Category: Trailer Park

  • Trailer Park: COUPLES RETREAT and a 30 ROCK Giveaway

    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

    NOTE BENE, MUY IMPORTANTE

    For those of you missing what I used to do every single week here inside the Trailer Park need to look no further than the new writing space/temporary housing at Slash Film.com’s This Week In Trailers. They have been more than gracious in letting me speak to their audience as I still spend time here with my other many projects which seem to consist of giving away free screenings, free DVDs and bringing you interviews with some fairly interesting people.

    I do hope you check me out over there every Friday, as I do here, and I hope to be a parent who tries to keep their children wondering whether they’re their favorite.

    I love you all equally…

    COUPLES RETREAT – SCREENING

    cr_field_300x250_2I know, it’s been some time since I’ve had a screening around these parts. Well, I am delighted to say that there are finally some that I will be able to invite all my readers in Arizona (the 1 of you) to attend.

    This screening, however, is for the new film COUPLES RETREAT starring Vince Vaughn, Jason Bateman and Jon Favreau, all three of which represent a potential of great comedy. Bateman is a great choice solely for his output as of late. There is great promise here so if you want to see it, shoot me a note at Christopher_Stipp@yahoo.com and I’ll get you entered to win.

    The screening is happening  this October 6th at  7 PM at Tempe Marketplace in Tempe, Arizona. Hope to see you there…

    Description of film below:

    Vince Vaughn, Jason Bateman, Jon Favreau, Malin Akerman, Kristin Davis, Kristen Bell and Faizon Love star in Universal Pictures’ upcoming comedy Couples Retreat.  The comedy follows four Midwestern couples who embark on a journey to a tropical island resort.  While one of the couples is there to work on their marriage, the other three set out to jet ski, spa and enjoy some fun in the sun.  They soon discover that participation in the resort’s couples therapy is not optional.  Suddenly, their group-rate vacation comes at a price.  What follows is a hilarious look at real world problems faced by all couples.  The film also stars Kali Hawk and Jean Reno.

    30 Rock, Season 3 DVD Giveaway

    30_rock_season_3_dvdIt took me a while to get into 30 Rock.

    I think I have become so used to formulaic comedies on major network television that I didn’t know how to respond to its writing, its language. For those of you who are already hooked on this program know that there is a reason it has been nominated in so many different ways for an Emmy.

    If you’re looking to add this to your collection and don’t have the scratch to get yourself a copy shoot me an e-mail to Christopher_Stipp@yahoo.com and you’ll get entered into a drawing for the fill season on DVD. For those looking to get an idea of what happened this season read the DVD description:

    Warning: The third season of 30 Rock may cause fits of “lizzing” (an elevated state of hilarity that involves laughter plus whizzing) with its brilliantly loopy word play, “what the what” situations, and deft turns by a stellar roster of A-list guest stars. Liz Lemon (Emmy-winning geek goddess Tina Fey) trying to avoid jury duty by dressing as Princess Leia? Jenna (Jane Krakowski) starring in a biopic about Janis Joplin (or Jackie Jomp-Jomp due to rights complications that forbid use of Joplin’s name and music)? Steve Martin as a fabulously wealthy agoraphobe? I want to go to there! This season, Liz increasingly yearns for a normal life outside of the demands of her sanity-testing job as head writer of TGS, a Saturday Night Live-esque comedy show. Happiness will find Liz, but not before two hilariously doomed relationships, one with a little person (guest star Peter Dinklage), whom she initially mistakes for a child, and the other with a neighbor (Mad Men’s Jon Hamm) who doesn’t realize people have allowed him to skate through life because of his impossibly good looks. She also has a rude awakening when she joins a group of Ladies who Lunch while on forced administrative leave. Her friendship with Master of the Universe mentor Jack Donaghy (indispensable Emmy-winner Alec Baldwin) is the series’ endearing sweet spot


    30 Rock is unlike any other workplace comedy on television. Dancing to its own comic rhythms, the series takes great delight in tweaking sitcom clichés and conventions. In “The Bubble,” the scene is set for a montage of Id-driven Tracy Jordan’s (Tracy Morgan) wackiest moments on the show. Instead, Liz dreamily reflects, “I’m thinking of some of them right now.” Family Guy’s got nothing on 30 Rock when it comes to the surreal arbitrary gag, as when naive NBC page Kenneth (Jack McBreyer) realizes he is being sexually harassed by a Miss Vierra (Meredith from The Today Show), or when sociopathic, narcissistic Jenna is taught a lesson by the writers who have banded together as the feathered Fedora-clad Pranksmen. 30 Rock makes truly inspired use of the actors, TV icons, and musicians who appear this season. In “Believe in the Stars,” Oprah Winfrey, smelling of “rose water and warm laundry,” hilariously appears as herself, kind of. In “The One with the Cast of Night Court,” Jennifer Aniston is upstaged by Harry Anderson, Markie Post, and Charles “Mac” Robinson. Salma Hayek makes for an exotic love interest for Jack in a multi-episode arc.

    The season finale features Sheryl Crow, Clay Aiken, Elvis Costello (a.k.a. Declan McManus, international art thief), Adam Levine, and others brought together for a benefit to find a kidney for Jack’s long-lost father (Alan Alda). But the joy of 30 Rock is not the stars, but such brain-tickling lines as, “I watched Boston Legal nine times before I realized it wasn’t a new Star Trek,” and the charming character grace notes, like seeing the world as Kenneth does, populated by Muppets. In the season finale, Liz remarks that she figures TGS (30 Rock?) has two years left. Say it ain’t so!

  • Trailer Park: ADVENTURES OF POWER *EXCLUSIVE* and DAVE BOYLE of WHITE ON RICE

    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.

    And now, you can follow me on TWITTER under the name: Stipp

    ADVENTURES OF POWER – EXCLUSIVE

    aopThose who march to the beat a different drummer never met Power, air drummer savant.

    I reviewed this film months ago and have been interested with the film’s goings on since then. I have an interview with Ari Gold that will be going up in the coming weeks and I’ve got lots more to share about this film. In the mean time, though, I am debuting a new comic strip that will be appearing on ADVENTURES OF POWER’s website next week but I’ve got the sneak peek. Thanks to the film’s writer/director Ari Gold for the chance to bring you a little extra somethin’ somethin’ while you wait for the movie to land near you soon.

    You will be able to come back here every Friday as the weeks roll on until the film finds its way into theaters everywhere come this fall to see another comic, by artist Trenton Duerksen, in the series. Be sure to visit the ADVENTURES IN POWER website and it’s companion blog to watch for more updates.

    comic3_final
    Click The Image For A Larger Version

    DAVE BOYLE, DIRECTOR OF WHITE ON RICE – INTERVIEW

    WHITE ON RICE, the sophomore effort from Dave Boyle, deals with the kind of individual who is oblivious to the world around him and lives within their own mind. The film’s protagonist, Jimmy (Hiroshi Wantanabe), is a Japanese import who isn’t struggling with his new homeland as much as he is being a burden on his more than understanding sister Aiko (Nae) and being amused at his smart little nephew Bob (Justin Kwong) the film takes a fresh look at what happens when direction-less men children meet the realities of what life’s really about. Overlooking the idea that this is a movie with Asian Americans, and is just a story about a man looking for his way, the movie bursts with genuine emotion and laughs that feel thought out, not employed haphazardly.

    Too often the film is being compared to NAPOLEON DYNAMITE but the movie
    sustains itself not on a funky visual style and quirky characters, it succeeds on its own merits as a story that has a definite voice of its own.Dave Boyle took some time to talk to me about the movie, explains what it took to get made, his writing and about Mormon filmmakers.

    WHITE ON RICE is currently playing in theaters and film festivals this fall…

    white_on_riceDAVE BOYLE: Hi Chris. How are you?

    CHRISTOPHER STIPP:
    Hey Dave. I’m doing alright. How are you?

    BOYLE:
    Good, thanks.

    CS: Excellent film. I loved this thing. It was so refreshing coming from an independent slant. One of the things I wanted to lead off with was the summer’s been full of comedies that, if it’s popular it has to really push the boundaries of taste and PC. You obviously want to make the humor…genuine humor. Do you see that in the marketplace of studios wanting comedies that are “edgy” in the worst sense of the word?

    BOYLE: Yeah, that seems to be the trend right now. I’m not going to lie. I enjoy a good dirty joke as much as the next guy but I get tired of it pretty fast. I also think it’s funnier if it’s a bit more subtle and not so in your face raunchy. It wasn’t really a conscious thing I was thinking. I guess it’s just naturally the way I am that it ended up that way.

    CS: Explain to me ““ I know the movie came about from a kind of overlapping. BIG DREAMS LITTLE TOKYO, which I have yet to see, but everything I’ve read about it makes me want to revisit that. How was it for you to come up with this idea while you’re working on the last one and actually start this while in the production process to get this one underway almost just as fast?

    BOYLE: In terms of writing I actually wrote the story long before I worked on BIG DREAMS LITTLE TOKYO. What ended up happening was when BIG DREAMS LITTLE TOKYO started off at a film festival it got a lot of positive attention and buzz and I felt I had to capitalize on that as fast as I could and make another movie. So I really worked hard to get this one underway. BIG DREAMS LITTLE TOKYO was finished but hadn’t been distributed yet. So within six months of completing BIG DREAMS I was in production of WHITE ON RICE.

    CS: Usually people take some time off but you just jumped right into it with your second feature.

    BOYLE: Yeah. I don’t know if that’s always the best thing to do. I think if I didn’t make it that fast it probably wouldn’t have happened. The actors that I wanted, their schedules were open. Just the timing was right so decided to jump in.

    white2CS: And to that point”¦James Lee [HEROES] is a household name in nerd circles for those who know. Did you really luck out in that sense that if you hadn’t made it when you did that James wouldn’t have been available? But maybe in the summer they get time off I would assume.


    BOYLE:
    He’s a pretty busy guy year-round. He likes to keep his schedule really full, independent films and stuff when he’s not working on the show. In this case there was just this window where everyone could get together. In another month, it never would have happened.

    CS: I read that coming up with this idea was wholly because where you were at the time when you got the idea down in Australia doing Mormon missionary work. I’m fascinated by how all that came up for you, that here was an idea in your head and you were going to use it with people who were Japanese.

    BOYLE: After I got back from Australia I crashed at my sister’s place for a little while and she was waiting for us like the sister in the movie and it just got me thinking that 13 years has passed and I’m still in the same space. But the Japanese theme came when I met Hiroshi on the set of BIG DREAMS LITTLE TOKYO. He’s such a charming, funny and interesting guy and such a larger than life talent. He gave me the idea of a guy living in his sister’s house. Hiroshi really was the key to making this thing happen.

    CS: Coming up with enough money, or at least enough capital for one film is daunting enough”¦.did you run into any issues”¦.I mean just going into a second feature thinking “I’ve got enough scratch to get this done” or was there a whole process there with trying to get this thing financed?

    BOYLE: There’s always a lot of drama with that stuff. It’s just something you have to expect and maintain a strong stomach and try not to get ulcers. But it was touch and go for a while but eventually we were able to find enough people that believed in the movie enough to invest in it. This time around, on the first film I collaborated with my producer, Duane Anderson, in doing the fund raising. And on this film there were 3 of us who were working on the fund raising. Production companies on their own might be able to make a small movie shot in one location and cast our friends in it but we wanted to make something on a larger scale.

    CS: It looks wonderful on the camera. Gorgeous.

    white-on-rice1BOYLE: Hey, thanks.

    CS: The beginning of it, and this is a question that most people would probably lead off with and it has to be said, in the beginning of the movie you have sort of a samurai sequence and everything leads up to the idea that this person that made this film is somehow working through their ideas of being a Japanese-American and lo and behold you are a gangly white guy.

    (Laughs)

    I’m fascinated why ““ and you responded to it very well in the festival circuit ““ but was there any conscious choice as to why you decided to make it a wholly Japanese-American cast?

    BOYLE:
    It really wasn’t a conscious choice it just kind of evolved that way. To be honest I never really thought about it that way. It’s just a comedy that happens to star all Asian-American actors and I think it’s an underused talent pool. There are so many talented actors here who are Asian American. You could have made this movie with an all Caucasian cast .

    CS: Were you just sort of colorblind and said “I’m just going to make the movie I want to make and everyone just form around it and forge ahead” or were you sensitive to that fact?

    BOYLE: I wanted to make sure that it wasn’t made by somebody who”¦didn’t want it to be something that the Asian-American community wouldn’t be able to enjoy but at the same time I also just, yeah, wanted to cast who I wanted to cast and Hiroshi was the guy and everybody else turned out to be a great match up with him.

    CS: Moving forward with that, getting the cast together and creating it and you’re still an independent film director, what things did you pick up from BIG DREAMS LITTLE TOKYO that helped you create this film?

    white-on-rice2BOYLE: In BIG DREAMS LITTLE TOKYO I was pretty stylish with the camera but for this time around I decided to trust the actors a little bit more and take a back seat with the style aspect of it. I did a storyboard of the movie. I blocked the actors, rehearsed the scene and my cinematographer decided where to put the camera from there. I really enjoyed working that way. It was a different way of working than Big Dreams. It was a big lesson and every movie has it’s own working style that works best to accomplish the goal that you are trying to reach.

    CS: How long of a schedule was it for this one?

    BOYLE: It was pretty long but pretty short by any other standards.

    CS: Did you find any issues with filming in Salt Lake? Luckily you are only shooting in one location there, but did everything go off without a hitch? You did the storyboard and all but were you flying by the seat of your pants?

    BOYLE: We kind of had a location’s department location disaster on the movie. I was seeing the locations were shooting at the very morning we were shooting the scene and we had to make some creative decisions because things just fell through”¦so out of necessity I had to go with what was available. That’s the kind of stuff that you have to say it’s not the end of the world, you can still make it work no matter what is thrown at you.

    CS: In order to get prepared I read a previous interview and was fascinated with the idea of Mormon film making. Richard Dutcher in particular. It’s a sub-set of film I am not familiar with and I’m curious if you could help me understand if it was this kind of film making that inspired you to create your own films?

    BOYLE: The Mormon filmmaking thing is an interesting phenomenon. Most people outside of Utah and Idaho never heard of any of those movies, yet, in Utah and Idaho and parts of Arizona and a few other places, those movies are heavily advertised, actually at multiplexes. I’m sorry to say that most of those movies are not my cup of tea even though I am a Mormon. A lot of them are over-dramatic and just sort of silly. I think it’s great that they have resurfaced for that community. The Mormon community likes to claim NAPOLEON DYNAMITE as their own but it’s not overtly Mormon. It’s really an inside joke. I think there are things in WHITE ON RICE that the Mormon community will pick up on and appreciate.

    CS: The last question I wanted to ask is now that you have two films under your belt, what do you see for yourself as you go into your third feature?

    BOYLE: I just hope that every time I just keep getting better. A lot of distribution is more filmmaker driven that it was before which is totally fine by me. I really enjoy the process of getting a movie out there and finding an audience and I hope I continue to find them.

  • Trailer Park: Shane Acker

    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.

    And now, you can follow me on TWITTER under the name: Stipp

    Item #1 – THE OFFICE – SEASON FIVE GIVEAWAY

    the-office-season-5-dvd-art-the-office-6839913-500-793I didn’t start watching The Office until this summer. I’m really late to this party.

    While I don’t think it’s the funniest program to ever hit the airwaves I did find that it helped me get through the summer months and I have found its presence on my TiVo to be comforting when there is nothing left to watch.

    It stands to reason whether or not it will keep its place atop my favorite program list as the fall season kicks into high gear but I do know that this is a real keeper of a season for those who enjoyed it. If you weren’t able to get out yet to buy your own copy I have a few I am looking to get into the hands of those who want them.

    Send me a note at Christopher_Stipp@yahoo.com and let me know if you’re interested. It’s. Just. That. Easy.

    The obligatory product description:

    Scranton’s most outrageous workforce is back to give their clients the business in the fifth hilarious season of The Office. Join obnoxious regional manager Michael Scott (Steve Carell) and his fellow paper pushers Dwight (Rainn Wilson), Jim (John Krasinski), Pam (Jenna Fischer) and Ryan (B.J. Novak) as they steal customers, frame co-workers, indulge in intra-office love affairs and just plain behave badly while a documentary film crew captures their every word and misdeed. Developed for American television by Primetime Emmy® Award-winner Greg Daniels, The Office: Season Five features 26 uproarious episodes ““ including two one-hour specials, exclusive commentaries, webisodes, deleted scenes and more in a sidesplitting five-disc collection no true fan of The Office can afford to miss!

    Shane Acker – Interview

    Looking back on it, I was completely right to bring up SNEAKERS as my lead-off with Shane Acker.

    Besides being one of those films I just enjoy as a well-made creation I was right in saying that Shane Acker’s resume looks a lot like that scene where Robert Redford is faced with a manila folder that has nothing in it. It’s bare but you know there’s reason behind its apparent blankness. While Acker will constantly be referred to as a first-time director it ought to be noted the man has created Oscar nominated material. While he’s taken his short and stretched it out to contain his vision for a world where zippered steampunk creations roam the Earth after the humans inherited, and lost, their grasp as the highest lifeforms on the food chain.

    Make no mistake, Shane has a firm grasp on his vision as a director. His animated world is a fully realized creation for what has been his life’s work for years. He didn’t have a Pixar sized crew at his beck and call and his animated world is one that doesn’t quite fit in the profile for a market filled with talking sharks, rats and a bevy of inanimate objects. Shane’s work with 9 should be seen as a victory to those who want animation that breaks traditional boundaries of what’s accepted and he was kind enough to spend some time with me recently to talk about his film.

    9_final_movie_posterCHRISTOPHER STIPP:  I apologize to you in advance.  In doing research on this, trying to figure out how this compares to previous works I looked at your resume and it was like a scene out of SNEAKERS when they open a file and there’s nothing in it”¦

    (Laughs)

    CS:  Timur was telling me that you had sent him a 10 minute short.  Can you tell me how this got started and how you got to that point?

    SHANE ACKER: Sure.  The short that you are talking about was my thesis project at UCLA animation school.  But, I spent a couple years on it and it became honestly something more than just a school piece.  Something more of a director’s piece.  So I spent another 2 ½ years on it “¦ so that makes it about 4 years on it to make the short.  It really was a labor of love.  But it was protracted because I left school for 2 years and started working in industries as an animator.  I would go work for 6 months, save my money, go back to my spare bedroom and keep pushing the short film along until the money ran out and then go back and do the same thing.  I was really inspired and fell in love with the world and the characters and just wanted to make it the best I could.

    And then when that short came out it was amazing.

    It was really well received and started sending it out to festivals and did ended up getting an agent and sent it to Hollywood.  So it was just this vehicle that opened a lot of doors for me and I was just sort of chasing after it, which was great.  And then to get a hold of Timur and Tim Burton and get a response from amazing filmmakers like that and to be excited about it and wanted to know how we can blow it up into something larger.  It was something amazing.

    CS:  I’m amazed.  It took 4 years.  Can you explain a little of the technical aspects?

    ACKER: The great thing and the bad thing was I started it back in 1999 which was when this technology which was exclusive to studios was starting to get to the consumer market.  Myah had just been released.  I think it was version 1.5 or 2 and computers were really powerful enough that I realized that you are able to make your own film, produce your own film, by yourself, if you had the commitment to do it, which is what probably kept some people from doing that.  But it was really an amazing time that you could do this thing by yourself and have it be at a quality that would inspire people from Hollywood that there could be something here.  That’s what was great.  But the challenge was that I didn’t know how to animate in 3D at all.

    So, at the same time I had this vision, it was really cumbersome because I had to wade through all the technology in order to create it.  So, it was just a lot of intense learning and self teaching and creative problem solving.  I knew what I wanted to do, which was probably the hardest thing because I knew the story and knew the characters and knowing what you want propels you to figure out how to do it.  I had other friends who were trying to learn the software and they would do exercises and then said forget it.  It was too challenging.  But for me it was like how do I get this thing to do this and be this way?  It was both overcoming the technology of it as well as making the project ““ designing the world and the characters and to telling the story.

    CS:  How did that process go for you?  You had 10 minutes and they wanted to blow it up, literally and figuratively, to larger size and length.  When you started pulling it longer and longer and longer, did you find that it was easy to do?  Or was there some challenges on your part to say, “Can I fill this other 80 minutes?”

    ACKER: Much like the short, it’s always hard.  This is the first time in long form.  So learning long form story structure and this and that is a challenge.  I had to quickly learn that on my feet.  Literally I was working with an experienced writer and with Pamela Pettler who came on to help me organize my ideas into a longer form structure.  Have you seen the short?

    CS:  I have not.

    ACKER: The short really feels like a shorter view into a much longer narrative.  It’s 10 minutes long and does have a beginning, middle and an end but you get the sense that there is something that happened before and something that happens after.  And it really is a new world.  So it wasn’t just taking that and pulling it out like an accordion, it was taking that window and making the window wider.  There was a lot of raw material there.  We see two of these creatures in the short but we get a sense that 9 of them existed.  So, when we went to do the feature, now we had the idea of opening it up and seeing 7 different characters which was a lot of fun.  And then as well as there is this struggle between these mechanical creatures that were chasing these stick punk creatures and they are all fighting.  And they got this device, this talisman, that both sides are trying to get.

    And then when we did the long form, we got to explain where these things came from, where these creatures came from, what set the struggle in place and realized that there was a downfall with humanity that led to the world being the way it did and these creatures are the results of the downfall in humanity.  We had lots of raw material to play with.  So when it came to making the feature, there was just this opportunity to explore all those bits and pieces that were touched on but not really explored.

    CS:  You don’t have Pixar sized resources or dozens of people who can help you flesh out what you have done, so when someone said “OK, let’s make it bigger, let’s start sketching out who these others should be” what was it like for you to have to come up with these other creatures, other steampunk creatures?

    ackerACKER: It was really fun.  I came from architecture school, so I have a strong design background as well as study in sculpture and painting and things like that.  That’s why I love the animation medium because it combines all my interests together into one thing.  When you see the film, I think you will see that the architecture influence on it.  It’s really about world making and there is a sense of reality to this world and like the real world it’s pushed, it’s a little different.  The industrial revolution was allowed to progress for 300 years and never got to digital.  Always stayed in this analog space.  So for me, that’s the fun stuff.

    If someone is going to pay me to sort of sit around and create a world, that was great.  I just dove right in as a designer would.  What’s the problem?  How do you solve it?  What’s the solution?  So for me it was not that daunting because it was something I was used to.  Understanding that it’s a process.  What you are going to do is come up with all the bad ideas first and you have to wade through all those bad ideas before you get to the good ones.  So it was just trusting the process and putting the hard work and hours into until you come up with the things that really work.

    CS:  Timur and Tim Burton.  When they came in as producers what was their relationship to you like?  I talked to Timur and he said their responsibility was go sort of guide you through what you do…so how did the two of them ““ two directors ““ guiding you ““ how did they come to you and say, “We will help you produce this?”

    ACKER: There are actually 3 producers involved.  There’s Jim Lamley, Timur Beckmambetov, and Tim Burton.  Jim Lamley is the one who first ““ I took a meeting ““ I taking hundreds of meetings in Hollywood.  And everyone was like that’s cool, I should find something to do, but Jim was the guy who chased me down the hall after the meeting was over and said, we’re going to do something, we’re going to find something.  He really championed me and this project.  And started getting out to people like Tim Burton and trying to figure out how we were going to put this thing together.  So that was pretty amazing that there were people behind me that really believed in it.

    So when Timur and Tim came on and said this is worth doing, there is something interesting and amazing here it just validated it and empowered me to a certain extent and motivated me a lot to know that these amazing filmmakers are behind it and believed in it and just gave me the confidence and energy to really start working on it.  And knowing that these are the guys who are going to start reviewing the cuts of your film”¦.just keeps you on your toes and makes you concentrate and be critical and think about it.  And what’s also great is, I was so involved in every little aspect in making it come together so I was down in the trenches and it’s hard to see the forest through the trees.

    We hit a milestone and I would present a cut to the team and it was great because they had the critical distance to say “Well, you ought to think about this and this, and character things, big global ideas,” which is always frightening.  But it allows you to step back and get that critical distance that you need.  So it was great to have people like that.  They are idea wells.  Timur has an amazing mind.  It’s an idea a minute.  And unedited.  Great to have these creative people there to help you when you have a problem or are stuck on something.  Timur was busy making WANTED and when that was done he had more time to spend on our project.  And we were at a stage where we had a lot of the footage put together and do re-cuts and fine tune and I was able to work with him in the editing room which was great to see the tricks that he can do in editing.  I really learned a lot from that experience which was good.

    CS:  Did you ever feel, I don’t want to say, over your head, but like I said about your resume not being huge, was it a film school in a box experience?  Did you go in thinking this is the way or once Timur and Tim came in, did they steer you toward a better way?  A lot of people will say that you can learn a lot in business school but the rules all go out the window when you hit the real world.

    ACKER: Yes.  Naturally, I was scared shitless from time to time.  And better for worse I’m an over confident individual, not arrogance but I really believe in myself and in what I’m doing.  I think you have to because you have to go with your gut and your instincts.  You have so many things you have to solve everyday as a director and director of an animated film, you have to trust your instincts.  And again, coming from a design background I usually find a concept, a core set of ideas, and that becomes the well and I try to keep that intact.  So, anytime you are out there in the story and trying to figure out a solution you can always go back to the well, that core set of ideas, and use that as a way to generate the right solution for that time and that moment.

    For me it was about the process and setting it up the way it did as a designer and the experience of doing the short, because I was the producer, the director, the writer, the animator, the cinematographer, which was great.  Because, as a director you’re the jack of all trades and master of none, if that makes sense.  So I was familiar with all aspects of the movie making but on a smaller scale.  But that was great because I could put myself in every artist’s shoes and understand what that is and how to solve problems from that point of view and understanding the process that there’s lots of ways to get story points and emotion across.  I mean if you don’t get it in the performance and animation you can start to manipulate the camera to get the emotion and also start to manipulate the editing.  We were moving very quickly.  So if we didn’t get something in animation, I knew that OK, the second layer would be how do we use the camera to try and get that emotion across.  And if that didn’t work, how do we use editing to get it across.  And if we ran out of that, then how do we use the lighting.  So lots of different layers and ways to solve problems as it’s going down the pipeline as well.

    And that was just stuff I learned from doing the short.

