hard might, or Lethal Weapon might. He’s hostile toward intellectualism. In Armageddon, what bothers me is the scene where the scientists were pitching their other ideas. How hard would it have been to craft a scene where those ideas are introduced, and for logistical reasons, none of them are tenable, and then Bruce Willis and his team are the only option, as opposed to showing why all those ideas are ridiculous? It’s not that the movie can’t have a butch hero stopping the meteor; the problem is that you don’t need to make Bruce Willis look good by making the smart people look bad. It’s a very cynical view of the audience, and it’s a view of science and intellectualism that is full of contempt, but that’s what Michael Bay does when he talks about critics, or his education. Bay has made the point that critics don’t like him because he makes things like Armageddon and not Schindler’s List.

    BR: Which isn’t true.

    EL: That’s not true at all. They don’t like him because he makes bad “Armageddons.” Maybe the action movie is kind of handicapped critically, a weak drama is likely to do better critically than a good action movie, but a really good action film is still going to break through. One of the other charges leveled against Michael Bay is the racism in his movies, and I read about the robots with the gold teeth and such. Do I personally think he’s a racist? I have no idea, but I don’t think he is, I think he just has a corny, cynical sense of humor. What I thought was very interesting about the first Transformers was how that kind of hostility was still there, but some of it was sort of transferred over to adults. The kid’s parents were these big boobs, basically a strategy that Saturday morning television shows use. In shows like Saved By The Bell, and all those clones in the early “˜90s, they would display the adults in those situations as very “boobish” to kind of break children’s identification with adults and authority.

    BR: Well, even though Transformers was a Saturday morning cartoon, in the sequel that is turned up to the maximum degree with the parents.

    EL: A little comic relief is always a good thing, but when Michael Bay does it there’s a cynicism and a hostility pumping out of it. I will give him credit for one thing, the movies he makes are so enormous that getting a movie that big made, on time, on budget and on that release date is impressive. That doesn’t take a director, that takes a general, and he is that guy and I give him a lot of credit for that. I don’t think that’s an easy thing to do. A lot of people who might dismiss him in favor of directors of smaller, more personal dramas certainly might have a lot of grounds on which to do that, but he does have a very particular and very impressive skill set.

    BR: In the last decade Judd Apatow has, in cinema, brought about the age of the Beta male, and even though he did it through comedy, do you think it reflects in action? We get a lot of action films starring “everymen” now, like Shia LaBeouf, which is ironic considering that Bruce Willis was once looked at as the “everyman” hero. In comparison to today’s action heroes, John McClane is a testosterone fueled muscle head.

    EL: [Laughs] I think the function of the “everyman” in the action genre is safe. Their job now is to be the lens through which the audience looks at the real star of the show, which is the concept or special effects. With John McClane, and to a certain extent before him, Martin Riggs, going forward into the “˜90s, that trend of “everyman” was more pronounced because it was in contrast to the model of Schwarzenegger, Stallone, and Chuck Norris.

    BR: Who are, as you say in the book, almost like machines themselves.

    EL: Machines and supermen. They were the supermen before the genre got all superhero- happy. I think the role of the “everyman” in the late “˜80s to mid “˜90s was much more about that fundamental everyman quality, it wasn’t about making room for the concept, or the technology.

    BR: What is your take on what Jason Statham has recently become? He is almost the last pure action star we have, discounting the action stars who have lasted since the classical period.

    EL: I’ve liked him well enough in what I’ve seen. Time will tell if he’s a great action star, one who is going to endure, and become iconic. To know that is hard to tell, you have to have a longer track record that he hasn’t had time to amass yet. Another point is that you can’t really tell that until you know what his era looked like. We don’t know what this time is going to look like five, ten, twenty years from now.

    BR: This is going to sound like an insult, but it’s not, I personally believe he is going to be looked back on as the Van Damme or Seagal of this era.

    EL: Maybe, I think his movies, or his fate would be better if he was in sort of bigger productions that were less obviously B-movie in nature. I look at him right now as he is a little bit like Vin Diesel, not just cause of the hair. It feels like his career is happening, but it also feels like it could just short out. Time will tell. Yeah, he is sort of the last action hero right now, but you know what? Vin Diesel was before him. If it doesn’t happen for Statham, then someone else will come along to fill in his shoes. Film history has shown that there is always an appetite for stars, there’s always an appetite for action, whether you call it an action movie or not, whether the genre has fully formed yet or not. The genre, as I defined in the book, doesn’t really come into existence until the “˜70s, yet there was action from the very first movie. There have been movies since 1895, so does that mean that there was no action for 75 years? There was always an appetite, different modes come along to address that appetite, and that’s true of action, and as long as that’s true of action, it will be true of action stars.

    BR: With Statham in mind, how do you feel about The Expendables?

    EL: I’m looking forward to The Expendables. I love these kinds of exercises in nostalgia. Whenever the last installment was ten or fifteen years ago, I get so excited. I was even excited about Basic Instinct 2.

    BR: [Laughs]

    EL: Because of the sheer audacity of doing it thirteen years later.

    BR: It can work. Look at The Color of Money.

    EL: Oh yeah, it can work, I think 2010 worked great. So, yeah I am very much looking forward to The Expendables.

    BR: Stallone has admitted that it’s going to be a “1980s action film.”

    EL: As a matter of fact this might be the tiebreaker in a way because I thought that Rocky Balboa was really, very, very good and Rambo was really, very disappointing.

    BR: I remember reading on your blog that you thought Rambo 4 wasn’t “silly” enough, which I would agree with.

    EL: My problem with Rambo 4 was this: it had been 19 years since Rambo III and except for some of the specifics of the geopolitics of the movie, there was no reason why Rambo 4 couldn’t have been made in 1992. What I mean by that is, the movie did not reward the audience for having waited 19 years. I just showed my nephew, who is 8 years old, The Empire Strikes Back and he was very frustrated with the ending, because he doesn’t know what happens to Han Solo. I’m going to show him Return of the Jedi at Thanksgiving. I said to him that when I first saw The Empire Strikes Back the wait to see what happens was three years long, and you should have seen his face. He was stricken at that idea. The new Rambo was 19 years coming and there was nothing inherent to it that necessitated that wait. Rocky Balboa was about the passage of time; the story needs time to have passed so the audience is rewarded for that wait. Rambo 4 does that to the barest degree possible, and yes, from what I remember it was also a little too over earnest. The fact that it starts with stock footage, I think was a big mistake. I’m sitting there watching the actual atrocity, feeling really guilty, feeling like I should be out volunteering instead of sitting in a theater watching escapist faire like a Rambo movie.

    BR: Your review was one of the only ones that I agreed with, only because some of that movie just seemed to put this enormous guilt trip on the viewer. Do you think that a campy or silly nature usually increases with action sequels? Even more so, should it?

    EL: No, not necessarily, I don’t think you have to keep getting bigger and more ridiculous. That’s how things tend to evolve, but I don’t think they have to. I think it’s ok to use the movie to reflect on what’s come before and be serious about the characters and their lives, that’s fine. My problem wasn’t with the tone of the whole of Rambo, if he wants to take it in a serious direction, that was actually probably appropriate, because how much more ridiculous than Rambo III do you want to be?

    BR: Have you heard that he announced a Rambo 5?

    EL: Yeah, apparently Rambo 5 has been greenlit.

    BR: Considering it was Rambo 4, and Stallone’s current career, admittedly it was a success, all things considered. Do you think he’s pushing his luck with a fifth movie?

    EL: I think it’s probably going to dull the instrument a little bit. When you have a 19 year hiatus, and then you bring the character back, that’s pretty powerful, regardless of how successful the movie is.

    BR: We’ve seen it so much this decade, it’s starting to feel commonplace.

    EL: Yeah, and even less then a decade. It’s more like 3-5 years. When you bring the character back again, when you follow that up with another one, that element is now diluted.

    BR: The nostalgia is not playing a part anymore.

    EL: It’s reduced, and then what’s special about the movie? I think what winds up happening is that you lose the curiosity, and nostalgia factors, so now the movie just has to deliver. [laughs]

    BR: Are there any other action films on the horizon that you are looking forward too?

    EL: I hate to be a downer, I can’t think of anything I’m particularly excited about. All of the characters, all of the “˜80s action characters who’ve been brought back and who were ever going to be brought back have been brought back. I don’t think there’s a Lethal Weapon 5 in the pipeline.

    BR: I think Joel Silver is still trying”¦

    EL: I can’t imagine that it would happen. You can always hear rumors with internet reports and this or that, but I tend to only believe things when the cameras roll, and sometimes not even then. What I’m curious about is the remake of Red Dawn.

    BR: Especially considering your book goes into such depth about Red Dawn. I’ll say this, before I read Action Speaks Louder I thought Red Dawn was a cheesy “˜80s movie. After reading it, Red Dawn became a different movie in my mind, and I haven’t even had the chance to revisit it yet. You kind of rewrote the movie in my mind.

    [Both Laugh]

    BR: It went from being nostalgia to an important piece of cinema that I need to revisit. If I can praise your book real quick, any movie you discuss in it, I wanted to revisit.

    EL: I really appreciate that. Of the compliments I’ve received on the book, that is always my favorite. “You made me want to see this again, or that again.” I’m always very happy to hear that.

    BR: Your book does that amazingly well. I watched Lethal Weapon twice right after I started reading it. I just haven’t had the chance to revisit Red Dawn and many others, basically just because you talk about so many films in the book. I think the politics of [Red Dawn] is something I was too young to appreciate.

    EL: I’m very interested to hear that, because I think Red Dawn is a very good movie. Its critics are usually a little reactionary, no pun intended. I think it is exquisitely crafted. [Red Dawn] is much more ambivalent than people give it credit for. In the book I try not to come out too strongly for a movie or against a movie, at least not very explicitly, but there were times where I was trying to imply my feelings. Red Dawn and Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome are good examples of that.

    BR: [laughs] It’s funny that you say that, because your assessment of Beyond Thunderdome was probably one of the biggest stand outs for me, next to Red Dawn. Like most people I never gave much attention to the movie, basically since The Road Warrior is always the one that gets the reverence, you put Mad Max 3 in an entirely new light in your book.

    EL: My take on those two movies back to back is this: The Road Warrior is a perfectly made movie, but what it’s trying to do is not especially original, and not especially grand. It is a perfect execution of a pretty conventional vision. Thunderdome is a wildly imperfect movie, but what it’s trying to do is so much grander and so much more interesting, and so much more beautiful. They compliment each other. I wish Thunderdome was more perfect. I admire the vision that it had, and it’s just exquisitely made, it’s beautiful. I hope there is a really nice Bluray of it in the pipeline.

    BR: George Miller put a lot into those films, and it shows.

    EL: I was very excited about Mad Max 4 – especially when George Miller was going to be directing with Mel Gibson.

    BR: While I agree it could be exciting, there is a lot of room for serious disappointment. I say that a lot these days though, post Indy 4.

    EL: [Laughs]

    BR: I’ll admit it, Indy 4 kind of soured me on the whole concept of bringing back these old franchises. I’ll still give them a chance. Rambo was fine, Die Hard 4 was fine”¦

    EL: Well Die Hard 4 wasn’t a Die Hard movie. I thought Die Hard 4 could have been a lot worse, but I’ll tell you when I knew they were in trouble. It was when I saw the first picture of Bruce Willis with a shaved head. John McClane would not shave his head; Bruce Willis would. John McClane is proud, but he’s not vain. When I saw that I said to myself, “this isn’t about John McClane, this movie is about Bruce Willis in generic action star mode.” So, I was sort of preparing for the worst. That said, it was better then it could have been. What I liked best about it was its undercurrent of darkness. It was a pretty grim McClane, and I liked that.

    BR: More grim then the alcoholic, smoking, pathetic, end of his rope John McClane of Die Hard 3?

    EL: Yeah, I think in Die Hard 3 he is more of a burnout. This will sound strange, but I think in 3 there is sort of a more robust grimness. In 3 they put it front and center; I think they underplay it more in 4, which makes it a little bit more stirring.

    BR: While I liked Live Free or Die Hard, I’ll admit it was kind of the John McClane I didn’t ask for. The character specifically. The one who got older, smarter, and cleaner. I prefer the one who is a mess, not the one who probably eats fiber every morning now. It’s just a personal preference.

    EL: Well I think the problem was that in 1 and 3 he feels like John McClane, and in 4 he feels like Bruce Willis.

    BR: Do you have plans to write another book? Would it involve film?

    EL: Yes, I have a few projects down the line. I just actually finished writing an essay on the Rocky series for an academic anthology, which is not due out for quite a while unfortunately. That was a lot of fun. There are a few other ideas that I’m developing that are on the scale of Action Speaks Louder, but they’re in the embryonic stage right now. I’m not talking about them too much yet, I’m still trying to figure out exactly how the research would go, and even if they are doable. They are in a very similar vein of talking about film over time, but through a very specific lens.

    That’s all folks. I want to thank Eric Lichtenfeld for his time and the interview. Thanks for reading!

  • Trailer Park: Peter Rodger

    By Christopher Stipp

    The Archives, Right Here

    I was able to sit down for a couple of years and pump out a book. It’s got little to do with movies. Download and read “Thank You, Goodnight” right HERE for free.

    Check out my new column, This Week In Trailers, at SlashFilm.com and follow me on TWITTER under the name: Stipp

    Who Is KK Downey? – DVD Review

    kk-downey-3d-largeThere is such a need to become famous nowadays.

    When you break it down, fame isn’t really a commodity that can be stored away, saved for later, or preserved. It’s fleeting when and if it happens and it is gone just as quickly. What makes this movie such a delight is its meditation on the nature of fame but it does so with the kind of obnoxiousness that requires a humorist’s touch.

    Made by the folks of Kidnapper Films, the movie takes a look at the lives of Terrance Permenstein, and, yes, that’s his real name, Theo Huxtable as they toil in their lives of obscurity until writer Terrance writes a piece of fiction so far afield of reality that he assumes the character he creates as a real individual and uses this ruse in order to get his fame. Fame, you see, in order to try and woo a lady Terrance used to be with and things from here just spiral out of control. From bizarre set-ups to comedy that is well above the kind that we’re getting out of our usual comedy cohorts the movie takes you on a journey of deception and hilarity. Sure, not everything works but what’s exciting about this film is that there are more hits than misses. For a young upstart crew like this to be giving more laughs per 90 minutes than your average Saturday Night Live show it speaks highly of these performers’ ability to bring the funny in a way that just feels fresh, new.

    More than just your usual movie about a couple of bums who are looking to grab the brass ring in order to gain some notoriety, the movie showcases the talent of this trio and they demonstrate why you ought to keep an eye on these three.

    A description of the movie:

    In the tradition of SCTV and Kids In The Hall comes WHO IS KK DOWNEY ?, the feature-length debut from Canada ‘s latest comedy geniuses at Kidnapper Films. An Official Selection at the Philadelphia Film Festival, Winner of the Best Feature award at the Boston Underground Film Festival and the New Vision Award at Cinequest, WHO IS KK DOWNEY? opened with the highest per screen average in Canada . And now, IndiePix® Films delivers this hilarious examination of media hype and hipster ideology inspired by recent, real-life literary hoaxes to U.S. audiences on DVD. Available on November 3, this soon-to-be cult-classic comes to stores in an extras-laden edition, featuring deleted scenes, outtakes, audio commentary and more!

    Over the last ten years, Kidnapper Films — troupe members Darren Curtis, Matt Silver and Pat Kiely ““ have diligently and creatively worked out of their hometown of Montreal , producing a series of short, comedic films. “We decided enough with the short films. Let’s step up to the table and produce a feature,” says Kiely. “After James Frey, and J.T. LeRoy, and all those others hoaxes, we thought “˜why not make a really dumb, fun comedy about literary hoaxes.’ So that’s what we did.”

    WHO IS KK DOWNEY ? follows the story of two wannabes who decided they were sick and tired of trying to make a name for themselves the old-fashioned way. Terrance is trying to make it as a rock star, while Theo dreams of getting his first book published: “˜Truck Stop Hustler,’ a racy look at life on the streets as a junkie prostitute. After a string of humiliations by both publishers and music critics, the two hatch a plan to turn Theo’s fictional book into an autobiography by having Terrance dress up as the story’s protagonist, KK Downey, and claim all the events as having happened to him. All of a sudden the book nobody wanted becomes an overnight literary sensation, and the duo has realized their dreams of fame and fortune. But at what price?

    Moonshot – Blu-ray Review

    moonI love this kind of thing.

    You can take your Apollo 13 and your Space Cowboys, your Armageddon, I have always been more of a realistic kind of guy. From learning about how things began with just an idea to actually shoving many human bodies beyond any point they’ve ever physically gone presentation is everything. You can’t just slap something together in an EPK and expect that people will appreciate the scope of the information they’re given.

    Thankfully, you’ve not only got one of the most definitive documentaries about how we went from thought to the eagle landing but it’s done in a way that is entertaining and exciting to watch. To say nothing of the historical value of having footage in Blu-ray smacking you in the face, the story is delicately told through a series of reflections and footage of this time. Engineers were the ones who ultimately did it but it’s the filmmakers here who distilled the real story and put this together which really brings everything together. Yes, the final product dramatizes the events leading up to the eventual moon landing but in between this you have a fascinating look into the space race that hurtled events into motion at such a rapid speed you wonder if anything else that will come after this will ever spur our country to do something so quickly.

    This disc will be perfect for dad, for grandpa, for anyone with a passing interest in the program that people nowadays wonder if it is doing any sort of real good. There was a time when people were transfixed to the events that put men on the moon and Moonshot will absolutely deliver on the promise of taking this time in our history and making it relevant again.

    A little product description:

    Relive the breathtaking story of Apollo 11 and the first manned landing on the Moon as HISTORY takes viewers aboard the rocket and on its eight-day round trip to outer space for a close-up look at one of the most stunning and courageous personal and technological achievements of man. Interlaced with original NASA footage transferred to high definition, Moonshot covers the crew s earliest days at NASA to the moment when Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin step on the Moon. From home life and families, to the argument over who would be the first to walk on the lunar surface, this is the remarkable story of one of the most chronicled events in history. Using a script based on transcripts from the mission, contemporary documents, books and interviews, Moonshot incorporates news footage from around the world, including that of the iconic CBS anchor Walter Cronkite. Together, the drama and original material present a vivid yet intimate glimpse at one of the defining moments of modern history.

    Doomsday 2012: The End of Days – Review

    doomI’m not a huge fan of Ronald Emmerich.

    From his obnoxious filmmaking that tries to use global disasters and mass destruction as his palate upon which to throw his dystopic vision to his horrible stretching of any valid truth I just don’t get it. What I do appreciate, however, is this special about 2012.