    9_imageIt’s just trusting the process and trusting the artist.  You can’t do it all yourself.  Empower and educate them in a way so they can make the right choices and solutions and understanding what the core idea is and the aesthetic that we are going with.   I think a lot of that is that I spent a lot of time as a teacher, as well.  Design classes and 3D classes and it’s really about educating and empowering and playing to people’s strengths, lifting them up and giving them the best crib space and environment.  So, I try to do that.  As an artist myself, no artist likes to be told what to do.  No one wants to paint by numbers.  You are just trying to give them the creative space and give them the right direction and let them solve it.  You are always going to get the best work that way.  So, yea, for me it was difficult and challenging but I was always respectful to the artist to try and keep us all on the same playing field.  Anyone could come in and see the film and offer criticism or suggestions.  Because that’s how I did the short.  I showed it to so many people and always solicited opinions and advice because you never know who is going to have a great idea.  Everyone has a valid opinion.

    CS:  That’s a very un-Michael Bay of you to say about the collaborative process.

    (Laughs)

    CS:  You talk a lot about design and this world is not talking giraffe’s and talking toys and what have you.  It’s a real dark, post-apocalyptic, world. Where do you come in with designing this type of world that you want to make feel moody, dramatic, but also want to entertain?  Where did you balance those two?

    ACKER: I think the characters are what balances it because the characters represent humanity and hope and we’re gone, post-human, we screwed up, we’re dead and this is now what’s carrying on all the hope and promise of humanity.  The darker we make the world, the more empathetic we are with the characters and we want them to succeed.  We realize that they are like children, trying to figure out who they are and why they are there and tying to figure out what their significance is and not until later they realize they are humanity and carry with them human souls and hope and potential that we have.

    So even though the world has darkened and is dangerous and decaying, there is this hope and creativity that these characters embody as they are pushing forward.  So it’s like us and as things get darker, will they succumb to it or will they find away to rise above it.  So, it’s really the characters.  We fall in love with them.  They have real personalities, they are flawed and human and make mistakes and go through the emotion and that what makes it not so dark in the end.  It’s really like a dysfunctional family drama in away.  And 9 comes along and starts to collect them and empower them and challenges them and provokes them to get motivated to get out of the stagnant place they are ““ just hiding in the place of fear and start to take on the challenges that the humans have left for them to solve.  It’s entertaining.

    It’s an action/adventure movie at the same time.  It has dark tones, it’s a dark world, it’s a cautionary tale but is a lot of fun.  The action sequences are amazing and spectacular.  In the end, there is a real heart to the movie as well.  Not trying to be malicious or dark for darkness sake.  It’s just the landscape these creatures are in and about the potential to overcome that situation.

    CS:  Where did you come up with the idea for this kind of a story?  It came out of the short and you obviously have been living this story for a long time.  What initially drew you to the idea to create this movie or this story in general?

    ACKER: When I started the short there was a bit of a knee jerk reaction to the thrust of CG animation ““ all very pastel and very brightly lit and very cheerful and very happy, lots of talking animal things.  That just didn’t fit my aesthetic and I really felt like animation was really going in the wrong direction.  I think those forms are great and they should exist but the world of animation should be much broader.  I was attracted to a lot of Eastern European filmmakers, like Brothers Quay, Lowenstein Brothers, who inhabit these other kinds of strange worlds.  It’s really interesting that it kind of enters this metaphorical space.  And a lot of those films are esoteric and hard to understand, almost like sculptures in some way.

    If you find any narrative in them, it’s really loose.  It’s more like images watching over you and at some point they affect you emotionally.  You engage with them.  So I wanted to make a film that would sort of inhabit that world but had more traditional storytelling aspects of it.  That’s what pulled me into creating that world for the short.  And then when we went to do the feature, we started talking about humanity and the world before these creatures came.

    shane-ackers-9It really is an Oppeheimer/Geppeto tale at the heart of it all.  It’s about the scientist who was blinded by the pursuit of technology to create something that turned the wrong way.  It ended up destroying the world and as sort of the lack act that he did as the world was collapsing was to create new creatures that was the opposite of that represent all the hope and humanity and they are vessels for soul and he sends them out after all the humans fall apart as the way of making up for the sins of his past.  Much like Oppenheimer after inventing the bomb was full of regret.  He knew what the thing was that he was doing, but it was that blind pursuit of technology.  It’s an incredible thing, but yet a horrific thing that he made.  It changed the landscape of the world.  So that’s what’s at the core but the story of the rag dolls is them looking back and figuring out their father was the one who brought the world down.  What does that make them and will they make the same mistake that the humans made or will they create a new world in the ashes of that.

    CS:  Like Robert McNamara who said we made a mistake, fucked up and we shouldn’t have done what we did.

    ACKER: Exactly.

    CS:  There seems to be like these mistakes that are made and change the course of human history.  And hindsight is 20/20 but looking back on it you can see how these things could have been avoided.  It seems so simple but nothing got done.

    ACKER: Or are they inevitable?  If we imagine it, we will do it in someway.  Really it becomes a moral question because there is a scientific solution if you pursue it, you will solve it but the moral question is do you pursue it or do you stop it and cut it short?  I think it’s inevitable in some sense.  Doomed to it.  And I think the creatures, the scientists, the nemesis, the fabrication machine, they are all creative in some way.  They all make things.  They all build and construct things.

    Those creations ““ were they good for mankind or are they bad for mankind?  Should they be made or not be made?  I guess that’s a lot of the territory we are exploring.

    CS:  It’s funny too about the posters. The QR codes. It’s fascinating how technology is moving and we depend so much on it.  Is this movie kind of a tale about morality of humanity going forward but is it also some kind of dissertation on technology itself or the harbingers of what it might bring if we rely too heavily on it?

    ACKER: It definitely is, yes.  It’s about at what point do we become so dependent on technology that we lose our own soul, our own identity, our own humanity in some way.  That is a question that we wrestled with.  Even these creatures are mechanical in some way.  There’s the beast and then there’s the little rag doll, mechanical in nature, but they have a human soul in them and are these things end up being more human than some of the humans at the end when they fall apart?  These are all questions.  We don’t answer them but it’s what these characters are wrestling with and dealing with.

    CS:  And at the end of the day, my final question, people who go see this, what do you hope they walk away with after seeing it?  What is the common theme?  What do you want people to talk about after seeing this movie?

    ACKER: I think we raise a lot of issues and don’t answer many of them.  The movie plays on many levels.  You can go in and have just a fun popcorn experience.  Just let the movie wash over you or you can go in and start to see some of these larger issues we were wrestling about.  Different people in different walks of life and ages in the audience will take something away and hopefully will generate some excitement and conversation based on it.  Hopefully people will come out and their brain is still stimulated from all the imagery.  It’s really dense.  Like I said, there’s lots of layers and I think people will be encouraged to go back and see it again and start to pick up on some of those other layers that are in the movie and sort of re-engage with the material from it in a new way, which would be great.

  • Trailer Park: Timur Bekmambetov

    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.

    And now, you can follow me on TWITTER under the name: Stipp

    Timur Bekmambetov – Interview

    You’ve got to respect a director who can take his sensibility for the paranormal and fantastical, from a foreign country no less,  and make it work for the sensitive palates of his temporary home. To bridge the gap between two cultures hasn’t always worked for those from a different country but Timur Bekmambetov made it work with his breakout hit, WANTED. He gave America a stylish and slick actioneer that not only proved the Russian director knew American audiences it proved that he was a talent that wasn’t limited to films that involved battles between warring factions of “others.”

    He sat down with me during Comic-Con this year and talked about how and why he decided to put aside his directing hat in order to help shepherd the first-time feature director, Shane Acker, as they brought the film 9 to the silver screen. The heady thematic elements  absolutely put this movie in a class that has been unseen so far this year and it was nice to talk to someone about animation that didn’t have anything to do with talking toys.

    9_final_movie_poster1CHRISTOPHER STIPP:  Thank you for talking to me.  I am a huge fan of your work, from the early work to the work you’ve done in the last year. How did you become involved in this picture?

    TIMUR BECKMAMBETOV: I knew Jim Lemley, partner/producer and he found Shane.  He sent me a DVD and in my room at the festival there was a DVD player with this DVD in it and within 10 minutes I decided I wanted to see more and I wanted to know more about this world and it was a reason for me to submit the project.

    CS:  After seeing what Shane had put together, what became your role in this project?  What became your responsibility?

    BECKMAMBETOV:To protect Shane to help him make this movie.  I know how difficult it is to deal with people who have responsibility.  And to protect him to be between him and the studio and to help him make decisions.  Not to make his life more easy but more meaningful.

    CS:  Was that different for you?  A new experience?

    BECKMAMBETOV: No.  I was a producer before.  I produced Russian language movies.  But I was a director.  I produced and directed.  With him, I was trying to remember myself, my bad days, and also to help him to be himself.  What is exactly what happened to me.  Other people helped me to be myself because you can lose your uniqueness.  And it’s part of the job of a producer to help the creator to be himself.

    CS:  Was that a concern?  I realize that that’s what a producer does ““ they handle the oversee and all that, how important was it for you to understand what Shane wanted to do?

    BECKMAMBETOV: Just ask him.  You just have to think and just ask.  And just how to figure out his unique vision correlate with the audience.  Sometimes we like something but the audience has a different experience and we have to figure out how to bring the two together.

    CS:  How was it that what you saw that got you signed on board and eventually became this movie, how much did you know how eventually this movie was going to look like?

    BECKMAMBETOV: It was from the beginning.  I really think that the audience tired of seeing a dozen animals in animation.  There is an audience for this type.  Coraline as an example.  It was a bit more perverse.

    CS:  You are right.  There is an audience that wants something more mature.  They don’t want dancing zebras and talking elephants and what have you.  When you look at a project like this and Tim Burton, of all people, was there ever sort of a collaboration of Shane’s or did you offer your input, did Tim offer his, or were you hands off and let him do his thing?

    BECKMAMBETOV: Well, better if you ask him.

    (Laughs)

    timurBECKMAMBETOV: Has to be delicate because we are directors too.  It’s kind of unique.  Two directors for a movie.  That’s why we were trying to be very delicate.

    CS:  Was it difficult?

    BECKMAMBETOV: No. No.  I understand when I have to say something and understand when I don’t.  I will say once and I have to take responsibility to continue.  Because you are the director.  If you force the creator to follow you, then he has to make a decision.  Every decision has consequences.

    CS:  Did you find the actual production process smooth sailing?

    BECKMAMBETOV: It was dramatic but it was very organic.  There were a lot of problems and difficulties but it’s very organic.  There were no people or factories producing separate pieces.  Shane was involved.  What was unique with this project is that Shane was involved in every area.  He created the characters with his friends and he was the artist, director, he was the creator.  It was very unique which is why it was difficult because ??? because we know limitations helps us to create unique ideas.  If you have enough money to do whatever you want then like usual you will compromise yourself or somebody else.  If you don’t have all the money, then there are obstacles.  It helps you to figure out the unique way.  It’s like a sculpture.  When you don’t have money, every day you have to make a decision.  By making good decisions you help the movie.  That’s the role of the director ““ to figure out what’s more important and what’s less important.

    CS:  Is that one of the ways you helped Shane?

    BECKMAMBETOV: Especially when the conditions were very bad.  He didn’t have enough resources to do whatever.  No specific things.

    CS:  I assume you have seen the finished film.  When you saw it, what are you most proud of what you see on the screen?

    BECKMAMBETOV: Visual.  How beautiful it is visually.  Every shot, every frame is a picture.  You can frame it and put it on a wall.  A masterpiece.

    CS:  And how was it being an animator?  You are not from that world per se.  Does everything translate very well?

    BECKMAMBETOV: I don’t feel this movie is just animation.  I feel like it’s an action movie.  It’s action/adventure.  The epic scale and tone of the movie and type of action in the movie, reminds me more of big action movies.  It’s a huge epic piece, like War of Worlds.  It’s good animation.  No silly jokes.  The animation itself is like real actors.

    CS:  Tell me about that.  I have not seen the film yet but tell me about the style.  What separates it from what people would think of typical Disney-style or DreamWorks?

    BECKMAMBETOV: Our adults are real.  They are human.  They are not funny adults.  They are adults and real.  They have a soul.  With this type of animation ““ it’s a new style ““ more grounded animation so that the characters are more realistic.  Look how they move, how they talk, more subtle, more delicate, real, dramatic.

    CS:  Gives it more humanity?

    shane-ackers-91BECKMAMBETOV: Yes, it’s the theme of the movie.  What is soul for us?  Can we transfer our soul to a machine?  We really trust this machine and but people can make a mistake.  And the moment you push a button, you stop the process.  We take a picture and then we don’t remember because we know it’s there.  It’s very dangerous because it can be broken, you can lose it, and we are losing.  We are losing abilities.  By Googling everyday, you don’t have to learn.  Because you can Google all day long and our skills, our abilities to create everyday.  And we make these machines and transfer our intellectual abilities, to remember, but there is no soul.  And one day the star of the movie can try and explain this.  I hope it will be not so soon.

    CS:  During the production of the film, because this is a different kind of film, was it a production that took longer than expected?  Or, when you storyboarded it out and said “This is what we need to do” did you find that things went along according to plan?

    BECKMAMBETOV: Yes.  Perfect.  Shane is very organized and because he was the creator and not just the director.  Everything was under his control.  That’s why it was cheaper because it was one person to make decisions and producing things himself.  Instead of one person who is a director, another person is art director.  It’s just one person and he is very organized and understands every single thing from the beginning.  He created this world himself and he knows all the rules and was very logical.

    CS:  What do you hope people take away from it after seeing the film?

    BECKMAMBETOV: That we have to save our souls and share with other people what we have.  First of all we have to share with other people.  It’s how we can save our souls.

  • Trailer Park: Patton Oswalt

    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.

    And now, you can follow me on TWITTER under the name: Stipp

    PATTON OSWALT – INTERVIEW

    Patton Oswalt wrote an excellent and impassioned thought piece about the recent WATCHMEN film and, in the same article, had a lot to say about the culture of geeks/nerds. He is one of us, if there is such a moniker that could somehow be conferred on to someone, and Patton has had the kind of career many other actors and performers only wish they could. On a stage, in front of the camera, behind a microphone in a recording booth Patton has conquered every medium put before him. Primarily known for his comedy and comedic strengths Patton took advantage of the opportunity to push that aside for his role as Paul Aufiero in Robert Siegel’s new film, BIG FAN, where he plays a deeply devoted New York Giants fan and is willing to call into a radio talk show on a regular basis to proudly extol the awesomeness of a football team who doesn’t even know he exists.

    The film is a mediation on the nature of fanaticism, to some extent, and it’s bold in how it challenges your preconceived notions about the kinds of parts Patton can play. BIG FAN shows how much range he has as a serious actor and hopefully it brings more people to the yard to hear what he has to say.

    The film recently debuted to critical and audience praise in both New York and California and it is rolling out to more theaters as the weeks go on. For a listing of where it might be playing near you see BIG FAN’s Now Playing page for more information.

    po3PATTON OSWALT: Hi Chris.

    CHRISTOPHER STIPP: Hi,Patton. How as press day been?

    OSWALT: Oh boy!

    CS: I’m going to try and avoid all the questions you’ve had to answer a million times.

    OSWALT: (Laughs)

    CS: I’m going to try really hard…This is how I’m going to lead it off. This movie is not the TAXI DRIVER everyone is comparing it to. I think it’s closer to KING OF COMEDY.

    OSWALT: Oh wow. Thank you. Good Lord. Thank you.

    CS: I think it’s precisely that. I shouldn’t say that people are ignoring that comparison but I think it’s appropriate because it shows how a person can just devolve into their own self and shut out the rest of the world to rational thinking.

    OSWALT: Well, Robert captured all that in the script and I just hope that I was up to the task of the script.

    CS: That was one of the funny things I found out about you that you were so self-aware about doing something like this and that RATATOUILLE liberated you from thinking that you could do it. How did you approach thinking that “That this is the script…I want to do it…”? I know he came to you with it, but what did you think when you got the script?

    big-fan-movie-poster-patton-oswaltOSWALT: It was the act of him coming to me to do the movie that gave me confidence that I could do it. He had written such a good script. He’s such a good writer. His instincts to be there for that meant a lot to me that he thought I could pull this off. It just gave me confidence.

    CS: Robert was saying that some people saw it as a comedy but you saw something else in this story. What else did you see in this story?

    OSWALT: I don’t think he ever saw it as a comedy.

    CS: No, but some other people did.

    OSWALT: Oh yeah. I think what I saw in this story was kind of a guy that maybe we glance at once and move along from. And he was like, “Wait a minute. What’s that guy’s story.” I love that someone can look at a part of the world that we tend to, not so much but we don’t have to explore any deeper. And Robert says, “Well, what is there?” So that to me that we would delve into something that might not be there was very exciting.

    CS: When you were getting ready to do this, at what point did Kevin Corrigan come into it as your sort of partner in crime? He does an amazing job.

    OSWALT: I think he was booked right along with me. He and I signed on at the same time, so right from the get-go, there he was. It worked out perfectly.

    CS: The movie’s theme. I think it’s rather poignant the idea of obsession, of a guy who is living in his own mind. When you see the film now completed as it is, did it capture everything that you saw on the page?

    OSWALT: Yes. And I think they found even more stuff that wasn’t on the page. Michael Simmonds, the cinematographer who paid attention to Staten Island and shot all these amazing angles, just a different way of looking at it. I think they got everything they wanted and more.

    CS: Did everything on the page come out of it? You hear a lot these days of people doing what they want, improvising, having minimal guidance…

    OSWALT: I’m not a big fan of that. I like the script to be as good as it can from the get go.

    CS: And hard was it for you to come up with the persona of the radio call-in kind of guy?

    OSWALT: It wasn’t really that hard. It was hard to suppress, because of my insecurities, my wanting to bring in the comedy. That was the hardest thing to begin with and then I was just able to fall into it easier than I thought I would. It was exciting.

    poCS: What kind of insecurities? You’ve got, not to put you over, but as I was getting prepared I didn’t realize how rich of a resume you now have.

    OSWALT: Most of my comedy comes from those insecurities. Comedy is what I turn to to be comfortable and to give that up for a whole movie was very unnerving at first.

    CS: Can you explain how gritty ““ the way Darren shot THE WRESTLER ““ did Robert explain the way he wanted to shot it, sort of 70’s, sort of gritty, cinema style?

    OSWALT: We had talked about these kinds of movies and how much we loved that period of film making. Especially at that time of year, being grey and overcast, they captured it perfectly.

    CS: They did. Especially the parking lot scene at the beginning. It looks like it’s fucking cold out there.

    OSWALT: It was. It was fucking freezing.

    CS: It captures ““ no Hollywood glossiness, let’s put you in a warm trailer and kick your ass out and then put you back in.

    OSWALT: There were no trailers.

    CS: That was my next question about the production of the film. How does it compare ““ well, it doesn’t compare, Rob said he wanted to do this one way or another? How was the production life?

    OSWALT: We didn’t have any facilities. We had to borrow locations and change in the back of vans. No dressing rooms. Waited in cars between shots. There was nothing.

    CS: Really? How long was the shoot?

    OSWALT: 23 days.

    CS: 23 days? Oh my god. Was there any concern that this film ““ it didn’t have distribution before it was shot? It was a wing and a prayer that it was going to get made and get picked up?

    po2OSWALT: Exactly. We had no idea. We didn’t know if we would have money to complete it let alone get distribution. I looked at it like this was just something I wanted to do for myself. The rest was secondary.

    CS: That blows my mind. Not a lot of people would stick their neck out and say, you weren’t wasting anything but you were going to give up those days just to do this movie that you believed in. Do you find that there is a lot of that sort of passion for films out nowadays like that?

    OSWALT: Well, that passion is there but it’s hard to find those movies because a lot of those kinds of movies don’t get the distribution they deserve. They don’t get the attention they deserve. It’s out there. You just have to search for it. There is all kinds of passion, both as an actor and as a movie buff.

    CS: Do you get those kinds of scripts? I know Robert had you in mind to do this but do you get scripts like this often?

    OSWALT: No, I don’t. This was a gift from out of nowhere. It was great.

    CS: When you do take a project, what is your criteria? Does it have to move you?

    OSWALT: I don’t want to make a lot of money or have a lot of fun and do something interesting. I work for the antidotes. To me I can either work on a great film or work on a movie that could be a disaster they are equally exciting to me. I just want a lot of experiences which is what I would be happy with at the end of my life.

    CS: When you do films and you are doing a film like this when you can’t go to your comedic crutch, is that hard to suppress? Was it hard to just do it as you are supposed to?

    OSWALT: Initially, yes. It was hard to bite down on that instinct but after a while it came natural which shows how good the script was.

  • Trailer Park: Robert Siegel

    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.

    And now, you can follow me on TWITTER under the name: Stipp

    I am a big girl.

    I barely have a grasp on the latest happenings with the Chicago Cubs and, even then, I am about as sure in the things I talk about as Bernie Madoff is about how many smokes a day it’ll take to keep his cellmate at bay. I’m a disgrace to my gender and no one needs to remind me more than the real men I have lunch with on a daily basis who turn sports talk into a art, weaving statistics, opinions and Monday morning quarterbacking into something that I cannot ever hope to comprehend. I am missing that gene. Leave it to Scott Ferrall, the high octane motormouth on Sirius Satellite Radio, who has a nightly sports talk radio show that helps deficient, causal sports fans and die-hards alike make sense of the world of sports. It’s explosive, fun and the aspersions that are cast at sports players, teams and fans of those teams are enough to make you wonder what some of these callers into the program are like once the bread and circuses are over for the night.

    BIG FAN by Robert Siegel, writer of last year’s Academy Award nominated film THE WRESTLER, does just that. It explores the life of one such fan, Paul Aufiero (Patton Oswalt), who is a regular caller into a sports talk show program, Scotty Ferrall playing a vocal part in the film as an irascible sports talk show host and who welcomes Paul’s passionate and insulting musings, and follows him after the radio turns off. The film is a delicate portrait into the mind of a man who loves his team so much he builds his sense of self and identity around it. When things happen that threaten to derail that passion the film only gets better and it is, again, a quiet exploration of adoration and what it can do. I had the chance to talk to Robert Siegel a couple of weeks ago and here’s the result.

    BIG FAN is now playing and is expanding to more theaters this fall.

    big-fan-movie-poster-patton-oswalt1CHRISTOPHER STIPP: I love this movie. And it seems to be a real hit with those that have come in contact with it and I wanted to start off by talking about how close the grittiness feel the way the film looks like THE WRESTLER. It has that, I don’t want to say, dirty quality, but it’s so close to reality. Can you talk about that?

    ROBERT SIEGEL: Sure. That’s the style I like best when I watch a movie. I don’t like things to feel Hollywood slick and unrealistic. So that was definitely deliberate. I think of the two movies, I think they could exist in the same universe almost as if they could both be happening at the same time in different parts of town. I sent one camera crew out to a wrestling ring in New Jersey to follow Randy the Ram and meanwhile over to Stanton Island to follow Paul Aufiero do his thing. But, that kind of vibe is what I’m into most.

    Everything in both movies is shot on location. We used real people. A mix of professionals and non-professionals. We used real rooms. The room that was Paul Aufiero’s room was actually a real guy’s room and most of the stuff on the wall is the guy’s stuff. His stack of CD’s and the piles of old lottery tickets and the clippings on the wall, it feels like a very real, lived in room with that kind of detail. I find it hard to take when movies and on TV when the room is fake. You can tell if it’s just art direction and when it’s just real. It’s hard to fake the accumulation of crap that a room will accumulate in the course of a real person’s life.

    CS: I have to say it was a real master stroke that Patton does as well as he does and I would never have figured him to be such an arresting actor as he does with this film and I’m curious, from your perspective, and obviously you are the guy who took this from idea to film: a) what did you see in Patton that made you think that this guy was perfect for it and b) the idea for this film and where it came from. Throughout…I was reminded a little bit of KING OF COMEDY.

    SIEGEL: Definitely. One of the movies that it is compared to. Well, on your first question for starters I wanted somebody who looked right. I had a very clear idea in my head. When you write a character you picture that character and I pictured him roughly looking like Patton Oswalt. I wasn’t writing it with Patton specifically in mind. I actually wrote it years ago. Years before I ever thought of Patton in the role. I knew I didn’t want to cast just some generic good looking Hollywood actor who I would then ask to gain 7 pounds for the role and then mess up his hair a little bit. And then viola. Or pick somebody who’s maybe not George Clooney but certainly not a real regular guy. I didn’t want to go that kind of route. I didn’t set out to cast a dramatic actor per se or comedian. I feel sometimes that comedians are cast in dramatic roles, it’s almost more stunt casting. It just so happened that he was a comedian and if anything I felt understood psychology of a guy like Patton.

    090112_siegelsecondaryI don’t know if you are a fan of his stand up. He’s not a sports fan but understands the psychology of obsession. There’s not that big a difference is what the Giants did on 4th and goal vs. ranting about the comic book equivalent. From what I can tell Patton is a big comic book-phile, not a sports guy. I didn’t have him read for the part. I just hired him. It was something of a leap of faith. He’s such an intelligent guy. When I first met with him we had a long conversation about 70’s movies and people have different reactions to the script and people read it and think it’s a comedy. And it could have been.

    I could have taken the same set of problems and turned it into a comedy but. And some people see the movie and think it’s a comedy. I know there are character studies that is a comedy and has drama in it. I think he got that. The type of movie ““ like KING OF COMEDY and a some of Scorcesse’s and Robert Altman.

    [Robert is called away for a moment]

    SIEGEL: Where were we?

    CS: We were talking about the influences of the film of where you sensibility came into making the film. Could you speak a little bit about the way you wanted to carry the tone of the film?

    SIEGEL: I wanted it to be dramatic and I wanted it to be funny. I think in real life ““ most drama doesn’t contain much humor ““ so I came to it as a movie buff and tried to incorporate both. As an example, something like GOODFELLAS, a very funny movie, but very real. BOOGIE NIGHTS is another one of my favorite movies. THERE WILL BE BLOOD in a weird way is another very funny movie. I like things that feel like they exist in the real world. Pretty and real but also really funny and earthy. So, a lot of that stuff happened in the 70’s and I’m definitely a 70’s guy. I’m a Robert Altman fan. I like stuff that is quirky but has entertainment value. I don’t like art films. I’m not a big Montriere fan.

    CS: We’ve got two to compare. We have THE WRESTLER and now BIG FAN. It seems you want to base these movies in an actual universe where it’s not fantastical.

    SIEGEL: I don’t think I could write one of those movies. I would if I could but I don’t think I’d be good at it.

    CS: One of the questions I had for you was that, your work on The Onion was just wacky, off the wall sort of satirical. How has that informed your work now?

    SIEGEL: It’s wacky but it’s also very observational. Most of it’s rooted in real world observation. Not to be pretentious but a lot is rooted in observations in the psychology in human nature, little tiny life observations. It’s also kind of similar when you look at The Onion and say how did The Onion guy write THE WRESTLER or BIG FAN? I think The Onion is a mix of comedy and tragedy. A lot of The Onion has an undercurrent of depressing ““ it was comedy with a sub-text of tragedy. I think the stuff I’m doing now more tragedy with a sub-text of comedy. That’s really a question of the ratio. Maybe one is 80% funny and 20% sad and now I’m doing stuff that 80% sad and 20% funny. But The Onion to me was always a mix. A mix of real life.

    CS: And I have to commend your use of Scotty Ferrall ““ I’m a big fan of his. It’s part of the way you sort of launched Patton’s character ““ the guy who would be one of those guys who would call into a show like that. Did it all germinate from that idea of these guys who are so fanatical about sports teams in general? Or did it always start out this way?


    961-robert_siegelSIEGEL:
    Sports radio is where the movie starts. Listening to sports radio, I used to listen to WFAN religiously and I still listen to sports radio but not religiously as I did back then and when you listen to it you hear these callers and you got to know them because they would call every night. And then you couldn’t help but wonder what their lives were like and where they were living. Most of those guys were the guys that populated the movies that I loved. The guys you would hear, Murray from Regal Park, or Joe from Flushing, calling on the FAN. Probably the kind of guys that wouldn’t hang out in the bar on Mean Street. They are just regular guys from outer burrow New York. So the movie is definitely a fusion of my level of listening to the radio, listening to sports radio but also these kinds of character studies that I got into when I was probably a teen-ager. It’s definitely a personal movie for me.

    CS: And the fanaticism that is instilled in these guys, I don’t want to say frightening, I respect it on one hand, I’m a huge Cubs fan but I know that there are people out there that are really into it. Is that something you wanted to do ““ delve into the pathos of the people who really devote their minutes to obsessing over these things that don’t love them back?

    SIEGEL: Yes. I’m interested in obsession and fanaticism for whatever reason it’s a really compelling theme and subject for me. On the original poster I made for Big Fan there was a tag line, it said Big Fan ““ a tale of unrequited love – which is kind of how I also see the movie, as a love story between Paul and the team. Paul’s kind of a jilted lover and the team ““ what do you do when the thing you love most doesn’t love you back? Maybe it’s just my version of FATAL ATTRACTION.

    (Laughs)

    I don’t know. It’s just an interesting theme for me. Hopefully I’ll think of something else next time. But people that are passionate I think are more interesting that people that are not passionate.

    CS: I know our time is short but I would like to ask you a technical question about you now taking the reigns as director. You got to work with, and with no hyperbole, one of the best directors of our time, and was rewarded handsomely with the love that THE WRESTLER got. What did you take away from that set going forward in your own career?

    SIEGEL: I definitely admire and respect the way Darren stuck to his guns in casting Mickey.

    It was an inspiring thing to witness. Nobody wanted to make the movie with Mickey Rourke and he was just the biggest liability. He just could not get funding with Mickey Rourke. They said if you want to make this movie with Nick Cage, we’ll give you 5 times as much money. But Darren held fast and said no. The only person who is going to make this movie work is Mickey.

    And he was absolutely right. I took that lesson to heart. And I think in a way of casting Patton, I definitely had to do some thinking about that. Just make the movie really good. Don’t get caught up in getting a big star. It just makes it uncompromising. So, I knew if I just made a good movie the rest will take care of itself and be a bigger movie in the end. But if you put a bigger actor in there, you’d have just a so-so movie.

  • Trailer Park: EXTRACT and MY ONE AND ONLY

    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.

    And now, you can follow me on TWITTER under the name: Stipp

    Item #1 – HOW THE EARTH WAS MADE

    earthI really was a bad student in high school. Not horrible in the classical sense but I was absolutely a C student and I couldn’t grasp mathematical or scientific in ways that made me wonder if I was functionally retarded.

    Smash cut to college and one of the very first classes I took my first semester was Geology 101. Kid you not, it was really brutal. Theories on geological formations, how earth’s natural functioning is a result from eons of slow and steady processes, why Illinois is so damn flat (glaciers!) and a multitude of other nuggets that I still feel good for remembering today.

    HOW THE EARTH WAS MADE is a lot like that geology class we all had in one form or another in that you are taken on a blazingly up-close exploration into the things that will help anyone appreciate the literal globe of dirt we’re all spinning on with the added bonus of being genuinely friendly to those of us who aren’t versed in nerd. If you’re looking to add a sharp looking title to your Blu-ray collection that’s also educational you have to go with this.

    For more on what you get in this check out the product description:

    From a seething ocean of radioactive, molten rock to a refuge for life as we know it, Earth has undergone a staggering series of cataclysmic transformations in its long and epic history. Assailed relentlessly for millions of years by meteorites, our once toxic and hostile planet has been covered in water and in ice, and seen the rise and sundering of continents, the creation of an atmosphere, and, ultimately, the beginning of life.

    HOW THE EARTH WAS MADE plots the twisting course of Earth s amazing journey. Using groundbreaking special effects and traveling to remote locations where our planet still bears the scars of its violent history, this compelling documentary tells a story of unimaginable timescales, world-shattering forces, radical climates, and mass extinctions.

    HISTORY journeys back in time to show the creation of Earth s land masses, the birth of the first complex creatures, and devastating extinctions–before speculating on the future when all life becomes extinct.

    BONUS FEATURES: Bonus Documentary Inside the Volcano; Additional Scenes

    Item #2 – HEROES SEASON 3 GIVEWAY

    heroes-season-3-dvd-cover-heroes-6437909-500-695People will try and take pot shots at this series which has certainly had issues with trying to find its footing and voice but it still is trying to be something that geeks and nerds can call primetime goodness. This season finds itself marred in various storylines that seem to drag the series down a bit but it is still ballasted by its intriguing premise and the hope that they’ll actually listen to the fans who made this series last this long and get the train back on its proverbial course. There’s stuff to love and there’s stuff to, well, not love about this series but Season 3 still deserves a look see and what better offer out there today to do such a thing than with my contest to win Season 3 on DVD.

    Shoot me your name to Christopher_Stipp@yahoo.com and I’ll make sure you’re entered to win one of many I have sitting on my desk just waiting to be devoured who is curious enough to check it out.

    El Producto Descriptiono:

    Experience all the explosive action and shocking twists as Heroes: Season 3 comes to DVD! Rediscover the phenomenon in this six-disc set that includes all 25 suspenseful episodes from the third season’s volumes, Villains and Fugitives. Plus, go behind the scenes with the show’s writers, stars and artists as you explore hours of exclusive and revealing bonus features.

    EXTRACT – REVIEW

    extract-teaser-posterIn OFFICE SPACE writer/director Mike Judge deconstructed the white collar workplace that has now become a classic in a way that some films never achieve on their own; the film has embedded itself underneath the collective experiences of those having to endure the pains of modern working life. IDIOCRACY explored the way in which our culture seems to be on a slow steady shuffle off the mortal coil of intelligent living. Who could disagree that the one of the more colorful choices of a future president of the United States was found in Terry Crews’ President Camacho? It was an honest examination of our descent into the banal, the bast and just plain stupid.

    EXTRACT, unfortunately, explores nothing new and certainly is a disappointment from a man who could very well become a professor of this American life.

    The basics of what happens with all our main characters should have produced more comedic gold than the lead we’re given. A sexually frustrated husband, played by Jason Bateman as Joel, has to deal with his distant, frigid wife (Kristen Wiig) while dealing with a clueless bartender friend Dean (Ben Affleck) and a potentially damaging lawsuit from an employee who loses a testicle (Clifton Collins Jr.), threating to derail a plan to sell the extract plant that Joel owns. On the surface, it’s all there. The ways in which marriages can sometimes slip into ruts and routines, how some friends never seem to get over their own arrested development in adulthood and what it means to be loyal as an employee in an age when loyalty and hard work doesn’t seem to have any currency. Instead, we get a strange love story between Bateman and a woman (Mila Kunis) who plays a tempting grifter that smells opportunity where Joel only smells the sweet nectar of infidelity.

    The issue that occurs early on in this movie is that none of these opportunities are ever taken advantage of and, instead, we’re given a fairly rote story of a man who thinks he wants to cheat but has cold feet at the moment he realizes it’s too late to go back to the way things were. He ultimately follows temptation and fulfills his lusty fantasy but there is no redemption for a man who obviously has it all wrong to begin with. This isn’t a Mike Judge expose on the nature of human relationships, rather, it’s a poorly constructed and pedantic tale that is not interesting and seems forced at every opportunity to elevate its story to something other than C+ storytelling.

    The bright spots, script notwithstanding, are Jason Bateman and Ben Affleck who both give life to characters that are absolutely lifeless on the screen. There are gags (Joel takes bad drugs without knowing what he was taking! Watch the wackiness ensue as he does things he wouldn’t otherwise do without being under the influence!) and coincidental situations (Joel ends up in an apartment taking more drugs and ends up meeting someone who will prove pivotal to the plot! How convenient!) that are not only far fetched but obviously were tossed into a movie that doesn’t feel sincere, devoid of any subtext worth ruminating on.

    Clifton Collins Jr. turns in one of the more intriguing performances as a man who deals with issues concerning loyalty and the lure of cashing in on life’s lottery ticket. It’s the issue of loyalty that you could find yourself most attracted to, as it’s ripe for examination at a time when the modern corporation would just as soon replace a worker than to cultivate, take care, of one of its own. He isn’t used much in this film and it suffers more because of it. We don’t examine anything, really, of much importance. The film seems more focused on the absurd and the shocking than it is with becoming a touchstone for any great message. And while Judge certainly has every right to make the film he wants to make, even in this incarnation the movie just isn’t amusing.

    The movie ends with the kind of resolution that would be more appropriate on a Must See TV sitcom, the dramatic elements falling flat and flying far off the mark, and we’re left to wonder what it was that we are supposed to get out a movie that wants to blend the contents of a dissolved marriage, subplots that end with a whimper and a completely useless cameo by Gene Simmons that is more sideshow and grinds what little momentum there is to a halt.

    EXTRACT is not what you would expect from Mike Judge as it’s a movie that’s terribly flawed and unfortunately doesn’t have anything new to say about the human condition other than what we already know.

    MY ONE AND ONLY – REVIEW

    my_one_and_only-350x517I am in love with this movie.

    There was a time when you would be hard pressed to think of Renee Zellweger as anything but a high priced movie star who makes choices based on how high the profile of a picture than of its value. In MY ONE AND ONLY she actually smashes preconceptions about her range as an actress and delivers a performance that feels like an intimate period piece, think Neil Simon’s BRIGHTON BEACH MEMOIRS, and is truly one of her most accomplished roles to date.

    Renee plays Ann, a mother who has honestly had enough of her cheating husband (played deftly and delightfully by Kevin Bacon) and loads up a car with her stepson Robbie (Mark Rendall) and a young George Hamilton (Logan Lerman). Yes, that George Hamilton. The movie asks a thoughtful “What if” as we’re treated to a quintessential road trip movie that not only is a fresh take on a stale concept but the very idea of piecing together a movie that gets Renee to act in a film that is not too saccharine sweet and manages to eek out one of the stronger performances I have ever seen her is delightful.

    We see what happens when a woman can’t stand to conform any longer to society’s expectations of women, but needs her son to drive her in a latent vestige of her old-fashioned femininity, and sheds that shell as she takes her kids to the west coast in the quest to find a better life for all them. Through a series of madcap hookups with such notable actors as Chris Noth, Eric McCormack, Nick Stahl and David Koechner (who plays a lot better here than he did in EXTRACT) Renee plays the part of kept woman who has to deal with the realities of leaving a successful, but cheating, husband behind to find something more out of life. Yes, the premise sounds wickedly cliched. Yes, by all accounts this should be a direct to DVD movie that should share shelf space with the next Antonio Sabato Jr. release but there is something electric and wholly satisfying about this film.

    What’s most pronounced in this film is the way director Richard Loncraine has taken the 1950’s and instead of showing the darker, harsher realities of 1950’s living, a la FAR FROM HEAVEN, this is a movie that embraces the perception of this decade and shakes it up to great comedic effect. As well, the script, written by Charlie Peters (HOT TO TROT), crafts a world where zaniness can co-exist with a minor tale of one woman’s slow discovery of liberation. Cinematographer Marco Pontecorvo dusts everything we see with the kind of perceived, augmented reality that only enhances the movie’s comedy.

    Renee Zellweger should be in more films like this that allow her to show off just what she’s capable of doing as a genuine actress. While it would be hard for anyone to deny the siren song of big budget production it is her firm grasp on helming every scene she’s in with, at times, quiet ferocity. At times you want to dropkick her, at times you feel for her but the point is that you feel something for her. There are a few films, as of late, that she’s been in where she couldn’t earn any kind of sympathy but she does it here. Logan Lerman, who plays the young George Hamilton, shines as well as a boy trying to find his own way and, of course, crossing paths with his mother as the two of them fight for their independence. It shouldn’t go without noting that the music deserves a nod for being the unseen actor in the back helping to bring the spot-on locations and moments pop with the right amount of energy and wistful nostalgia. The movie has a lot of charm and it spends it slowly, evenly, throughout the picture.

    By the time the end of the movie comes it is almost a disappointment in that you’re unsure whether this film can be seen a second or third time but you know that the first time through was a ride that was absolutely worth the effort to take.

  • Trailer Park: Bobcat Goldthwait

    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.

    And now, you can follow me on TWITTER under the name: Stipp

    Item #1 – HOW BRUCE LEE CHANGED THE WORLD

    bruceFor those of us who love Bruce Lee’s influence on modern Asian cinema you’ve probably seen many incarnations of program in some form or another. Like an 80’s DJ who is ultimately limited by the fact that there is a finite number of tracks they can play, there seems to have been so much overlap with footage we’ve seen with regard to the man who was wickedly charismatic and destined for far more than we were given.

    Thankfully, as I watched HOW BRUCE LEE CHANGED THE WORLD, I was treated to something far more than just a documentary. It’s a retrospective, a tribute, to the man who sat on a talk show talking about water and tea pots in a way that communicated everything he was about: intensity, passion and philosophy. The program, even though it includes interview footage from folks ranging from Brett Ratner to RZA who compares Lee almost to a deity, looks to couch Lee’s influence in today’s marketplace.

    Sure, not everyone rocking posters of Enter the Dragon on their walls can really appreciate what Bruce brought into the sphere of the martial arts but how his presence in films opened the door to so many performers and projects. While the documentary lacks some real dynamic qualities (the Rush Hour vibe having Chan and Ratner both contribute to this make it a little uneven and not everything flows together as interspersed film clips and interviews make for a little jarring experience) this is overall a very good modern take on what Bruce Lee meant to the world of entertainment and the martial arts.

    HISTORYâ„¢ PRESENTS AN ABSORBING, BEHIND-THE-SCENES LOOK AT A MARTIAL ARTS LEGEND AND INTERNATIONAL ICON

    Gain fascinating new insight into the life of the Bruce Lee, as HISTORYâ„¢ presents HOW BRUCE LEE CHANGED THE WORLD , a behind-the-scenes glimpse of the martial arts superstar and international icon. An intimate, feature-length portrait of the man who popularized martial arts around the world like no other, this compelling profile goes from the sets of his classic Kung Fu films to the confines of his Dojo and is enlivened with rare home movies and in-depth interviews with martial artists such as Chuck Norris, filmmakers such as John Woo, Ang Lee and Quentin Tarantino and co-stars, such as Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, who faced Lee in the memorable blockbuster Enter the Dragon.

    Item #2 – ART OF WAR

    art-of-war-dvd-nsSome of you may know of Sun Tzu’s Art of War from its many incarnations from how it plunder’s Tzu’s theories on warfare and misappropriated them for self-help books all the way to manuals on how to get ahead in business. These derivative works are appallingly poor interpretations for what is, really, a how-to on using philosophy and intelligence to win battle.

    I don’t begrudge people looking for a way to apply almost 2,500 years-old techniques to out-playing and out-thinking your opponent but we’ve come a long way since then and I’m amazed that no one has taken this man’s life and made it a film. To that end, however, is this brilliant disc that runs over an hour and a half and brings to modern living color the very things that made this man legendary. This careful recreation of Sun Tzu’s life, to its extrapolation of his ideas to the modern conflicts of WWII, Vietnam and the Civil War illustrate why he is still talked about as the man who was one of the first to crystallize the chaos of the battlefield. This program finally puts a visual twist on a story that is well over two millenniums old.

    Skip the books, buy this instead.

    Product Description:

    THE TRUE STORY OF HISTORY’S ULTIMATE VICTORY MANUAL

    Sun Tzu was the Nostradamus of warfare, and his book Art of War, written 2,400 years ago, is still the ultimate how-to book for winning. This feature-length special brings his words to life. Shot like a graphic novel, ART OF WAR weaves together several epic stories, including the story of Sun Tzu himself, and a war soon after his death where a city is saved using his tactics as China takes the first step toward unification. The program also follow other epic battles in history — Roman battles, The Civil War, WWII, and present day — that illustrate more of Sun Tzu’s lessons, to detail how the people who understand his strategy are the most dangerous weapons of all. And while his ideals were originally created for battle, his lessons could be used by anyone who wants to win –whether at sports, business, or life.

    Item #3 – FIGHTING GIVEAWAY

    fightingdvdWho here wants to win a movie?

    A little film that came out this year, and led us to the leading man that would surprise a lot of fans of G.I. Joe, Channing Tatum blazes on the screen with his two fists of lethal weaponry and a huckster in Terrence Howard who channels that brutality for fun and profit can now be yours.

    Shoot me a note at Christopher_Stipp@yahoo.com and let me know if you want a copy that will no doubt make your Friday night with the boys all that more enjoyable.

    Editorial description from Amazon.com:

    The last thing you might expect from a movie called Fighting is excellent acting, but that’s what you’ll get. A scam artist named Harvey (Terrence Howard) sees a young would-be hustler named Shawn (Channing Tatum, Step Up, Stop-Loss) in a street scuffle and lures him into a no-rules fighting circuit. Shawn’s relentless drive to win leads him to unexpected success, but when he gets put into a big fight with a professional boxer, Harvey asks Shawn to take a dive. The plot sounds like a thousand boxing movies, but the difference is all in the texture. Fighting takes place in a very real New York City, with cramped, make-shift apartments, cluttered streets, and seedy nightclubs. Scenes get knocked sideways by odd bits of life and character quirks that feel organic, not shoehorned in by some clever screenwriter. There’s a marvelous scene where Shawn is trying to woo the Puerto Rican waitress he’s smitten with (Zulay Henao, Feel the Noise), but they keep getting interrupted by her suspicious mother–which sounds like a rom-com cliche, but is completely transformed by the wonderfully human interplay among the actors. Howard has always had a magnetic talent, but Tatum reveals an engaging vulnerability that contrasts nicely with his big-slab-of-beefcake look. The movie hearkens back to 1970s classics like Midnight Cowboy and Dog Day Afternoon, and though it doesn’t achieve the same emotional heights, it’s reaching in the right direction. Writer/director Dito Montiel (whose previous film, A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints, also featured Tatum) promises to make some truly memorable movies. –Bret Fetzer

    Item #4 – ULTIMATE COLLECTIONS: WORLD WAR II: THE WAR IN EUROPE AND THE PACIFIC

    ultcollwwii_europepacific-dI could stay awake for days on end watching clips from World War II.

    I haven’t an idea why this war, not World War I, not Vietnam, not the Civil War, has endured in our pop culture experience in the form of films and shows but I am glad that movies like INGLORIOUS BASTERDS continue to mine this struggle against the ultimate bad guys in black, red and beige: the Nazis.

    This jam packed collection of footage from the front is unbelievably riveting when you consider how detached we’ve become as a society with regards to how we conduct our modern warfare in the public sphere. With reporters not allowed to reveal this, take pictures of that, this era is wonderfully captured with the documentary style that helps couch pivotal battles in terms everyone can understand. I found myself appreciating the moments that really did change history and this lush collection couldn’t be more timely as the 70th anniversary of D-Day is right around the corner.

    Hollywood, you’re on notice, there are a few gems here that haven’t yet been made into films. Get on that…

    Product Description:

    JUST IN TIME FOR THE 70TH ANNIVERSARY OF D-DAY COMES A NEW, VALUE-PRICED EDITION OF THE BEST-SELLING WWII ULTIMATE COLLECTION — FOUR DVDs FILLED WITH OVER 6 HOURS OF MUST-HAVE WAR-TIME PROGRAMMING

    World War II encompassed some of America ‘s greatest triumphs and most bitter defeats. And, in time to commemorate the 70th anniversary of D-day comes the new, value-priced ULTIMATE COLLECTIONS: WORLD WAR II: THE WAR IN EUROPE AND THE PACIFIC, a comprehensive and intimate survey of this epic war offering over 6 hours of stunning war-time programming across 4 DVDs.

    First, take a commanding view of the battles and strategy, the men and machines, and the horror and heroism in eight documentaries that chronicle THE WAR IN EUROPE:

    THE GREATEST CONFLICT

    NORTH AFRICA… THE DESERT WAR

    THE BEACHHEAD AT ANZIO

    D-DAY… THE NORMANDY INVASION

    PURSUIT TO THE RHINE

    THE BOMBER OFFENSIVE: AIR WAR IN EUROPE

    THE BATTLE OF THE BULGE

    THE BATTLE OF GERMANY

    Then, experience the drama and intensity of World War II’s turbulent Pacific Theater through extraordinary footage and intense expert commentary with seven documentaries that comprise THE WAR IN THE PACIFIC:

    ISLAND HOPPING: THE ROAD BACK

    JUNGLE WARFARE: NEW GUINEA TO BURMA

    AIR WAR IN THE PACIFIC

    THE BLOODY RIDGES OF PELELIU

    THE RETURN TO THE PHILIPPINES

    OKINAWA”¦ THE LAST BATTLE

    ADMIRAL WILLIAM “BULL” HALSEY: NAVAL

    INTERVIEW – BOBCAT GOLDTHWAIT

    bobcat_meatbobWhen I bought Bobcat Goldthwait’s “Meat Bob” back in 1988 on cassette it was one the very first comedy albums I owned. I put Bobcat up there with Eddie Murphy and George Carlin but, here’s the funny part, I never bought Bob’s shtick. Yeah, he absolutely used that voice that made him famous as Zed in those POLICE ACADEMY and plundered that character for all it was worth but his comedy was brutally funny and honest. To wit, he has a bit in his set where he gives a glimpse of what it’s like to be a comedian. It’s subtle but you can hear how people’s perceptions of him shapes his comedy and it leads into a wicked joke that concerns a monkey, an alcoholic beverage and genitalia. You can hear his honesty, you can feel his true self and it’s what attracted to me to the guy’s work for over two decades.

    He broke onto the film scene with SHAKES THE CLOWN, a work that some would say set his career back to the times of Cecil B. DeMille, a movie that defied normal comedic conventions and a series of late night show appearances that would help further ensure his disappearance from pop culture entirely. A funny thing happened on the way to irrelevance, however. Bob came back with a real zeal to stay working. And he has. With directorial turns for Adam Carolla and Jimmy Kimmel’s The Man Show and keeping high powered friends close to him, Bobcat raged back to the screen with 2006’s SLEEPING DOGS LIE, a deeply dark comedy that was critically well-received.

    Now, he’s back with an equally well-received film in WORLD’S GREATEST DAD. Starring long tine friend Robin Williams as a father who seems at a loss at how to deal with his roustabout son the film deals with some rather heady and mature themes that are wrapped up in some extremely dark and sharp comedy. Bobcat took some time to talk to me as he talked about his experience making his latest hit. In an era of bad comedians Bobcat had his own voice, literally, and it was a thrill to be able and talk to the man most actors now refer to as director.
    worldsgreatestdad2009sundanceportraitto3nhm248fnlCHRISTOPHER STIPP: Thanks for doing this interview. I’m going to go out on a geek limb and tell you that I dug out my cassette of Meat Bob that I’ve had since the 80’s and revisited that and your old HBO comedy special which I still had on VHS tape”¦

    (Laughs)

    BOBCAT GOLDTHWAIT: Wow. You got any betamax in there too?

    (Laughs)

    CS: No but I will say that it’s amazing to me that there is such a difference between your comedy back then and now and I know from reading other interviews that you are not that big of a fan of getting on the road because people want to see the gimmicky Bobcat. I don’t know. I remember as a kid listening to Meat Bob and hearing that real comedian in there.

    GOLDTHWAIT: Just recently I’ve jettisoned to character so when I go up on stage for the first time and now I’m having fun doing stand up again and I know the people are there and they expect that but I just couldn’t do it anymore. I just had to do what was coming out of me.

    CS: Tell me about the film. I had a chance to watch it last night and I honestly think it’s one of Robin Williams’ greatest performances because it is so subdued and it kind of ties together with Robin Williams not having to do Robin Williams. It seemed like the genuine actor that won the Oscar for his performance. Were you intimidated at all? I know you two have been friends…

    GOLDTHWAIT: I was not intimidated until the day before we went to film and then I really was thinking things like, “Is he really going to listen to me?” And then he would say, “Hey, I won an Academy Award and you were in Hot to Trot so we’re going to do it my way.” But it ended up not being that situation at all it was the two of us coming up with the character together and making decisions together. We did this as a team together.

    CS: And the material itself, as a parent myself I am sensitive to how parents see their children and want to them to think that they are great people and the son doesn’t see that. Did you find when you were writing this that some of your own issues as a parent spilled out on the page?

    GOLDTHWAIT: If that’s true, I’ll see it later on. But I just think it’s weird that if you have a kid in a movie they are supposed to be one way. If you have a kid and he’s evil then he becomes a demonic character. But there are just some kids that are not good people and they are not the ultimate evil but just not giving back to society and that’s Kyle’s deal. I always thought when this guy grew up he would be some stoner mooching off his parents.

    worlds-greatest-dad-560x307CS: And Robin, himself, he’s a sympathetic character. I felt downright sorry for the guy. He’s trying to make good decisions, do the right thing. Explain to me the idea of the character, the twists of the film come in later, but what launched his character. Was it Robin himself? Or was it the twist that came and you thought that would be a good premise for a movie so let’s build around that?

    GOLDTHWAIT: Actually the end of the movie came to me first. I wanted a guy you might empathize with but I didn’t want a guy you felt bad for. I wanted a guy, I knew a guy growing up who says no to unhealthy relationships (cue Dr. Phil). But then I thought that sometimes people have unhealthy relationships with people of the opposite sex but sometimes people have unhealthy relationships with their children or other people so I didn’t want it to be a relationship comedy/drama. It would have been misogynistic. So then I made a movie where is seemed I hate teenagers.

    (Laughs)

    CS: It’s not such a bad thing.