    For those who don’t know or have any inclination this program helps you understand why 2012 is such a trigger with more than a few civilizations. The Mayans believed the world will be torn asunder when winter hits in ought 12,  and the added documentary Mayan Doomsday Prophecy is like a delicious footnote that gives this group a little extra screen time, there are many computers scouring the Internet to compile mounds of data which point to this year being one filled with destruction, and the oracle of the Chinese, the I Ching, all peg this year being catastrophic for the earth.

    I loved all the crazies they wheel out to talk about prophecy, of predictions for things that are pointing to the fact this may all be a warning, and I certainly had to smile when we were treated with a matching up of the factual events in the history and the many divinations of oracles from history past. Yes, this could all be chalked up to convenient interpretation but this is a program that is at, the very least, a welcome diversion. To hear those who want to debunk the convenient predictions just aren’t as fun as thinking there is something here to what’s being talked about. Could the earth end in 2012? While I don’t think any of this is believable this is nonetheless worth the effort to watch and be amazed by what could be one of the biggest predictions no one hopes comes true. It certainly deserves your money more than Ronald Emmerich does and I think I was more entertained in the process.

    BEFORE THE COMING END OF DAYS, JOIN HISTORYâ„¢ FOR THE TRUTH BEHIND THE UPCOMING BLOCKBUSTER 2012

    It is a doomsday that is foretold in the Mayan calendar, the Chinese oracle of the I Ching…even in an Internet-based prophetic software program: December 21st, 2012. Is there any truth to the prophecy that the world will end on that specific date? And why do so many oracles throughout history seem to point to that same dreaded doomsday? Prior to the premiere of Roland Emmerich’s upcoming mega budget, mega-disaster movie 2012 (bowing on 11/13), join HISTORYâ„¢ for this fascinating special which cuts through the myths and offers a fact-based examination of the Doomsday prophecy.

    Also included is a bonus documentary: MAYAN DOOMSDAY PROPHECY which delves even deeper into meaning behind the Mayans and their apocalyptic calendar.

    Peter Rodger – Interview

    Dare I say that, looking at all we’ve been given by him in the last 12 months, this is the most honest performance from Hugh Jackman? It is.

    For those who were left wanting after seeing Bill Maher’s Religulous there weren’t too many options, as viewer, to examine the intricacies of God. Be it religion or the belief in a higher power there are multitudes of people who think they have it right while everyone else is wrong. The curious extension of this idea is that maybe someone does have it right, one of the hundreds of organized belief systems out there, but what does it say about everyone else who is on the wrong side of the faith war?

    You can see where all the strife and battling of wills between those who believe one thing against those who believe something else is going but the one point here is that how many documentaries have dealt with the idea of faith, of belief, in a way that’s meaningful? The answer is no one, as Maher was too busy being snarky and arrogant and making his subjects look bad that it missed an opportunity to examine what it means to believe in God, or not to believe in God. Documentary filmmaker Peter Rodger stepped in to fill that void and has crafted a movie that you never knew could be so genuine and devoid of an invisible hand guiding the narrative. You have a spectrum of faces you know, Hugh Jackman, Bob Geldof, David Copperfield, Ringo Starr, Seal, and a fistfuls of those you haven’t. What’s remarkable about the latter is Rodger captures wide vistas from 23 countries and he simply has people talk about their feelings, their ideas, of God itself.

    As a practicing agnostic I found myself moved by what Rodger has put on the screen. Instead of stuffy rooms where the interviews have no context, the film captures the sense of place in a world where we all tend to think locally not globally and the result is one of the best documentaries I’ve seen this year. A life affirming story that is moving and has one constant but dozens of beliefs.

    Oh My God is opening this weekend in NY and LA. For theaters where it’s appearing near you visit his website and pull up showtimes.

    oh_my_godCHRISTOPHER STIPP:  Peter, nice to talk to you.

    PETER RODGER: Chris, how are you doing?

    CS:  I’m doing fine.  I got to watch you movie last night and I am just amazed by it.

    RODGER: Thank you!

    CS:  It was nothing that I was expecting and that’s in a very good way.  In researching what I was going to talk to you about, I saw in a lot of interviews, this really was sort of born out of the fruit the idea of the school yard mentality of kid thing.  Essentially that my God is better than your God.

    RODGER: Not of kids, but a childish mentality.

    CS:  Exactly.  Adults who want to be childish about it and it kind of amplifies itself in the amount of wars that have been taken out in God’s name.  What really made you think that you had to do a feature length movie about this idea?

    RODGER: The whole point is this ““ it is ridiculous in this age of communication of internet, the world is a very small place.  Human beings are on a big rock and it’s a little bit distressful that those in one club are better than those in another club.  It becomes even more distressful when they use God’s name to validate their club against somebody elses and I find that a very childish mentality.  I think that now we are in a very good position because of the smallness of the world and the ability to get on the phone or the internet or talk or whatever to really understand that we are more united that we are divided and this is really the motivating factor for me to go around the world and ask people what does the name of God mean to them and perhaps we can learn something, learn other cultures and realize that we are a little more united than divided.  And stop this particularly distasteful bigotry that seems to manifest itself and was under the microscope of 9/11.  That’s what started this polarity going on and I think it’s just a futile concept that now we have to push people away when we should be getting together.

    CS:  You visited so many countries and I have to give compliments and kudos to the camera work.  I think one of the things I was struck with was the way you captured the idea of place, of time.  It was absolutely gorgeous.  Obviously you weren’t satisfied to just visit the U.S., Jerusalem, the Middle East ““ you visited, what, more than 20 countries?

    RODGER:     Yes.  Actually we shot in 23 countries.  I think there are 20 in the film.  Some countries I had to take out because it was getting a little bit too long and it was repetitive.  The point is that it is such a worldly universal question ““ as Hugh Jackman says in the film, it’s a question that probably can’t be answered.  And the point is, you don’t have to answer but by asking it, you open yourself up to other people’s ideas and those other ideas can create discussions and those discussions can lead to learning and that learning can lead to tolerance.  I really wanted to go around as much of the world as I possibly could in a 90 minute movie and you can’t make a movie about what you think God is without going as you said, the Holy Land and places like that.  But also you need to get into indigenous cultures and into people who have been practicing their belief systems for thousands of years, like the Aborigines and the Native American Indians.  And then you can’t make a film about what people think God is without embracing religions, Hinduism, philosophies like Buddhism, etc.  So that dictated that I had to go to those countries to be able to put across those ideas into the film to make it as grounded as possible and also to allow the film to be as objective as possible.

    CS:  Did you find yourself changed by the end of this process?  Did you discover something within yourself that you weren’t expecting to come out?

    RODGER: Yes, I rather enjoyed the immense sense of humanity I found from people on a base level that there is a wonderful spark of deliciousness about human beings and that was very reassuring in a world where our information is garnered from news which is filtered and edited, which is quite different from the real world out there.  And so that made me have a lot more faith in humanity than I did previously.

    CS:   I think one of the more interesting things was Ringo Starr ““ and it was John Lennon that said any “ism”, in his opinion, isn’t good.  Do you have a better perspective of the “isms” of the world and what they mean to people and whether or not there is a chance for people to co-exist under one?

    peterRODGER: I think the only way that we are going to co-exist under one is if we have a common enemy.  That common enemy could be aliens invading the planet (laugh) or it could be global warming.  It is about time that we human beings learned how to unite.  We are not a barbaric society anymore.  We’ve got education to dispel those differences.  We’ve had amazing advancements in technology in the last 100 years.  It’s growing at an exponential rate.  We really need to get over our little club bigotry ideologies.  We’ve got to learn to be extremely generous to other human beings and learn to live together.  I think the economic crisis in the last year, 18 months, has made people rethink that themselves and not take life for granted.  That we do have responsibilities on every single level and that mom and dad losing their IRA’s and ponzi schemes and people being worried about their jobs, desperate to hold on to something, means we’ve got to work at this together instead of saying that my club is better than yours and if you don’t believe in what I believe in you are not worthy, goodbye.  In fact, I’m going to punch you in the nose.  I think it’s just terrible.  To unite, we need to discuss.  We need to sit around the table and graciously talk about what we feel and I think out of that argument, out of that discussion, one, if they are open to it, can realize that we are all the same.

    CS:  Do you have hope that that can happen after visiting all these countries or do you see that the conflicts that we have in the Middle East, the conflicts we have here in America, in your opinion, do you think that’s ever possible or do you think we are on this path for many more hundreds of years before any change will happen?

    RODGER: You can’t change the human way of thinking ““ the human condition.  These conflicts have been going on ever since human beings walked the planet.  But I do believe that we are evolving and I think that’s what our mission is in life.  That if each of us did one good act to somebody each day, the world would be a better place and I think it starts at home.  It’s a little bit like changing your light bulb, it’s very warming.  And if all of us start shifting and thinking not because of our fears and insecurities that we’re going to insult that person or tread over him or steal his money or say that he has to be condemned because he doesn’t believe what I believe ““ if we can shift that collectively then there is a chance and there is hope.

    I have had the most wonderful ability to go around the world and make a film that I hope a lot of people are going to see.  And if lots of people go and see the film it’s only preaching (but not preaching at all) ““ instilling an idea that if we talk to each other instead of fighting with each other and do something in our own way each day individually is baby steps.  There is a hope and you can relate that to the philosophies of Obama if you like ““ using diplomacy in wonderful ways and will hopefully save lots of lives one day.  So, I think that we as individuals have responsibilities that were dictated by the prophets from early religions but they need to be put into practice now.

    CS:  That’s the rub.  I think preparing for the interview and oddly enough this week was an election week across our country here ““ one of the things that struck me was the gay marriage debate and how that got voted down in Maine and it’s frustrating on my part in that I don’t live in Maine ““ don’t live anywhere near Maine but I feel isolated in that a majority of people think that because their bible tells them that gay marriage is an abomination people shouldn’t be able to marry and I feel like sometimes I feel marginalized because I don’t know what I can do to help overcome that.  And it’s frustrating because people do take the name of their religion as a compass for the morality of all.  I’m interested in getting your opinion about whether you talked to people around the world who feel marginalized themselves and that they are trying to do good but there is an overriding religious decree that they feel they can’t overcome their own space because religion has taken such a strong foothold?

    RODGER: Yes, we have a long way to go.  First of all, let’s take it bit by bit.  The United States of America is an amazing country because we have the right of free speech.  I thought the question under the Bush administration, homeland security and all that, you’re not patriotic.  That was a bit of a problem.  Now let’s talk about the gay marriage thing – because it was written in the bible?  Well, who wrote the bible?

    CS:  Man.

    RODGER: Yeah.  When did they write the bible?

    CS:  Two thousand years ago.

    RODGER: Actually it was less than that ““ probably 400 years after Jesus Christ was crucified.  The bible as we know it now.  I don’t know what the exact figure is.  You are talking about man who took the words of a very enlightened human being, Jesus Christ, who some pertain to be the Son of God.  Now that’s a different subject, but these people at that particular point in time and that particular point in history were making a political, basically a political book using the prophet, which was probably doing, some would argue bad at the time but most would argue it was good because it gave a way of life to a lot of people and in that was a great fear of homosexuality.  Homosexuality was absolutely accepted earlier ““ Greek, Roman times, etc. etc.

    I think that it’s all a distortion with what’s man has done with it.  The whole point is to discuss it and the thing is that Christians, who are saying this, and the point is that Jesus Christ said you should never look down on anybody and embrace everybody like your brother and treat your neighbors like yourself.  So, I think that’s a distortion between what the prophet was saying and how it was politicized and written down on paper by man.  That’s the problem ““ that people relate to that as the gospel truth and they can’t be swayed.  But then it’s not right for those who feel that way and want to share their world and have the same kind of economic benefits that married people have.  So, round and round and round it goes.  But I don’t know what the answer to this question is but I mean, let’s just look at it from another point of view in history.  It wasn’t that long ago that a black man in the southern states had to sit in a different part of a theatre than a white man.  Now they can sit all together so there is progress.  Your other question of hope ““ yes.  We have a lot of hope.  Hope and discussion.  Talk about it.  All people will come out of the woodwork to talk about these people that voted it down.  The next time around it might get voted through.  It’s a very human thing.  It’s about human rights and segregation.  Let’s look at the positive things that came out in the last couple of weeks.  The hate bill was signed my Obama in the Rose Garden.  Fantastic.  There is hope.

    329319-o-my-god-webCS:  There is and your movie gives that hope.  I think it was everything I was hoping Religulous was going to be a couple of years ago and failed to live up to that idea.  I think you do what a documentary should do and that’s to be as objective as possible and let the subjects be the focus of the piece and I think you do that effortlessly.

    RODGER: Thank you.

    CS:  How did you get the celebrities that show up?  Hugh Jackman.  I looked at your resume and apart from the movie you are working on now, there really isn’t anything there besides this film.  How did you convince them to go on camera and talk about God?

    RODGER: I went away for three months and self financed and shot for 73 days and came back and cut a full minute trailer of what I had asking all the questions that looked a million dollars and I put that on my website and sent it around to all my friends and said I need celebrities, anybody who knew a celebrity please come back to me.  And some of them did and that’s how I got them.

    The trailer showed what I was doing and then they kindly agreed and some came to me.  David Copperfield came to me for example.  I was driving in Idaho and my phone rang and it was David Copperfield and he said, listen, someone told me you were doing this movie about what people think God is and it’s a very interesting subject to me.  I am an illusionist and the first religious leaders were illusionists because, in parenthesis, they could prove the existence of God.  And I am a believer and I am an illusionist and I would love to talk about this on camera.  And he does and it’s a great segment.

    CS:  It is.   As he is telling the story in the beginning you don’t know quite where he is going with it but then it all pulls together fascinatingly.  One of the other things I found amusing or at least interesting, is that the movie that you shot you brought all your footage back and started editing and you said you found the movie’s structure in the editing room.  Can you talk about what happened when you got to the editing room?  What did you find when you got there?

    RODGER: It was tough because we had a lot of footage.  John Hoyt, my editor, started while I was on the road.  I would send him footage back.  He was viewing all the footage and pasteurizing it and then he came from New York to LA and we cut there after I basically finished filming.  We had all these ideas about structure.  At first we made it like a little bit of a travel log because there were different countries and then I drew a graph which was based upon all the books you could ever read and I also write movie scripts so I know that structure is everything.  So I drew a graph which had a first act, a second act, and a third act.  A question.  A confrontation.  A semi-kind of resolution where the resolution in this film is actually up to the audience rather than me giving the divine answer.  And I drew another structure that was like a two act structure ““ like a pyramid, which goes up right to the middle of the film, it changes course.

    So I laid that structure over the other structure and then I wrote down the minutes of instruction, the question, next act, need to try here, need to resolve it here, and I said that is our blueprint.  We have to engage this as our bible.  So then it was a matter of filling in the pieces bit by bit.  John was fantastic.  Really really good.  He’s objective, very smart, intelligent editor.  And so we laid it out roughly and that was a matter of taking the transcripts and working out ““ there is a thread ““ it’s very subtle through it all but wanted to build up to what we called the tennis match which is sort of the confrontation that polarizes the world between Christianity and Islam and also the Islamists being hijacked by a group of loud mouthed fundamentalists.

    And then where do we put the Holy Land?

    oh1The Israelis and the Palestinians conflict into this because we have to.  And then it sort of gelled from there.  And then it didn’t work and changed it a bit and stuff stayed the same and then once we had that structure down we started cutting.  Finding images that told the story underneath what the people were saying so that you’re not looking at faces all the time.  There was something going on visually that supported.  When you look at the film again, no body has the time to look at it in slow motion or whatever, or just look at it again, every time somebody is talking about something there is subliminal presentation about what they are saying in the shots.  And that is something that is not meant to be conscious in the first viewing but it just creeps up throughout the movie.  And that’s how we did it.

    CS:   Really? As an independent feature ““ were you doing this by yourself?  Were you living on credit cards?

    (Laughs)

    RODGER: I’m still living on credit cards.  Thank God for American Express.

    After being quite successful in the advertising world, it was quite a shock.  What happened was I paid for the first bit and sort of mortgaged the house actually.  Then got the trailer and used that first trailer that I explained before to get financier help and I teamed up with Horacio Altamirano who is a South American producer who loved the concept, loved the idea, and knew he could recruit in South America.  You need to go to the end users, the guys who know how to get there and invest.  He became my partner and paid for the first production and put up the P&A for the release of the movie and I am deeply grateful to him and also gave me the artistic license to make my film.

    CS:  That’s amazing.  And I know I have only about two minutes left so my last question would be were there any surprises in this whole process of anything you discovered about either yourself or the way you think about this subject or did you go along for the ride and put a camera there and let the people do the talking?

    RODGER: I went around with a camera and let people do the talking but I was surprised and could sum up the surprise at the cancer hospital at the end of the movie which was the most moving part for me.  I live in Los Angeles and having been across 23 countries I was with ““ I think if you want to find God then look into a child’s eye ““ mainly because they aren’t tainted when they are born and as toddlers they don’t differentiate between someone who is disabled, male or female, black or white, yellow or green or whatever.  They just accept life for what it is and unfortunately they grow up to be adults that get tainted by mommy and daddy’s point of view and perhaps other people at school and other things come into play.  And also, some DNA kicks in.  The point is, if you really want to see some unbelievable purity, do look into a child’s eye.  I would like to take that a step further and look into a child’s eye that is facing death.

    And so I went to the cancer hospital and there was one little boy there who I am very happy to say survived a bone marrow transplant and is still with us but at the time I found him it was very edgy if it was going to happen.  His name is Christian Fernandas and I asked Christian a question in the film and his answer blew me away but you have to go see the film.

  • Toy Box: Batman Black and White – Ed McGuinness

    toybox.jpg

    The Batman: Black and White series of statues remains one of DC Direct’s most popular series. It says something about the lasting power of the character as well as the overall beauty of grayscale, when done properly.

    The latest release in the series is based on the art work of Ed McGuinness. He’s been popular lately, with the Public Enemies cartoon drawing heavily from his unique style as well. His characters tend to be bulky with exaggerated musculature, and a shorter, stockier appearance. DC Direct had great success with several waves of action figures based on the style, and have now translated it into their popular line of statues.

    If you have any comments, drop me a line at mwctoys@mwctoys.com, or visit my site at Michael’s Review of the Week – Captain Toy. On to the review!

    Batman: Black and White – Ed McGuinness

    toybox_111009_1

    While the art style is all McGuinness, the sculpting work was handled by James Shoop this time around. As always, it’s a ‘limited’ edition, although with 4000 statues produced, it’s treating the definition of limited like a fat woman treats lycra – stretching the Hell out of it.