    GOLDTHWAIT: No, it’s not. You know what? In Hollywood everything is made for teenagers.

    CS: Well, that’s the thing. Their money is good and they get everything pitched to them and catered to them and honestly, they should go through a period where they don’t get what they want.

    GOLDTHWAIT: When I was a kid I would go see Woody Allen movies and he would make references to things that I wasn’t even exposed to. He made a Costco reference and that’s how I became exposed to Costco. And even Mel Brooks made movies aimed toward adults and now they are aimed for 12 and 13 year old. That’s really setting the bar low.

    CS: And you bring that up in an interview where you are doing stand up you have to pitch it to that lowest common denominator but talk about how the film allows you to not have to pitch it that way.

    GOLDTHWAIT: When you are doing stand up you have time to entertain and keep the dumbest guy in the room amused for 45 minutes. And with movies, it’s a different crowd to begin with that’s coming because they researched it and they already have an idea. They still probably heckle movies but the dummy would be bored and probably leave. But I’ve jokingly said that the movie is available on VOD so 4 people can show up late and sit next to you when you are watching the movie and they text and talk all during the movie. And, they talk to the screen.

    CS: I don’t understand the behavior.

    worldsgreatestdad2009sundanceportraitmamfczlfypulGOLDTHWAIT: I think it’s what we are talking about ““ the sense of entitlement and the inability that their actions affect other people. They are just exposed to everything. We are becoming a culture with no consideration of couth.

    CS: Did you find that growing up with your own kids that they fell into that or were you aware of it before this movie came into your own head that there is this thing out there and you had to fight against it?

    GOLDTHWAIT: No, it was more of my day to day exposure to the general public that made me realize that a sense of entitlement has really increased in our culture.

    CS: You could put that into celebrities as well.

    GOLDTHWAIT: Sure. But you know the role of celebrities at this point is really funny. In order to be a celebrity you have to have the ability to stand in line, among other things. We could just point a camera at anybody or anything and they become a celebrity. I’m not bitter but it’s just strange. And when I was a kid growing up we were afraid that big brother would be spying with all the new technology and that’s not what happened at all. We just spy on each other. We can’t wait for each other to trip up and then post it and blog about it.

    CS: Right. We are just a culture of navel gazers. We want to tell everyone what’s going on with us.

    GOLDTHWAIT: It is a very strange time.

    CS: I love that about the film. You do kind of hint at it but it’s you know what, you don’t get what you want. A lot of kids have never been said no to.

    GOLDTHWAIT: Yeah.

    CS:And there’s got to be that person that says, “You can’t get what you want”, “You can’t have everything.”

    GOLDTHWAIT: Yes. And that’s the really bad thing that happens as a parent. I was never really too concerned about being my daughter’s friend as she grew up. I was just hoping we were raising a kid that wouldn’t be a jerk when she grew up.

    (Laughs)

    CS: Did she turn out OK?

    GOLDTHWAIT: I think she’s OK.

    CS: Shifting it back to the film, I apologize for getting off on that, but the sort of do it yourself way you’ve done this ““ you, both films, you commented about having to create it and do it yourself and no one was cutting you any breaks and no one was cutting you any big checks, how was it to mount up and say, I want to do this film with Robin and I want to get it made and put rubber to the road and actually making it ““ was that ever daunting? Was it ever not going to get started or was it a go as soon as Robin signed on?

    worldsgreatestdad2009sundanceportraitksxinb2s4dxlGOLDTHWAIT: There were two different companies came to me and said we were trying to make changes and I actually walked away from these two deals that were in place. They proceeded to tell people in LA that I was crazy and that the movie wasn’t going to get made but honestly it was nothing I was ashamed of. I already have plenty of that.

    (Laughs)

    CS: You say that but there is a core of us that believe that even the most embarrassing things are still great works, especially when you look at Shakes the Clown and Sleeping Dog Lie. You’ve done so much work with The Man Show.

    GOLDTHWAIT: I’m not embarrassed of all my work.

    CS: What are you getting from people who have seen this film? Are you getting people who are expecting something wacky or goofy out of Robin and then getting something completely different? Or do they know exactly what they’re getting?

    GOLDTHWAIT: That’s what’s happening with this movie. I don’t blame folks for having expectations for thinking it’s going to be one kind of comedy. Robin and I are both happy with the way people are enjoying it.

    CS: This being your second well received movie in three years, are you learning as you go along? I was amused that Hot to Trot gave you inspiration saying that well, if this jerkoff can do it, I can do it.

    GOLDTHWAIT: I am in a learning curve and I am trying to get better each time. I try not to take myself too serious. I do take making movies very serious but we do have a good time making them.

    CS: How is writing for you? Do you write with friends in mind?

    GOLDTHWAIT: No. I just write trying to get the story out.

    CS: I know that the movie is centers around doing what make yourself happy, doing what you want to do. Looking at what’s happened to your career you’ve been silenced by a lot of important people, how do you keep yourself happy with what you do?

    GOLDTHWAIT: I just stopped trying to make things for money or prestige and tried to make things that interested me and the things that came out of me. Once I did that, my whole life changed. I’ve never been happier.

  • Trailer Park: AVATAR Trailer – Reviewed

    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.

    And now, you can follow me on TWITTER under the name: Stipp

    Item #1 – ICE CREAM!!!

    I’m acutely sensitive to those who ask for what little help I can provide.

    I’ve never purported to actually have any ability to sway people to do things, Lord knows that losing 50k in that McDonald’s contest that was based on votes didn’t work out real well for me, but I am always eager to do what I can for those who have taken a chance on me.

    Dennis Widmyer is such a guy and he deserves your vote.

    The short of it is that you need to go here to watch his short film “ICE CREAM!!!” and vote for it. The long of it is below, straight from Dennis, a guy who has created a really solid short that is at the same time twisted, gory and all sorts of funny. I’ll allow him to explain what is so important about you pushing a few buttons. And, remember, for the love of God, vote on the FilmmakingFrenzy site. It’s the only way this will work. More from Dennis:

    I have a short film I directed for Fantastic Fest 09. I’m sure you’ve heard of Fantastic Fest. It was co-created by Harry at Aint It Cool News, and in only its third year, it’s already become the largest genre film fest in the country. Anyway, something cool that FF does is they have this contest called Filmmaking Frenzy whereby they accept entries from filmmakers for ‘bumpers’. Bumpers are like short, 30-45 sec commercials that play before a film at a fest. The rules of the contest state that you need:

    – A kid (below age of 18)
    – A monster
    – 30-45 secs
    – End off in the word “Fantastic”

    Anyway, my bumper is called “ICE CREAM!!!” and you can watch it here:

    http://www.filmmakingfrenzy.com/ViewFilm.aspx?FilmId=554

    It’s actually doing very well right now and we’ve gained a lot of momentum. I think we might actually have a shot of winning this thing. So please offer me whatever vote you think the film deserves. You have to register for the site to vote. The whole process takes about 2 mins. Some people have complained that the process of voting is a little confusing, so I typed up some quick instructions on it that you can view HERE.

    The link people need is: http://www.filmmakingfrenzy.com/ViewFilm.aspx?FilmId=554

    Now, go out there and vote.

    Item #2 – “Ari Gold’s Office…”

    aop_webAri Gold, the man who created the very funny ADVENTURES OF POWER, passed along an e-mail message to let me know that the site for POWER is finally in full swing and, I have to say, it’s really robust and has a lot of information about his film which will finally be hitting theaters this fall.

    Check out the film I thought was one of the best crafted comedies I’ve seen this year:
    HERE

    For those needing an explanation of the film, here it is:


    When hard times hit his small mining town, Power doesn’t wish for riches; he only wishes he’d learned to play drums. But his father could never afford to buy him a drum set, so Power has embraced the next best thing: air drumming. Tired of the constant ridicule, with nothing but a few dollars, some breakfast cereal, and the support of his Aunt Joanie, Power sets off across the country to the “paradise” of Newark, where an underground air drumming crew has invited him to join their team. But as the big air drumming competition looms, so does a rival-multi-millionaire drummer Dallas H., who thinks air drumming is an abomination and seeks to destroy Power and his crew.

    More than just a rock’n’roll comedy, ADVENTURES OF POWER is an epic fable about the American Dream-about making something out of nothing, and trusting in your own heartbeat as a way of changing the world. With a phenomenal soundtrack featuring original songs alongside hits by Rush, Phil Collins, the Dazz Band, and more, ADVENTURES OF POWER will have you drumming in your seat and cheering on your feet.

    Starring Ari Gold, Michael McKean, Jane Lynch, Adrian Grenier, Shoshannah Stern, and Steven Williams and also featuring Jimmy Jean-Louis, Chiu Chi Ling, Annie Golden and Nick Kroll, the film premiered to widespread acclaim at the 2008 Sundance Film Festival. With classic songs by Rush, Judas Priest, Phil Collins, Dazz Band, Loverboy, Bow Wow Wow, Woodie Guthrie and original songs by Ethan Gold, Adventures of Power will be released theatrically in fall 2009 by Variance Films.

    “Adventures of Power” was produced 100% independently, and shot from sea to shining sea-from the forgotten industrial towns of the West to the ghetto cities of the East. It is being released 100% independently as well, with the help of volunteers and fans from all over the country who believe in the power of the human heartbeat to change the world.

    Item #3

    untitled2I’ve got some DVDs to give away. Want some?

    LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT came out earlier this year and it did well. As a low budget movie it made it a little scratch and, in the critics’ eyes, it was acceptable cinematic fare.

    If you’d like to add this DVD to your collection, send me a note at Christopher_Stipp@yahoo.com and I’ll enter you in a contest to win a copy of this puppy.

    For those who want to know what it’s all about here is a synopsis:

    Renowned horror director Wes Craven returns to the scene of the most notorious thrillers of all time in this darkly disturbing reimagining of The Last House on the Left. After kidnapping and ruthlessly assaulting two teen girls, a sadistic killer and his gang unknowingly find shelter from a storm at the home of one of the victim’s parents– two ordinary people who will go to increasingly gruesome extremes to get revenge. Loaded with shocking twists guaranteed to leave you on edge, it’s the ominous film critics call, “One of the best horror remakes ever made” (Scott Weinberg, Fearnet.com).

    AVATAR (2009)

    avatar_posterDirector: James Cameron
    Cast: Sam Worthington, Sigourney Weaver, Michelle Rodriguez
    Release:
    December 18th, 2009
    Synopsis: In the future, Jake, a paraplegic war veteran, is brought to another planet, Pandora, which is inhabited by the Na’vi, a humanoid race with their own language and culture. Those from Earth find themselves at odds with each other and the local culture.

    View Trailer:
    * Large (Apple)

    Prognosis: Positive. Is there any lack of snarky, nitpicky comments on a movie no one has seen? Welcome to the Interwebs because, no, there are more than a few haymakers to go around.

    Before seeing this teaser I’ll be honest in that nothing has really ignited that geek desire to see anything more than the various publicity shots of James Cameron in various states of guidance as he talks to the film’s stars.

    Cameron’s legendary control of what people know and when they’ll know it about his films almost make him the Steve Jobs of the motion picture world; he’ll give you what you want when the fever pitch is at its greatest. I would agree with that assessment if his latest eking of information, photos, et al., about the movie actually tantalized. Instead, all we know is that this movie deals with a cripple and a bunch of blue leopards that look like taller, slender Keebler Elves that were rejected from the stage production of Cats. The footage shown at Comic-Con did not incite a wholesale riot of fan boys looking to jizz all over the promise this film was making. That honor went to IRON MAN 2.

    So, what to do when the tepid response, proportionately speaking, leaves people wanting more about the tin man than they do your Sesame Street blue man group? You get yourself a 2 minute teaser trailer out there, that’s what.

    The opening sequence, to be honest, really does get me into a mind space where I would’ve liked to have been months ago. The way Cameron captures the silence and majesty of space on a grand scale simply cannot be matched, the way we are ensconced in this planet’s ecosystem is genuinely thrilling as the music is perfectly matched to the sense of awe and wonder at an alien terrain where you can walk out freely but need an scuba like system in order to breathe. It feels open and beautiful.

    And then I see the worker mechs from ALIENS. And from the crappy MATRIX sequel. I’m left trying to figure out if this a hybrid from ALIENS or if we’re to believe this is its own universe but, if that’s the case, what’s with the cribbed worker mech? Having this argument with myself is taking me out of this grand universe and that’s not what you want for a film that needs to build its own sense of self.

    Weird guy with an obnoxious scar across his face (seriously, can we just do away with the overt make-up that will obviously play an important part to someone’s twisted backstory? “Well, yar, I’ll tell ye how I got this scar…”), Worthington rolls by some tanning beds and then, well, we get Delgo. Seriously, I dare anyone with half an idea of what I’m talking about to refute the notion these aliens look like that wretched kids film. If this was an issue of copyright I am pretty sure I could make a mint for Freddie Prinze Jr. in open court. It’s a little nutty and, at almost the half way point, I’m just screaming inside my own head. We’ve got lots of things going on and none of those things have to do with this movie’s awesomeness.

    We get the clue that the cripple’s consciousness (and let’s be clear that this movie is obviously making an issue of Worthington’s handicap and I would never call a cripple a cripple. Worthington is, on purpose, a cripple to forward the plot. It’s a device. Like John Locke. He’s a cripple. He can walk in Lost. Same theory applies. I wouldn’t put it past Cameron to have thought that was an awesome idea to have a cripple walk and then meditate on the idea of mobility, the fragility of life and, thus, Sam Worthington the cripple who soon won’t be) is fed into this cartoon character (and let’s be honest, we all can tell it’s a cartoon character. It’s certainly no DISTRICT 9 effect work.) and we’re off into a fake jungle with fake plants and fake animals with chicks who like to get grungy just like in the second crappy MATRIX film.

    But I will give praise to the amalgam of cartoon fantasy and live action that seems really action-y. You’ve got machine guns and planes that mean some terrible business and dudes hanging out of planes that are firing all sorts of armament. You’ve got alien people yelling out, with their tiger teeth laid bare, and all hell’s breaking loose. It’s like the Savage Land come to life!

    There is so much happening and not much context that the issue I have with this trailer is that it is devoid of some logical sense. I think you could put together the entire film (I’m pretty damn sure Worthington is going to have some alien sex with some alien chick with deadlocks) just by looking at what’s happening and I am pretty sure we’re going to see Worthington have some kind of crisis of conscience as his alien self becomes at odds with the big bad military force. It all sounds hokey to me but the scenery looks pretty nifty and the action sequences look to be rather engaging once we see how this all plays in 3D.

    I’m in for sure but, come on, there are some things I really hope aren’t as hokey as what we see in this teaser.

  • Trailer Park: DISTRICT 9 and THE GOODS: LIVE HARD. SELL HARD.

    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.

    And now, you can follow me on TWITTER under the name: Stipp

    Item #1

    geek

    (Consider this a retweet)

    Geek Monthly.

    The magazine graciously let me write another piece for their publication and I couldn’t be more thankful. This entry, off my last one which chronicled the hosts of Attack of the Show, explored the events of the documentarians who made the film Don’t You Forget About Me.

    Chronicling the films of John Hughes (rest-in-peace) and using a series of interviews with the players who helped bring the stories to life, the article in Geek Monthly delves into where John Went, what made his movies so enduring and why, oddly enough, his films were savaged in the press by critics when they came out.

    The article really delves into the process of just making a documentary, much less one about John Hughes, and what you find out along the way to making a finished film. There are some surprises with who didn’t want to participate in the making of this movie but there is more than enough insight into John’s processes and picks of who would eventually become Long Duk Dong, Jake Ryan and The Princess from THE BREAKFAST CLUB.

    If you happen to see the magazine at your local bookstore, grocery store, newsstand, wherever finer publications are sold, please pick up a copy.

    Item #2

    picture1Once again we’ve got passes to see a sneak preview of a film that’s about to drop soon. This time it’s for the new Ang Lee film, TAKING WOODSTOCK.

    The screening will take place here in Arizona, Tempe to be exact, at the Tempe Marketplace on Thursday, August 27th. For those interested please shoot me a note at Christopher_Stipp@Yahoo.com and I’ll get you hooked up.

    For those who want to know about the film here is a synopsis:

    Academy Award-winning director Ang Lee tells the story of the Greenwich Village interior designer who inadvertently helped to spark a cultural revolution by offering the organizers of the Woodstock Music and Arts Festival boarding at his family’s Catskills motel. The year is 1969. Change is brewing in America, and the energy in Greenwich Village is palpable. Elliot Tiber (Demetri Martin) is working as an interior designer when he discovers that a high-profile concert has recently lost its permit from the nearby town of Wallkill, NY. Emboldened by the burgeoning gay rights movement yet still tied to tradition in the form of the family business — a Catskills motel called the El Monaco — Tiber phones producer Michael Lang (Jonathan Groff) at Woodstock Ventures and offers boarding to the harried concert crew. Later, as the Woodstock Ventures staff begans arriving in droves, half a million concertgoers make their way to Max Yasgur’s (Eugene Levy) adjacent farm in White Lake, NJ, to witness the counterculture celebration that would ultimately make history as one of the greatest events in the annals of rock & roll. Imelda Staunton, Emile Hirsch, Liev Schreiber, and Paul Dano co-star.

    Item #3

    About a year and a half ago I interviewed Dicky Barrett of The Mighty Mighty Bosstones. Since then and from hearing Adam Carolla’s podcasts and seeing his movie THE HAMMER where he uses their signature hit “Rascal King” as a musical cue for both I was on a feeding frenzy for some live material. This band is simply on point when they perform live and I have to thank Scott, a much bigger fan of the band and of The Dropkick Murphys than I could be. He has royally hooked me up with some live concerts and I let him know I would plug his YouTube channel for his good deed of the day. So, if you’re into Dropkick Murphys or Mighty Mighty Bosstones please patronize his channel located here: youtube.com/LambruscoKid Huzzah, kind sir.

    DISTRICT 9 – REVIEW

    district9_poster-689x1024I remember my first time learning what satire was in college.

    For a long time I was under the deluded impression that satire had to be funny, comedic or somehow gut-busting but I read “Dante’s Inferno” by Dante Alighieri and was schooled in the art of veiling the real world in a thin cloak of fiction. DISTRICT 9 isn’t as veiled but, to its credit, the bludgeoning of its message of apartheid from director Neill Blomkamp is one that is a first in some way for this science fiction tale of aliens who have come to earth and have, to some, overstayed their welcome.

    The film’s use of pseudo documentary storytelling, using the absolutely charming newcomer Shartlo Copley as the movie’s emotional core, is certainly not new but what immediately becomes clear is that every penny of the film’s purported $30 million dollar price tag ended up on the screen. The fantastical physical centerpiece of the circular mothership of the aliens who inhabit the Johannesburg slum where they have been marginalized and physically contained is massively impressive. There is an attention to detail to presenting this story visually to us that many other science fiction films would rather gloss over. Neill intersperses interview footage of residents who live among the prawns, a derogatory term cleverly ascribed to the aliens, and that use alone brings a heft to the story that helps to elevate the film’s well-crafted world.

    As for the aliens themselves, it has to be noted, they are deserving of every technical accolade one could hoist onto their digitally created shoulders. Blomkamp not only developed a species with their own ways of walking, talking and moving but he did so without you ever questioning for a moment that what you were seeing was not there. Blomkamp takes their development beyond just being used in darkened corridors or in the recesses of a post-apocalyptic environment (read here: every ALIENS movie) , he uses them out in the open, out under the sun. It is his use of light that makes these aliens seem more real than any other alien we’ve had up on screen since MEN IN BLACK. By integrating these creatures in the atmosphere and landscape that we ourselves move in that creates the kind of believability that sets this movie into motion.

    Another element that adds another layer to a film that feels more verite than it does a science fiction film is having an organization like MNU. Standing for Multi-National United, the force tasked with the mission of policing the aliens who have been interred, for lack of a better verb, in these shanty towns where the aliens have learned how to exist just as any marginalized member of society would if group and herded together like refugees seems all too real in their execution of getting this settlement moved elsewhere. Led by Copley, as the bumbling and buffoonish man-in-charge named Wikus, the group goes out heavily armored, heavily armed and ready to displace body parts if needed. There is a tension there and in anyone else’s hands this is where a film could bog itself down using common tropes or hackneyed plots having to do with an alien’s otherness, rather, here things are just accepted as normal but different; this is the power of Blomkamp’s mining from his past in this culture. DISTRICT 9 also elevates itself by incorporating actual interview footage with the residents of Johannesburg, describing what these aliens are doing to their city and want to see this scourge of cat food eating miscreants gone from their city. Wikus acts as a buffer between both the aliens and the community that fears and despises them but he does so by being vulnerable. In the opening sequences he is shown as a man almost unable to put on his own microphone but, one element that cannot be overlooked, is his genteel manor.

    Wikus is a man who may not possess the kind of brute mentality that his other co-workers at MNU share but he has a level of sophistication and wide-eyed optimism that the process of things will work itself out and to believe in that process which help make him a man that we can believe. He doesn’t want to see anyone hurt in the process and as he starts serving eviction notices to the aliens in District 9, as preposterous as it is, we accept it because everyone is as well. The issue I take contention with, however, is that since Wikus is our emotional core and our touchstone as the man who crosses that line between man and alien there should have been more to latch onto as the film progresses. In pseudo documentaries that are good you get the quiet moments between the subject and the interviewer which help to enrich the action on the screen. In a film like THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT which used single person cameras to a great advantage you became invested in them when we had moments of meaningful 1:1 time. Meaningful 1:1 time. Some rube like Wikus looking dumb on camera does not help to anchor the film and, I would posit, hurts the emotional impact of what happens to the man. Everything that does occur to him after being exposed to some leaking gaseous material from an alien canister as the MNU look for contraband in a ramshackle tenement as they serve their eviction notices could have had a richer resonance if there was just more to know about this man.

    Instead, what happens is that Blomkamp takes all that he builds up in the 1st part of the film, giving you effects that seem flawlessly added to the scenes of the picture without ever drawing attention to itself, a masterstroke of directing, and pumps in the rest of the budget to give you a sensory thrill ride that squarely puts this film into science fiction territory. Blomkamp razzles and dazzles with weaponry, the likes of which have never been seen before, and visual delights that make you absolutely affirm that every penny of the budget they had ended up on that silver screen. The final and penultimate moment in this film, that almost seems like a fireworks display’s final moments, explode with the kind of action that make you feel great to be a geek. You will find yourself clapping and cheering as the plot unravels itself, the final moments providing a sad and reflective guide as to what it means to be human.

    Sure, there are some basic manipulative tricks that are employed throughout the film as Blomkamp tries to buy some favor and sympathy with the audience but it should be said that this movie is a delight and should be seen as the best way to end the fireworks of this summer movie season. Anything else that comes after it will seem like sparklers compared to this.

    THE GOODS: LIVE HARD, SELL HARD – REVIEW

    goods_live_hard_sell_hardThis movie deserves a place.

    It deserves a place right next to MISS MARCH, in fact. I usually try and avoid superlatives whenever possible as even when I think I’ve seen the greatest, best, most or fantastical thing “evar” I like to take a minute and step back, reevaluate. 9 times out of 10 I usually back off and just give something a real positive spin, something that is congratulatory and best expresses the delight I felt at seeing the film I appreciated enough to write about glowingly.

    THE GOODS is, perhaps, the 2nd worst film I’ve seen all year.

    I assume that if I was 13 years-old and wanted a movie chock full of awful, embarrassing humor that is executed with the surgical precision as a doctor monitoring Michael Jackson’s vital signs on the last night of his life this would be the film for me. However, since I really believed that a movie that boasts Jeremy Piven, Ving Rhames, David Koechner, Ed Helms, Tony Hale, Craig Robinson (who is also in MISS MARCH), Ken Jeong and Rob Riggle as a 10 year-old trapped in an old person’s body due to a “thyroid” condition I thought this movie would absolutely be a lock for one of the funniest films of the summer just judging by the level of talent. From THE HANGOVER to The Daily Show to KNOCKED UP you have some of the best comedic actors working today but seeing how insipid the comedic situations were that made the final cut you almost find yourself wondering who would think that this was a film that had potential.

    Some of the best comedies ever made had premises that, on paper, just sound like it could be a 4 minute Saturday Night skit. 3 guys wake up in a Las Vegas hotel room without any idea of what happened the night before sounds pretty basic but at least that film was able to harness the power of those in it and, as a result, THE HANGOVER is a film everyone is talking about this summer. It is my hope that no one talks about THE GOODS beyond this weekend.

    Describing the plot of this film would be just as infantile and lame as the script itself but, in a nutshell, Jeremy Piven plays a guy who can move a whole lot of cars in a very small time frame. He surrounds himself with his 3 other partners in crime, Koechner, Kathryn Hahn, Rhames, who all seem intent on tossing out bon mots, “Querque”  is referenced a lot and we aren’t let in on the big reveal of what “Querque” is supposed to mean until the final moments of this film as “Querque” seems to hold something grave and deep but “Querque” is only an excuse, it seems, to have these actors try and get a new catchphrase into the lexicon of those who scan these films for 1 liners they can share with their friends, co-workers or wear on a shirt they can pick up at Hot Topic.

    From an absolutely excruciating and forced romance between Piven and Jordana Spiro, the daughter of the dealer Piven is called in to help “move some metal” (Ooo! Another catch phrase! Collect them all and see what sticks!), that feels more forced and unbelievable than trusting in the fact that when all the salespeople beat the ever loving hell out of Ken Jeong, the fists and haymakers flying like a good gang up should look like, as the commercial gives away, Ken is simply able to go out and move some metal. (See how easy it is to incorporate these into your daily vocabulary?)

    The movie seems less interested in telling a funny story than it is trying to go for a laugh that is unearned and is certainly not deserved. Making Ed Helms a walking freak factory of arrested development, he’s trapped in the idea that he is going to make it in a 3 person boy band but sells high priced imports across town, is an awful decision as making him an overtly obnoxious and unwitting rube only lessens the effect of whatever you have in store for him and what’s in store just helps to a) make Ed look pathetic, sad and delusional and b) not smart for taking a role where his comedic talent for being subtle isn’t tapped. If you’re a director looking to garner the best from your actors wouldn’t it follow you cast people based on their talents? Ed is wasted as is Ken and everyone else in this movie. Ving has to say lines that I would be hard pressed to say didn’t make him cringe but I am sure the paycheck helped, regardless of the fact that he seemed equally ridiculous and pitiful as his counterparts.

    The writing should be the most important thing about a movie. Just because a premise sounds weird doesn’t mean there isn’t a goldmine of material to be mined by those who know what they’re looking for but this movie seems to have a blatant disregard for everyone trying to act in it as, separately and in other films, most everyone is capable of work I revisit regularly. It’s insulting not only to their reputations but to the audiences who are unfortunate enough to have to sit through this weak exercise in bad filmmaking.

    There is a moment at the end of this film after we find out whether Jeremy Piven is able to save an auto dealer from going under where, and I promise I won’t spoil this to the <2% of you still reading and still want to see this film that the UN should publicly condemn and consider off-limits under their torture protocols,  a famous actor makes a cameo and gives the camera a middle finger for reasons unknown. As I sat there looking at the big, extended middle digit I immediately thought that there isn’t a better punctuation mark out there today than that finger, pointed right back at that screen. This movie dishonors the laughs and genuine funniness of TALLADEGA NIGHTS and STEP BROTHERS.

    Enjoy THE GOODS. I hope it ends up holding a special place for you this year as well.

  • Trailer Park: Charlyne Yi and Nick Jasenovec of PAPER HEART

    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.

    And now, you can follow me on TWITTER under the name: Stipp

    Item #1

    john-hughes-01I would remiss if I didn’t mention the untimely passing of John Hughes.

    You will obviously seeing a lot of short articles about the ma’s impact on many of the thirty-somethings in Internet movie journalism and I would have to be included in that bunch.

    FERRIS BUELLER’S DAY OFF was an anthem, really, to suburbanite kids like me who understood Hughes’ aesthetic on the adolescent desire to just take some time out for yourself. SIXTEEN CANDLES was a movie that I am thankful for seeing in the theater as a young kid. I knew it was a funny then and I know it’s a funny movie now. I even remember having my father taking my brother and I to see PLANES, TRAINS AND AUTOMOBILES. All three of these cinematic experiences were a delight and stood in stark contrast to the critical reception his films received at the hands of critics who would eat their words so many years after they realized what John Hughes was doing with his movies.

    I know it sounds like a plug, and if it was online to read to free I would share it here, but if you happen to see Geek Monthly’s August issue with Seth Green on the cover I delve in deeper to John’s movies as I chart the course of some documentary filmmakers who made their own film, DON’T YOU FORGET ABOUT ME, which uses new interviews with the film’s cast and creators to tell how they were inspired by John’s work.

    He may have been gone for decades but that hasn’t made his passing any less easy to those of us who could quote endlessly from his films. There’s a reason why we’re able to do that and it doesn’t have anything to do with their accessibility; he was a gifted writer and filmmaker who was able to distill the experiences of teenage life and, eventually, older age.

    He will be missed.

    Item #2

    rippedoffmadoffdvd-nsBernie Madoff.

    There is a moment on the DVD of Ripped Off: Madoff and the Scamming of America where Bernie is talking to a class full of business hopefuls how he feels about governmental regulation and, essentially, how he feels about finance in general. Not only is it hilarious but it’s a fascinating snapshot into the mind of a man who no doubt knew what he was doing at the time he was guiding the minds of those eager to plunder the riches found in high paying financial jobs. The man, who would get convicted of stealing billions upon billions of dollars, is the perfect model upon which this documentary is set against and thankfully so.

    The world of economics, especially to people like me who are allergic to the point needing an EpiPen when opening the Business section of my local newspaper, is one shrouded in highfalutin linguistics that purposely confuse rubes like me who have to surrender to the “expert” guidance of those who are entrusted with doing the right thing. Regulation couldn’t help those who Bernie Madoff swindled and honestly this documentary puts everything into a perspective that helps to show how even those who are already smarter than a lot of us got taken as well.

    Ripped Off should be one that everyone who wants to understand this economic crisis from an angle divested from the talking heads who want to blame one party or the other. I didn’t get robbed of any money and this program spoke to me in a language that even I could grasp. I’m not afraid to admit that I need my information served to me in ways that helped me understand credit issues in MAXED OUT or the obesity problem in SUPER SIZE ME.

    There is something delicious to Madoff being sentenced to 150 years in prison after you see the wide swath of destruction left in his paper trail. Ripped Off proves why 150 years isn’t punishment enough for this confidence man.

    PAPER HEART – Interview
    pageimage-350945-1551604-paper_heart_poster_virbThose looking for love won’t ever find it and those who don’t believe it exists never had a child who dotes on them. It’s a slippery thing, love, when you think about the way it finds some and the way it ignores others. Growing up, I was enchanted by films like ONE CRAZY SUMMER and BETTER OFF DEAD by director Savage Steve Holland or the suite of films from John Hughes where characters were placed into every embarrassing situation as it pertains to the courting rituals of the modern American teen. As you head into older age, it would follow, should “love” be as elusive as it was during the awkward years of prepubescence you would start developing the jagged edges of those burnt-out on bad relationships while developing an acute distaste for all things sweet and lovey-dovey.

    In steps Charlyne Yi and Nick Jasenovec.

    Their film, PAPER HEART, looks to take the stance that love needs some defining in an age where over 50% of marriages end in divorce and where hearts are broken at breakneck speed every minute of the day across this land of ours. The documentary blurs the lines of fiction and truth but with an emotion that is as bizarre and weirdly nebulous as love the structure of the film is wonderfully suited to best strip down this most basic of emotions.

    Charlyne Yi and Nick Jasenovec stopped in Phoenix to talk about their film and to discuss the construction of the best docu-fiction motion picture you’ll see all year.

    CHRISTOPHER STIPP: Looking at the film’s promotional poster and reading previous interviews where the idea of the movie crew being in the movie wasn’t always factored in…was it a conscious choice to blur the line between documentary and fiction?

    NICK JASENOVEC: Well we did know. We were shooting with two cameras and shooting spontaneously and shooting in that manner you knew that occasionally you were going to capture a crew on camera and people that weren’t necessarily part of the scene. So we knew that we would have it but we didn’t want to make them an integral part of the story line. We didn’t want to rely on that. We had scenes in the outline where the camera crew kind of gets in the way of things and sort of effects the relationship but we didn’t want it to be a main focus but then when we got to the editing room and saw the footage, it was the most clear conflict in the movie. Because we didn’t make a traditional film so there’s not a – Charlene cheats on Mike and Mike find out and they break up but then she comes back to him. So there was no sort of fake plot points, so it was really kind of an easy going film from start to finish so when we found conflict in the editing room we decided to jump on that and make that the focus.

    CS: How did you come up with the treatment?

    NICK JASENOVEC: It started with Charlene.

    CHARLYNE YI: Originally I wanted to make a traditional ““ I keep wanting to say “straight” documentary but that seems sexual.

    (Laughs)

    I wanted to make a traditional documentary about love inspired by people I’ve met in my life that opened up to me about their love stories. Most movies to have a sort of love relationship in the film and why not make one about real stories and there’s so much more meaning to them because they are real. So I came to Nick with that idea and Allison was kind of skeptical about love at the time and from there he said, “You should go on camera.” I didn’t know about that.

    paperheart2009sundanceportraitsessionholaw6bjga5lJASENOVEC: It made sense because she performs all around Los Angeles and is comfortable on stage and everything. She’s really funny and charming and she has a unique comedic voice so it just made sense. A lot of our favorite documentaries always feature the document writer on camera in the primary role and once I found out how she felt about love I thought the audience should really experience the journey through her eyes. Because she had these specific feelings and that’s what drives the film. So once we decided that we started working on the idea and came up with the sort of scripted story line to tie everything together and give the story some sort of arch for Charlene and just for story line.

    CS: Exactly…and that leads into the question about how it started with just a few pages. I read that an hour before shooting you would huddle together and started hammering things out. Did you notice an evolution of what was happening as each shoot ““ an hour before shooting ““ any trends? Or was it literally as random as it appears?

    JASENOVEC: It was. Sometimes we’d beat it out and start shooting and someone would say, it’s not working.

    YI: Yea, and then we’d have to have another meeting.

    (Laughs)

    JASENOVEC: But then other times you would have no idea and have to wing it and then it would turn out great.

    YI: And you find that through improvising it worked.

    JASENOVEC: The movie itself has to feel ““ both halves of the movie have to feel equal. The have to feel of the same cloth. So like all the scenes where Charlene or Michael or Jake are acting have to feel they were captured just like the documentary. So, improve was just the obvious choice just to keep things fresh.

    YI: And organic.

    JASENOVEC: Unscripted. Doesn’t feel like they were reading lines from something. It was always different. I don’t remember patterns really but there were times where ““ I remember a scene in the film where they were driving out to Joshua Tree on the drive out to Palm Springs. That was just supposed to be one of the many dates. But instead it just naturally came out, Michael had the idea that I don’t think my character would be very excited about bring the cooler along. So that became the focus of the scene. So there were tons of surprises.

    YI: And then in the editing room it became the focus of the movie how ““ a relevant scene that would help the arch.

    JASENOVEC: I can’t remember what interview we talked about what.

    CS: Everyone is trying to be different.

    JASENOVEC: These are different questions.

    YI: The questions are relevant.

    JASENOVEC: Yeah, but I’m just trying to remember what we said in which one. Like, oh shoot, did we cover that in this one.

    CS: “What lie did we tell?”

    (Laughs)

    JASENOVEC: Yeah, we have to keep all our lies straight.

    (Laugh)

    paperheart2009sundanceportraitsession0ojbnz8tpi-lCS: Now that begs the question, when you had about 300 hours footage and you said, “OK, we have 300 hours and we need to make a movie that’s 90 minutes and change.” Where do you start? Obviously you start with your story.

    JASENOVEC: The first thing we put together was no documentary stuff just Charlene setting out to make the movie, meeting Michael, starting the relationship, whatever happens happens. The relationship story line. That’s an easier way to put it. And that alone without any documentary stuff I think was over 2 hours. So we knew that that wasn’t going to work.

    (Laughs)

    We knew it had to be half and half and then had to get it down to about 45 minutes. So think from there, we definitely had a lot of stuff, but that was where the conflict of the cameras impeding the relationship really stood out, so we made that the focus. We restructured and got it down to about an hour and then started cutting the documentaries interviews together and started putting them in place and looking at which interviews would fit in which parts of the movie and it was just all different too. Because you would think that you would want to put an interview in a scene to comment on that scene, but when we showed it to people, not only did they not catch it but it felt like everything was in the wrong place. So a lot of the scenes, to me, the documentary interviews feel like some of them should more obviously be closer to the scenes but they aren’t. Oh like the puppet stuff, the recreations. Remember we took the themes of the four and this was the first meeting, the early part of the relationship and it didn’t work at all.

    YI: Yes. It’s hard to pinpoint why it didn’t work. It’s like the energy of the scene and then”¦

    JASENOVEC: There’s probably 100 different versions of this movie. It’s just like a giant jigsaw puzzle. Especially with the documentary stuff. The story line, once you figure that out, that’s going to stay the same but where do you put the documentary stuff. What interviews go where? It was interesting.

    CS: Who decided to make the cut and who didn’t, especially when you are trying to select the best pieces?

    JASENOVEC: Almost everyone made the cut. Some were shorter than others just based on what the relevant information was or maybe how interesting the information was. We definitely had favorites and least favorites. Not to say that it’s a personal film but just in terms of how it works in the movie. There’s a couple that didn’t make it in. And then the ones that did, yea. Each interview is probably an hour, an hour and a half long so we had to boil that down to what was the core idea of each interview and tie it into the story line.

    YI: We had a set of general and specific questions applying to the scientist.

    JASENOVEC: And also certain interviews were approached based on where ““ different interviews were approached in different ways. For this interview, let’s do this one where Charlene and Michael have been together for a little while so there’s a comfort there and can talk about that relationship in this interview.

    YI: And hopefully give advice.

    JASENOVEC: Yeah, and then another interview she would just be approaching it from where she is at the beginning of the film so that also dictated some of the order. If we chose to use anything that was specific.

    YI: Yeah.

    JASENOVEC: Just thinking back on it”¦

    YI: Gives me a headache

    (Laughs)

    JASENOVEC: It was a pretty miserable time. I remember the first time we lost our first cut we were like, what have we made? This is never going to make it.

    YI: We were so depressed. We were just sad eating.

    (Laughs)

    paper-776369CS: Does it help that you guys did this independently?

    YI: Most definitely. I think if people saw the 300 hours of footage people wouldn’t understand what we made.

    JASENOVEC: Because we would just keep the cameras rolling. We would try things that didn’t work a lot of the times. We didn’t have to show footage to anybody. No one was looking over our shoulders. We did have a weekly budget and we had a bond company. So as long as we stayed in budget and were getting the footage that we thought we needed, we were OK. No one from the financiers saw the movie until we were finished with it.

    YI: I can’t imagine if we did get input. That would have destroyed the film.

    JASENOVEC: It was confusing enough trying to figure it out on your own but if you have other outside people telling you what to do, I don’t think we would have discovered anything we discovered.

    YI: And there’s already so much pressure. Like us being on the road running constantly trying to nail shots, getting kicked out of places because we don’t have permits”¦so it was difficult.

    JASENOVEC: We were really lucky.

    CS: Your and Michael’s chemistry on the screen was really great. Did you find that your two comedy styles. Well, I shouldn’t say styles but Michael came into this and you guys had to make it work. I don’t want to ask a stupid question like, “Was it easy to do?”

    (Laughs)

    But did you find that you two complement each other?

    YI: I think we all have the same sense of humor. You [Nick], me, Jake and Michael.

    JASENOVEC: We are all friends so we’re all comfortable around each other so that helps. So there was no bad idea.

    YI: There was no, “Let’s do it my way.” We were, “Yeah, let’s do that. Let’s try it.”

    JASENOVEC: And I think that Charlene and Michel both love twisting realities and playing with the audience’s perceptions and stuff. When we came up with the idea of the movie we knew that Mike was perfect. He loves doing stuff like this. And knew that we would all be on the same page. There were very few disagreements.

    YI: The only disagreement was when he was complaining that he didn’t have enough raisins.

    JASENOVEC: Which was often. Every day.

    YI: Every hour.

  • Trailer Park: Chris Anderson Wants You To Be FREE

    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.

    And now, you can follow me on TWITTER under the name: Stipp

    Item #1

    geekGeek Monthly.

    The magazine graciously let me write another piece for their publication and I couldn’t be more thankful. This entry, off my last one which chronicled the hosts of Attack of the Show, explored the events of the documentarians who made the film Don’t You Forget About Me.

    Chronicling the films of John Hughes and using a series of interviews with the players who helped bring the stories to life, the article in Geek Monthly delves into where John Went, what made his movies so enduring and why, oddly enough, his films were savaged in the press by critics when they came out.

    The article really delves into the process of just making a documentary, much less one about John Hughes, and what you find out along the way to making a finished film. There are some surprises with who didn’t want to participate in the making of this movie but there is more than enough insight into John’s processes and picks of who would eventually become Long Duk Dong, Jake Ryan and The Princess from THE BREAKFAST CLUB.

    If you happen to see the magazine at your local bookstore, grocery store, newsstand, wherever finer publications are sold, please feel free to give it a read and let me know what you think.

    Hope you enjoy it…

    ITEM #2

    battleI have some wonderful giveaways since leaving all of you for Comic-Con.

    First on the list is Battlestar Galactica 4.5 on Blu-ray. I can’t purport to be knowledgeable about this series as I completely missed the boat on it. I had never seen an episode until people were in a frenzy around the time the finale aired and it feels like I’ve just failed at staying on top of the cultural zeitgeist.

    That matters none as I’ve got many copies of 4.5 on Blu-ray to give away so if you want to experience the explosion of geekery that was the finale of this program please shoot me a note at Christopher_Stipp@yahoo.com and I’ll enter you to win a copy.

    A product description from Amazon:

    “All will be revealed as the thrilling final episodes of Battlestar Galactica 4.5 land on DVD. From their initial action-packed battles against the Cylons to their desperate attempts to find the fabled 13th colony, Earth, a determined band of human survivors has captivated audiences everywhere with their desperate quest to find a new home for their dwindling numbers. Join them now as the fleet journeys into the furthest reaches of unexplored space and faces a crucial decision that will change all of their lives irrevocably. Presented uninterrupted in Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround Sound, this epic 4-disc set contains over 10 hours of intense, groundbreaking DVD features, including extended episodes that never aired – a must own addition to every fan’s collection. Relive the anticipation, the action and the excitement of this groundbreaking series that is destined to live on as “one of the best dramas on TV.””

    Second on the list is FAST & FURIOUS.

    fast_and_furiousAgain, this movie = missed boat for me. I was a big fan of the silliness that was THE FAST AND THE FURIOUS and could not have dug the loud and flashy film even more than I did. What had started as a curious indulgence has now come full circle as Paul Walker and Vin Diesel are back again to show how “teh” awesome their whips are.

    If you have a jones to see these two back together again for the first time please e-mail me at Christopher_Stipp@yahoo.com and I’ll enter you to win a copy of the movie on DVD.

    A product description from Amazon:

    “Vin Diesel and Paul Walker reteam with Michelle Rodriguez and Jordana Brewster for the ultimate chapter of the franchise built on speed! When fugitive Dominic Toretto (Diesel) returns to Los Angeles to avenge a loved one’s death, it reignites his feud with agent Brian O’Conner (Walker). But, as they race through crowded city streets and across international lines, they must test their loyalties by joining together to bring down a shared enemy. From big rig heists to precision tunnel crawls, Fast & Furious takes you back into the high-octane world, which lives for speed, drives for the rush and breaks all the rules!”

    Third, PINOCCHIO.

    pinocchioHonestly, if I have to explain this one you don’t deserve to have it in your collection.

    This one is on Blu-ray so if you’re lacking this one in your collection you know what you need to do. I cannot explain how sharp and dramatic the experience is to see this in Blu-ray goodness so I hope if you have a player you angle to get this one on your shelf.

    A product description from Amazon:

    Celebrate the 70th anniversary of Walt Disney’s Pinocchio! The legendary masterpiece that inspired millions to believe in their dreams has reawakened with an all-new, state-of-the-art digital restoration that shines brilliantly on 2-disc DVD. Now, for the first time ever, the richly detailed animation, unforgettable award-winning music When You Wish Upon A Star and heartwarming adventure-filled story comes to life like never before. Plus, all-new dazzling bonus features transport you into Pinocchio’s fantastic world! Join Geppetto’s beloved puppet with Jiminy Cricket as his guide on a thrilling quest that tests Pinocchio’s bravery, loyalty and honesty, virtues he must learn to become a real boy. The one and only Pinocchio will live on forever in the heart of anyone who has wished upon a star.

    Bonus Features include the Pinocchio Knows Trivia Challenge, an all-new Making Of Pinocchio, the Sweat Box, Walt Disney’s Artistic Review Process, Disney View, Expand Your Viewing Experience Beyond The Original Aspect Ratio Of The Film, Cine-Explore, Disney BD-Live: Connect, Explore And Interact, all-new When You Wish Upon A Star; Music Video Performed By Meaghan Jette Martin, Pinocchio’s Puzzles Game, 18 Puzzles In A Multi-Tiered Game, Pinocchio’s Matter Of Facts Discover More About Pinocchio’s World With Pop-Up Trivia, Never-Before-Seen Deleted Scenes, Alternate Ending”

    Fourth, Coraline.

    coralineI would harpoon anyone who has anything short of great praise for this film. Henry Selick really is one of those masters of his craft who has taken a style of animation like stop-motion and turned it into an art form of which he’s in a small group of those who can turn lifeless figures into breathing individuals that just happen not to be real. Toss on the fact that this edition includes glasses so you can enjoy the immerse experience at home and you’ve got yourself a sale. On that note, I have a few copies to give away to those who want to see the film that should have received more love at the box office this year. Send me an e-mail and I’ll enter you in the drawing.

    A product description from Amazon:

    “As covetous children are often warned: “Be careful what you wish for.” It’s this very cautionary wisdom that sets the stage for Henry Selick’s CORALINE, an eerily eye-popping stop-motion animation tale of fractured dreams and families made whole. As the films opens, Coraline Jones (voiced by Dakota Fanning) and her parents (Teri Hatcher, John Hodgman) have moved into the Pink Palace, a once-vibrant boarding house that’s turned drab and dilapidated. As her parents work feverishly on a new gardening catalog, the bored and belligerent Coraline is admonished to explore her new world’s possibilities. Along the way she meets her fellow tenants, including two aging English showgirls and a mouse-training Russian acrobat, as well as an outcast neighborhood boy named Wybie. But it is a mysterious hidden door that most piques Coraline’s interest–a gateway to a parallel world where her “other” parents and neighbors live only to see Coraline well fed and endlessly entertained. All is not cakes and carnivals for Coraline, though, and the black buttons that have replaced the eyes of these otherworldly imitations hint at darker intentions. When these intentions are revealed, Cora and a friendly magical cat use their wits and willpower to defeat Coraline’s wicked “other mother” and restore balance in the real world. Based on Neil Gaiman’s beloved children’s novel, director Selick (THE NIGHTMARE BEFORE CHRISTMAS) uses the stop-motion technique to bring CORALINE to life with amazing visual and emotional depth. The result is a frightfully magical adventure that will give the whole family plenty to shriek, cheer, and talk about.”

    CHRIS ANDERSON – INTERVIEW

    It’s not often when I talk to someone who reminds me of the professors I used to cower from when I was in graduate school.

    The real smart, analytical kind that not only make you feel slightly unnerved as you speak to them, the computational thoughts that seem to be churning just behind their eyes as they espouse that which has garnered them a tenured position in the field of academia, but the ones that make you grateful if you’re able to synthesize what they’re saying and understand its implications. Talking to Chris Anderson, editor-in-chief of Wired Magazine and whose new book FREE examines the relationship between consumer culture and the idea that downward prices for consumables like music, news, you name it, there is a very real sense that what he’s talking about is simply the logical progression of the adage that “information wants to be free.”

    As Chris would say to Adam Carolla on Adam’s podcast there is an inverse afoot in the digital realm where before the Internet you would give a sample of your product and then expect the masses to come and consume it. Now, you’re seeing the opposite as marketers virtually give it all away and hope for a small minority which will subsidize the whole. It’s a brave new economy in that people have to embrace the idea that these counter-intuitive ideas now exist as the basic fundamentals for making it in the digital age.

    Anderson, without question, was a sport in entertaining questions with a student like myself who is simply trying to wrap my feeble mind around his progressive observations that, if you believe it and I just happen to be a disciple of it, mean a dramatic shift in the economic landscape as we forge ahead, looking to understand how consumer habits are dictating the reality of the digital age. So don’t just take my word about free culture, go over to TechCrunch to see how you can get a copy of his book absolutely free for your Kindle. And, for those without a Kindle (namely, me) you can read it at no cost through their site.

    free-chris-anderson-thumb-300x445-90541CHRISTOPHER STIPP: I’m fascinated from top to bottom with your ideas and what you are thinking about where we are going with our free culture. Could you tell me how this book germinated for you? How it came about?

    CHRIS ANDERSON: It kind of evolved from The Long Tail, my first book, which is explosion of choice and variety that happened once we broke past 20th century distribution models and that of infinite shelf space. That sort of cultural evolution was driven by the underlying economics of the Internet, which is it has room for everything. And, the only way you can have infinite shelf space or room for everything and therefore unlock the demand for the non-traditional non-blockbuster fare is to have it cost almost nothing. The only way you can be indiscriminate in how you use your shelf space is if shelf space is free. It was kind of an aside in The Long Tail but I’m thinking more about it and just observing that’s what virtual free distribution did – it changed our world and basically that everything online is free. Google is free and Yahoo! is free all these big companies are free. I realized it kind of created a country sized economy built on the price of zero dollars.

    On one hand it’s obvious and on the other hand it’s sort of like, “OK, we built a country sized economy built on free – around free – surely there is an economic model for that.” So I did a little research because economics is what I turn to first and there was nothing. There is there’s no such thing as a free lunch, etc., and I was like, that seems buggy. That it doesn’t work in theory but it works in practice? What’s going on here? So I was doing more and more research on the economics of free and basically found that it was predicted 200 years earlier but no one thought it was really possible until we ended up with this economy, which is everything getting cheaper over time. That’s one of those economic complications that we don’t think about very often which is that in the Adams economy everything gets more expensive over time – people’s time and places and minerals and resources and things like that. As a result, free becomes inevitable. All the trend lines point down. And this struck me as being kind of important and the fact that no one else had written a book on it or really did much research on it whatsoever struck me exactly the permission to do it myself.

    CS: Exactly. And I wanted to jump on that point – something you just brought up was one of my favorite books from last year was Freakonomics.

    ANDERSON: Yes.

    CS: I think it laid out practical application…the practical math of what is really happening out there. In your research of doing this book did you ever butt heads with theoretical practice versus what is really going on out there?

    ANDERSON: Traditional economics is basically monetary economics. There is nothing wrong with economics. The problem with economics is it’s not a unified theory. It does not explain everything in the world. The great thing about [Steven] Levitt and [Stephen] Dubner is that they took the economic toolkit and looked at domains that economics doesn’t typically look at, like social behavior, drugs, gangs and things like that. Online, it’s not the monster economy by and large. We use the term economy as a metaphor. There are very few people out there who actually try to apply the tools of economics to quantify the intent and reputation of economies and figure out how they might transfer – exchange currency from one economy to the other. So the problem is not that there is anything wrong with economics but the economists are not bothering to apply their own tools to these domains. And in my own feeble way, that’s what I attempt to do is take these tried and true tools and apply them to worlds that basically academic economists loath to enter.

    CS: As you were writing the book you obviously had thoughts in your own head – everyone talks about scientists who come up with a hypothesis and then go out to prove it and discover things along the way…Were there any big surprises as you were delving deeper in this as you were writing your book?

    chrisanderson-250ANDERSON: Yes and this is not a theory and The Long Tail is not a theory. Obviously, The Long Tail existed before my book and the free economy existed before my book. It’s simply a framework to simply explain why it works and how it came to be and where it’s going. So there are no testable theories for free. There is the existence proof all around us. The book largely explains why the free economy came to be and it’s not based on somebody’s philosophical position, more based on the law of gravity in the digital market. And then it focuses on how to make money around that, the sort of paradox that people have a hard time getting their head around that you can make money around free, which those of us in the media business shouldn’t be surprised at all. Radio is free. Television is free. I’m standing here on a street corner looking at boxes of free weekly newspapers, so nothing new about making money around free in the media business but people beyond the media are sort of stunned that it might work, that it’s crazy and silly.

    CS: Speaking of media companies…There’s been a lot of talk of how to move to a blend of paid content vs. free content on news serving sites. As the debate rages, where do you think, is there a healthy medium between paid content and free content online?

    ANDERSON: There’s no one size fits all. The last chapter of the book talks about free in an economic crisis. Particularly from a full ad supported to what’s called freemium. I would not venture to give newspapers any advice on what they should do. In my day job as a magazine editor we are 100% free online and we charge a low highly subsidized price in print. So it’s mostly supported by our advertisers, but not entirely supported by advertisers in print and entirely supported by advertisers on line. So we put our practice what we preach. The online version is the free version which is the sampler of the superior print version because of the photography and design and all that.