    Packaging – ***
    It comes in a box, like most statues of this type. Bats himself is not permanently attached to the base, so there are two pieces inside the styrofoam insert. There’s no window to see the quality of the paint on the shelf, which is always a negative, but at least the box is easy to store for MIBers, keeps the contents very safe, and can be reused when necessary.

    toybox_111009_2

    And in case you were wondering, there’s no Certificate of Authenticity, although the edition size and number are both on the bottom of the box and on the base of the statue.

    Sculpting – ***
    If you’re a huge fan of McGuinness’ original Public Enemies style Batman, then you’re probably going to like this quite a bit. It stays true to that style, and my only issues are really with the style combined with this pose.

    toybox_111009_3

    There’s plenty of sharp detail in the sculpt, perhaps too much at least for me. From the waist up, I love the look – the extended claw-like hands in back, the short cape flowing between, and the cat-like landing pose all look terrific. My only real issue is that the very large, highly detailed, extremely muscled thighs are exaggerated even further in this particular pose. Maybe it was just that blind date back in college with the West German female Olympic weight lifter that went places I’d rather forget, but the large thighs throw off the overall look for me.

    The scale is creeping up on some of these statues too. Originally they were all very much in a six inch scale, but this statue (along with a couple of the other recent releases) is getting much closer to a 7″ scale. DC Direct has always had issues keeping scale clean within a series…Hell, within a single wave.

    Paint – ***1/2
    While there’s nothing exceptional about the paint ops here, the quaility is solid and in line with your expectations considering the price point. Cut lines are clean and neat, there’s a good use of high gloss finish on several of the black areas, and the large bat symbol is centered and even.

    toybox_111009_4

    Design – ***1/2
    As I mentioned in the sculpting section, I really do like the basic concept of the design, with Batman landing on the ball of one foot. The back stretched arms and talon-like fingers really add to the dynamic nature of the pose, and it’s unique enough in a sea of black and white Batman statues to add some pop to the display.

    toybox_111009_5

    I deducted more for the thunder thighs in the Sculpt section, but because I think the basic design concept is solid, I gave the higher marks here. Don’t get me wrong – I realize that the large thighs are very much a part of the McGuinness style. It’s just that in this particular pose, they are a bit too obvious and eye catching for my tastes. Your mileage may vary.

    Things to Watch Out For –
    Don’t forget that this guy isn’t attached to the base (like I did) and pick him up willy-nilly. You’ll be mighty sad if the base falls free (like mine *almost* did) and you end up with pieces on the floor.

    Value – **1/2
    The reality – and a bit of a sad one it is – is that statues in this 6 – 7″ scale are running $50 – $70 now. In fact, plastic statues of simlar style are running just as much, like the new Marvel Bishojo series by Kotobukiya. Here you’re getting the heavier poly resin, and extra weight always adds an impression of value, whether it’s right or wrong.

    Overall – ***
    This is another solid entry in the overall series, fitting in the middle of the pack. Fans of the McGuinness art style will enjoy it quite a bit, and my only real quibbles are how the thighs are front and center, and the slight increase in scale.

    toybox_111009_6

    Where to Buy –
    Online options include:

    – Urban Collector has him at just $60.

    – Alter Ego Comics has him for $68.

    – Big Bad Toy Store has it for $70.

    – or you can search ebay for a deal.

    Related Links –
    Other Batman Black and White reviews include:

    – Dave Mazzucchelli, the Penguin, Gotham Knight 2 version, the Bruce Timm version, the Ethan Van Sciver version, the Aparo, the Neal Adams and George Perez versions, the Gotham Knight, Bob
    Kane    , Frank Miller, Jim Lee, Matt Wagner, Mike Mignola, and Kelley Jones.

  • TV Or Not TV: 11/10 – 11/15

    tvornottv-header.png

    Welcome to another edition of TV or Not TV where I’m mad as heck and I’m not going to…. wait, I’m sorry, that one’s been used before.

    After last week’s dissertation over the ABC show FASTFORWARD I have to admit that last week’s episode gave me new hope for the future of this show. When you look at what the characters were having to go through it gets kind of depressing to think that all of these characters were locked into the future that they saw. It was also a bit of a bummer to think that JOHN CHO’s character is completely and utterly doomed come March 15th. With last week’s episode we know that the future seen is not truly set in stone and now that the characters have glimpsed the future they do still appear to have some degree of free choice.

    Another offering ABC gave us last week was the one hour premiere of the re-imagined V. I admit that the idea of a re-imagining of a somewhat hokey 80’s TV mini-series and show had me casting some doubts, even in light of the great run that BATTLESTAR GALACTICA had on SYFY. The mini-series was OK, the TV show fell flat, however, because the premise didn’t really stretch out real well.

    After seeing the first episode of V I think that the only real complaint that I had about it was that I think they were limited by having to force everything into one 44 minute episode. Laying the groundwork for this show could have done with a bit more narrative that an additional 44 minutes would have given it. The show’s driving force, the conflict that is forthcoming, gets pushed into what feels like the last 10 minutes of the show.

    Other than this one minor shortcoming of time I found the show to be well done for the retreading of this concept. I’ll be looking forward to the weeks to come to see how they unravel this story. I only hope that, when the time surely comes, the first V / human child isn’t as lame as the one we saw two over two decades ago.

    One final note: HEROES, I know that we’ve been seeing each other for a long time. It’s been a rocky relationship, it’s had it’s ups and downs. I hope you understand though that I think it’s over between us. I’m sorry, really I am, things were so good in the beginning and we had lots of great times together but let’s face it, things have changed. Unlike what you usually here it’s not me, it’s you. It’s all you. You’ve just lost direction, you seem to go on and on without really getting anywhere and I just can’t hang out any more. You’re kind of emberassing to be seen with. OK? Thanks.

    Now that the World Series is over let’s see what remaining days of the week have to offer.

    TUESDAY

    ABC – 8:00 PM: The pilot was good, let’s see what they did in the second episode of V.

    NBC – 8:00 PM: It’s double elimination night on THE BIGGEST LOSER.

    G4 – 11:00 PM: I admit freely that I am completey jonesing for the last season of LOST and tonight one of the better episodes of last season, LaFluer, airs on G4.  

    WEDNESDAY

    FOX – 9:00 PM: Rachel and Kurt compete for who gets to perform “Defying Gravity” from WICKED on this week’s Glee. This show is really starting to challenge my sexuality.

    ABC – 8:00 PM: Get out your big hat and bigger belt buckle for the 43rd Annual CMA Awards.

    THURSDAY

    AMC – 8:00 PM: I don’t know what it is about DEMOLITION MAN that I get a kick out of (maybe it’s the three shells) but it’s on tonight and I’m considering it.

    FOX – 9:00 PM: The ratings this season have been a challenge for FRINGE so let’s see what they come out of their sports induced hiatus with.

    FRIDAY

    USA – 9:00 PM: Monk is the Captain’s best man. I can’t wait to see how he sanitizes the strippers for the bachelor party.

    CBS – 9:00 PM: It really has to be tough being one of ALLISON’s kids on Medium. So far she’s already been worried that ARIEL was a cold blooded killer and now she’s afraid the same is true of her boyfriend. Wow, and I thought I’d be judgemental about the guys who try to date my daugther.

    SATURDAY

    AMC – 8:00 PM: Enjoy the progression of confusion and dissapointment as we take the journey through the Matrix trilogy.

    ABC FAMILY – 8:00 PM: See the greatest tribute to MICHAEL JACKSON committed to film in DEPP’s performance as WILLIE WONKA in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.

    BRAVO – 9:00 PM: I still am completely captivated by GOODFELLAS.

    SUNDAY

    FOX – 8:00 PM: Marge goes where no television cartoon has gone before as she poses in the nude on THE SIMPSONS.

    ABC – 8:00 PM: DAVID DUCHOVNY makes a drop in on EXTRAME MAKEOVER: HOME EDITION. I tried for 20 minutes to make an X-File joke here, but it didn’t pan out.

    AMC – 8:00 PM: The art of re-imagining continues as AMC takes on the late 60’s classic Brittish TV show THE PRISONER. I’m sure if that’s not enough to peak your interest than knowing it’s got IAN MCKELLEN and JIM CAVIEZEL would.

    – Will Wilkins wuz here.

  • Trailer Park: IL DIVO

    By Christopher Stipp

    The Archives, Right Here

    I was able to sit down for a couple of years and pump out a book. It’s got little to do with movies. Download and read “Thank You, Goodnight” right HERE for free.

    Check out my new column, This Week In Trailers, at SlashFilm.com and follow me on TWITTER under the name: Stipp

    PIRATE RADIO – SCREENING

    300x250Because you animals are so ravenous for free stuff, I’ve got another free screening here in Phoenix.

    It’s for the new movie PIRATE RADIO and it will be held on Thursday, November 12th at 7:00 inside the Harkins Fashion Square 7.

    For those looking to see the newest entry into the oeuvre of  Philip Seymour Hoffman, then this ought to be up your alley.

    E-mail me at Christopher_Stipp@yahoo.com for the chance to see it.

    A description of the movie:

    PIRATE RADIO is the high-spirited story of how 8 DJs love affair with Rock n Roll changed the world forever. In the 1960s this group of rouge DJs, on a boat in the middle of the Northern Atlantic, played rock records and broke the law all for the love of music. The songs they played united and defined an entire generation and drove the British government crazy. By playing Rock n Roll they were standing up against the British government who did everything in their power to shut them down. The band of rebels is lead by The Count, played by the Academy Award Winning Philip Seymour Hoffman, Quentin the boss of Radio Rock, Gavin the greatest DJ in Britain, Midnight Mark, Doctor Dave and Young Carl who comes of age amidst the chaos of sex, drugs and rock n roll. The film features an unbelievable selection of music including The Beatles, The Stones, Beach Boys, Dusty Springfield, The Who, Jimi Hendrix, Smokey Robinson, David Bowie, Otis Redding, Cat Stevens just to name a few. The film is laugh out loud funny and speaks to the rock n roll rebel in all of us.

    NICKELBACK: LIVE AT STURGIS/ROB THOMAS: SOMETHING TO BE TOUR: LIVE AT RED ROCKS – BLU-RAY REVIEWS

    robthomasHere is the curious thing about watching and reviewing things that come into my home: I give everything a fair shot. Everything.

    It doesn’t matter what my bias is going into a viewing experience as I think it’s only right to see whether my preconceived notions of goodness or badness really are founded or not. I was wrong on both accounts when it came to Nickelback and Rob Thomas’ live efforts that were just released on Blu-ray.

    What I wanted to find out when I saw these were coming out is to discover whether the technology could recreate the experience of what it is to be there with the performers and if the fidelity is worth it. In both cases the answer is yes as if you’re a fan of either band, I cannot purport to be one of either, the shows are something pretty impressive to behold on the home theater.

    Rob Thomas’ concert, Something To Be Tour: Live At Red Rocks, showcases the lead singer of Matchbox Twenty to be adept at being the guy so many people are packing amphitheaters to see. The set list is admittedly a little old, this is taken from a 1997 concert and that puts this at almost two and a half years in the past and thus before a lot of the singles he’s known for as of late, but for someone like me who only knows him as the “Smooth” guy it was nonetheless all new to me. Point of fact, he gives the audience a little something different as he performs that title track acoustically and even for a punk-loving elitist like myself it was a solid reinterpretation. From the radio friendly hits of “This Is How A Heart Breaks” where you can see the guy is absolutely going down a path of nonthreatening bubble gum pop to the cover of David Bowie’s “Let’s Dance” where he can at least give those of us who don’t know anything about him a little something Rob has got something that not many other artists do: charisma. In the landscape of rock and roll, and I use that loosely here, you cannot begrudge a guy who knows what he’s good at and is able to ply that trade on stage. While this concert did not make me want to go out and buy any of the guy’s albums I still think it’s a worthy entry into anyone’s collection who is a fan as the Blu-ray delivers a flawless user experience.

    nickelback_bluNow, for better or worse, I can’t get Nickelback’s radio hits out of my head. When you have to share a radio in the car with someone else it is just inevitable that there are going to be songs you will be exposed to. Nickelback is that band, for some reason, and while I know they get bagged on in circles where it’s cool to make fun of guys who can draw a crowd you won’t get that from me. Nickelback: Live At Sturgis is just a fun romp down the path of guys who know what the audience wants and is giving it to them night after night if this show is any indication. No, they’re not singing about changing the world like Bono and they’re not talking about the pain of being alive like Tool is, these guys just want to drive their Camaro really fast and keep the windows down so their mullet can flap in the wind.

    Again, just like Rob Thomas, I wish I could point a finger and giggle but I’ll be damned if I didn’t enjoy watching these guys playing against video screens, pyrotechnics and putting on a good show. One of the things that separate this concert than many others that are put to disc is that there is a real effort put into making the experience more true to the feeling of a live event. There are multiple cameras employed, they incorporate the effects that are usually projected behind the band into the home presentation, and the direction is one that really feels kinetic. So, as you’re watching a song like “Animals” there is the real sense they were trying to make it feel exciting even if this show was being done for someone who was indifferent to their music.

    It’s not for everyone but for those who like what Nickelback’s cooking this is a very solid entry into the field of filmed concerts. For me, it won me over for the course of its run time and while this may not mean much I have to say that it’s a very respectable effort.

    IL DIVO – REVIEW

    il-divo-3d_h_webHas anyone read the short story Billy Budd by Herman Melville? In it, the story has a moment where a razor across the throat has a lot more significance than it does with just a guy getting a shave. It’s a sinister moment in the story’s progression and in this film, IL DIVO, the movie opens up with the titular character, Giulio Andreotti, getting a straight razor shave. The implications of what this means with regard to what will come after is rife with subtext.

    Andreotti was Italy’s Prime Minister and has been loosely attached to corruption, murder, the Mafia, and enough political maneuvering that you wonder how this man has escaped any kind of indictment or conviction. The man did avoid being tacitly implicated in any wrongdoing but the film is a fascinating exploration about how deep his ties to all things shady really went. Played by Toni Servillo, who ought to be recongized for playing a character so fully that you wonder where Servillo ends and Andreotti begins, the movie takes a look at the complex web of Italian politics that has enough inside baseball to make anyone with an astute eye a little confused.

    Where this foreign film really shines, however, is not only the performance of Servillo but it is the wonderfully shot and edited sequences that interpose visual nods to the stumpy looking features of the real Andreotti that makes this stand out from the bunch. The movie wants to take you on a journey to show why this was one of the most feared politicians ever to roam Italy. His dispassionate behavior and subdued manner in which he carries himself the real power of this movie is showing how one squat human being demanded so much respect from those who feared him.

    While the director and the writer of the film, Paolo Sorrentino, has made a biopic that actually challenges the common notions of what a biopic should be the movie does start to get bogged down by the many many facts we are presented with throughout the film. The movie could absolutely be longer than the just shy of two hours that it is with as much as there is to delve into but Sorrentino packs more than enough in that to present a profile of a man who more than just mortal, he was powerful and knew it.

    Some deets about the DVD release:

    He has been called the Prince of Darkness, the Black Pope, the Fox, the Sphinx and the Hunchback, but the nickname Il Divo ““ the God ““ perhaps best fits the persona of Italy’s seven-time prime minister and “senator for life,” Giulio Andreotti, a figure who held sway over the entire Italian political landscape for decades. The scandals that plagued Andreotti’s career — charges of Mafia ties, bribery and deadly violence ““ would seem too appalling to be true, but viewers can decide for themselves when IL DIVO arrives on home video on October 27, 2009. MPI Home Video will release the cinematic masterpiece on both Blu-ray, with an SRP of $34.98, and on DVD, with an SRP of $27.98

    Director Paolo Sorrentino’s film won the Jury Prize at the 2008 Cannes Film Festival and won seven David di Donatello Awards ( Italy ‘s Oscar). At its center is an unforgettable performance by Toni Servillo as the fearsome Andreotti, the right-leaning head of the long-ruling centrist Christian Democratic Party.

    While the action of the film moves back and forth through the decades, it begins in 1991 as Andreotti is forming what would be his final administration as prime minister while fending off investigations into Mafia ties. He and his hardliner faction have retaken control of a country reeling from the brazen murders of high-level bankers, judges and journalists (this following the 1978 abduction of Andreotti’s left-leaning rival Aldo Moro; after Prime Minister Andreotti refused to negotiate with the kidnappers, Moro was murdered).

    As his party crumbles in a nationwide bribery scandal, suspicion begins to fall on Andreotti himself as the center of a shocking conspiracy involving the Vatican , the Mafia and a secret neo-Fascist Masonic sect. In what is called “The Trial of the Century,” Italy ‘s legendary “senator for life” (Andreotti retains the title still, at age 90) will stand accused of corruption, collusion and murder.

  • Opinion In A Haystack: THE FOURTH KIND

    haystackheader.jpg

    fourthkindposter

    Elias Koteas would hate me. No matter how great an actor he is (and he is a great actor) or how accomplished he becomes, it is very hard not to imagine him with a hockey mask and a golf bag. He is like Frosted Mini-Wheats. The adult in me knows the guy has some of the most underrated acting chops ever; the kid in me watches films, such as The Fourth Kind, and screams “Pound their owl faces in with your cricket bat Casey Jones!”

    elias

    He is so much more then the role of Casey, that still doesn’t erase the fact that he was a childhood hero to some of us. The first truly great “bad ass” delivered to my generation via an excellent kid’s movie. My point is that actors carry the baggage of past roles with them sometimes. That is expected, and fine, but this is why most “normal” mainstream movies, especially horror, don’t scare as much as they could. We are familiar with these people. Their faces are a constant visual reminder that it’s all make believe. When the step dad from Liar Liar saws his foot off, while you might be in shock at the concept, you know deep down that the Dred Pirate Roberts has still got ten toes. The Fourth Kind confuses me: why go through all the motions of watering down supposedly real footage with the baggage of Hollywood actors? Why even go so far as to blatantly make that part of the marketing campaign?