    And same for books.

    The book will be free in digital form as a sampler for the superior, for many people, print version. And my start-up companies are all based on the free model where we give away something for free and sell something else. I think newspapers are going to have to figure out what people are willing to pay for. It’s not like they made a mistake. If only the newspaper industry had gotten together in a big room in 1995 or 1993 and said, “Let’s never, none of us give away free content.” It wouldn’t have changed the world, it would have just made them irrelevant even faster. So this is not bad policy, this is the animal forces of digital economics at work here. Newspapers were built on the scarcity model where they had the monopoly access to consumers because of their distribution channels – print newspaper, trucks, newsstands and things like that. Their problem is that they simply lost their monopoly. So have we in the magazine business. There are lots of people that can produce information, lots of other ways to distribute the information. We now have an explosion of competition and that’s the problem. You can try charging but it’s very hard to charge monopoly rent when you don’t have a monopoly.

    CS: Pointing to some of the bigger issues tackling some print publications how is Wired weathering the storm of retrenchment of some advertisers who are shifting dollars? Are you seeing a shift from print to more on line spending from advertisers?

    ANDERSON: We are Wired. We have one of the first digital media sites. We invented the banner ad and we have a big and popular site as well, so you can imagine our revenue balance is more equal than it might be for most publications. But we are still 1/3 web in terms of revenue.

    normal_chris_andersonCS: Are you finding more advertisers more receptive to online advertising insofar that there is something more tangible that people are getting, that there’s an ROI where you can at least prove people are seeing it, people are clicking and acting with it.

    ANDERSON: I think we’ve been able to see integrated packages. Web plus print and create not just banner ads but creative making of ads that work in both those formats. That’s something we can do and something that is of value and people will pay more for. If people want absolute measurable, only pay for performance, they will go for dual action. I think people in our space tend to be brand advertising, taking advantage of the medium – sort of visually impactful ads in print. Online we tend to be creative in the ads we help them make.

    CS: I’d like to shift a gear or two – since I also write in a movie space there was a big story months ago when a work-in-progress copy of Wolverine leaked out, it hit the Internet and people downloaded to their heart’s content. Looking at something like this, do things like this help or hinder a product’s eventual release, as Fox said it would, and I apologize if it seems like I’m mixing piracy with the free model.

    ANDERSON: Piracy is solid. It’s a form of enforced free, right? The marketplace – placing the price of zero on your product whether you like it or not. To answer your question, does piracy help?

    CS: Yes.

    ANDERSON: Again, one size doesn’t fit all. There are some instances where piracy does help. In China, for example – there’s a chapter in my book about China and Brazil – in China where piracy is rampant musicians have largely stop fighting and use piracy as a way to create celebrity and they are not selling the product but are selling themselves as celebrity in things like endorsements and appearances and concerts and commercial gigs, i.e., commercial gigs and things like that. China has embraced piracy as a form of marketing. I do not think Microsoft has embraced piracy. But Microsoft has recognized that piracy in countries that don’t have a lot of money is probably creating a market for the future when that country develops – China being a good example. As for the Wolverine, I couldn’t possibly say. I don’t think anybody can. It’s mixed obviously.

    CS: And in the same kind of artist realm, the idea of iTunes – I think you said it best by saying that they at least, regardless of their arbitrary $.99 model that they at least freed up the log jam with digital media. Did iTunes really help people to understand or help people be more comfortable in this sort of digital space?

    ANDERSON: Actually, I think iTunes is like making the consumption of digital music online as simple and straightforward with predictable pricing and nicely integrated with hardware – that was a necessary first step in getting mainstream acceptance. I think they have now switched to dynamic pricing or variable pricing rather, is a very healthy second step because we now all get the concept and as you say, it’s time to move beyond the arbitrary pricing of one size fits all. So I think, I’m not a zealot about these things. When you shift from one model to the next, it’s kind of messy and you have to go step by step and have lots of compromises and “in the middle” solutions along the way. So iTunes version 1 was not economically optimal, but it was what the marketplace needed to get to make that shift. iTunes version 10 or 20 or whatever will be will be in a few years will be much more closer to what economists call the optimum – the right balance of choice and filters and pricing and free even, as you are starting to see with iPhone apps. That really touches all the opportunities in digital distribution.

    CS: And I was actually going to bring that up regarding a lot of the free iPhone applications business model based on free isn’t a bad thing because if you allow someone to use it, it’s an example of the cream will rise to the top and if somebody likes your product enough, they will pay for it.

    ANDERSON: I think iPhone apps are a great example. The most successful have now fallen into the premium model with things like Tap Tap Tap Revolution where you have two versions of the product. You have a free sampler, which is limited in some way, and for those who like it, you can upgrade to the paid version or you buy tracks or things like that. Because the apps are smaller and more modest in scope it’s easier for small teams to create them and create versions of them and to take chances with phrasing, etc. I think you will see a lot of innovation in the economics of digital content happening in the iPhone app because they are small and can take risks and are willing to do things and experiment that an EA or a Microsoft might not.

    CS: It seems to be the bigger you are the less accepting you are of this model and I think here of some ideas of music corporations – you have big names like Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails releasing free albums but if any Johnny Podunk who makes a living at this is less resistant to thinking that this is a good idea.

    ANDERSON: Yes, that’s right. The blockbuster model worked for the blockbuster content. However, almost everybody failed that test. Fantastic. Go Rolling Stones but 99.9% of bands never had a chance in that model so they were not well served in the blockbuster model – only might be better served in the free model.

    CS: And now, I think the free model fits well with some acts – you hear it more and more and people now are realizing that they don’t make any money off the music but where they do make it is on the ancillary streams – the touring and the merchandising.

    ANDERSON: Precisely. I think Tim O’Reilly, the publisher, was one of the first to say that the enemy of the art is not the piracy it’s the obscurity. The reality is that people create stuff for whatever reason – attention, fun, expression…you name it – the first thing people want is to be heard. They want to be seen, they want to be read or they want to be appreciated in one way or another. In the old model where you had to be a commercial proposition and a very strong commercial proposition to get any distribution whatsoever, almost everybody failed that test and therefore they not only didn’t get money they didn’t get any of the non-monetary assets either – the attention and reputation. Now, by taking money off the table and saying “I’m willing to distribute for free” you can at least get those other things. You can at least get an audience. Once you get an audience then you have many more options in how to make money.

    CS: The idea, and China, fascinates me so I’d love to get your thoughts on the country as a whole. It seems to be that they figured out, like you said, they basically created a free economy. Do you see if American could ever adopt – I wouldn’t say wholesale – they have no trademark laws so you see what have you – can any of that fly here do you think?

    ANDERSON: Well, sure. It happens not because Congress changes the rules or a police force decides to stop enforcing the rules but because we as creators, opt out. That’s what open source is and creative commons are. We have decided not to exercise our creative copyrights. Everything I do outside of my day job and that work for publishers is given away without creative commons or gpl or some other open source license. I choose not to exercise my copyright. I choose to give it all away. As does everyone on Flicker, and Wikipedia, etc. You are seeing a phenomenon by which we as a culture are choosing to abandon these intellectual copyrights without any legislation whatsoever.

    chris_andersonCS: Do you make a distinction, is it semantic – I’m just spittballing here – is it semantic when people talk about piracy vs. it being out there for people to consume – you should be in trouble if you think about touching that free product that’s out there? I don’t know how to put it in words, but is there a difference between piracy and let’s say an album is out there and I take it, is it bad and should I go to jail for it because it was out there to begin with? Who’s to blame?

    ANDERSON: It comes down to intent, right? If the artist put the MP3 on BitTorrent with the hope that people would download it, then that’s not piracy. If the artist chose not to and very much hoped no one would put it on BitTorrent but someone did anyway, that is piracy. The problem is that unless you encode the content with something explicit like a creative commons license you can’t tell one from the other. You can’t tell which of those MP3’s the artist is delighted that you will listen to or which they are horrified by. So again, it’s a messy in-between state where the intent of the creator is hard to follow or know.

    CS: Right, exactly. Where each copy – one that was legitimately paid for and one that wasn’t.

    ANDERSON: Right. I am delighted to know that my book, The Long Tail, was the number one pirated book in June of last year in China. I was absolutely delighted, couldn’t have been more excited because that was authentic – authentic demand. The fact that pirates took it upon themselves to photocopy, print, bind and distribute – they don’t do it because someone made them, they do it because there is demand for it and that was real street credit. I need to apologize to my Chinese publisher for my attitude but the street kid in me, you just can’t buy that kind of credibility, that the pirates love my book. How much money was I losing? Effectively, zero. I hadn’t expected to make any money in China anyway. So that was kind of cool that it was heavily pirated in China. I felt that I struck a chord with an audience that is extremely discriminating. So you can’t tell that, you can’t look at the book and know that I was absolutely delighted to see it – the pirated book – all pirated books look the same, that is, pirated. From my perspective it wasn’t pirated. It was given to the people and distributed in their own way.

    CS: Why do you think it struck a chord with them? Did you get a response back? Here were are – a big capitalist society, you wrote a book from this perspective, what resonated with them?

    ANDERSON: I don’t know. I’d like to think that they are fascinated by everything digital these days. I think the translation was pretty good. I think it translated to Dragon’s Tail – really awesome title translation in Chinese that struck a chord – who knows? I’m just glad it did.

    CS: I know I have to wrap it up and I don’t want to take too much more of your time but when you were finished with this book and looked at where you started and where you ended, did your opinions, thoughts, now that you have your finished product, are you seeing things in a different way, about where we are going digitally?

    ANDERSON: When I started the book I thought it would be like The Long Tail basically – pretty hardcore economic theory – math and physics with a veneer of examples. Instead this one turned out to be more narrative – more storytelling – lots of history. The book goes back to Macedonia. It goes back a long way as we as a concept wrestle with the concept of zero and free. We were a non-monetary economy for a millennia before we became a monetary economy. It ended up being a much more interesting sweep through history with free as my lens, which was a lot of fun. But I didn’t do it in public all that much. I wasn’t doing a math analysis in real time. I was just studying history which is fascinating. That was a surprise that it was built on history and the other surprise was as I went through the objections to free – how many people feel real emotional and angry or a mixed feelings about free – how much there is negative baggage around that – with every book, something takes over the debate and I answer to it for the next two years so with The Long Tail, it was, “OK, smart guy, fix the music industry.” The music industry became the beast that threatened to overwhelm The Long Tail debates. It’s a lot more than music but people tend to reduce it down to the music industry is in decline, the long tail didn’t save it. So, that was kind of annoying. But that’s understandable. This one, Free, I’m afraid it’s going to be the decline of newspapers. They are going to be like “Free isn’t working for the newspapers therefore the theory can’t work” which is like, “Oh boy, where do I start?” I think 3 years ago it was “OK, smart guy, fix the music industry” and now it’s going to be “OK, smart guy, fix the newspaper industry” or more to the point with the decline of the newspaper industry or seen as a proxy for everything online mixed together. Which is just so wrong. As you know there’s a lot more to the media industry than newspapers and a lot more to the internet than the media industry, but so be it. Better be part of a debate than not.

    CS: If I could ask just one more question it would be now that as you were writing it, did you ever find a good example of a cultural that has gone above and beyond, I mean almost a free society? You said you went back to Macedonia, was there something that came close to a true free society?

    ANDERSON: There’s load of them. Again, free goes back to the Romans. In modern days, free is all around us. I am not charging you for this call. You are not charging me for your time. Almost all the interactions we have everyday with our family and friends and colleagues and co-workers is done without pay. They are done as part of the barter economy. I’m giving you some of my time because I am hoping you will do something useful with this and propagate my ideas in someway and you give me your time because you hope I will help you do your job or whatever. And the truth is that money is just one of the dimensions on which we work everyday and often not the most important one. People were stunned that Wikipedia could be created for free. People were stunned but they shouldn’t have been. The fact that people will not only work, but do great work, for no money if you incentify them properly is the true story of the history of the world and the only surprise is that it is a surprise.

  • Trailer Park: (500) DAYS OF SUMMER and a $50,000 Gift Card

    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.

    McCafe MY Day – REDUX

    mccafe

    You are not seeing double, my friends, this is indeed a reprint from last week. I am all about winning this thing and need a last weekend push to try and snag the big prize.

    How often have I asked anything of you? Not much, not many, not very often.

    I need something from many of you: votes.

    What’s in it for you is lots and lots and lots of movies and, if I actually win this thing, 15 films.

    What happened was that I was futzing at home on my computer one afternoon after hearing that McDonald’s was going to be entering the coffee market. I don’t like coffee, I eschew everything coffee, I can’t relate to anyone anywhere when they talk about their morning fix and I certainly don’t understand the long queues that build up for people waiting in line to get that brown beverage.

    But what I can and do love is my iced mochas.

    That’s a drink I understand kicking down a door to get at if the time’s right.

    So, I found out that McDonald’s was offering iced mochas and a short time after I procured one I entered their McCafeYourDay contest. The contest wanted to know why you deserved to have your day, essentially, made better with $50,000.

    Well, I was coming off some fairly heady financial woes, those of you who have been affected by the recession know how much this thing has messed around with more than just one aspect of your life, and just wrote a passionate mini-missive about why I thought I deserved to win. They wanted a picture to go along with it and I uploaded one at the same time when I entered.

    I forgot about the contest a couple weeks after sending my entry in. Didn’t even give it a second thought.

    Lo and behold, a couple of weeks ago I received a FedEx in the mail letting me know I was a finalist in this contest. I had forgotten about what the prize was, forgotten about what I wrote and, just a few days ago, was on a call letting me know that my story was was going to compete with 4 others at Mcdonaldsmccafeyourday.com. I was just as shocked as anyone and was caught completely unaware that I even made it through the gauntlet of over 12,000 people who entered this contest.

    Voting goes from now until July 26th and you can use every e-mail in your arsenal once every 24 hours. The longer version of my story will be up at azcentral.com this weekend and I’ll be profiled in the local Scottsdale Republic here if you happen to live in the Scottsdale area. It’s a sappy story, one that’s a little too sensitive for me to copy and paste in here but here is what I want to offer anyone who is willing to toss a few votes my way.

    I am giving away a cinematic cavalcade of DVDs to one person who can send me a screenshot of their vote confirmation from their e-mail box. I will enter every screenshot for a drawing to get this pile. There is incentive galore at your fingertips so I hope if you have a church group, a room full of shut-ins with access to a computer or an honest way of spreading the word I will not only appreciate it but I will reward the effort with a glorious compendium of free movies.

    Go straight here (http://www.mcdonaldsmccafeyourday.com/) and help me win this thing. Even if you think I suck, shoot a vote my way and help out the cause, please?

    Again, I don’t ask much but I’m just looking for a vote. After you read the entry you’ll see what you would be helping to do.

    If you win the bushel of movies here is what’s included in the bonanza:

    DEATH RACE 2000, BLINDNESS, THE MUMMY 3, PINOCCHIO on Blu-ray, BOLT, WALL-E, CAPRICA, BURN AFTER READING, THE MINDSCAPE OF ALAN MOORE, A GALAXY FAR FAR AWAY, ROLE MODELS, WANTED, CHOCOLATE, SWING VOTE and HELLBOY II.

    Good luck to everyone”¦ (And thanks to all those who have already voted and sent in their screenshots. I appreciate every, single, vote.)

    COMIC-CON AUGHT 9

    comicconSo, wi-fi sucks and so does every hotspot that wants a 10 spot to log on to their already crappy service. Before heading out for my Friday activities (1:1s with a mess off great people and panels that I hope are worth waiting for) I wanted to let you know that you can follow my stream of consciousness through my Twitter strteam: STIPP. Some of the highlights from yesterday include:

    Seeing DISTRICT 9 – A fantastic science fiction film of the highest order and one that will will not disappoint anyone looking for a wild story intermeshed with some stunning visuals. Not to be missed.

    Talking to Mike Doughtery of TRICK R TREAT. From being the writer of X2 to fashioning a film that looks to embrace Halloween’s essence he was incredibly engaging and it will be shared right here in the near future.

    TRON 2 press conference. Talking to Jeff “The Dude” Bridges was a thrill if only tempered by the fact that it was a moment shared with a few dozen other reporters.

    Tim Burton of ALICE IN WONDERLAND. The man’s got his own vision to be sure and he was a riot to listen to as he broke down his idea about what ALICE should be.

    There’ll be more to come so stay plugged in all weekend…

    (500) DAYS OF SUMMER

    500daysposterBoy meets girl. Boy falls in love. Girl doesn’t.

    This post modern love story is never what we expect it to be – it’s thorny yet exhilarating, funny and sad, a twisted journey of highs and lows that doesn’t quite go where we think it will. When Tom, a hapless greeting card copywriter and hopeless romantic, is blindsided after his girlfriend Summer dumps him, he shifts back and forth through various periods of their 500 days “together” to try to figure out where things went wrong. His reflections ultimately lead him to finally rediscover his true passions in life.

    I know it’s little more than hyperbole on my part but this is going to be a film you’re going to be talking about in effusive praise as the film breaks wide.

    What separates this film from a lot of other less interesting takes on the nature of relationships that men and women find themselves falling into and out of is its originality. It’s difficult to mine a topic that has been done so many ways since time immemorial but what makes 500 DAYS OF SUMMER so precious is that they’ve found a way to do it again and do it in a pastiche of pleasure and pain.

    In wanting to tell a story that doesn’t drip with the falsities of what happens between two people who come together this film goes beyond the tropes and trappings of less than fulfilling romantic narratives which usually end in perfectly predictable ways. Writers Scott Neustadter and Michael H. Weber have written a story that doesn’t try to be too dour, too deep or emotive. Rather, what they do manage to craft, and why this movie sticks to the ribs of your heart long after you realize what the narrator said in the beginning is true, is a story that tells what it’s like to really fall in love and have it fall apart. Such a simple premise, and I realize that in other hands this could have been yet another film in a long string of sub-par romance tales, but it’s the non sequential storytelling that at least primes the pump for an engaging movie experience.

    After we’ve established that the story is not going to flow in normal order, some of the thrill is not knowing which in the 500 days you’re going to get next, almost like a visual Choose Your Own Adventure novella, we are beautifully ballasted by the school boy charms of Joseph Gordon-Levitt who simply plays a man named Tom and the girl-you-always-wished-lived-next-door in Zooey Deschanel as Summer. These two are matched up in a way that at once feels right and exciting; you can actually buy into the idea that this budding hipster could actually woo a woman of Zooey’s pedigree. She’s not portrayed as a woman who’s playing hard to get but, and this is absolutely where you have to praise the talents of the writers, she’s a woman who is independent and played as such throughout the movie. There is no abandoning the sense of who Summer is as a woman simply because she gets with a man like Tom. You want to think that everyone is able to cast aside their childish things once love walks into their lives, and certainly Tom does, but Summer stays constant and, I would posit, only heightens the searing pain of what happens when Tom’s devotion, dedication and dreams aren’t enough to make a whole.

    Gordon-Levitt hasn’t been this arresting since his turn in THE LOOKOUT, his portrayal as Tom is alarmingly resonant to anyone who has loved so hard but ends up having nothing to show for it. Tom’s eventual meltdown in a staff meeting is particularly poignant as even though it’s played for dramatic effect and is obviously going for the overtly overwrought, despondent aspects of a man in a slight depression it’s psychologically telling as something that any human being who can’t make sense of their own emotional lives could relate to. As well, Gordon-Levitt, once he does get back on his emotional feet and has brushed off his shoulders a bit delivers a subtle, yet stinging, turn as Summer comes back into his life in a wedding sequence that kicks any man in the spiritual nut sack when you realize he’s still hanging on to “What if” instead of realizing it’s “What already was.”

    Deschanel, for her part, mystifies. She’s a tough mistress in that she never gives us what we all want from her and that’s for Summer to realize that Tom loves her, that it should be enough for her to believe in but that there is more going on than any of us realize. Like it was mentioned, she’s her own woman but that only increases her attractiveness. She doesn’t fall into the usual trappings of young lovers or infatuation or any of the feelings that always befall her cinematic equals. We love her in this film because she is still herself, is gorgeously depicted as a woman who has a bedroom smile that you wish you could awake to, a demeanor that won’t allow stupidity but who ultimately will make you work for her affection.

    The truly arresting moments come in the film’s quieter times. When Tom picks a fight with a guy who is obnoxiously coming on to Summer, and it’s a time when you can see the writers at work crafting a moment for a specific reason, that it doesn’t feel organic, the ultimate resolution of the fight between Summer and Tom is gorgeously shot and is bathed in the kind of silence that apologies without recriminations sometimes have.

    On the opposite end of the heady and heavy you have Paul, McKenzie and Rachel. Played by Matthew Gray Gubler, Geoffrey Arend and Chloe Moretz, respectively, they represent Tom’s two closest friends in the film and Tom’s very young sister to whom he tells everything. These three represent the comedic relief in the film and while they do feel like they’re serving the story’s purpose of lightening the mood they are by no means wasted. Gubler is absolutely charming as Tom’s confidant, Arend is positively hilarious and wish I had followed that man’s love trajectory and Moretz is the film’s other female element and she plays it well, her youth is in stark contrast to the maturity the writers have imbued her with but it’s positively welcomed. Along these comedic lines there is a song and dance number by Hall and Oats that should absolutely become your go-to mental representation should you ever hear the ditty outside of the theater.

    And that’s the other thing.

    Kudos to the film’s director, Marc Webb, for choosing a soundtrack that isn’t a bunch of shoegazing emo idiots slapped together for the sake of molding a hipster mix tape. A song by the aforementioned Hall and Oats, a karaoke version of “Here Comes Your Man” by the Pixies from a wicked Gordon-Levitt who knows how to rock a mic and scads of other musical nuances round out an ephemeral environment that feels very real to those in this film. Webb deftly allows these two to become more than just prototypical constructs and those who want to take issue with the idea that we’ve been here, we’ve done that so many times miss the point that if you were to look at what people have been given as a cinematic representation of love in all its trappings and pitfalls we have not been given a movie that makes you understand why we’re all willing to do it all over again. And again.

  • Trailer Park: $50,000 For Me And 15 Movies For You.

    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.

    McCafe MY Day

    mccafe

    How often have I asked anything of you? Not much, not many, not very often.

    I need something from many of you: votes.

    What’s in it for you is lots and lots and lots of movies and, if I actually win this thing, 15 films.

    What happened was that I was futzing at home on my computer one afternoon after hearing that McDonald’s was going to be entering the coffee market. I don’t like coffee, I eschew everything coffee, I can’t relate to anyone anywhere when they talk about their morning fix and I certainly don’t understand the long queues that build up for people waiting in line to get that brown beverage.

    But what I can and do love is my iced mochas.

    That’s a drink I understand kicking down a door to get at if the time’s right.

    So, I found out that McDonald’s was offering iced mochas and a short time after I procured one I entered their McCafeYourDay contest. The contest wanted to know why you deserved to have your day, essentially, made better with $50,000.

    Well, I was coming off some fairly heady financial woes, those of you who have been affected by the recession know how much this thing has messed around with more than just one aspect of your life, and just wrote a passionate mini-missive about why I thought I deserved to win. They wanted a picture to go along with it and I uploaded one at the same time when I entered.

    I forgot about the contest a couple weeks after sending my entry in. Didn’t even give it a second thought.

    Lo and behold, a couple of weeks ago I received a FedEx in the mail letting me know I was a finalist in this contest. I had forgotten about what the prize was, forgotten about what I wrote and, just a few days ago, was on a call letting me know that my story was was going to compete with 4 others at Mcdonaldsmccafeyourday.com. I was just as shocked as anyone and was caught completely unaware that I even made it through the gauntlet of over 12,000 people who entered this contest.

    Voting goes from now until July 26th and you can use every e-mail in your arsenal once every 24 hours. The longer version of my story will be up at azcentral.com this weekend and I’ll be profiled in the local Scottsdale Republic here if you happen to live in the Scottsdale area. It’s a sappy story, one that’s a little too sensitive for me to copy and paste in here but here is what I want to offer anyone who is willing to toss a few votes my way.

    I am giving away a cinematic cavalcade of DVDs to one person who can send me a screenshot of their vote confirmation from their e-mail box. I will enter every screenshot for a drawing to get this pile. There is incentive galore at your fingertips so I hope if you have a church group, a room full of shut-ins with access to a computer or an honest way of spreading the word I will not only appreciate it but I will reward the effort with a glorious compendium of free movies.

    Go straight here (http://www.mcdonaldsmccafeyourday.com/) and help me win this thing. Even if you think I suck, shoot a vote my way and help out the cause, please?

    Again, I don’t ask much but I’m just looking for a vote. After you read the entry you’ll see what you would be helping to do.

    If you win the bushel of movies here is what’s included in the bonanza:

    DEATH RACE 2000, BLINDNESS, THE MUMMY 3, PINOCCHIO on Blu-ray, BOLT, WALL-E, CAPRICA, BURN AFTER READING, THE MINDSCAPE OF ALAN MOORE, A GALAXY FAR FAR AWAY, ROLE MODELS, WANTED, CHOCOLATE, SWING VOTE and HELLBOY II.

    Good luck to everyone…

    COMIC-CON – 2009

    comicconSo, who’s going next week? I know many of you are planning to descend on the land that is known for its temperate climate and willingness to let hoards of geeks and nerds pick apart San Diego in a frenzy that only would have heightened my sense of geekery had I started attending when I was 13.

    Alas, I was in my late 20’s before I went to my very first one and this year celebrates my 6th straight year going to this cavalcade of comics and cinema. Those of you who are going, and have gone before, know what a violent ride we’re all in for as no one is safe from the “red shirts” of Elite Security who seem to know nothing more than their name, their hair color and that, “You can’t enter here!” Even someone like me, who is already being left off the lists of many events where the mighty will mingle I am just happy to be getting the drippings from the table.

    Focus Features, it should be yelled from the mountaintops, are one of the studios who I love, love, love working with at the Comic-Con. They may concern themselves with wondering whether you’re worthy enough to be talking to those they’re bringing to the Con but from getting invited to a cocktail party to help spread the awareness of their film 9 to getting invited to the screening of their new film THIRST to getting a Comic-Con Survival kit in the mail and then following that up with this rather large pouch of simulated blood (one of the best promo items I’ve seen this year) I can’t say enough about this studio who really does have a human touch.

    I am still unsure of what I’ll be doing while there, I got confirmation of a possible 1:1 with a director that many of you would dig to read about, a 1:1 with some people who have a film this year that I’ve heard is completely and homogeneously great and a handful of other things that still haven’t been finalized yet. As we head closer just pay attention to my Twitter feed, @Stipp, to see what and where I’ll be.