    The Fourth Kind is going to be looked at as another “found footage” movie, especially in the recent wake of Paranormal Activity. However, two very big things separate it from the pack: the footage is supposedly real, and the footage was never lost. In short, this non-sequel-but-titled-confusingly-and-probably-deliberately-like-a-sequel to Spielberg’s Close Encounters of the Third Kind, is about a supposedly real psychologist, Dr. Abigail Tyler, who is investigating the strange occurrences of alien abductions in Nome, Alaska circa the year 2000. Milla Jovovich plays the title role of Dr. Tyler in the in-movie dramatization of the actual events. Elias Koteas and Will Patton act out the supposedly real events along side Jovovich, all of them doing an admirable job with what they have to work with. Now this is what makes this film so unique: it’s simultaneously shows us the real and the dramatized version of the doctor’s recorded sessions with the supposed alien abductees. The movie even goes so far as to often split the screen in half (or fourths!) and shows the real tape, versus the dramatization of the tape. In many ways it makes the same editing mistakes that Ang Lee’s Hulk did years ago. It is very unique, as I am not quite sure something like this has ever been done before, yet it is also very tiresome, confusing to the eyes, and like a giant exercise in futility. Why do we need Milla saying the same lines simultaneously with the real Abigail while they both are on screen? The answer is that we don’t. They fill in the gaps between the supposedly “actual footage” of the story with the Hollywood actors. One would assume that the gaps being filled in are from the mouth of the actual Abigail Tyler herself. So in conjunction with the “actual footage and audio” you are also getting dramatized accounts of what supposedly happened in between.

    Why water it all down? Sure if you want to release this in theaters as a “film” you have to give people more then a Discovery Channel UFO special”¦or do you? I’ll admit that Paranormal Activity made me lose an entire night of sleep, probably for the first time in a decade. This being ever more embarrassing because I was fully aware that it was completely fake. That is not a critique of the movie, I am just saying that it got to me, and horror movies never do. It has something to do with this low budget genre. Any time where no “Hollywood” is present, and no sign of the “evil” is shown on camera it screws with the mind. If Paranormal Activity had showed the demon, I wouldn’t have lost a wink of sleep, if we saw the Blair Witch I probably wouldn’t have flinched, regardless of the quality of the beast (sorry Rick Baker.) The irony being, the less visceral the villain is, the more visceral the scares are. This brings me to all my questions concerning The Fourth Kind. If you have “actual footage,” in many ways similar to the “fake found footage” of Paranormal Activity or Blair Witch, why take all the piss out of it and inject heaps and mounds of Hollywood into its core, wasting all the time and money in the process? Then they go so far as to show them side by side, as if to say “SEE, LOOK, THEY MATCH!!!” As an audience member are we suppose to be thinking “yes, they do match, are the accurate performances what I am suppose to be focusing on?” Who wouldn’t rather just watch the straight up, untouched videos of these regression psychology sessions? I would, and it would be leaps and bounds more terrifying.

    milla

    The backbone of the entire documentary/dramatization/film/docu-drama-film is a supposedly real interview with Dr. Tyler that happens long after the events in 2000. This interview footage, for me, was the scariest part of the experience. If all of this actually happened then this women has been completely put through the ringer, so I don’t want to outright insult something so trivial, but her face is disturbing. Really disturbing. In fact her facial features and shape are so “alien-esque” that I started to wonder if the twist of the whole Fourth Kind experience was going to be that it’s fake, then her face would start to distort CGI-style, then cut to credits. Her overall look and demeanor is what actually started to make me almost assuredly doubt the claims of the movie. She is perfectly emaciated and morbidly colored to the point where if they were making The Fourth Kind as a farce from the beginning they would have cast this woman and through makeup made her look exactly like she does. Also, while I can’t personally give any validity to its claims, this can be found in the trivia section of the film’s IMDB page:

    According to promotional materials from Universal, the film is framed around a psychologist named Abigail Tyler who interviewed traumatized patients in Nome, but Alaska state licensing examiner Jan Mays says she can’t find records of an Abigail Tyler ever being licensed in any profession in Alaska. Ron Adler, CEO and director of the Alaska Psychiatric Institute and Denise Dillard, president of the Alaska Psychological Association say they’ve never heard of Abigail Tyler.

    One very questionable aspect of this whole ordeal to consider is what the term “Actual Footage” implies. The subtitles make constant note of when “actual footage” or audio is being presented. Actual footage? All footage is actual footage isn’t it? The footage of Jaws popping out of the water, in Jaws, is actual footage. Sure, maybe this is “actual footage” of a psychologist’s regression therapy session in 2000, but that has really no bearing on the fact that the people in the video aren’t simply actors. Yes, it is a bit ridiculous of me to assume this movie, this possible farce, was 9 years in the making, but if they are pulling on our leg hard enough to say these abductions are real, why would they sweat over saying that footage shot with an old camcorder in 2008 happened in 2000? It should simply be given consideration, due to the ease at which language is often used to deceive. Yes, it could just be nitpicking, and common sense should dictate that the “actual footage” is simply film or video stock that wasn’t shot with the intent of story telling.

    ***SPOILERS START HERE***

    The “actual footage” itself is very creepy, however it felt produced. I obviously don’t know the truth, nor will I probably ever, but something about the video footage seemed perfectly imperfect. It’s hard to explain. When ever the patients start to recount what they think they saw, the video fills with distortion (supposedly caused by aliens.) However, there is just enough clarity in the distortion to tell what is happening, and what is happening seems very”¦cliché. We get loud, digitized, thundering voices, screams of terror, mouths opening extremely wide whilst howling, and a man levitating off a bed. While all of that is filled with the creeps, all of it is also very Hollywood. Also, perhaps it is just me, but it felt as though the mania happening beneath the distortion was digitally touched up. It is obviously very difficult to explain, some of the lighting in those shots just seemed manufactured, as often seen with special effects in the digital age. I am fully open to that not being the case.

    ***SPOILERS STOP HERE***

    If there was a final assessment to make about The Fourth Kind it would be of a missed opportunity. They ladled too much Hollywood gravy all over this delicious, if synthetic, steak and made it just taste like wet salt. However, it would be interesting to find out this story from the point of view of the abductors. There’s a great Kids In The Hall sketch that involves the boring lives of aliens who spend every day anal probing abductees. They complain about their unfulfilling jobs as would a dock worker, or an office temp. That KITH skit was in my head during the entire duration of The Fourth Kind. As the human’s are tortured and screaming with nightmares and getting abducted, are the aliens just doing their boring day jobs?

    kithanal

    Thanks for reading. Now go rent, buy, or watch a lot of Elias Koteas movies. He’s a great talent, you won’t regret it.

    Now it’s time for a chicken sandwich.

  • TV Or Not TV: 11/2 – 11/8

    tvornottv-header.png

    Welcome to another edition of TV or Not TV where I’m starting to wonder if I fell in love with FLASHFORWARD too soon.

    The pilot episode of FLASHFORWARD did exactly the job that a lot of pilots are supposed to do in that it sucked me in with a decent mystery and gave me enough questions that made me want to see the story that it set up. Everyone balcks out for two minutes and seventeen seconds, some people have very lucid visions of themselves around 1o PM six months in the future. Scenarios are set up that seem impossible: a dead daughter is seen alive, a loving wife is happily involved with another man and so on. Some people have no vision at all.

    Instantly the questions chime in that make you want to tune in week after week. Will the visions come true? If the visions come true how will these characters get from here to there? What will happen to those with out visions? Great questions, but only if you like the way you get the answers.

    From a television series stand-point I want you to understand that I think the show is great. The performances delivered by the characters are solid, they are committed. The question now, however, is can the writers pull it off?

    With a show that is working off of this complicated of a premise you really have to make a decision: are the visions inevitable or are they a future that is not set in stone? Regardless of the two approaches you can, from week to week, play a game of cat and mouse where you dangle aspects that support both approaches to leave the mystery in place. I think, however, that this is more of the easu approach because it allows you to provide too much filler that can come in trying to pad out an entire season in a method where the viewer feels like they are getting a little jerked around.

    The gutsy approach, in my opinion, is to go with the former and stick with it. Decide the future seen is inevitable and tell us this amazing story of how people get from point A to point B. Just because we know the way a future part of the story occurs doesn’t mean we can’t enjoy the journey of traversing the story. BABYLON 5 proved that giving us a glimpse of the future doesn’t stop us from watching, it only wets our appetite to find out how we get there.

    Sadly the evidence of the episodes we’ve seen so far has proven that they are going with the easy approach. I can’t blame them for it since they have at least a 22 episode order to fill and I’m just a guy that watches what they turn out.

    Now that we’ve gotten that out of the way let’s talk a little about the more immediate future.

    MONDAY

    NBC – 8:00 PM: Remember during that first good season of HEROES when HIRO fell in love with and lost CHARLIE at the hands of SYLAR? Remember how he went back in time and tried so many times to save her and no matter what he couldn’t do it? The writers are sweeping that all under the rug as HIRO goes back againt to try to save CHARLIE and cash in on the popularity of JAYMA MAYS.

    TLC – 9:00 PM: TLC continues to keep the GOSSELIN train a rollin’ with the special interview show by NATALIE MORALES called KATE: HER STORY.

    MTV – 8:00 PM: It isn’t every day where you see one animated show building a two episode arc around the making fun of another animated show. Repeat or not that’s one reason to recommend the CARTOON WARS episodes of SOUTH PARK.

    TUESDAY

    ABC – 8:00 PM: No, your TV didn’t travel that far back in time on Sunday, the V that is on tonight is a re-imagining of the 80’s mini and actual series. Hopefully this will suck far less.

    NBC – 8:00 PM: THE BIGGEST LOSER goes to Washington, D.C. and the contestants even get a tour of the White House kitchen.

    WEDNESDAY

    ABC – 9:30 PM: If you aren’t already watching MODERN FAMILY than I recommend that you get caught up on HULU.COM and then tune in to ABC at 9:30. It’s just about the only thing good on TV tonight.

    THURSDAY

    ABC – 8:00 PM: Complaints up above aside I’ll still be tuning in to FLASHFORWARD tonight.

    BRAVO – 10:00 PM: THE REAL WIVES OF ORANGE COUNTRY returns tonight. Who would have thought that these cosmetically enhanced ladies of Southern California would be thought of as the sane group?

    FRIDAY

    THE CW – 8:00 PM: It’s always emberrassing when unexpected family drops by, but when it is your long-dead father from your home world? Tune in to SMALLVILLE to try to make sense of it.

    CARTOON NETWORK – 8:00 PM: SPONGE BOB SQUARE PANTS is a decade old and even the KRUSTY KRAB is having an anniversary celebration. 

    SATURDAY

    BRAVO – 9:00 PM: Even though KATHY GRIFFIN: BALLS OF STEEL aired earlier in the week I purposely saved it since there is so little on Saturday nights. Just thought I’d share that.

    FOX – 11:00 PM: It’s the premiere of THE WANDA SYKES SHOW and if this show is anywhere near the quality of her work on THE CHRIS ROCK SHOW or CURB YOUR ENTHUSIASM than we’re in for a real treat.

    SUNDAY

    FOX – 7:30 PM: Tonight it is official, SETH MCFARLANE takes of the FOX network tonight with AMERICAN DAD, FAMILY GUY, FAMILY GUY PRESENTS: SETH & ALEX’S ALMOST LIVE COMEDY SHOW, and THE CLEVELAND SHOW.

    ABC – 8:00 PM: Tonight on EXTREME MAKEOVER: HOME EDITION KELLIE PICKLER is a special guest. Here’s hoping they just give her a mic because anything else means they’ll just be out next year to replace the whole house again.

  • Trailer Park: BLACK DYNAMITE Interview With Michael Jai White and Scott Sanders

    By Christopher Stipp

    The Archives, Right Here

    I was able to sit down for a couple of years and pump out a book. It’s got little to do with movies. Download and read “Thank You, Goodnight” right HERE for free.

    Check out my new column, This Week In Trailers, at SlashFilm.com and follow me on TWITTER under the name: Stipp

    ROCK AND ROLL HALL OF FAME LIVE DVD – REVIEW

    rocknrollOne of the things that hits you about the midway point when watching this set is that this has to be one of the greatest live “Best Of” compilations ever put to DVD. The luminaries of rock and roll that appear within this presentation is enough to make it a worthwhile purchase for yourself but certainly is something that ought to be considered a solid gift for anyone who appreciates a wide spectrum of music.

    The interesting thing that’s also included is a nice sampling of acceptance speeches. I realize this may not be a real selling point to some but, to me, it’s interesting to hear where many of these artists drew their own inspiration as they went down their path of greatness. It wasn’t always great for these musicians so it’s a delight to get some moments that don’t involve a musical instrument. These people are worth more than their instruments and it allows us a little glimpse into their humanity. And the inductions ought not to be missed, either. To hear Axl Rose inducting Elton John is a moment of oddness that certainly works and there is a moment when Bono inducts the late Bob Marley that should put to rest any criticisms about the man’s sense of his on ego.

    And the performances, what people are really here to see, however, are a mixed bunch. I think, and this completely understandable, that those performing are not performing entire shows. These are not concerts but Grammy-style showcases of their hits, so to speak. That said, you have the usual things like audio levels being sometimes wonky, the age of those on the stage sometimes indicate why some don’t go on the road as much anymore, but it all can be attributed to the way concerts go. It sometimes can take a couple songs for artists to get their rhythm and this is no exception. You get one shot here to make the case why you deserve to be there in the first place and sometimes it doesn’t work out that well. However, there are some standout performances by Eddie Vedder and The Doors, Metallica comes correct for their selection, and I was just enamored with James Brown. The latter of which never knew the meaning of the word offstage.

    This set really defines the state of popular music in the late 20th century. While the content extends into the 2000’s what you have here is a compendium of acts that all have contributed to the successes of those who have come after them. You may not think that an act that was going strong in the 1970’s has anything to do with the meteoric rise of any rock band coming through the ranks nowadays but it is the organic osmosis of rock and roll that you can see on these discs that show how many connecting threads there are in this industry. No where else is the appropriation and the inspiration of the things we admire from our own rock stars more on display than right here.  This is a vivid document of those people who we’ve paid hundreds of dollars to see live, we’ve bought their records, their shirts, and nowhere else will you find a more appropriate gift for the music lover in your life.

    A product description:

    On October 20, 2009, Time Life commemorates the 25th anniversary of the Rock And Roll Hall of Fame with an unprecedented, comprehensive collection of performances compiled from a quarter century of induction celebrations. The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Live DVD collection boasts 125 remarkable performances by the most influential and significant figures in rock music history, as well as the speeches, toasts and roasts by which these members of rock royalty salute each others’ accomplishments. History is made when legendary artists such as Mick Jagger and Tina Turner, Bruce Springsteen and Bono, Crosby, Stills & Nash and Tom Petty, take the stage for once-in-a-lifetime collaborations. The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Live DVD set includes nine DVDs, eight of these featuring an assortment of performances spanning more than two decades of ceremonies, as well as induction and acceptance speeches, and never-before-seen backstage and rehearsal footage. A ninth DVD features The Concert For The Rock And Roll Hall of Fame, a star-studded concert event which opened the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Museum inCleveland in 1995. Never before available, the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Live DVD set is an unparalleled rock “˜n’ roll experience – over 24 hours of rare and exclusive performances and footage ““ and a must-own for every music fan.

    On October 20, the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Live 9-DVD set will be available for purchase exclusively online for $119.96 via the DVD web site RockHallDVDs.com or TimeLife.com.

    Each year, the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame honors rock music’s pioneering figures during prestigious, black-tie ceremonies. Rock’s biggest stars induct their biggest influences and contemporaries, with heartfelt, wise and witty speeches. Over the years, Paul McCartney has inducted John Lennon, Paul Simon has inducted Stevie Wonder, Steven Tyler has inducted AC/DC, Elton John has inducted The Beach Boys, and in turn, Elton John was inducted by Axl Rose. Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Live DVD includes a staggering 52 of these tributes, all complete and unedited. But, it’s during the live performance part of the ceremony when rock history is really made.

    With egos set aside, the artists take the stage and deliver once-in-a-lifetime performances, often with a truly mind-blowing combination of talent, such as Mick Jagger performing with Bruce Springsteen, REM with Eddie Vedder, The Band with Eric Clapton, Jeff Beck with Jimmy Page. As Robbie Robertson once commented, “It’s an opportunity to see musical combinations we may never see again as long as we live,” Case in point, 1988’s ceremony featured a jaw-dropping performance of The Beatles’ “I Saw Her Standing There” with George Harrison, Ringo Starr, Bob Dylan, Bruce Springsteen, John Fogerty, Mick Jagger and Billy Joel. The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Live DVD set includes 125 of these musically historic performances, from Jerry Lee Lewis and Chuck Berry rockin’ “Roll Over Beethoven” at the inaugural ceremony in 1986, to Jeff Beck, Jimmy Page, Ron Wood, Joe Perry, Flea, and Metallica’s rendition of “The Train Kept A-Rollin’” at this year’s ceremony in April. As a bonus, a ninth DVD contains the 1995 Concert For The Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame featuring an all-star line-up including John Mellencamp, Bon Jovi, Lou Reed, Soul Asylum, The Allman Brothers, Sheryl Crow, The Kinks, Ann and Nancy Wilson, John Fogerty, James Brown and Al Green.

    Online Exclusive Collection includes:

    * 9 DVDs in deluxe collector’s packaging
    * 125 one-of-a-kind live performances
    * 54 complete Hall of Fame induction speeches
    * “The Concert for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame” commemorating the opening of the museum in Cleveland in 1995 featuring performances by John Mellencamp, Eric Burdon and Bon Jovi, Aretha Franklin, Lou Reed and Soul Asylum, The Allman Brothers and Sheryl Crow, The Kinks, Ann and Nancy Wilson, John Fogerty, James Brown, and Al Green.
    * 9-plus hours of never-before-seen backstage and rehearsal footage.
    * 9 essays from award winning music journalists and historians Rob Bowman, Holly George-Warren, Michael Hill, Dave Marsh, Charlie McCardell and Andy Schwartz

    PERFORMANCES BY:

    AC/DC, Aerosmith, The Allman Brothers, The Band, Jeff Beck, Bee Gees, Chuck Berry, Blondie, Bon Jovi, Ruth Brown, Jackson Browne, Lindsey Buckingham, Eric Burdon, Jerry Butler, Solomon Burke, The Byrds, Johnny Cash, Chubby Checker, Eric Clapton, Elvis Costello, Cream, Crosby, Stills & Nash, Sheryl Crow, Bo Diddley, The Doors, Melissa Etheridge, Flea, Fleetwood Mac, John Fogerty, The Four Tops, Aretha Franklin, Al Green, Green Day, Dave Grohl, Buddy Guy, Emmylou Harris, Dhani Harrison, Taylor Hawkins, Isaac Hayes, Don Henley, John Lee Hooker, Bruce Hornsby, The Isley Brothers, Etta James, Mick Jagger, Jefferson Airplane, Billy Joel, Kid Rock, B.B. King, Ben E. King, The Kinks, Jonny Lang, Jerry Lee Lewis, Little Richard, Jeff Lynne, Lynyrd Skynyrd, The Mamas & The Papas, Martha & the Vandellas, Dave Mason, Paul McCartney, Metallica, Stevie Nicks, The O’Jays, Roy Orbison, Jimmy Page, Parliament-Funkadelic, Joe Perry, Tom Petty, Wilson Pickett, The Pretenders, Prince, Queen, Bonnie Raitt, The Rascals, R.E.M., Lou Reed, The Righteous Brothers, Robbie Robertson, The Ronettes, Axl Rose, Santana, Percy Sledge, Soul Asylum, Bruce Springsteen, The Staple Singers, Patti Smith, Booker T. & the MG’s, James Taylor, Traffic, Tina Turner, U2, The Who, Ann & Nancy Wilson, Steve Winwood, Ron Wood, ZZ Top

    MONTY PYTHON: THE OTHER BRITISH INVASION DVD – REVIEW

    montypython_otherbritishinvMy introduction to sketch comedy came with the discovery of The Kids in the Hall.

    I was ravenous for every new season that came out. I bought dozens of VHS tapes in order to possess every episode as they aired. I traded with other people in order to get the original HBO airings, to watch the pilot episode, to get my hands on the Brain Candy workprint after the film came out. I learned how to use Internet newsgroups in 1994 in order to connect with other likeminded yahoos. I was borderline freaky when it came to pouring over all the minutiae with this show.

    Then I discovered Monty Python.

    A precursor to all those who came after them I was primed, so to speak, to understand what made Python so sharp at their game. They understood that you could be bizarre, that you could take things too far and, most certainly, that you could inject a little bit of cerebral humor into the mix. Thankfully, this documentary bookends the comedic series nicely as A&E Video put together a 2 DVD set that explores the performers behind the sketches.

    To me, this is a rewarding experience in that finding out what everyone brought with them to the troupe before they were Monty Python is fascinating. Using interviews from those still around, Graham Chapman is still included for those wondering, the documentary gets these guys reflecting on their jobs prior to connecting as a whole. What’s interesting is the use of existing footage of the various television incarnations these members did before Python in that you can see the elements that just seemed to be mixed properly after they decided to join into a cohesive group, like a human Voltron that couldn’t exist on any one part. These men were destined to be together and the documentary gives you that look behind what went in making this all happen.

    The other disc that’s included here explores life after the series has started to take a foothold in England and it’s just as fascinating as the first. Maybe I’m easily amused by shiny spoons but charting the moments that helped Monty Python breakthrough to American audiences is an exercise in happenstance, good timing, and for anyone who has been a casual fan who doesn’t already know the history it is a nice way to see how a show became a phenomenon. Monty Python still lives on in the cultural comedic landscape for those who appreciate what they did and after seeing these two documentaries it’s not hard to see how it all happened.

    A product description:

    CELEBRATE THE 40TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE WORLD’S FUNNIEST COMEDY TROUPE WITH A 2-DVD SET FEATURING TWO NEVER-AIRED DOCUMENTARIES

    As hard as it is to imagine, there was a world before Monty Python. And just like any other great historical epoch — the Jurassic Period, the Age of Chivalry, The Dawn of Disco — scholars have invested hundreds of hours examining the Rise of Python: that brief shining moment before the world knew how brilliant buffoonery could be. Watch, laugh and learn in THE RISE OF MONTY PYTHON: THE OTHER BRITISH INVASION

    “Before the Flying Circus” features rare vintage footage and interviews trace the pre-Monty Python influences that honed the wit of the future Pythons and shaped their destinies as the world’s most innovative comedy partnership. “Monty Python Conquers America” is the story of the OTHER British invasion – the funny one. Monty Python’s astonishing American success was due as much to the passion of well-placed fans as it was to a string of absurdly lucky breaks. Being really, REALLY funny helped some, too. Featuring interviews with the Pythons, Hank Azaria, Jimmy Fallon, David Hyde Pierce, and others.
    BATTLESTAR GALACTICA: THE PLAN – GIVEAWAY

    battlestar-galactica-the-plan-dvdI love being able to give these kinds of things out.

    I had a casual interest in this series when it was out but I do understand the ravenous nature with which people express their high praise for this program. It seems well written, the effects look pretty nice, and I couldn’t care less that the program has ended.

    Well, my loss is your gain because I have five copies of the BATTLESTAR GALACTICA: THE PLAN to give away. In order for you to win a copy all I need you to do is  shoot me an e-mail at Christopher_Stipp@yahoo.com and tell me the name of those robot things with the red eye that bobs back and forth like Kit from Knight Rider.

    It’s just that easy.

    Product Description:

    Edward James Olmos directs this feature-length drama that retells the story of the Peabody-winning series–from the perspective of the Cylons. BATTLESTAR GALACTICA: THE PLAN finds man’s creations plotting to destroy their makers, but their genocidal scheme leaves survivors. Now, two Cylons must try to eliminate the remnants of humanity, while Adama (Olmos) and his fleet struggle to survive. From the nuclear devastation that began the miniseries to Sharon’s (Grace Park) attempt to kill her commander, all the show’s biggest moments are seen from the enemy’s point of view. BATTLESTAR GALACTICA: THE PLAN also stars Tricia Helfer, Michael Hogan, Dean Stockwell, Michael Trucco, and Aaron Douglas.

    BATTLESTAR GALACTICA: THE PLAN – BONUS FEATURES
    Battlestar Galactica: The Plan on Blu-ray Hi-Def and DVD takes viewers deeper into the acclaimed space drama with exclusive bonus features, including:

    * EXCLUSIVE TO Blu-ray Hi-Def:
    o BD-LIVE: Access the BD-Live Center through your Internet-connected player to download more exclusive content, the latest trailers and more!
    + MY SCENES: Bookmark your favorite scenes from the movie.
    + BATTLESTAR GALACTICA TRIVIA: All-new trivia game.

    * BONUS FEATURES (BLU-RAY HI-DEF and DVD):
    o DELETED SCENES
    o FROM ADMIRAL TO DIRECTOR: EDWARD JAMES OLMOS AND THE PLAN – A day-in-the-life with director and actor Edward James Olmos, as he tackles the most ambitious Battlestar Galactica production to date.
    o THE CYLONS OF THE PLAN – Features interviews with the actors who play the film’s key Cylons, including Dean Stockwell, Tricia Helfer, Grace Park, Michael Trucco, Rick Worthy and Michael Bennett.
    o THE CYLON ATTACK – This featurette takes viewers behind the scenes for the planning and execution of one of Battlestar Galactica: The Plan’s major action sequences.
    o BEHIND THE PLAN – An in-depth look at some stunning visual effects and the role post-production plays in bringing the world of Battlestar Galactica to life.
    o FILMMAKER COMMENTARY

    This Is It – Review

    this-is-it-posterI was surprised by how much I liked this film.

    Putting aside any thoughts or opinions about the man behind the moves, there is a concert film here that actually succeeds on its ability to show how a major production gets from conception to opening night in a way that’s interesting as a document for what was never to be. There is a misnomer that this is a partial documentary as the movie has been completely sanitized of any real peeks into the life of music’s greatest recluses and, further, any mention or hint of Michael Jackson’s demise is nowhere to be seen. The mere fact alone that there was a conscious choice on the movie’s director, Kenny Ortega, more on him in a little bit, to not make this some kind of part of the film’s narrative not only makes the film’s supposition that this is a portrait of an entertainer who deserves one last performance without delving into the after effects of his death false but it’s a an appalling cheat.

    One of the delights, however, in watching this film is not just watching Jackson, who simply displays an effortless capacity to orchestrate a multimillion dollar concert venture and his musical acumen could not be better documented in its raw form, but in those who surround him in this film. The dancers, vocalists, musicians, all of those who are ever so briefly interviewed not only feel that being selected by Jackson to be a part of the show to be a magnanimous moment in their artistic lives but their capacity to exude a fresh interpretation of Jackson’s old catalog is the real wonderment here. The choreography is a sheer delight to witness as the marriage between high energy dancing and 21st century technology that was going to be used in order to truly make this a spectacle is worthy enough of a viewing on a big screen in order to try and see the scope of what was planned. One of the things I did mention, that this is really a greatest hits of Michael’s catalog, is something that gave me pause. While I found the musical cues here to evoke a time when Michael Jackson was synonymous with pure pop greatness, long before his image was torn down by a series of scandals, lawsuits, rumors, and bizarre behavior, and it truly transports a causal fan back to when these songs meant something more.

    One moment in particular stands out as a truly synergistic distillation of artistic vision and reinterpretation. It’s for the song Thriller and we see how the show’s creative brain trust filmed new footage on a sound stage in front of a green screen, in 3-D no less, while the logistical execution of how you would get an arena full of concertgoers to don the glasses required to make huge spiders and svelte dancing zombies come to life on a huge video screen is never explained, and the mix of archival footage of Michael working out the moves and actions of himself and the dancers. It’s the production element that’s the second real wow factor for this movie. The costuming, the precise reproduction of Michael’s signature hits, the ever so slight ways in which Michael needs to change something, and the sycophantic efforts of Kenny Ortega pepper this movie with a realism that no doubt would be gone from any portrait made about this concert should it have it to opening night. And, to the point of Kenny Ortega, the movie has the unintended consequence of making the director of this film appear to be the exact reason why Michael ultimately meets the demise he does. The “Whatever you want, Michael” lines that are uttered by Ortega shed about the only light we’ll get as to why Michael’s insistence about having his own physician, paid through the show’s overall budget, was allowed to happen.

    The collaborative process is certainly more gentile here if you were to compare this to other more vehement and exacting performers like Madonna in Truth or Dare but Michael does get what Michael wants but we’re not quite sure what all that meant in this regard. The ways in which elements of the show’s production are showcased in a manner that display people’s fear, intimidation, whatever it is that keeps people from being themselves, in moments when they’re looking for approval of the former King of Pop. A video clip, a choreographed move, a musical cue, in so many ways this is a film about how one man can wield so much influence over the lives of so many. He did get what he wanted but there are those who were complicit in the way the film ultimately ends.

    And that’s the real disappointment in a movie that tries very much to be as sterile about the world around Michael Jackson. Everyone is so busy creating a false world around him, keeping Michael in a perpetual bubble where denials do not exist, that this movie leaves you with the same experience as a fantastic concert that is aimed to those who want a greatest hits adventure: it’s what the audience wants, it’s what they were going to get, but there isn’t a shred of resonance to be felt long after the final curtain call. This is a self-contained experience that ought to be seen if for no other reason than to see what this could have done for the battle scarred musician who will no longer have people letting him get whatever he wants. This is really it.

    BLACK DYNAMITE: MICHAEL JAI WHITE/SCOTT SANDERS- Interview

    The idea was so outrageous that it just had to work.

    When writer/director Scott Sanders and writer/actor Michael Jai White came together to make a movie that took the blaxploitation genre and twisted it just slightly. Slightly enough that the irony just drips off the intentionally washed out screen that gathers the best and beloved elements of the genre in order to send it up. The reason it works is that it is done out of a place of love and admiration. Sanders and White didn’t get on board to do this film in order to defile the movies that spawned such hits as Shaft and Super Fly.

    The things that helped bring movies out of sound stages, the technoligical advancements that assisted movie makers to take the cameras to the street, liberated a whole generation of artists who saw that they could make films in the neighborhoods and areas which no doubt were overlooked within the Hollywood system.

    Black Dynamite is a movie that does have something to say and is much more than its clever premise of a man who is out to clean up the streets of his neighborhood. Both Sanders and White took some time out  of their schedules to talk about the movie and why it deserves some theatrical love.

    black_dynamite_ver31BLACK DYNAMITE is now playing…

    CHRISTOPHER STIPP:  I’ve heard tons about this movie.  I’ve seen trailers.  I’ve seen clips.  Outrageous.  And I realize that there is more to this movie than the outrageousness.  Can you talk a little about why your chose the period in which the movie is set, how it hearkens back to the 70’s era black film and why you said, “Let’s turn this on its head and make it funny?”

    SCOTT SANDERS: I think it initially started with Mike being a big fan of the movies and he did a photo shoot of himself as the character and he just had the idea in his head and I had approached him about another movie and he showed me these pictures as the character and it all just seemed so obvious because Mike is ““ that’s the picture!  That is from the original photo shoot.  This is what he originally showed me.  And already it was a movie.  It looked like a movie right there.

    MICHAEL JAI WHITE: That picture has survived the whole process.  I rented that costume from a costume house and incidentally that very same costume in the film.

    SANDERS: And now it’s a tattoo at Comi-Con.

    (Laughs)

    SANDERS: And yes, it just seemed like the obvious thing to do.  The best idea is where you see all the elements come together to make something that would be really fun.  It’s something that has never been done before.  Like, nobody said we’re going to make a blaxploitation movie set in the 70’s, years and years afterwards, knowing how the world has changed in 2009.

    WHITE: And it’s really fun when people discover, contemporary actors, in these roles and it’s great to see in almost every scene we introduce somebody.  People are looking forward to it and there are some actors that had folks really happy to see them in the film.

    CS:  Can you talk about the casting process?  You guys came up with the idea to do the script and you obviously wanted to avoid this being a one note joke. How did you get other people excited about the project as you were in order to get this to be the best story it could be?

    SANDERS: A lot of them were friends of Mike’s and I think once you set the context, the people will come.  Once the days are set and they know it’s going to happen and they get to like – we had a big scene that was a pimp council.  Mike would say, “Hey, we’re doing a 1970’s film, doing a pimp council, want to come?”  It was like, “Yeah, sure.”

    WHITE:  Some of the people are kicking themselves right now because they couldn’t make it.  Macy Gray was trapped, stuck, in the airport.  There were a number of people planning on making it ““ Wesley Snipes was going to play one of the characters as well.  He was a big fan of the movie.  He kicks himself for not being in that council.  We have cameos from people like you wouldn’t expect.

    CS:  Can you talk a little about the whole production of it?  When I see it in the trailer, the clips, the music, the fog, the wa-wa-wa of the guitar, how hard was it to put all the elements together in order to do it the right way?

    SANDERS: We were just talking about this.  It’s the clarity of assignment and hiring people who know what their assignment is.  Not only know their assignment but revel in that assignment.  The person who did the music for instance, Adrian Younge, who was with us from the beginning when we made our first trailer just to raise the money, is a friend of mine who also edited the movie and that’s what he was doing before Black Dynamite came around.  He was just sitting around in his garage making crazy, funk music with sitars and stuff.  It’s almost like his whole life was just waiting for Black Dynamite to come along.

    (Laughs)

    WHITE: Exactly.  Byron Minns, who happens to be one of my close friends who also was one of the writers on the movie, he had the most extensive knowledge of blaxploitation films than anyone I’ve ever met.  He could just off the top of his head just quote, just monologue, of these movies and I had to catch up with his knowledge and really cram to learn.  He remembers them all.  He’s an encyclopedia of those movies.  He’s a writer and he’s the co-lead.  He plays Bullhorn.  So it’s like there was just this real special connection with all of us.

    black-dynamite-white-sanders-tribeca-50cropCS:  Growing up, did you have a special affinity for these movies? These actors?

    WHITE: Absolutely, I feel like it was such a special time.  The 70’s was like the birth of the first black action hero, which was Jim Brown.  Jim Brown, who incidentally is like a surrogate father to me, when I first saw him in these movies I wanted to grow up and be like that guy and there is just something that resonates with him, the mental and physical strength in this guy it’s just, it’s a pervasive thing all over the world that you want to have representation of an alpha male.

    It’s what exists in most movies and you want to live vicariously through that dominate character and he was very much someone I idolized and it was a voice to black people at that time that didn’t exist before.  It was in the middle of the black power movement, black is beautiful, and peace and love, and all of that combined, it was an amazing time and so to introduce that to a younger audience I feel, especially in a time like this where I think socially has taken a back step, gangster culture and all that, it’s not so much let’s stick together and be brothers and hold tight and together, oppression, it’s a different voice now.  I wanted to do that for another age group ““ another generation.

    CS:  When you were going to make this film, did you have anything stand in your way to make this happen in terms of financing of people either saying we’ve done that before?  How did you get other people who were in the positions of power to help make it happen?

    SANDERS: We were very fortunate.  We made a trailer and gave it to our friend and producer, Jon Steingart, who was a producer on our first film and based on that trailer he said, “OK, we can do this.”  So we didn’t really have to write a script.

    (Laughs)

    And that’s how it got made.  We were very fortunate that a producer who could see what we were trying to do..

    WHITE: And truthfully, this hadn’t been done before.  I’m Gonna Git You Sucka was not set in the 70’s.  It was a contemporary thing ““ kind of a hybrid.  So this was something that absolutely we went back and did lovingly accurate portrayal of a 70’s movie.

    CS:  Right, with the quick close-ups.

    WHITE: Yeah, captured the style, the look, the feel and the spirit of that.

    CS:  Was it hard to do it?  This was obviously not a big budget but to make a period piece, was it difficult to make sure your cars on the street were Lincolns and what have you?

    SANDERS: Yes, we did it with the spirit of those movies.  We used a lot of stock footage and made sure the camera wasn’t pointed in the wrong direction.

    (Laughs)

    But it happened.  Those are the kinds of errors we had to take right out.  There is a scene where we had to be ultra careful, where Black Dynamite walks into a pool hall and a couple of SUV’s run by and said, well, we can’t use that take.  You know.  Or we didn’t blow out the windows enough but we wanted to see outdoors.  I think just knowing that’s in your head we had to piece it all together.

    black_dynamiteWHITE: We were really critical on that. We both felt like you cannot let the contemporary world slip through in any way in this movie.  And that’s also with the acting.  Sometimes some of the actors who are actually comedians may 10-1 go for the joke in fact to really do it right, these people were not kidding, they were dead serious.  They came from a spirit of revolution and they were changing the world at that time.  It’s quite funny when you look at it now.

    SANDERS: But that’s the joke.  That’s the whole thing.  So the joke is when you play it straight.  It’s not when you go wacka-wacka here’s the joke.

    CS:  Right.  I’m thinking about the scene with Cedric Yarbrough, from Reno 911, and you’re right. I was looking for a punch line and it didn’t come.  Very straight.  Did you know that going into it this was how these characters were going be?

    WHITE: Definitely.  The other movies that we sometimes get connected with, it’s not that at all.  They are clearly making a joke.  It’s made as a joke.  There is clear physical and deliberate jokes.