    So, don’t be shy! Shoot me a note and let me know if you’ll be around…

    Plus, be sure to stop by Geek Monthly’s booth, 4112. Geek Monthly will be running a piece I did on the John Hughes documentary you’ve seen here in their August issue.

    Thanks to Ed Douglas of ComingSoon.net for supplying the photo of his own pouch of Capri-Sun blood.

    FUNNY PEOPLE – SCREENING

    fp_feild_300x250Many of you in Phoenix and beyond who have been hitting me up for screening passes have been just great in showing up and enjoying these films. Since the response has been so good on my end in getting these tickets out to those who love a good free film I once again have passes to see a sneak preview.

    This time it’s FUNNY PEOPLE, starring Adam Sandler and Seth Rogen, and the screening will be Tuesday, July 28th at 7:00 p.m. at Tempe Marketplace in Tempe, AZ. If you’re interested in seeing this film hit me up at Christopher_Stipp@yahoo.com and just let me know you want tickets. It’s just that simple and I hope to see you there. For those who need a synopsis, here it is:

    Over the past few years, writer/director Judd Apatow (The 40-Year-Old Virgin, Knocked Up) has shown that nothing – not even losing your virginity or the miracle of childbirth – is sacred. About his third film behind the camera, he says, “I’m trying to make a very serious movie that is twice as funny as my other movies. Wish me luck!” Apatow directs Adam Sandler, Seth Rogen and Leslie Mann in Funny People, the story of a famous comedian who has a near-death experience.

    Adam Sandler, Eric Bana, Jason Schwartzman, RZA and newcomer Aubrey Plaza join a cast that reunites Judd Apatow with Seth Rogen, Leslie Man and Jonah Hill in their third comedy together.

    HURT LOCKER/LIGHTBULB – REVIEWS

    Summer of our Discontent ““ Maybe

    Has the droning of explosives and colliding metal have you down yet? Why are so many movie previews starting to look the same with hard driving soundtracks, jacked up heroes that have less personality than a Ken doll without a thought behind their dialogue and special effects that are no longer special ““ merely hum-drum ““ attempting to maintain an artificial heartbeat in a DOA story? You cannot blame it all on the Peter Pan prone movie executives and filmmakers that have not matured since the age of 12. Part of the blame is on the movie-going audience that insists on getting suckered in on what they think is going to be special. The marketing and commercial community has finally taken over the entertainment industry by parlaying crap on a stick and making so many think it is steak on fine china. If that was not enough, now we are about to be inundated with 3D kiddie-fare; some computer animation is getting as mundane as President Obama’s stand-up routines.

    I defy anybody to come out of a set of previews from “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen” (By “Fallen” does that mean the money out of our pockets and our hopes for a better movie?), G.I. Joe: The Rise of the Cobra, Terminator Salvation, Gamer and X Men Origins: Wolverine and tell me they don’t all look like the same movie. It is homogenized action without a thought of creativity and depth.

    Then there is the promise of action with two great stars and a hit-and-miss director at the helm of, “Public Enemies”. First off, why would anybody cast Johnny Depp as John Dillinger? Would it not make more sense to have him portray “Pretty Boy” Floyd or “Baby Face” Nelson in a different movie? And, did we not just see this story from a less than enthusiastic film, but with at least two bravura performances, Sean Connery and Robert DeNiro? If you can’t do better than the last film ““ don’t even bother. Speaking of which, “Taking of Pelham 1, 2, 3” is leaving theaters faster than a speeding subway. Also, below ground and already buried is the absent of laughs comedies “Year One” and “Land of the Lost”. Why does Jack Black insist on undermining himself after gaining our trust with “Tropic Thunder”? The Harold Ramis moaner is more slap-dash than “Mel Brook’s History of the World Part 1” and “Caveman” with far less entertainment value. I’d say wait for the DVD, but I would not suggest wasting one’s time even if it were on free cable. As for “LOTL” no “lol” here, just stupid jokes with dinosaurs that are far less entertaining than the ones in “Ice Age” ““ a bad TV show made into a worse movie.

    If there is a glimmer of hope and a reason to get your butt back in a theater seat it began with J.J. Abrams’ re-imagining of “Star Trek”. For all those non-Trekkies, which I can be included, my wife who stays away from anything science fiction ““ especially “Star Trek” ““ actually enjoyed the movie. If you are not a fan, it’s almost as much fun as having seen “Star Wars” for the first time. If you are a fan ““ it’s the wet dream you’ve been waiting for. Following the fun of it all is another Pixar great, “Up” and that’s exactly how one feels coming out. This may be the very best yet from Pixar. For those opposed to “cartoons” it’s time to have an open mind and treat yourself to one of the most lovingly created stories that will have you laugh as well as cry. Even my 15-year-old shed a tear, and that’s a first in a movie. It is wildly creative and may rank up there with, I dare say, “Wizard of Oz”.
    As for laughs, “The Hangover” has caught everyone by surprise including myself with a great cast of characters and comic timing that has some doubled-over hysterical. It’s refreshing to go into a comedy and laughing nearly all the way through rather than just walking out with a memorable scene or two ““ kinda like having the experience of buying a CD of your favorite band and only getting two or three worthwhile songs. Speaking of memorable, “the stripper with the heart of gold” is given genuine warmth with an engaging performance by Heather Graham. The Tyson scene is not as much fun as expected, but the rest of the hijinks more than makes up for it, especially the ending with some of the raunchiest, but flat-out funny pictures I’ve seen in years. The film proves to be another hit for director Todd Phillips of “Old School”.

    A Hell Lot of Hurtin’ Goin’ On

    That’s more than enough commentary, now for a review or two owed to you. If there is one movie that will take you places few ever do and leave you exhausted, yet wanting more it is Kathryn Bigelow’s “The Hurt Locker”. What “The Wrestler” did for Mickey Rourke, “THL” should do for Bigelow. After seeing this monumental achievement of guts, glory, action/drama mixed with a little testosterone humor you may walk away shaken and wondering where on earth has the real Bigelow been. After blowing everyone away with one of the very best vampire films ever, “Near Dark,” Bigelow went on to empty-headed action with “Blue Steel” and “Point Break”. She showed some promise with “K-19: The Widowmaker,” but now, 20+ years later, she proves to be that force to be reckoned with once again with her latest thought-provoking venture into knee-jerking suspense.

    THL chronicles the life and death struggles of a bomb disposal unit in Iraq while also giving us a glimpse not only of the unnerving ticking of bombs, but inside the head of the highly-trained men that risk their lives every moment of every day. Talk about adrenalin junkies. Bigelow displays what we’ve turned these boys into and what little they may have to look forward to as they come back home”¦if ever. In that sense, the film nearly echoes the sensitivity of “The Deer Hunter” yet Bigelow is far subtler in her message. The real shell shock of this story is not only does the director make you feel like you’re in Iraq through her documentary-style take, but also ups the ante with freestyle kills. No one is safe in “The Hurt Locker,” not even our lead. I don’t think I’ve been this surprised about characters dying in a film since Hitchcock’s, “Psycho”. This leaves us on edge at every unsettling empty garbage-ridden street, deserted building and even child that may appear to be a friendly street urchin hawking chocolates and DVDs.

    This is not a one-note movie ““ just waiting for the next bomb to be discovered. In fact, the first scene is so meticulously set up, one begins to wonder, “Have we just seen the best part?’ It’s one showstopper after another coupled with layers of sub-stories. How dangerous is Staff Sgt. William James to his men? How far will the men back him or will they follow through on plans to kill him so they may save themselves? Who will survive the next day out? Is their life after war and what is it worth? How well can one operate after an all-night drinking binge? What is the value of human life? The list goes on and on.

    All the performances are natural and lend credence of realism that few movies match these days. From the street urchin and his adult partner to Anthony Mackie’s strong play-by-the-rules Sgt. Sanborn. The players almost come across organic with the story itself with one exception, Jeremy Renner’s bravado performance of Staff Sgt. William James. Can we say a star is born? His persona captures a cross between a young Alan Ladd and John Wayne. Yet he is able to show a vulnerable side that takes us by surprise. Dare I even say that Renner’s performance will probably prove to be one of the breakout performances of the year? He exudes a charisma rarely seen in film today and infuses it with a natural performance that goes way beyond action hero just like the way Bigelow has orchestrated her film.

    This is the “must see” film of the summer. It has all the action one desires out of a summer movie and a great story that captivates us from start to finish. Bigelow, the crew and the cast are to be lauded for a film that may not be as big as “Apocalypse Now” or “The Deer Hunter” but has all the power packed in its small frame. It’s also a testament to our men and women in the Middle East. I encourage anyone 15 and older to see this intense portrait of war.

    Speaking of urging one to catch great work”¦

    Phoenix Film Festival: Gamer Dysfunction, Breakfast Club Meets Clerks, and a Bright Idea From a Couple of Dim Bulbs

    386When I last reported on this site, I happen to mention I would finish up my take on a few other gems from the Phoenix Film Festival. I find it sad that so many turds have made their way to the screen with marketing budgets that nearly rival the film itself while smaller and vastly more entertaining fare has been virtually ignored. I guess it’s the way of the business ““ a fine female body draped over a motorcycle and nondescript machinery plowing into one another over a down-to-earth story that could actually makes us feel human again.

    While at the festival I had the pleasure of checking out the feature film competition. A combination of quirks, jerks and even Turks. The funny thing is that the titles of some of the better films (and the winner of best picture) were less than enthusiastic. Even the posters were dull and the synopses in the program did not make one want to run out and buy a ticket. Perhaps that’s why some of these features were pleasant surprises, but marketing really needs to step it up a notch or two.

    First off, “Corpse Run” the trials and tribulations of a group of dysfunctional gamers and the individual among them that starts to question who, what and where they are. Think of “The Big Chill” fast-forwarded to the age of gamers. It’s an interesting premise that is not as slick as TBC, but has something to say for those then and now. It’s generation gamer angst and if you are a gamer, which there is a whole generation of, you are likely to pick up on the flippant jargon far easier than most.

    John-Michael Thomas (writer/director) plays Nick, the young man questioning life outside the box. He opens with a chronicle of how he and his generation became hooked on this alternative, and to some preferable, lifestyle. It’s amusing to see the evolution from the game of “Pong” to “Atari” “Nintendo” and beyond. How the invention of video games has captured a generation while creating a barrier nearly sheltering themselves from real people and emotions can be fascinating. But I have to admit; this reviewer’s age may have caught up with him and the fact that I never went any further than an hour with the game “Diablo”. Perhaps this is why I felt my interest wane on the film.

    The players are amusing ““ especially Brea Adams (before “Heroes”). She is fun to watch and adds a bright light to the dark cloud that follows the group that sometimes comes across pitiful. If I sound schizoid with this review ““ it’s because I am. At one point I admired Thomas for his valiant effort and originality, but as the film progressed I found myself getting antsy with an urge to play my PS3 rather than continuing watching others discover themselves outside a world of made up heroes, villains and monsters. It may be too early to consider writer/director/actor Thomas a triple threat, but that does not mean he’s not one to watch out for. He shows promise in all three and most likely has an audience for this film that should really be pushed at any comic con or gamer convention.

    “The Waiting List” is an odd piece that seems to divide an audience ““ men enjoyed the sarcasm and witty humor while some women may have laughed but were left unfulfilled. A group of parents attempt to get their kids into the most prestigious pre-school in the area. They have to spend the night in order to get on the school’s precious “waiting list.” I hate to keep making past movie references, but this cries out like Breakfast Club meets Clerks with parental angst. Now that may sound like a possible bummer, but it’s not largely due to the amiable cast and some very clever dialogue.

    The standout amongst the parents is Chris played by Jayme S. Hall who also is the comic relief, a stay-at-home dad with no filter accompanying his thoughts regarding sex, kids, pregnant women, Dora the Explorer. This character is written with such glee and Hall gives a very funny, flippant performance that also touches the heart. I would say that his is the primary reason to see the film, but it’s not. There are genuine moments between Teresa Decher as Ella and Audrey Walker as Audrey. Ella is a teen who may or may not be pregnant and struggling with the notion of it while questioning Audrey who could be giving birth that week. It’s a casual and fun dynamic that does not hit us over the head with moral issues. Instead, it allows us to play with the complexities in our heads.

    Then there is Ben (Bryce Flint-Somerville), the uptight, blackberry cursed, henpecked/work worn father who just needs a break. Unfortunately, he meets up with an old flame played with evil deliciousness by Kathryn Englund. She is the all-consuming bitch that plays hall monitor and snake, attempting everything she can to claw her way to a higher spot on the list so her son can be guaranteed a seat in the precious school. Ben is a great foil and one cannot help cheer for him at every turn. We feel his pain and laugh at it at the same time.

    The film does wander off at times in its rhythm, but just before it loses you Hall breaks in with another funny bit that reels us back in. Budget constraint aside, “The Waiting List” is worthwhile with a cast that is worth the wait.

    And, for those of you who might have lost hope in seeing greatness in a small film again, rejoice with another Jeremy Renner (The Hurt Locker) star-turn and voted best feature length film at the Phoenix Film Festival “Lightbulb”. Attention creative parties of this film, can we at least attach an exclamation point at the end to give this wonderful feature a marketing chance? This was truly a surprise hit at the festival along with the background of writer/producer Mike Cramm. Audiences kept growing with every performance and the word of mouth spread like wild fire. Funny, touching, and sincere in its character portrayal, “Lightbulb” wins one over by its simple story telling, but eventually throws you a curve ball with its remarkable ending that goes way beyond the norm of comedies of late. In fact, writer, Cramm and director Jeffrey Balsmeyer (the quirky British comedy,” Danny Deck Chair”) have crafted the closest thing to the comedies of Frank Capra in a long time.

    Renner is Sam, a sales and pitchman for his long time buddy and failed inventor Matt, played with frustrating warmth by Dallas Roberts. Their journey into the madness of small time inventions ending up on late night TV is a new twist on buddy movies and road comedies. To couple that with a ridiculous, yet genuine addiction to gambling makes for a story where we end up loving and caring for all involved. The next best thing since the pet rock or gia-pet may be just around the corner, but in the meantime, heartbreak, angst and disappointment are the hurdles one must jump several times over with rarely an end to the race of success. Along the way, Ayelet Zurer (Munich, Angels & Demons) is Gina, a grounding rod for the antics of the two and Matt’s long suffering girlfriend who unfortunately enables all of his foils for her devotion to him.

    Writer, Cramm has written a remarkable comedy/drama that sneaks up and attacks from behind. What at first comes across aimless and lighthearted eventually is thought provoking and inspiring. It’s like the title of his piece, “Lightbulb,” it seems like nothing special till it is turned on and sheds a whole new light. Director Balsmeyer knows exactly what he has been handed and plays it with wonderful alacrity. Renner and Roberts make a great team and we feel their frustration with every downfall. It just gets worse by the moment and we are surprised, saddened and laughing at the same time. This film and its cast are too good to ignore. This is Cramm’s first script and he should be applauded for a story that is a step above so many others with carefully drawn characters that touch are soul and make us thankful that there are a still a few artists left in an industry of tinker toys.

  • Trailer Park: Jeremy Renner of THE HURT LOCKER

    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.

    hurt_locker_posterBelieve me, the irony of talking to Jeremy Renner of THE HURT LOCKER in a restaurant that was located right next to an armed forces recruiting station was not lost on me.

    Meeting Renner while he was finishing an English muffin and his eggs, the man powered through 1:1’s whilst pounding his breakfast, was one of the more remarkable events with those I’ve interviewed this year as he seemed so pleased to be there talking about the film. As well as he should because THE HURT LOCKER is every bit as good as you’ve been hearing for a few notable reasons:

    1. It tells a powerful story without ever leaning on manipulation in an unfair manner

    2. It has moments of true tension and thrills that seem to go on an unnervingly long while

    3. Jeremy Renner is at once commanding, arresting and likable in every regard

    There’s a moment when Renner has to try and free a man who has come into contact with a suicide bomb. The whole sequence is shot so well that you ought to be ashamed if for one moment you don’t think it’s thrilling, frightening and exhilarating. And the whole film is littered with these kinds of powerful scenes and speaks to the strength of the material, the director and Renner’s ability to navigate the waters of being part badass and part savior.

    Meeting him in person was a thrill if for no other reason than this movie confirms my sense that Renner simply makes a movie better. 28 WEEKS LATER was, without question, made better with him in it and now THE HURT LOCKER succeeds because he sells us, the audience, that he is a bomb technician that is the same time crazy and completely in control of every situation. You absolutely need to see this film in the theater this summer as you can’t match its emotional punch.

    CHRISTOPHER STIPP:  I know this is the tail end of a long press junket and people are now starting to talk about this movie with greater frequency. You did this movie because you believed it in but what do you think of how well this movie is being received so positively?

    JEREMY RENNER: It’s better than a stick in the eye, I’ll tell you that.  It’s pretty amazing.  It really, really is.  Across the board to get so many people to respond to that I’m kind of speechless when it comes to that.  I’m not a big fan of reviews but I’m certainly a big fan of people watching it and being affected by it.  I don’t care if they love it or hate it but I care if they are affected by something.  To me, the best kind of cinema is if I think something or feel something different or it’s dialogue afterwords, but also being entertained.  That’s my favorite kind of cinema and that’s the kind of cinema I like to do and I feel that this movie does that.  Get your heart pumping, get you thinking and it astounds me that people dig it so much.  It’s a weird feeling.

    the-hurt-locker_1231882171_640wCS:  Mark Boal helped write this film.  He’s phenomenal at removing the political elements by simply focusing on characters.  With the flood of war movies that have come out his have stood out because he’s able to separate that.  When you first got the script and met with Mark, did he break it down and tell you that he wanted this film to be specifically about these guys and their job and not focus on the ancillary aspects?

    RENNER: That was more Kathryn conversations I had initially and then I got into talking with Mark about it later on.  I actually spent more than a year with them before starting shooting.  Initially when I first read it I thought I hope there is no weird secret sneaky sodomizing message happening here because there is no place in art ““ politics does not belong in art.  Leave it to Obama and everybody else to be in politics.  Cinema is for other things I think.  I just don’t think that’s OK.  So that was squelched very quickly after I talked to Mark and Kathryn about EOD and the focus about that job.  There’s so much interest in that alone, you don’t have to put in any extra message to try and make the film more important.  It’s already important because of this job that nobody knows about.

    STIPP:  I just read that among those in it EOD means EveryOneDivorced.  It’s completely stressful.  I think it’s funny that they look for people that are emotionally stable yet on the backside of it, something happens.  What did you find out through the course of your training getting ready for this ““ I read numerous interviews already that you said when you put on that suit it lowers your IQ completely.  When you talked to these guys, why do they do what they do?  They want to be helpful and want to help their country but deep down what’s the driving force?

    RENNER: Everyone is different.  If you talk to race car drivers their reasons are different as to why they do what they do.  That’s what separates them as individuals.  That’s what makes them individuals.  It’s what fuels us to do what we do.  For some people it was a pay upgrade, and for some people, it interests them.  Why?  There’s a thousand reasons.  It’s very specific things for them.  It’s so cinematic this movie and coming up with reasons why they do it we tried to make it as realistically as possible.  It sounds so un-cinematic to say, “I want a pay upgrade and better benefits when I get out of the Army.”  Do you know what I mean?  That sounds so unromantic.  But that’s the reality.  For some it’s because they are lifers, they’ve done four tours and they are in it.  A lot will become civil servants.  There is something inside of them that they feel, and I can only say what they feel.

    It’s hard.

    They would explain to me that they would become teachers or firefighters or police officers or something like that.  Something where they feel like they are doing something important.  Something where you feel like you are helping people ““ where you can give something.  As you can imagine that is very gratifying to a human being.  You sleep well at night and think if I died tomorrow I feel like I made a mark on the planet.  And, I feel like I’m OK.  I think that’s the driving force.  There’s nothing wrong with staying home and driving a fork lift for Costco.  My cousin is doing that right now.  Nothing wrong with that at all.  I wish I was doing that and it was making me happy because being an actor ““ there’s nothing really that great about it.  I have an amazing life but he knows when his vacation is and there is just good and bad with everything why people do what they do.  Sorry for the long-winded answer but it’s hard to explain that.  If someone can figure that out”¦..it’s pretty complex.

    65thvenicefilmfestivalhurtlockerphotocall7z6eybo8amxlCS:  So what is it about your character?  You see these movies where you have the maverick ““ the “You’re out of line, soldier!” cliche ““ it sort of begins that way because you want to sleep with unbarricaded windows where the mortars might come in, but there’s that moment, that sniper moment, which was not only genuine but it was heartfelt.  How important was that to you to show that sort of swagger but then show that element of, “I’m here because I really want to make a difference and I want to protect my crew as well?”  How hard was it to strike that balance?

    RENNER: It was written so brilliantly but also had some things that needed to be done without words.  And Kathryn was really great at capturing those things.  We vibed together so well, even though I rarely saw her because the sets were so big. Why we got along so well is because she is a painter, she’s a genius.  She’s such a voyeur and will capture all the little things hopefully that I thought I was giving (with Anthony) and we would dialogue about these things ““ they didn’t just happened that day a lot of times  -  but those aspects to James were really important.  Those sniper scenes ““ they were really important for my relationship with Anthony’s character and Brian’s character ““ really important.

    More important than that, to me, was the relationship with the boy.  That really elevated my character to me.  It humanized him more.  It made him weak.  There’s a downhill spiral for him.  He goes way out of line at that point ““ putting a face to death at that point.  The black suit guy at the end ““ so much is very telling and it informed me as the actor playing that role what that was.  On paper is one thing, but doing it, being a part of it and reacting to it, that always gives me a map how to play the character.  I feel it’s instinctual at times.

    CS:  Years ago I talked to a guy who made the documentary, GUNNER PALACE, about some guys who served in Iraq. The director mentioned that some guys who used to travel the highways in Iraq with their guns pointed out the window that when they come home, it’s almost like muscle memory, where they had to re assimilate to civilian life. When your character comes back and he’s standing in that cereal aisle,  I get it, but I think Kathryn captures that perfectly how guys can go into that situation and come home and pick out cereal.  Did Mark or Kathryn have that conversation that this guy is going back because this is what he wants to do, this is what he knows how to do, that real life just isn’t going to cut it?

    RENNER: That was my first question to Kathryn after I read the script.  I hadn’t even met Kathryn.  I was in London and I read the script and couldn’t put it down.  I wrote three pages of questions and answers about this character and about this movie, ideas, thoughts, a lot of different things.  So when I talked to Kathryn my first question was, “How do you want your audience to feel at the end of this movie as he’s walking into the sunset essentially back in the war? ‘Maybe I’ll tell you, maybe I wont’, it doesn’t really matter because it’s how anybody would feel about it.”  You just said.  So that told me a lot and just to be sure we were on the same page that’s what I took from it.  This is what’s he was going to do, this is what he’s good at, this is what fulfills him.  It took away the adrenaline junkie, the suicide aspect, check those off because those weren’t apart of him.  There might be a rush he gets from doing it but he enjoys what he does.  Like a downhill skier, there has to be a rush doing that.  But, is there a risk of death?  Probably slim going 80 miles an hour on two ski’s but you are doing what you love.  That’s enthralling.  That’s invigorating.  At first James feels like a thrill-junkie.  But, that’s not the case.  You realize that it becomes about the art of what he’s doing.  That’s why he saved all the bomb parts.  All these things were very informative as to what this character really is.

    the-hurt-locker-002-450CS:  And I’m glad you fought for that little nuance with him collecting the little bomb parts. These were brilliant choices and if you had a say in keeping that in, I think it’s important.  It’s who he is and who he wants to be.   And it’s interesting towards the end where you save the life of Owen and shoot him accidentally and he says are you doing it because it’s a thrill for you and it is hard to try and reconcile that it wasn’t.

    RENNER: I know.  We all had a difficult time shooting that scene.  First of all we had the helicopters going very loud and we were all disagreeing ““ the words were getting in the way.  It was being a thrill junkie mania or something ““ some of the words really bothered me ““ but let it be what it is ““ he’s sitting on a gurney pissed off, shot.  Maybe he says something that he means, maybe he doesn’t mean it.  But, yea, it could rub you the wrong way, it rubbed me the wrong way.  When he’s screaming at me, I thought we were understanding.  I thought to me people understood this character more.  But people are going to take what they want to take and see what they want to see.  It’s interesting that you point that particular moment out.

    CS:  And one of the cool things is that you are very musical with your characters.  Not sure if you did it for this guy like you have for other characters you’ve played ““ made a mix tape.

    RENNER: Yeah.

    CS: I’m interested to hear what kind of mix tape you gave this one…

    (Jeremy reaches into his pocket for his iPhone)

    RENNER: It might be on my cell phone.  I loved the play list so much I kept it for the gym or”¦.

    CS:  Doyle (from 28 WEEKS LATER)?

    RENNER: Doyle?  That wasn’t so memorable as The Hurt Locker.  Let me see if I have it.  I know that Muse is something I listen to all the time on it.  (He scans his phone) Where are you play list?

    CS:  What does it help you do, making that tape?

    RENNER: It can put me in a specific mind frame.  Put me in the right emotional state.  Music to me really lifts a moment.  If I’m not feeling connected, it can certainly connect me in a lot of different ways.  Sorry.  I love music so much.  Muse is a big one.  I like Patsy Cline.  You wouldn’t think that would be music for The Hurt Locker but in my mind this character is such an odd thing and James is alone on an island and an oddity himself, alone in his suit.  There’s something really different about him.  Somebody else might be jamming out to Zeppelin and he’s just ““ there’s just something interesting about that.  And Moonlight Sonata ““ always had the headphones when I had the suit on to find a place of peace.  So different things put me in different moods.

    65thvenicefilmfestivalhurtlockerphotocall7g7ayaxgichlCS:  I would have figured the character for some Nine Inch Nails.

    RENNER: Yeah, I had some of that on there.  The Muse that I had on there was some hard hitting stuff.  Some Radiohead.  Very tense.  Some AC/DC.  Bouncing around in the Humvee rocking out to AC/DC.  It just feels right.

    (Laughs)

    RENNER: Some 50 Cent ““ bouncing around.  It just put me in a different mood.

    CS:  I know I have to wrap it up…one of the last questions about the movie ““ I was so impressed when I saw it that this wasn’t shot in Toronto but right in the heart of the middle east.  It was something that could easily have been done on a back lot somewhere but this was filmed overseas.  How was it in that area?  It was a brilliant masterstroke of whoever said, “We should actually do this over there where it would feel more genuine.”  And it does do that.