    SANDERS: There is a scene, and I’m really proud of this scene, in the movie, we drift so far away from jokes, when you see the scene, the whole scene is a joke but we don’t play it as a joke at all.  The scene where Black Dynamite goes into the hospital and Gloria, his love interest is there and they are talking about this 7 year old with heroin.  Now I think that’s funny because 7 year-olds don’t really have that much of a problem being on heroin.  It’s just not a real problem.  But they are talking about it super serious.  Sally was the queen of playing stuff straight, like tears in her eyes and Mike said, “wait a second, I’ve got to do this” because we had a whole way of doing it before and he even softened his voice, said she made him look like an asshole and they are playing this so ridiculous that you forget what the scene is about.

    (Laughs)

    WHITE: There is a flashback, we have really bad exploitation dialogue, of where my mom is on her death bed and she says, “Black Dynamite I really want you to look after your brother and make sure he doesn’t end up on drugs or dead.”  I mean how absurd is it to call your child Black Dynamite?  It was treated like his name was Harvey.

    SANDERS: And an honest tear comes out of her eyes.

    (Laughs)

    WHITE: She’s playing it so straight like her child is named Black Dynamite.  Even writing that, because at first the name was Super Bad, but that name got taken and Scott came up with the name Black Dynamite and the one thing that made me go, “You know what, that is a good name because I thought of that scene and how ridiculous it would be for a mother to call her child Black Dynamite?”  You gotta go, “Where in the hell does that come from?”

    (Laughs)

    So when it comes to seeing the scene, it’s always pretty funny because it’s ridiculous and she does it so serious that it goes over people’s heads.

    CS:  Do people miss it?

    WHITE: Yeah, they will miss how ridiculous some of these things are.  There is one militant who is doing such a bad acting job that he reads the stage direction and it goes over people’s heads.

    He turns startled and says, “The militant turns startled, where did you come from?”  And then my character is thinking that the director is going to yell cut.  This is a movie within a movie.  And later on I say I want to speak to the man in charge and he says sarcastically, “I am the man in charge.”

    (Laughs)

    blackdynamitefreescreeningWHITE: So, it slips by and it’s so appreciated when people get it because it’s just delivered in such a way, they take it serious.  So when people back up more and look at it another time there will be more times for them to enjoy it and catch on.

    CS:  Interesting note: I was reminded of today that a movie is made three times.  Once on the page, once when you shoot it and once when you edit it.  How is that evolution from page, to shooting to editing, and were there any surprises for you as this film evolved?

    SANDERS: I think it evolves all three times.

    WHITE: Exactly.

    SANDERS: You set out when you write it down how you think it should go and then we made serious adjustments when we were shooting and then in the editing, we cut out 10 minutes out of the movie, a straight 10 minutes.

    CS:  Really?

    SANDERS: Yeah and then we had to tie that together and that really helped and it’s good because we all got together and looked at this movie and said, “We need to do this, need to do that.”  We’d think about it and at the end of the day we always did the right thing.

    WHITE: Absolutely.

    SANDERS: And that’s the great process about making the movie.  It’s a constant stream of battles.  You just can’t know everything going into a movie but you have to try and land there as much as you can.

    WHITE: I think it exceeded what my plans were.  Some things were such an education.  I love learning and some of the things that we set out, if we were just betting people, the stuff that we would have thought would be the funniest and have the biggest response we would be wrong.  There’s a few moments that I figured would be laughs but the biggest laugh I never knew would come there.

    SANDERS:  But a lot of it is whatever it was that made you deliver the line that way.

    WHITE: It’s organic.

    SANDERS: It’s just organic to whatever the moment is.

    WHITE: Yes, like I don’t know, depending on what the situation is, I take in the surroundings of wherever I am.  That becomes part of the scene; therefore, it changes everything I’m doing.

    mjwCS:  What kind of surprises?  I’m almost thinking when writing of this film there might have been a few moments like thinking if this is too over the top, is this too overt, need to pull it back a little.  What things were you changing on the fly?

    SANDERS: I think the main thing we worked on was making it fast and furious and doing our thing and making sure the length, the feel and the tone, making sure the people were into it the whole period of the movie.  That was the biggest challenge because we had tons of material that we could pull from here and there.  Especially in the context of blaxploitation movie ““ especially with the connotation with our rip on it ““ like the whole point of is the plot is weird and awkward ““ part of the movie is watching the process of filmmaking and watching how it works because that’s what it is.  You are seeing all the scenes and everything on the film.

    Just the one thing that we did opposite of what they did in blaxploitation was really pay attention to the pace given the audience of today.  Because in regular blaxploitation movies, the movies in the 70’s in general, people walked to their cars, they get in, they turn the handle, they go to the bathroom, they turn the door, there’s lots of dead time.

    WHITE: One thing that I think, in this moment, I realized, and I don’t think I’ve ever voiced this before, I think I realized one thing about this movie and we learned this as we’ve been watching, one thing that makes it different in our brand of humor, is this is a movie that the humor is in listening.  We got the visceral stuff.  We got the actual sight gags and stuff like that.  I’ve always been influenced by Monty Python.  Where there humor was something you hear in nuances.  An audience that listens really gets the nuances.  Sometimes I think the difference is that it’s presented in such a way where people think it’s just the whole sight thing.  We have that and we’re dealing on different levels but the primary level about this movie is the nuances.  And that’s something that’s delivered in the dialogue and in little nuances in the performances.  That’s by and far the things we are heralded about more than anything else.

    There are movies that I’m sure you don’t have to think.  Some people go in with the dumb down button and they are going to miss a lot if they think it’s a dumb down movie.  It’s absolutely not.  And that’s a surprise that a lot of people have.

    CS:  That’s a bold choice to do it that way.  Because like you said, today’s audiences like to be whacked over the head with their comedy ““ like I said, overt, it needs to be obvious, all these things.

    WHITE: You have these movies like Napoleon Dynamite.  You go in there and you are listening.  You have Borat and go in there listening even though there is this visceral stuff as well.  But sometimes when you say blaxploitation people might thing that you don’t have to listen.  I think sometimes people are surprised that it’s something that has a contribution to the dialogue in it and it’s one of those things that people have pools with the one lines and people try to figure out what is going to be the most quoted one liner.

    CS:  Really?

    WHITE: Oh by far, we get quotes all the time.  It’s amazingly quoted for such a new movie.

    CS:  Speak about that.  What’s the process been like, what’s the experience been like for you to have made this film on something that was pretty goofy/funny but now it’s starting to connect with a lot of people?

    WHITE: It’s great for me.  People responding to something I’m writing is far more rewarding than even my acting.  Sometimes we’re playing roles that are not very difficult for me to play.  Let’s face it.  Sometimes I’m playing a bad ass tough guy, contemporarily or whatever, it’s not too hard.  I enjoy being a bad man but come on.  I can do that with 103 degree fever.  It’s really not too difficult.  But to play comedy.  To write it and have an idea and have it come out of my head and I get the response that I want, has nothing to do with being physically gifted.  I can’t control that.  I can control very little of what I actually look like.  It’s a DNA thing.  As far as what’s going on inside, that’s different.  It means a lot more to me.

    SANDERS: To have people ““ going all over the world ““ and to have people like the movie ““ we just got back from the Czech Republic and had 1300 people at our premiere.

    CS:  Chech Republic?

    SANDERS: Yeah.

    WHITE: Yea, all the seats were filled and then they let in 100 people and there were still people outside waiting to get in.  They sat in the aisles.  And ended up with a standing ovation.

  • Opinion In A Haystack: Eric Lichtenfeld Part 1

    haystackheader.jpg

    Interview: Eric Lichtenfeld Part 1 of 2: Blood and Light

    bookcoveraction

    This week, the western world sees the release of Michael Bay’s Transformers: Revenge of The Fallen on DVD, a film very telling of the industry in which it swims. However, for those of us with more then two decades of life under our belts, this is a trumpet, an alarm, a loud drunk at the party of the “action” film genre, it’s a guest that reminds you how much has changed and how your style is no longer “in.” We can rest assured that the drunk is right. Action isn’t what it once was. The hardware has been replaced with software, and the hero has been replaced with the “hottie.” Spectacle is no longer flavored with primal instinct, blood, and brute force. Instead, it’s injected with pusillanimous, pixel-engulfed, stimuli. There’s no need to be bitter. Those that care about the past, present, and future of this beloved genre are still able to celebrate “action’s” timeline with the reverence it deserves through literature such as Eric Lichtenfeld’s Action Speaks Louder: Violence, Spectacle, and the American Action Movie. I had the pleasure of talking with author Eric Lichtenfeld about his book, the genre, and reactions to his chosen subject matter.

    gse_multipart58306

    BOB ROSE: Thank you very much for reading my review.

    ERIC LICHTENFELD: Oh, it was my pleasure.

    BR: I can’t tell you how excited I was to learn that the author read it.

    [Laughs]

    BR: You thought I had some valid criticisms about the last third of the book?

    EL: I’m not entirely sure I agree completely with it, but I think it’s fair. If I can sort of distance myself from it and approach the bigger issue you’re talking about. Certainly the action movies of the “˜70s and “˜80s are the ones of my formative years, so I think there is more of a sentimental attachment to those movies then to the ones in the “˜90s, regardless of the merit of one era versus the other.

    BR: Is it a matter of personal perspective?

    EL: I think so. We have a tendency to write most passionately, most engagingly about the things that influenced us the most directly. Maybe I should have done more to control all of that, but I think there is probably something to that observation. This might be something else you are probably picking up on. I think the “˜80s is sort of the classical era of the genre. Whatever genre you’re talking about is going to have a “classical” period where its definition is most crystallized; is at its clearest. So from the perspective of writing about a genre you’re interested in, there is so much to unpack in that period.

    BR: So the “˜80s is where the Beethoven of action films exists.

    EL: [laughs] I’m glad you sort of pushed me on that a little bit. Classical doesn’t necessarily mean the best movies are in that period.

    BR: Just the most definitive ones?

    EL: Exactly. The genre has its strongest sense of self in that period. The way I look at genres, and not just action, is that you have an early phase where there is a lot of experimentation going on. This is particularly true of the action movie. We’re combining elements of other genres and arriving at some kind of a new formula. A lot of that you’ll look back on in the future and see as sort of a primordial ooze. Then your next phase is when the formula is figured out, when filmmakers really know how to capitalize on that formula and keep reproducing it.

    BR: Like how they kept trying to remake Die Hard?

    EL: Similarly. By the time you get into all those Die–Hard-On-A-Something’s you’re already into the next phase of the action movie. I would say the classical phase of the action movie is more like the Stallone films, Cobra and Rambo, those really para-militaristic exercises from the “˜80s.

    BR: Including Predator, Commando“¦

    EL: Absolutely, in the sense that Predator is a very macho movie, really focused on the muscles and the hardware. With Predator you also see the influences of science-fiction and horror on the genre, the way you’ll continue to see throughout the “˜90s. I really admire Predator.

    BR: I’m a huge fan as well.

    EL: I like to think of it as more then your typical “˜80s action movie.

    BR: It kind of belongs to a “Men Only” club”¦

    EL: Which is vaguely true of a lot of John McTiernan movies in particular. Another great example would be the Chuck Norris films from the “˜80s, such as The Delta Force, a classical example of the classical phase, where the genre is most “itself.”

    BR: I think your book points in that direction.

    EL: Yeah, and actually the point I made in the conclusion, in this edition, was about Team America. I think Team America is a great test case for this. There are two components to it. There’s the political satire and then there’s the pure action movie parody.

    BR: It’s a parody of Bruckheimer and Bay films.

    EL: Before that, really I think it’s a parody of Chuck Norris movies. It’s a parody of Delta Force, of Navy Seals, which is not Chuck Norris but which was made in that vein.

    BR: Red Dawn maybe?

    EL: A little bit, sure. That was the mode that really influenced Bruckheimer and later Bay. You have a very “˜80s satire in Team America. Now, if you think about how old Team America’s target audience was in the 1980s, there is really no reason that parody should work, except that we have this ingrained idea in us that when we are talking about the “action movie,” that is what we are talking about.

    BR: While I’m a fan of it, you can argue that Team America wasn’t financially successful with the target audience at the box office”¦

    EL: Sure, well it’s a very offensive action movie with puppets; it had a stacked deck working against it. [laughs] I think what Team America is proving is that when we think of the “action movie,” what springs to mind is the archetype from the 1980s, and everything else, everything that came later, is a response to that. In the “˜90s and beyond, they became half-serious action movie, half-satire or parody. You see it in horror a lot, with Scream and films like that. You see something similar to that in the action genre. As far as all the Die–Hard-On-A-Something’s go, in the “˜90s you were already into that.

    BR: The classical period was already over.

    EL: Right, and the films were responding to the classical phase.

    BR: Mainstream American movies, with a studio-sized budget all seemed to be much more clearly defined back in the 1980s and early 1990s. Now it seems we have two genres in mainstream film, with action or without action. Either there is a huge budgeted action behemoth or a tiny small budgeted independent film. There’s no in between. Predator, Die Hard, Rambo 2 are clearly defined action films. Today with films like Spiderman, Wolverine, Transformers they seem watered down, trying to span too many genres and are basically just giant “catch-all films.” I realize that is a broad statement, but I think there is validity to it. Would you agree with that?

    EL: Yes, as you say, that is a broad statement, but I think there is a lot of truth to it. What’s happening is a kind of polarization. What has happened with the action movie is the budgets have gotten bigger, the standings of the films have grown, and they are more summer/holiday-tentpoles and less anything else.

    BR: They are a big stew of everything you could want in a movie.

    EL: Yes, and I think the reason we are seeing that is because of CGI, which allows your action movie to take on the more science-fiction, super-heroic, fantastical elements that makes the movie safer for a larger audience. Fewer movies get to suck up more and more oxygen. What has been disappearing for a while is the mid-size R-rated action movie.

    BR: Would you consider Die Hard now, in 2009, a mid-size movie?

    EL: Yes, I would. Die Hard is a really interesting example because if you were to go back to 1988, the movie was made for $27 million or so.

    BR: Which now is a mid-size budget.

    EL: Now? Actually it’s almost a small budget. [laughs]

    BR: District 9 was made for $30 million, so that “smaller” film is the same price now as Die Hard, a huge film, was then.

    EL: Right. One thing they have been saying for a long time is it’s very hard for studios to make $60 million movies. The budgets are very small or very large. In 1988, $27 million, it’s not chump-change, but it’s not a huge amount of money. More significantly, Die Hard was released gradually. It opened in only a couple of cities the first weekend, expanded the second weekend, and then went wide. You would never have that today. Today, by the third weekend, your movie would be close to done at the box office. Die Hard was a smaller production, released in a smaller way, and I think part of that is because Bruce Willis was not a movie star yet. He had a few movies that didn’t do well, and he wasn’t even that popular as a public persona at the time.

    BR: He was unknown to the public?

    EL: It wasn’t that he was unknown; it had gotten to the point where his popularity was waning. He wasn’t a movie star, he was a TV star, and people liked him on Moonlighting. But he started to acquire a reputation as a party boy, and as Die Hard got closer to release his, “star” was starting to decline. These were things that Fox had to navigate its way around, and obviously they did it extremely successfully.

    BR: Sure, Die Hard defined a genre and his career.

    EL: Trying to imagine something like Die Hard would be very difficult in today’s climate because you have larger movies and the technology allows them to reach a broader audience. What you can do with “light,” for lack of a better word, now, you had to do with “blood” then. We’re talking about spectacle, which is the driving principle of the action movie. All these stories are structured around spectacle, so doing that with blood certainly narrows your audience to a certain extent.

    BR: Now it’s opened up to everyone, we don’t have to have blood.

    EL: Right, and also because of changes in distribution and the relationship between studios and the theaters: how many movies are in circulation, and how long they get to play. All of these things, and budgets, are factors in how the genre has morphed to try to appeal to as broad an audience as possible in the shortest time frame you can get away with.

    BR: You’re a great writer, you’re an intelligent guy, you have a Master’s. Did you get a lot of confused looks when you set out to write this book?

    EL: [Big Laughs] Wow, great question. I started working on the book when I was still working on my Master’s degree and I got a lot of different reactions. It was really interesting. I got people who were unabashedly excited, because it was about time these things got the scholarly or intellectual validation that they wanted them to have. I got a lot of raised eyebrows, particularly in my department. I remember someone seemed to be excited that I had a book contract and asked me about the book. I asked him “Do you like the genre?” and he said “I did when I was thirteen.”

    BR: [Laughs]

    EL: I got a lot of that. A woman in my department asked me if I was interested in this subject because I was otherwise insecure in my masculinity. [laughs] But probably the most interesting reaction was from older people. Fathers of my friends would ask me, “Are you talking about this movie? Or that movie?” Actually, it wasn’t limited to the older set, but people would ask me these things and you could tell these were movies that were personal favorites of theirs and they were very protective of them. Obviously, what I was going to talk about was going to be determined by how I defined the genre (action is a pretty broad category) and frankly, how much space I had to play with, which was based on what the publisher dictated. People would ask me, in almost a challenging way, like they were trying to challenge me to a fight, about the movies they thought should be in the book. “Why aren’t you talking about this? Why are you talking about that?”

    Everyone knows what a western is. Everyone thinks they know what horror is, action has been a little more amorphous. So it was interesting to see how invested people were in “their” titles. Was I going to include them? Was I going to treat them right? Generally speaking the reaction was positive. People liked the fact that the treatment that had been given to westerns, film noir, and to science fiction was now being given to the action film.

    BR: They deserve that validity. Eli Roth has argued several times, even on FOX news, that American horror films are usually a by-product of the “horrors” of the current administration. Films like Last House On The Left, and Texas Chainsaw Massacre are born out of the fear and frustrations of Vietnam. Films like Saw and Hostel being born out of the Iraq war, even the “lame” horror films of the “˜90s show the lack of those fears. Roth was basically saying that the genre of horror has never rightfully gotten its due in how it accurately reflects society’s fears. I think what you do here, very successfully, is show how the action genre reflects society.

    EL: Thank you.

    BR: If horror shows us what are fears are at a given period in history, then does Action show us the inverse of that?

    EL: I think they probably do the same thing in the sense that horror shows us what our fears are, but also what our ideals are, even if those ideals are a little bit skewed. Horror is fundamentally about the disruption of the normal by the abnormal. So if the abnormal is what we’re afraid of, then the normal is what we idealize. The virginal girl who destroys Freddy or Jason is this cultural ideal. So if horror shows us our fears, but also what we idealize, then action does the same thing. We define ourselves based on who we are, but also based on who we are not. The villains of the action movie signify what it is we fear, and the hero signifies another kind of ideal. I think they, horror and action, use slightly different means to achieve similar ends.

    BR: In your book you discuss a lot about how terrorism is shown in action, which is most certainly a fear we had when certain movies were being made. A fear of who we aren’t.

    EL: Yeah, and these fears are layered. Go back to the “˜80s, the classical phase, and take something like The Delta Force. Yes, it’s a fear of terrorism, but beneath that it’s a fear of “the other.” Cobra, which is not ostensibly about terrorism, and where the villains are white, is the exact same thing though. It’s not just fear of terrorism, it’s fear of “the other.” Even though the villains are a bunch of caucasians running around.

    BR: They’re still not part of the Rockwellian society that is idealized?

    EL: Yeah, they are clearly shown to be abnormal, practically on a biological level. I think I wrote about this in the book, how “other” the villains in Cobra are. As far as the connection between the genre and culture and politics goes, I would say it works both ways. The movies reflect the culture, but I also believe that the culture reflects the movies, in the sense that these movies are our modern day mythology. They are based on mythological forms and structures that go back, in America, to a time when there wasn’t even an America, to the 1600s, and of course they have roots and antecedents even before that. So when you look at what’s happening in the culture and in politics, very often, it seems to be conforming, not to a Lethal Weapon per se, but to a lot of the mythology that a Lethal Weapon has inherited and is expressing. Think back to the Natalee Holloway case, the blond high school senior who disappeared in Aruba. Or just generally, think back to whenever there is a white girl in trouble”¦

    BR: Like JonBenet Ramsey?

    EL: Yeah. Whenever there is a white girl in distress, often times you will see this kind of counter-coverage about how we only talk about it when white girls are missing. We never talk about it when African-American or other minority children are in danger.

    BR: The white girl being the idealized princess in our society.

    EL: Right, and that goes back to that captivity narrative that is so embedded in the action film, and in the western before that, and back and back and back.

    BR: Like in The Searchers and such.

    EL: Exactly, exactly. So yes, I do think movies reflect our culture, I also think the culture reflects, not the movies themselves, but the mythologies on which the movies are founded.

    BR: Ronald Reagan mentioned Rambo while addressing the nation, or the Star Wars missile defense program. Movies do have an effect.

    EL: Sure.

    BR: This is a simple question, a huge question, but I have to ask, what is your favorite film of all time?

    EL: Oh, wow. I don’t believe you can ask a film person what their one favorite film is. I know it should be an easy question but I take that question so seriously that I would never ask it of myself or give a straightforward answer. There is such a huge body of great movies to choose from, and there are also so many different ways to parse the question. Is it, what do I think are the greatest, most magnificent, movies ever made? Or is it, what are my personal favorites based on memory, nostalgia, sentiments and all that?

    BR: Based on your life experience, your film knowledge, and your own taste.

    EL: An intersection, a sweet spot between all these different ways of construing the greatest films ever. This is how I’ll answer the question: the movie that made me fall in love with the movies was Superman.

    BR: Would you consider that a film within the action genre?

    EL: If it were made today it would be. In 1978 not exactly, but it is certainly in that boy’s-adventure mode for sure. All these genres exist on a family tree. This I think is the more interesting question: “what is the movie I have a crush on right now?” What is the movie that I get really fascinated by, interested in, and think about for a couple of weeks or months? It’s not necessarily the greatest movie or one of my favorite movies, but one I find fascinating at the moment. Not necessarily a current movie; it could be 50 years old. In cinema, like anything in life, we feel our crushes very acutely. I like to think of it like that.

    BR: What is your current cinematic crush?

    EL: Right now I don’t know if I have one; it kind of comes and goes. [laughs]

    BR: As far as crushes go, when I first wrote you I mentioned I had just watched Brannigan, and you seemed to not be too enthusiastic toward the movie. I’ll admit, I didn’t hate it.

    [big laughs]

    EL: Strange movie, I didn’t hate it. What I think is interesting about movies from that era is that it doesn’t look like the action movies that would come later. Brannigan really illustrates what I was talking about before. Brannigan, in the context of the action genre doesn’t really know what it is, because the genre hasn’t really been defined yet. So Brannigan is sort of borrowing and playing with elements from the past and from the present, but in retrospect it’s still in that very hazy place.

    BR: While watching Brannigan I kind of fell into that rut of a mindset that you get, with the intense editing and action of new movies, sometimes you forget that old action films can be just as intense and you’re not prepared for it. When he explodes through that door at the beginning of the movie, kicks it down and barrels in, it threw me back, because I wasn’t expecting it. It felt like something I would see today.

    EL: I’m heartened by the fact that craftsmanship from 35 years ago speaks to you that way.

    BR: Oh it does, I can watch Predator and it will metaphorically “kick my butt,” more then say if I watched G. I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra.

    EL: Predator is an exquisitely crafted movie. What I often say about Predator is that I find the movie oddly touching. The reason for that is if you look at the elements that make it up, you have Schwarzenegger who is a star, you have commandos in keeping with the paramilitary vogue of the “˜80s, you have the monster”¦

    BR: Even a man-on-a-mission scenario.

    EL: Yeah, it seems like it should just be this kind of studio product, but this is why I find it so touching: it could have been just as successful while getting away with a much lower level of craftsmanship. I don’t think the film’s success ultimately hinged on its being as finely crafted as it was, but it was finely crafted because that’s what these filmmakers do. Does it matter that they aren’t making these intensely personal art-house movies that may or may not have been their aspirations? They are making a very straightforward corporate genre piece, that if made thirty or forty years earlier would have been a B-movie on the second half of a double-bill, and probably forgotten to film history. There are a lot of movies from the “˜80s that are still around with us, really thanks to nostalgia, and not because they represent any real achievement in terms of style, craftsmanship, or storytelling. Predator is extremely simple, the building blocks of it are extremely conventional, but it’s the craftsmanship that puts it over the top. The filmmakers didn’t have to do that, but they did.

    BR: If anyone does that the best, McTiernan does.

    EL: I think Die Hard is the greatest action movie ever made and I’ve been an admirer of McTiernan for a very long time.

    BR: I’ll admit that I think Last Action Hero, directed by McTiernan, is one of the best satires of the “classical period,” as you put it, of the genre. I will get a lot of flack for that.

    EL: [laughs] Last Action Hero is a perfect example of what I was talking about before. It’s in that third phase where it’s looking back and commenting on what came before. I think Last Action Hero is a really mixed bag. It doesn’t get enough credit for the good things about it. It’s a very flawed movie. However, there are positive things that get overlooked.

    BR: The movie does have a cult following. A lot of fans have revisited the movie and enjoy it for what it was trying to do.

    EL: I don’t even think it was entirely successful at what it was trying to do. Hudson Hawk is another movie that people completely wrote off with a terrible reputation and then years later, a small number of people revisited that movie apart from the way it was sold, apart from what the studios said the movie was and found a new affection for it. I don’t think that’s exactly the case with Last Action Hero. The movie does do what it’s trying to do; it just doesn’t do it consistently. So I think a lot of the criticisms of it are fair, I just wish at the same time people would give it credit for what it does nicely.

    BR: Do you think that all of [Last Action Hero’s] failures and criticisms are, in a way, part of the satire too? People viewed the movie as an overblown, disastrous waste of time, much like how the average action movie is usually seen by most critics. It fits the stigma, its story is almost part of the satire.

    EL: I don’t necessarily agree. It is a satire of this large and overblown genre, but whatever you’re satirizing you have to play by its rules. Last Action Hero is all over the place. It’s going in so many directions at the same time; it doesn’t stick to the rules of that which it is satirizing. I’ll give you an example. The animated cat in the police station. Where is that in “the action movie?”

    BR: I agree, all the jokes have to do with the inhabitants of that police department are completely absurd and out of place.

    EL: The animated cat doesn’t exist within the genre the movie is ostensibly making fun of. If you were to forget everything you know about Last Action Hero, forget the marketing, the hype, the reputation, just go in cold, you would have a hard time placing exactly what the idea of the movie is. It’s making fun of Hollywood and making fun of the genre all at the same time. What I think is a pity is that they didn’t make the movie they originally intended to make, which was a much darker satire simply of the genre. The original title of the movie was Extremely Violent. I haven’t read the draft, but I understand it was darker, more violent, and an even more brooding satire of the genre. I would be surprised if you found the animated cat in it.

    BR: Or the T-1000 cameo, the Sharon Stone cameo, that’s not parodying the Jack Slater movie, that’s parodying the business, they should have stuck to the world of the film within a film, Jack Slater 4, as if it really existed.

    EL: Yeah, you have the E.T. joke, you have a lot of references to “movies” that dilutes the power of the references to the action genre itself.

    End part 1.

    Stay tuned for part 2, in which Mr. Lichtenfeld and I discuss ticket prices, Air Force One, Michael Bay’s anti-intellectualism, the silly side of Rambo, his future literary projects, plus more!

    Thanks for reading.

  • Trailer Park: Ari Gold

    By Christopher Stipp

    The Archives, Right Here

    I was able to sit down for a couple of years and pump out a book. It’s got little to do with movies. Download and read “Thank You, Goodnight” right HERE for free.

    Check out my new column, This Week In Trailers, at SlashFilm.com and follow me on TWITTER under the name: Stipp

    AWAY WE GO – GIVEAWAY

    away-we-go_bdI appreciate this film as a quiet examination into the lives of two people who are surrounded by chaos.

    What’s most fascinating about AWAY WE GO is that Sam Mendes went from Revolutionary Road to this. From a depressing portrait on suburban life to a picture that dabbles in a little drama and a little comedy the movie works because of co-writers Dave Eggers (A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius and the upcoming film Where The Wild Things Are) and his wife Vendela Vida. The movie actually has moments of both sadness and delight. To vacillate between the two takes some talent and the two of them pull it off. Between John Krasinski and Maya Rudolph the duo are able to find the happiness in the sadness and the strength to keep going on when it seems that the whole world is going mad.

    The movie is simply one that’s a delight to watch at least once and I have 2 copies of it on Blu-ray that I am giving away to anyone who is able to e-mail me at Christopher_Stipp@yahoo.com and tell me your favorite Eggers book.

    Product description:

    When slacker thirtysomething couple Burt (John Krasinski) and Verona (Maya Rudolph) discover that his parents are moving overseas, the duo — who expect their first child in a few months — set off on a cross-country tour to figure out where they should lay down some roots in Sam Mendes’ poignant comedy Away We Go. They visit a number of different cities, and meet with a different friend or family member’s family at each stop. Their hosts include a set of emotionally detached parents (Allison Janney and Jim Gaffigan), a pair of overprotective new-age parents (Maggie Gyllenhaal and Josh Hamilton), and old college pals (Chris Messina and Melanie Lynskey), who have adopted a number of kids. Novelist Dave Eggers wrote the script with Vendela Vida. Perry Seibert, All Movie Guide

    THE NOSTRADAMUS FILES – REVIEW

    nostradamusI have to implore you, for those who haven’t seen it, to check out the Orson Welles’ narrated The Man Who Saw Tomorrow. Released in 1981, I remember seeing this as a young lad and being mystified at this purported sage of the future. Of course I believed everything I saw and I ate this whole thing up. I was amazed and intrigued by the premise of who this guy was and I will never forget the ending of this movie: Nostradamus predicts the rise of a man who is armed with nuculear weapons and living in the middle east. I don’t know about you but in 1981 the only threat to us was the USSR and even then, with movies like The Day After in 1983 scaring the ever loving hell out of people, the middle east never occurred to a lot of people as being capable of much.

    Fast forward almost 30 years and see where we are. Yes, it’s a little hocus-pocus and it’s a lot of loose interpretation but, to me, Nostradamus is still a side show I am willing to pay to watch. The guy was a little kooky and you absolutely could find people today to say how wrong he was but the History channel’s documentary of the guy ranks right up with entertainment worthy of your collection.

    For those of us who are endlessly fascinated by the man this is a delightful companion piece. With

    Product description:

    Examine the eerie predictions of history’s greatest prophet in this doomsday-themed collection from HISTORYâ„¢. Nostradamus’ apocalyptic visions and other ancient prophecies that promise a major ““ and perhaps catastrophic ““ change to life as we know it are explored in two exciting and insightful documentaries. Many people have believed that we are approaching a year of unprecedented, and even deadly, upheaval. Are there real, verifiable connections between the prophecies of the past and what is happening in the world today? Are the signs of the apocalypse happening before our eyes? More importantly, could the ancient prophecies of a coming apocalypse be realized today? THE NOSTRADAMUS FILES COLLECTION includes: The Lost Book of Nostradamus; and Nostradamus 2012.

    BONUS FEATURES: Feature length documentary: Nostradamus: 500 Years Later, Additional Footage: The Sun, The Egyptians, End of Time, The Hopi, and The Masons

    DISC 1: The Lost Book of Nostradamus / Bonus Nostradamus: 500 Years Later

    DISC 2: Nostradamus 2012 / Bonus additional footage

    LIFE AFTER PEOPLE: SEASON ONE – REVIEW

    lifeI don’t want to creep a whole lot of you out but I do think about decomposition every now and then.

    The idea of wondering what happens as, specifically, the human body succumbs to the earth fascinates my mind. How does a corpse go from formaldahyde display object to liquidy goo? What organisms are responsible for the speed of this process? Part of my interest in the History channel series of Life After People: The Series is wondering what indeed would be civilization’s own path if we were to just leave our current landscape to its own devices? The end result would be a little different than that of Will Smith’s apocolypse in I Am Legend but it gives you a good idea of where this series will take you.

    Part science, part theory the series offered me the opportunity to see how objects, animals and, really, the earth would go on spinning without the meddling of homo sapiens. The CGI enhancements to the episodes, while a little clunky at times, add another cinematic level to what is ostensibly a great “What if?” premise of the series on the whole.  The series is an engaging look at the science behind material decomposition and the possibilities that lay behind the theory of what would happen if people did suddenly vanish and I could not have been more entertained going through this season’s discs.

    Product Description:

    What would happen if every human being on Earth disappeared? This isn t the story of how we might vanish it is the story of what happens to the world we leave behind. Building off the success of the HISTORY two-hour special Life After People, this series continues the exploration of a world wiped clean of humanity, in even more vivid detail.

    Each episode is a stunningly graphic examination of how the very landscape of planet Earth would change in our absence, using cinematic CGI to reveal in scientific detail the fate of every aspect of the man-made world. What happens to the millions of animals that supply our food? The chemicals stored in industrial complexes? Which animals take over subways? Do satellites fall to Earth? When does Mt. Rushmore wither away? Every episode will unfold in the hours, days, months and years after people disappear and will combine three to four different kinds of stories, from animal outbreaks to structural collapses, building to a unique visual finale. Welcome to Earth, population zero.

    DRAG ME TO HELL – Giveaway

    dragI loved this film.

    I know there are those who want to come off as tough, macho or jaded by simple scares but this movie delivered on the promise of being a light and airy horror film that walked the line of being solidly thrilling and unabashedly funny at times. For those who did see Sam Raimi’s return to horror and appreciated the work that went into it this was a breath of fresh crypt air coming off of a not so memorable motion picture experience that was Spider-Man 3.

    If you enjoyed the experience of the film and would like to add it to your collection please shoot me a note at Christopher_Stipp@yahoo.com and let me know your favorite Sam Raimi film. That’s it and you’re entered.

    A description:

    Christine Brown (Alison Lohman) is on her way to having it all: a devoted boyfriend (Justin Long), a hard-earned job promotion, and a bright future. But when she’s forced to make a tough decision that evicts an elderly woman from her house, Christine becomes the victim of an evil curse. Now she has only three days to dissuade a dark spirit from stealing her soul before she is dragged to hell for an eternity of unthinkable torment. Director Sam Raimi (Spider-Man and The Evil Dead Trilogy) returns to the horror genre with a vengeance in the film that critics rave is “the most crazy, fun and terrifying horror movie in years!” (Owen Gleiberman, Entertainment Weekly)

    Ari Gold – Interview

    You can’t help but ask the question.

    You try and avoid it as you half expect a Bill O’Reilly meltdown should you ask it but I couldn’t resist by the end of the interview with Ari Gold to ask him about”¦Ari Gold. The director/writer who has created a really special independent film called Adventures of Power was making the film festival rounds earlier this year and that now is playing in select theaters around the country. The movie deals with the very fundamental idea of being your own person and ignoring the pressures of others to capitulate and conform but what makes this movie so remarkable is its wondrous soundtrack, creative cinematography, solid acting and performances from the likes of Michael McKean, Jane Lynch, Adrian Grenier and the very alluring Shoshannah Stern.

    I had a chance to talk with Ari months ago as it was preparing to make its theatrical bow and did ask the question about whether having his name as of late in this pop culture we live in has made it difficult to get dinner reservations.

    aop2CHRISTOPHER STIPP:  I’ve seen a couple of the shorts that you did and this obviously represents something of a larger scale for you. How was it making the transition from short form to long form? What did you find when the rubber hit the road?

    ARI GOLD: It was unbelievably difficult to shoot because I set myself up for a lot of challenges by shooting all over the country and starting to shoot before we finished  raising the money. Having a huge cast and dance sequences and everything that you could possible do to make a shoot difficult, I did.

    (Laughs)

    So, I feel like I can survive anything now.  Looking back on Helicopter, for example, that was something that when I wrote that”¦”OK, animated helicopter crash and toy cars going through a toy San Francisco” all the stuff I did with that in a very different way. And the same thing with this script, I was asked, “How are you going to shoot in a factory?  How are you going to shoot dance sequences?  How are you going to pull off all this stuff for low budget?”Â  And, usually, the answer to all that is incredible hard work to try and get something for nothing and trying to get people on board who are really into working in less than Hollywood conditions.

    CS:  And certainly, Michael McKean and Jane Lynch spring to mind that it’s amazing that you got them in the role for someone like yourself who ““ I don’t know how much juice or how much pull you have was it difficult for you to get those guys?

    GOLD: I have no pull at all.

    (Laughs)

    No manager, just a script and a casting director.  Mainly I think it was the script that made Jane get on board and she really liked it and believed it and liked what I was doing.  I think it helped Michael McKean to read it because Jane was already on board and they knew each other.  The movie gave him a chance to do something that he doesn’t often have the chance to do.  Just to play a serious, dramatic role which is ironic given that it’s an air-drumming movie, but the role is really dramatic and at the heart of the movie and people see him as an improvisational comedy actor and here is something that was scripted and he’s playing a small time union organizer and it’s an interesting thing for him and I think he was glad to have that opportunity.

    We had an answer from him quickly and that was great!

    CS:  And you bring that up too that it was a juxtaposition of a very sort of farcical comedy with a very dramatic edge embedded in it.  When you made it, was it your intention to have these two things living simultaneously in the same film?

    GOLD: Yes, absolutely.  There was no way I could have spent three years of my life making a movie that was just based on some little thing that I thought looked funny.  Air drumming was always for me a metaphor for powerless people trying to find power in themselves.  It’s funny because these characters are trying to drum but they don’t have any drums but actually on a different level it’s a story of working people trying to survive in America and on a spiritual level it’s about people who feel deficient because he doesn’t have drums and he always wants them and then over the course of the movie he discovers drums are within him and that part of the story is what kept me going and kept me motivated.

    aop1Something I grapple with in my own life is finding the strength within myself ““ finding the drums within my self ““ and not sure what it’s about.  So, yea, that was always on my mind and everyday working with the actors, I treated it, I don’t want to say I treated it as a drama, but I wanted everyone to take the story seriously and let the absurdity of what’s actually happening be funny and yet the emotions that are driving everyone real.

    CS:  And the music is definitely important.  To that end, you must have gotten a lot of clearances”¦as soon as the movie was done I immediately raced to iTunes “¦you selected some great selection of drum themed songs, Kyrie starts it off for example. Was that a new process for you of obtaining clearances and all that for the music you wanted to use?

    GOLD: That was a big part of the process.  It was just one more of the things ““ that’s one thing you should not do is put famous songs into a movie because you can’t afford them and I had a combination of a great music supervisor, Robin Kaye, was willing to pull out her Rolodex and make calls and pitch the movie to artists and managers and such and I had a lot of time on my hands to listen to thousands of songs from 70’s, 80’s, and 90’s, trying to pick stuff and working with my brother Ethan who is a brilliant musician and not only composed 25 songs of different genres in the movie but when we wanted to use a licensed song we’d have five suggestions for every one I had in my head.  It was a big process.

    There were a lot of songs that were in the original script that didn’t end up in the movie because we couldn’t clear them before the shoot.  But that’s also where my brother came in because when there was a certain song that I wanted but didn’t get he would compose something that was not only the type of song I wanted but also very funny and he would take it to a different level and my brother’s songs I think fit easily with the big theme songs in the movie.  They all feel like they are part of the right period.  I saw it as a musical.  A level of drama or melodrama that is like a musical and instead of singing”¦ air drums.

    CS:  Shooting in the Southwest.  Did that present its own challenges as you decided to shoot in this tiny, tiny town.  How did you find these places?

    GOLD: I lived in New Mexico for a while. My aunt lived there and I lived in her basement, much as Power does.  So I got to know particularly the southwestern portion of New Mexico which is not a very touristy area.  Not so beautiful, lots of copper mines.  When I was researching some of the label stuff and started to work on the script I went back and spent a couple weeks traveling around, mostly New Mexico and Arizona but a little bit in Nevada, Colorado and Utah.  And one or two days in the El Paso side of Texas.  I spent a huge amount of time seeing all these places and taking in the feeling of them and talking to people who were on strike by sheer chance when I was there in trying to get a sense of what life was like in these towns.

    A frustrating thing was falling in love with the look and the people at certain times and getting shut out by the local factories that knew that ““ the court would clear stuff in advance and we’d have to tell them where we’d be shooting that there’s this and there’s this and also there’s a strike and a labor battle and one of the big corporations that owns a couple different companies in the region found out about some of the political stuff or whatever you want to call it in the movie and shut us out and even though the local plant managers and the local people and the bar owners were thrilled to have us there it was like racquetball.  We would get approval from 99% of what we needed in the town and then get whacked by the corporate office and then the police and then we’d have to tell the people we’re not coming to your town to shoot.  So that was a frustrating thing but we ended up having a small miracle in Utah where this huge and beautiful power plant let us in and let us shoot everything we wanted and the local film board was really supportive so it ended up working out.  All the scouting that I did, including the pictures that I sent you, it really helped in terms of research in showing stuff to the production designer and trying to capture the feelings of all these towns I’d seen in the one town we did end up shooting in.

    aopCS:  I have to commend Lisa Wiegand’s cinematography.  It’s just gorgeous to look at and it’s such an un-comedy because of the technical elements that just aren’t there in “comedy” nowadays.

    GOLD: One of my favorite comedies, and I’m not sure you could really call it a comedy, is Repo Man.  My film doesn’t have the same kind of look that Repo Man has but in the way that film captures place and captures a real sense of environment, I wanted to go for that.  It was over the top in its color but also sense of realness ““ the heart-ness of these people’s lives.

    CS:  And it does.  It takes a very serious turn with riot police when they enter the stage.  You are having a good time with Power but then these other sub plots brings you to a different place.  When you try and take in the narrative, like I said, it’s not normally the route you would go for such an over the top idea of an air drummer.

    GOLD: And for most of the audiences that watch the movie, they are able to go with that run.  We played it for a union gathering in Sacramento, California and people were cheering up on their feet saying it was the best movie they had seen in years and they get that.  And then there are some audiences that want it to be a cynical comedy that makes the protagonist and everyone in it look like an ass.  And this movie doesn’t do that.  It asks you to take the character seriously at the same time that you’re laughing at the situation.  I’m really happy with the tip-toe that the tone takes.  It works for most people ““ at least the people I wanted to reach but there are people who don’t get it but that’s the risk you take.

    CS:  Right.  Exactly.  And according to some of the reviews, those that get it, get it.  But those that want to dismiss it as Napoleon Dynamite 3 years too late I think miss the point completely.  In fact, the movie almost takes an over the top idea of these movies where a guy goes and trains, like the movies I remember as a kid of a guy training really hard only to win in the end and it sends those ideas up by the end.

    GOLD: Yes.  Funny thing is I got that flack from some people who saw it as a Napoleon Dynamite influence and it was sort of disappointing because I had been playing this character before Napoleon Dynamite existed.  I actually liked Napoleon Dynamite and actually showed it to my cast up in Utah and they were wild about the movie.  They didn’t feel that it was a rip off thing but this is someone who gets small town life again.  Because people who live in small towns get that.  It’s not that Napoleon Dynamite invented the weirdness of small towns.

    CS:  I’m really curious to know about the dance sequence you brought up.  I’m a big fan of it. Did you always have something like that in mind in the movie, in the script, saying a dance sequence?

    GOLD: Are you talking about the one in the ghetto?

    CS:  Yes.

    adventures of power 081009GOLD: That one was ““ most of the dance sequences were written in ““ that was one I wrote in and kept in every other draft it was in and out and in and out and I couldn’t decide.  I wondered if I could get that absurd in that section of the movie and then I decided that I had to go that absurd right there.  And I’m very happy with the way it turned out.  It’s a strange thing because it was such a long period of time and shot it in sections, almost like five short films.  I was constantly trying to make sure that the new sections that I shot would fit in tonally with the sections I shot 6, 7, 8, or 9 months before.  And that was one of the last things I shot but that’s exactly what I wanted.  That musical comedy thing to happen.

    CS:  It is and it fit.  Like I said it sent up that idea of the musical interlude which is so prevalent in a lot of movies of this kind and fits in obviously perfectly.  Getting  Shoshannah and Adrian and even Neil Peart, who I always thought, or I always read that he is like a reclusive guy who doesn’t like to be out there that much, was it difficult getting Neil in the movie?

    GOLD: The initial call was made by Robin Kaye, our music supervisor, but I couldn’t have been more thrilled with the way it appeared but the whole Rush organization ““ everyone who works with that band has just been so generous and welcoming and really went above and beyond.  Not that they even had a call to duty ““ they had no obligation ““ they just let us use their song which was so generous but also their time and energy and I don’t know quite how that happened”¦.

    (Laughs)

    But, they must have liked the project and thought it was the right spirit.  They started from nothing too and I think they recognize that as a filmmaker I’m scratching two pennies together to try and make gold and they did the same thing and I think they respected that and it was just a real pleasure.  They have been very helpful in getting the word out about the movie.  They are great!  Adrian plays in a band with me so it wasn’t so hard to reach him.  I just have to look behind me and see his face.  And I know it was a great chance for him to stretch his wings out because he doesn’t normally get offered these kinds of comedy roles and I think he’s fantastic in the movie ““ just hilarious.  And people really respond well when they see him.  He’s almost unrecognizable because people are used to seeing him as straight arrow and he plays this wild country character.  And Shoshannah was also a struck of luck because I wrote a character that was deaf and yet completely ridiculous, self effacing and I knew I had to find someone who had the right sense of humor and not being deaf and not being from that community I didn’t know what would be offensive, what would be right, what would be wrong.  I had some deaf bloggers I was writing back and forth and wanted to make sure I got the story right and didn’t cross any lines.

    But I knew I had to find someone who was actually hard of hearing playing the part because I didn’t want to have a potentially a black face thing with that part.  Oh cast the starlet and the starlet might have been the right one for that role but I just couldn’t do that.  So finding someone who is as charming and funny and a great actress and great spirit as Shoshannah was just incredible luck.  I didn’t even know she existed as an actress until someone told me about this girl on Weeds to go check her out.  And that was just lucky.

    CS:  You mentioned things being a stroke of luck when these things fell into place, are you used to that as a filmmaker or are you more used to being set up for failure in terms of not getting what you want?

    GOLD: Interesting question.  There aren’t that many movies that shoot for 13 months.  Certainly not that many independent comedies have the lead actor break their arm on set, getting shut out of 13 locations because of political problems”¦

    (Laughs)

    I guess you could call that bad luck.  We had some huge challenges getting the movie finished but all movies have huge challenges getting finished, particularly when you are small budget and if you have a lot of ambition you are asking for trouble and we got a lot of trouble but we also had great things happen too.

    You can see from that everything from the casting to the shooting what it was like thunderstorms during our desert shoots or having certain actors back out because of cult advice”¦

    (Laughs)

    It just happens and if you are open to it and just go with the flow like Power has to do, if something horrendously ridiculous has happened and you are prepared and loose and the wind blows hard, you bend but you don’t break.  We had a lot of hurricanes to deal with.  Good lessons.  One day when I had probably 6 different religions of people on set praying for the rain to stop, not sure who had the direct line to the weather but”¦.yeah.

    CS:  So how has the experience been going around to festivals and around the globe showing the movie?  What has it taught you about the hustler side of getting a film made?  You have your artistic thing made and now it’s down to business and get this thing out there so people will see it.

    GOLD: I’ve had to learn again Power’s lesson of making something of nothing.  I think it’s a fantasy that a lot of filmmakers and all artist’s, dance, painters, everyone who does something like this, kind of secretly hoping that the clouds are going to open and a giant hand will come down and lift you up to heaven ““ up to creative and financial heaven.  And that rarely happens.  And has not happened here, yet.  At the same time what I am getting is getting emails from all over the world saying, yea, I’d like to help out.  I saw the film, I told my friends, what can I do?  I’d like to be a part of it.  And so that spirit is exciting.  So some days I’m tired of doing the business side and other times it’s the way it should be.  It’s inspiring in a way.

  • TV Or Not TV: 10/26 – 11/01

    tvornottv-header.png

    Welcome to another edition of TV or Not TV where I never cease to be amazed by FOX.

    Just last week the FOX network put out a press release about the exciting programming we could expect for the sweeps season. In the day-by-day breakdown we were informed of all of the pending action, drama and great guest stars coming up on DOLLHOUSE. The network also started sending out press screener copies of the next two installments of DOLLHOUSE to wet critic appetites to show them the forthcoming Whedonistic brilliance so they could shout from the rooftops to tell the masses to watch for they would be amazed! What is the network now doing to cash in on this? Apparently they have decided to put the show on the backburner during sweeps and instead air repeats of HOUSE and BONES.

    JOSS WHEDON commented on this situation via whedonesque.com. Here’s an excerpt:

    “Howzabout that schedule? Well, I’m not as depressed as everyone else. We weren’t about to rock sweeps anyway, and though there’s a chilly November, December is CRAZY. It’s like an Advent calendar of episodes! We get November to try to spread the word (which I’ll be leaning on Fox to do, though it’s hard to imagine them doing as good a job as the WhyIWatch guy) and then December is pure gluttony. Plus the episodes line up extremely well in these pairs, and we’ll have an absurdly appropriate lead-in.”

    The saddest part of all I think is that those aforementioned press screeners are starting to turn the heads of critics and produce buzz for the show that the network won’t even be able to cash in on. Herc at AICN said that both the fourth and fifth episodes of the show were great and do a wonderful job of telegraphing the conflict that is to come. Matt Roush of TV Guide has said that this Friday’s episode is the best of this season and Maureen Ryan (THE WATCHER of the Chicago Tribune) says it’s possibly the best emotionally charged of the series so far.

    After seeing this past Friday’s episode, titled BELONGING, I would have to agree with them all. The episode, written by JED WHEDON and MAURISSA TANCHAROEN and directed by JONATHAN FRAKES, was by far one of the best of the series so far and for me it brought for me some closure on a lingering question after last seasons episode titled NEEDS. In NEEDS we saw the Active named SIERRA confront a doctor who apparently had her somehow put in the DOLLHOUSE for his own twisted desires. Even though the show constantly travels in the grey area of what is right and what is wrong the characters that run the DOLLHOUSE always seemed to at least have a certain code that they lived by and this seemed out of scope. Part of what made the DOLLHOUSE somewhat palatable was that all the actives were volunteers who knew what they were signing up for and were willing to trade off the bad for the good at the end.

    In BELONGING we find out how SIERRA was actually brought to the DOLLHOUSE and the story that we were shown, for this writer, was a completely engrossing and emotional tale. The acting, the directing, and the writing all came together to form 44 minutes of television that I couldn’t take my eyes away from. FRAN KRANZ, DICHEN LACHMEN, OLIVIA WILLIAMS and HARRY J. LENNIX all knocked it out of the park. I don’t really want to go into detail on what happens in the episode because with our forced and unanticipated break you will have a chance to watch this episode at FOX.COM or HULU.COM and if you haven’t I would strongly encourage you to take the time to do so. 

    Ah well. At least we still have nine more episodes to enjoy before it is all over and we’ll be able to consume them in a December all-you-can-watch buffet!

    Now that we’ve completely gone over the horror of FOX let’s see what else we can scare up for the spooky week to come.

    MONDAY

    CHECK LOCAL LISTING – In case you haven’t found just the write costume for your four legged friend it’s the Halloween Petacular on THE MARTHA STEWART SHOW.  

    NBC – 8:oo PM: Although not intentional I’m sure HEROES will once again be quite the horror show (or train wreck, take your pick).

    CBS – 8:00 PM: Aww, who am I kidding? The entire Monday night comedy lineup is in repeates tonight because next week is sweeps.

    NBC – 9:00 PM: It’s a Halloween party gone all kinds of wrong on TRAUMA.

    ABC – 10:00 PM: CASTLE and BECKETT get called in to a graveyard to investigate a staked vampire. FILLION also has a very familiar looking costume for ALL HALLLOW’S EVE.

    AMC – 10:00 PM: The original HALLOWEEN is on complete with a painted white CAPTIAN KIRK mask.

    TUESDAY

    ABC – 8:00 PM: It’s been another year so it is time to once again be reminded of why a pile of leaves and a went sucker don’t mix with IT’S THE GREAT PUMPKIN, CHARLIE BROWN. Why Linus, why do you torture yourself every year?

    AMC – 8:00 PM: MICHAEL MYERS once again escapes from the hospital and whakiness ensues in HALLOWEEN 4: THE RETURN OF MICHAEL MYERS.

    CHILLER – 9:00 PM: The tragic death of BRANDON LEE is just one part of the creepiness of THE CROW.

    WEDNESDAY

    CARTOON – 7:30 PM: See how it all began with SCOOBY DOO! THE MYSTERY BEGINS.

    NBC – 8:00 PM: A paid advertisement never looked so glossy with tonight’s airing of MONSTERS VS. ALIENS: MUTANT PUMPKINS FROM OUTER SPACE. Sounds more like a JIMMY NEUTRON episode doesn’t it?

    ABC FAMILY – 8:00 PM: I’m just not sure if HOCUS POCUS is a Halloween classic or not. I also can’t believe it’s over 15 years old.

    CMTV – 9:00 PM: I’ve heard of counter-programming against other shows, but against a holiday season? CMTV tries with NATIONAL LAMPOON’S CHRISTMAS VACATION. No, seriously.

    THURSDAY

    NBC – 8:00 PM: COMMUNITY has a Day of the Dead party, PARKS & RECREATION has a Halloween party, THE OFFICE host a community haunted house and 30 ROCK doesn’t care that it’s Halloween.

    ABC – 8:00 PM: Although not Halloween related at all how can I not mention FLASHFORWARD with DOMINIC MONAGHAN making his firtst full episode appearance?

    AMC – 8:00 PM: The most frightening part of END OF DAYS is SCHWARZENEGGER’S acting.

    FRIDAY

    CBS – 8:00 PM: Melinda gets haunted by THE HEADLESS HORSEMAN on GHOST WHISPERER.

    TRAVEL – 8:00 PM: GHOST ADVENTURES LIVE! performs a “lockdown” paranormal investigation at the historic Trans-Allegheny Lunatic Asylum in West Virginia. Last time I heard of someone being locked in an asylum the end product was FREDDY KRUEGER. This might not end well.

    AMC – 8:00 PM: Want to get into the Halloween spirit without all the fright? Take in the comedy classic YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN.

    CBS – 9:00 PM: Just like Allison on this week’s MEDIUM I’ve dreamt of being in scenes of the original NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD but thankfully I’ve never woken up with bruises and bite marks from them…. at least not without a lot of tequila the night before.

    SATURDAY

    Do you really need me to mention things today? If you have kids you are building up for trick-or-treating and if you don’t you are either sitting in the house quiet with the lights out avoiding trick-or-treaters or you are at a party. OK, fine, here’s a few tid-bits.

    AMC – 6:00 AM: The day stars with EARTH VS. SPIDER and ends with THIRTEEN GHOSTS. Everything inbetween is nothing but cheesy goodness.

    COMEDY – 7:00 PM: The original SCARY MOVIE is at times far from funny but definitely not scary.

    BRAVO – 9:00 PM: Watch all of HANNIBAL tonight and you’ll never look at RAY LIOTTA the same way again.

    LIFETIME – 9:00 PM: I have to admit that VACANCY was the first film of the genre in a while that had me from beginning to end.

    SUNDAY

    SYFY – 12:30 PM: Before becoming a crappy 80’s television series there were the mini-series V and V: THE FINAL BATTLE. SYFY cashes in on ABC’s re-invention airing later this week by running both mini-series back-to-back. Yeah, I admit it, I’m gonna watch.

    SHO – 9:00 PM: With absolutely no advance viewing I have to guess that this is the week where DEXTER. Can’t wait to see if I’m right.

    – Will Wilkins wrote this with a touch of bitterness and a side of discontent.