    RENNER: The movie was to be made or broken, shooting in Amman, Jordan.  We were lucky to get that.  It could have been shot in Kuwait, which would have been fine or Morocco, which would have been great.  It was like a character in the film.  It made our movie.  We  could have done this in Bakersfield or in the desert in California or in a sound stage but the movie wouldn’t have been the movie that it is.  No matter how great Kathryn is, no matter how great the performances by these actors are.  Being in Amman, Jordan we just had to do it there.   It was absolute hell.  I wouldn’t want to do it again but I’m so glad we did it.  It was the most important thing.  We were shooting this movie with plastic guns but it didn’t matter because the surroundings were so real.

    It was reality.

    I wasn’t in fear of my life but this is as close as I ever want to get to war.  And it’s also a beautiful place.  The Red Sea, the Dead Sea, the treasury, riding camels.  This was really cool being there but hell to shoot there for us because we weren’t shooting in great locations.  We were shooting in refugee camps.  It felt a little weird.  If I’m an Iraqi and I escaped to save my family from the war  – usually those people have money.  Now you see Humvees rolling through.  That’s weird ““ I don’t know how to feel about that.  It was really interesting.  I learned a lot.  I learned so much.  Invaluable information for sure.

  • Trailer Park: DON’T YOU FORGET ABOUT ME

    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.

    And now, you can follow me on TWITTER under the name: Stipp

    parker_2305One of the things that instantly sprang to mind this past week when the first ever pictures of Sarah Jessica Parker and Matthew Broderick with their new brood hit the public hungry for celebrity photos wasn’t that here was a gorgeous family. No, my first reaction was, “When did Ferris Bueller start sporting mutton chops and a swooping, graying bob of a haircut that makes him look like an extra in a stage production of The Pirates of Penzance?”

    I am fully indoctrinated into the lasting effects of John Hughes’ films.

    One of the things that I’ve been working on for the past almost 2 and a half years is chasing down a story about a gaggle of filmmakers who went out to find out whether John Hughes still strikes a chord with today’s youth, decades after he made the core of his adolescent oeuvre, and to opine with some of the film’s stars about the process of working with the man who would be permanently a part of many teens who are now grown adults.

    What is striking about this is what while it’s taken such a long, long, long time to finally have a story to write about for you all to read about is that this couldn’t have been a more appropriately fitting story to share with an audience who has come this way via Kevin Smith, not only an appreciator of Hughes’ work but who makes an appearance in this documentary, DON’T YOU FORGET ABOUT ME. The four filmmakers who put themselves at the center of this film, Matt Austin, Michael Facciolo, Kari Hollend and Lenny Panzer, go out on a road trip to put together the legacy of what made Hughes so influential to them, to those who have seen his films, and to make their way to his front door. Literally.

    This is merely the beginning of a multi-part interview series with the film’s creative nerve center and to hopefully get all of you interested enough to pick up next month’s 80’s themed issue of GEEK MONTHLY magazine where I have written a full piece on this. As well, if you want some behind the scenes/on the cutting room floor snippets of the documentary please feel free to patronize these filmmakers’ blog right here. They are planning release this as a movie you’ll be able to directly buy but until that happens please enjoy the conversation below.

    johnCHRISTOPHER STIPP: Where to begin? It’s probably best to start where you and everyone else came together to want to do this.

    KARI HOLLEND: Matt and Lenny were the ones who came up with the idea this was their brain child. The two of them were working on writing a script together and they were trying to write a good coming of age teenage story and they started talking and obviously when you are going down that road John Hughes comes to mind and it sort of provoked the question ““ “What ever happened to the guy?”

    What ever happened to films like those and it became the bigger question and once they started talking about it they realized like there is no way we could ever write a script close to John Hughes ““ here’s an idea ““ why don’t we go figure out where the guy is. So I get a call from Matt who already had Michael and Lenny – at that time they were all actors as well. I am the only outcast who doesn’t act, or you could say sane person, and I get this call from Matt who I met once or twice and he’s like, “Kari, I have to come visit you at your office. I have this idea but need to pitch it to you in person.” So he came by but the original pitch of the documentary in the end is ironic ““ they had proposed that the four of us get on a bus ““ they wanted me to get on board and be a producer with them and then we get on a bus for two weeks and we travel across to Lake Forest, which is where John Hughes lives and we go to deliver a script to John Hughes and along the way we find out if anyone knows who he is, does anyone remember his films fondly, where do they fit in the world today? So I was kind of like, “You know what? I don’t really know you guys that well. I’m not getting on a fucking bus for two weeks to live on a school bus and I don’t really see that thing entertaining. I do like the idea of the John Hughes idea. Why don’t we work from there and formulate it?” We sort of left it at that and thought of who we could interview. Three days later we had Ally. She was our first yes and we are forever grateful.

    CS: That’s wild.

    HOLLEND: It was so fucked up. We were like, “OK, this is crazy.” I will just throw things out there and see what happens. I said, “Why don’t we see if anyone will even talk to us?” So, this was February of ’06 by the way. Then Matt emails me and says there is this John Hughes film festival at the University of Maryland in March. We should go check it out. So we thought it was really crazy that these university kids are having this film festival because that means they are aware and here becomes the beginning, the evolution of what our original thesis is and part of it today which is do people today relate to the Hughes films and do they relate to films of that genre today. So sure enough, we drive to Maryland ““ our first road trip of many ““ and that was really a big bonding experience for us. We didn’t really know each other that well. So we get in the car in March and in Toronto it’s still really snowy and kind of gross and Spring is looming and it’s around the corner and we drive to Maryland and it’s all beautiful and blossomed and warm and we get to the picturesque American town and University actually the town wasn’t so picturesque it was kind of ghetto but the University was beautiful and sure enough, we started talking to all these teenagers who started to unload on us about how they don’t make films like this any more, what’s wrong with Hollywood, we hate all the films today, we can’t relate to anyone. I believe one of the first quotes we got was “I relate to Molly Ringwald more than Jessica Alba ““ I just don’t look like that.”

    I’ve seen those films 100’s of times and they talked about where they saw them and it was either a hand down from their parents or TV. It was just a part of their world. You almost didn’t meet one person on that campus in their early 20’s who hadn’t seen some or all of the Hughes films. So, then it was like, “OK, we’re on to something, let’s do this documentary.” That March road trip was the kickoff.

    And even though the University was behind this film festival it was students who were running it and I think it showed us the voice is coming from the kids. It wasn’t the teachers saying let’s do this film festival for John ““ it was the kids, the students, saying this was important.

    And just to give you some insight none of us had ever done a documentary before. In the name of Kevin Smith, we said fuck it, he says to credit card it, let’s just keep going and rack up enough debt until we run out of money, someone will give us money. So at this point we had no funding. We were just like GO. We didn’t even have preproduction. We went from pitch to production. So you can imagine now as more experienced filmmakers we realize the importance of development and preproduction are so imperative and we basically did everything ass backwards. And it has made for a very entertaining line. So here we are again without a penny to our names, we all have our credit cards and what is in our bank accounts and we start to proceed and so begins the huge list, everyone we tried to contact and how we got all the interviews and what it took to get them.

    MICHAEL FACCIOLO: And you know, following up on what she’s saying one of the things that after she said yes it kind of became a real snowball effect.

    CS: How did you find that getting answers to how these unknowns became known actors?

    HOLLEND: We got to interview Jackie Burch who was the casting director for 16 Candles and Breakfast Club.

    She mentioned how the Jake Ryan character almost wasn’t cast ““ all these stories about how she found these kids and Judd Nelson’s character Bender ““ wore the clothes he was wearing to the audition. The clothes that he wore in the Breakfast Club ““ his character – was a direct reflection of who he was during the audition. He wasn’t a known actor yet and Jackie was one of our first yes’s and she gave us this incredible interview. Everyone who came on board was very generious two of the biggest ones, Louise Ward and Pam Silverstien. They both came on board early on and helped to shepherd us as did Jackie. They put out their feelers and were really supporting us. My first call to Louise ““ she’s this amazing woman, very intelligent, and has the craziest vocabularies she asked me, “So, who else do you have?” And at that point I think I only had Ally and someone else and she was like, “Oh honey. You need some help ““ you can’t go calling people and tell them that you have one person. Don’t you have John Hughes?”

    That is when she took pity on us and decided to shepard us.

    sixteenCS: When you first started rolling tape and you don’t have a real thesis in mind other than to find out the cultural impact of John Hughes, what were you finding in your dailies and going back finding out what people were saying, were there any surprises when you started to take a look at the footage?

    FACCIOLO: When we looked back at the footage? Like what was the feeling of the responses we were getting while it was happening?

    CS: Right. Anything your were assuming going in that maybe you weren’t …

    HOLLEND: We started to ask, “Where did you go, John Hughes, in the middle of Hollywood?” People are not happy. Not just the people working in the system but people who are going to see films and paying $20.00 plus for the experience and coming out really unfulfilled. We went back to the drawing board…how a film gets made ““ we almost had too much to talk about. For example, we met with a guy and this is already a year and a half into it who does market research for the studios and talked about the process now vs. then. “You could never make Breakfast Club now in a studio,” he said, “One location. All dialogue. It’s like, where’s the sex, drugs, everything, you know?” So, really the idea of how Hollywood changed became a focus point. We didn’t have any studio executives as it was difficult to get them on camera and then halfway though we finally got some to sit down with us to talk about how the system has changed. , I don’t think that’s coming back into the documentary because that veers into a whole other film we will show some of the footage on our blog.

    We started to realize that what was going to make our film better was to let things be assumed and not hit them over the head. So by hearing teenagers say “I’m not happy” and hearing the actors talk about what it took to make the films back then one would assume you could put A plus B equals C because in those messages it says, “We’re not happy.” You got your audience and the industry saying things have changed.

    But we don’t want to beat them over the head with it in the film. You either pick it up or you don’t.

    CS: So what was the genesis of tracking down John Hughes?

    FACCIOLO: Basically, after we interviewed all sorts of people, it became pretty clear that the one thing we were missing…there is a little bit of sub story to this…Kari and I went over to David Anderlie’s house in Los Angeles, who was the music supervisor for Hughes, and he was the head of A&M Records at the time and was responsible, along with Hughes, for making popular a lot of those bands in the 80’s….

    HOLLEND: Simple Minds

    FACCIOLO: Simple Minds, Echo and The Bunnymen, all those guys, and he happens to be neighbors with Judd Nelson. I mean, next door neighbors.

    HOLLEND: Literally next door. Like, “Hey, buddy, here’s your mail in the morning. How’s it going Judd?”

    FACCIOLO: So Judd did an interview with us for the film, and Kari and I were like, “There’s Judd Nelson sitting in the yard.” And if you were want to know about his yard, he’s got gargoyles and Barbie with her head cut off handing from his front door as a chime.

    HOLLEND: He’s a dark guy.

    FACCIOLO: So anyway we convinced him to come down to our edit suite and we would screen the film for him. So he sat there and watched the film. He didn’t say a word really. He sat there pretty quiet through the whole thing. This was one of the earlier cuts in the film.

    But this was before our road trip idea. So at the end of it, he sat there for quite a while and after about 10 minutes he changed. And the first thing out of his mouth was, “I want to hear about you guys. I want to hear about these people that were passionate enough and felt it important enough to find answers to these questions.” And on Kari’s, we’ll call it her 29th birthday, it became clear that what we needed to do was go find John Hughes himself.

    HOLLEND: It was my 31st birthday.

    FACCIOLO: So that was the genesis for the road trip. Us understanding that we had to go and find the man himself.

    HOLLEND: It was important to us….we kind of came at this road trip from a few different perspectives. One being that that was the original idea. I said no to two weeks on a bus with these guys and it ended up being Deal / No Deal and I always refer to that because I chose the wrong suitcase. I said no to two weeks so I sign up for three fucking years on the road without ever realizing what I’m getting into. So we said we’re going to pack ourselves into a van and come at this with a bit of an apology. We’re coming at this from a place, it’s been three and a half years, we were four inexperienced filmmakers, we’ve done everything wrong and right at the same time and the one thing after 21 cuts of our film, 80 hours of footage, make blood, sweat and tears literally, 3 of us got married over the course of this film, one of us, two of the guys ““ their wives are about to have babies, our executive producer producer had twins ““ so many things have happened with our personal lives, so many things have happened. But this film is us coming to the audience and saying here we are 3 and a half years later. But this film is us coming to the audience and saying here we are two and a half years later, x amount of money in the hole, in debt ““ we feel like the thing left to do now because one of the questions that came out through the documentary is, “Did you get to Hughes and did you try?” And we felt like now is our time. Now is the time to get on the road and do this and to tell you where we’re coming from because we did make a lot of mistakes doing this and we’re coming to you almost naked saying, “Here’s our story, here’s how it happened, why it happened and we think without our story intertwined in this it doesn’t have as much potency, it doesn’t have as much heart.” And this road trip really shows the heart of the film in two days, which is ironic again because all of Hughes’s films take place over: a) a journey and b) a very short time. Breakfast Club, an afternoon, 16 Candles, the birthday, Weird Science, a weekend when the parents went out of town, Ferris Bueller’s Day Off. So this is our little version of our Hughes experience.

    CS: But, it wasn’t planned like that.

    HOLLEND: No, it wasn’t planned like that. We realized it after and over the course of this weekend of us driving in a van and searching through Lake Forest to find him and all the discoveries that happened, again, tensions are high. It’s been two and a half years, we all have very different personalities, which certainly come out and we all have conflicting ideas and a lot of this came out on camera. This road trip was a linchpin ““ a beginning, middle and end. We start at the end and sort of preface what is about to be shown which is the conversation that happens in all the interviews and then you sort of follow us and wonder ““ do they get him? Do they get to Hughes? That’s the question of the whole film.

    hughes3-182-of-340-1CS: That aside, about whether or not you talk to him and whether or not you had any conversation with him, what were some of the thoughts and reflections on some of the people you talked to as to why he made all these really rock solid films and then just pulled a J.D. Salinger?

    FACCIOLO: It came out he was always an outcast. I don’t think ever really cared to be a part of that Hollywood scene and don’t think he enjoyed it much. He directed to protect the material. He’s a writer. He’s always been a writer. As Kevin Smith said, F.U. guys. “You’re lucky if your filmmaker gives you one good film.” It’s like “I gave you 5 good teen films” how much more do you expect him to give? You’re selfish if you do ask for more, that sort of thing. Going back to the JD Salinger thing, it’s funny ““ it comes up a lot. Him being a recluse.

    But then all of a sudden we drive into this town where he lives in, which is this beautiful Norman Rockwell type town. He lives in this absolutely beautiful house. He’s happily married to his high school sweetheart. He’s a family man now and is certainly not a recluse within his own home. We met his mailman, we met his pizza man. He’s living his life which is one of the conclusions I got that is directly related to his last teen film that he directed, and in my opinion, this quote that I will say gives his most adult advice without the actors saying it or showing it ““ life moves pretty fast. If you don’t stop and look around you are going to miss it.

    He was just taking his own advice.

    HOLLEND: As a teenager and adolescent you can never have the foresight to understand what that really means. You only understand that as you get older. And for the most part we all get greedy. We want more and more and more. And he’s sort of saying, you know what? My pockets are pretty full right now. I have this incredible life. He’s got quite a lot of money in the bank. Maybe he’s just not hungry anymore. Like Andrew McCarthy, he took his bat and ball and went home. He’s living a wonderful, beautiful life. So, to me, he’s not a recluse. He’s just living off the fruits of his labor and basically hanging it up when it’s time to retire and enjoying retirement.

    FACCIOLO: Do you want to hear my theory?

    CS: Yes.

    FACCIOLO: He’s coming back.

    Just like Edmond Dantes, from the Count of Monte Cristo, and he’s been quoted as saying he’s going to have the last laugh. And I don’t know… Are you familiar with the story of the Count of Monte Cristo?

    CS: He eventually comes back and…..

    FACCIOLO: Yeah, he takes revenge on people who have harmed him. So, if you ask me, John Hughes’s story is the story of Edmond Dantes.

    HOLLEND: I wouldn’t agree with that necessarily and I think it’s a little convoluted. I think he’ll come back. I don’t think he’s as bitter as people think. Michael says he writes as Edmond Dantes which is not really true. He uses that as an alias. But all the things that have been rewritten with his name, those are stories he wrote 20 years ago. The only thing they gave the writers for Drillbit Taylor was the pitch. High school nerds hire a bodyguard to help protect them from a bully. They never got to see the original treatment, which is John’s. He just got the story idea. The majority of stuff you see with his name on it, other than Edmond Dantes, are things he wrote years ago ““ taking things out of the vault. So he hasn’t really written anything new in years. It’s all old stuff of his from the vault.

    CS: Why does his last few movies feel so different, in your own opinions? Why does his last couple efforts didn’t have the same kind of feel, the same kind of resonance as his other films?

    HOLLEND: In my opinion, he was hired to do a job. The other ones came from him. I think it’s fair to say the ones that came from his heart and his mind were the ones that had the most pull. The other ones that he started just working for a studio ““ make us more money, make us more money here’s the idea ““ Go ““ I think that’s when, and there’s a great interview, that he starts to become disingenuous. That’s when it starts to fall apart because those weren’t his ideas. I think he writes very much from experience and from his own personal thoughts and his heart. Asking him to write something he’s not connected to, I think you get a combination of a big blockbuster hit that appeals to the masses but doesn’t really resonate with anyone.

    FACCIOLO: If I had a hundred million dollars in my bank account and I never had to work again ““ I don’t know how that would affect me as an artist but I think it would affect me someway.

    CS: Talk to me about the interviews. You probably got from students how important he was ““ his films are obviously different than the teen films we get today ““ which are really not very good ““ whether that’s us waxing nostalgia or whether that’s the absolute truth ““ what were you finding from the actors, the players, what are some interesting tales of how John Hughes orchestrated his film sets?

    HOLLEND: I think one of the most interesting things was how he treated them. He was really a collaborator. He was very open. He would talk to them on their level rather than pandering down to them which was very apparent because it comes across on screen. He’s not talking down to his audience. He would let these kids, because they were essentially kids at the time, be very much a part of the process and contribute to their characters.

    hughes3-195-of-340-12FACCIOLO: And you know, he was a writer. Before he was a director I think his true talent was in writing, and as director Howard Deutch said, he directed to protect the writing a lot of the time.

    HOLLEND: I think what we found was they appreciated his willingness to let them go where they needed to go. And the other thing, every single person talked about music. Judd Nelson said the thing was, “he was getting it from somewhere.” He knew what we were listening to before we were listening to it.” He was just amazing at getting inside the minds of these teenagers at the age of 35. I remember, Ally talked about how at one point on the Breakfast Club he would go up to each one of them and say, “You are playing me.” Each one of them were playing a character that he played or that he was in high school. I just think he was open and collaborative.

    He wasn’t afraid to say I don’t know.

    Judd Nelson said that. All of a sudden, overnight ““ I’m paraphrasing what Judd Nelson said ““ overnight somebody in this day and age becomes a director and all of a sudden that means they know everything there is to know about editing, everything there is to know about sound, they know everything there is to know about color-correction, which is isn’t the case. And I think John was very open and surrounded himself with the right people and saying, “I don’t know, what do you think?” That’s an important lesson and I think that’s something that now with everyone being a filmmaker, with You Tube and the digital age, everyone thinks they knows what it takes and I think one of the biggest things, as an artist or filmmaker, is being able to say, I don’t know.

    FACCIOLO: You know it’s funny, if you watch The Breakfast Club you see so many similarities between David Lee’s films ““ obviously completely different right? But, David Lee is known for taking his actors and giving them a year’s worth of preparation on their character. So while we met and talked to these actors who took part in his films, they understood those characters in such a deep, intrinsic level that it was easy to go off the dialogue and it was easy to create really good stuff because they were so into the character and so into the process and I think, like Kari was saying, I think he instilled a little bit of himself into each of those characters.

    And Howard Deutch talked about he’s almost a freak in his genius. Howie Deutch directed Some Kind of Wonderful and Pretty in Pink and one night he said, again, paraphrasing, he was on John’s couch and they were in production supposed to be doing some rewrites for Some Kind of Wonderful and 5 hours later John comes up with 50 pages and he hands it to Howie and he said “What are you doing man? I thought you were supposed to be doing some rewrites?” and he said, “I was but read this.” And it ended up being the first 50 pages of Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, that he wrote in a matter of hours.

    CS: How was John Hughes able to make his films feel so intimate?

    HOLLEND: I think there was a combination of things and this is where it helps to talk to people like Jackie Burch for starters, regarding casting. She cast real teenagers. They were really people you would see in high school. Look at Anthony Michael Hall ““ he looked like a 16 year old boy. Today, they don’t. And all these glamorous lives and cars and toys that everyone has in films today ““ it’s not like that everywhere. He hit it on the head and made it available not just for the rich and famous living in LA and New York. He lived in the middle of nowhere. He’s got the weird aunts, got the grandparents feeling you out during puberty. He painted all these details It’s what everyone relates to. With broad strokes, everyone can laugh and it’s funny. It’s the heart of the matter that makes you say, “I could be that person or I understand what that person is going through.” And, by making these films in Chicago, in Northbrook or Shermer, or some fictitious place we’ve been to three times, he really painted a picture of what so many people lives are actually like.

    FACCIOLO: And I think if you go back to his hometown and you spend just 20 minutes in that town, you just know, you understand where these characters came from. They are real people. John Hughes didn’t grow up in a wealthy neighborhood. He grew up on the outskirts of a wealthy suburb of Chicago, which he now lives in.

    ferrisHOLLEND: It’s a combination ““ the setting, the costumes, the characters, the writing, the directing.

    FACCIOLO: I think the writing was the biggest thing. He was able to speak the language that people understood.

    People at the time didn’t ““ Mia Sara during her interview said, “I had no idea, I had no idea at the time that this was going to be such an anthem-like film.” None of them realized at the time that these films would carry them throughout their entire lives. One of them said “Yeah, I had an idea that it would be big as it was” but they had no clue.

    HOLLEND: And they still get fan mail today. Andrew McCarthy had a great quote, “It was our objective in that day as an actor, to just be a good actor and to get a job. The focus was not on wearing the most designer outfits. One weekend I’m auditioning for Weekend at Bernies, the next I’m auditioning for Pretty in Pink. It was about doing a good job.” It wasn’t about ““ their agenda wasn’t about becoming famous.

    CS: Why do you think he took so many chances with unknowns? Looking back on it, the casting was brilliant.

    HOLLEND: I think everyone at some point is an unknown. If you keep going back to the well, these people become so known that it actually hurts them because they are not able to play a role. Without knowing these people, you love them as the characters they are playing. And I certainly think they took the time to cast and find the people that were going to play the parts well but you bought them as these characters. Some of this is our fault because they almost got pigeon holed.

    CS: What do you they think? What do they…..let me try to wrap my mouth around the question. When you got these actors to talk about it, a lot of the actors I talk to when they have features coming out in a week, two weeks, three weeks, all talk about that it was just a job, a good experience. But now these guys you talked to, they’ve had the benefit of pop culture catching up with them and seeing how much an impact they do, what do they feel? The ones that got out of acting all together, how do they view these films in regards to their own life paths ““ do they look at it as just a job or do they look at it as something more?

    HOLLEND: They look at it as something more. I think they were all: a) nostalgic and b) sad and almost set them up for disaster because they never got those experiences again. In each film you have an experience ““ a bonding experience. Each film is unique to its own. A lot of them were saying, “We’d love to work with him again. Come back.” One of Judd’s last sentences was, “Let’s do it again.” When someone says it’s just a job I find that interesting. Did you not read the script at all? What made you want to do it? And I think a lot of them found that in years to come, that was some of the best writing they ever got to speak.

    When you start off that good, it’s hard to find that again. I think they would love to get back to that place in the film world, where they can erase some of the past, and do some good work. Be really inspired by a script.

    I know Mia talks about she went to this art school from Ferris Bueller and John really recreated a high school environment so I think part of what was captured was him again, creating this real world that they were playing from. It wasn’t just a set. There was this real life high school happening while they were shooting it. It’s the chemistry. She was a 17 year old girl, so she was so awkward and uncomfortable it translates.

    FACCIOLO: Like Roger Ebert said, he put them up in a motel outside of O’Hare and got all the kids out of Hollywood ““ there was no flying them in and out of Hollywood and you’re on the set for three months, you’re secluded and you’re bonding with thee people as your friends, as your high school peers and you’re going to deal with it because that’s what you are dealing with in character so that’s what you are going to deal with in front of the camera.

    Mia has a quote that he would take Alan and Matthew down to the record store and buy thousands of records ““ just listen to all this different music. His wall, Ferris’s room is covered in posters with all the British rock bands they never knew of. He really went into the psyche and gave these guys all this extra material to work with.

    FACCIOLO: Like we had a little scene in our film where after the interviews we would ask them to give a message to John Hughes. And Mia said she was very sorry and was very apologetic for the way she behaved on that film. She was Sloan but as time went by I think she reflected on that and she’s obviously changed and you know, she was 17 or 18 years old when she did that film. But now she has the perspective to look back.

    Special thanks to Emma McIntyre for some photo assistance

  • Trailer Park: PUBLIC ENEMIES – Review

    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.

    And now, you can follow me on TWITTER under the name: Stipp

    RIP: A REMIX MANIFESTO – Contest

    rip_homeGirl Talk is without question one of the more progressive musical artists of the 21st century and it’s an abomination that current laws prohibit this man from fully realizing his potential.

    Back when albums from The Beastie Boys or Biz Markie in the late 80’s included enough samples to make any litigious lawyer nowadays salivate at the chance to sue for copyright infringement it is a godsend that they did not because these artists brought another dimension to their own vision of what music should be. There is a difference between the wholesale theft of a musician’s original work and what someone else could do with the atoms and particles of it and crafting a pastiche of originality.

    RiP: A REMIX MANIFESTO brings this issue and more like it to the surface as a documentary that is out to define what it is to be dealing with the issue of copyright in our modern age. Crafted over 6 years and still not finished as the makers of the film allow viewers to make their own version of the film, their own mash-up of sorts. Further, those living in the US name their own rate for the film which is also available in Apple’s iTunes store.

    Lucky for three of you I have the chance for you to watch the film in its entirety for the low low cost of free. Shoot me your name at Christopher_Stipp@yahoo.com and I’ll enter you in a contest for a copy of this brilliant documentary on a subject that you all should care about; the copyright laws have, without a doubt, prevented an album like Paul’s Boutique to change the musical landscape.

    More about the film:

    In RiP: A remix manifesto, Web activist and filmmaker Brett Gaylor explores issues of copyright in the information age, mashing up the media landscape of the 20th century and shattering the wall between users and producers.

    The film’s central protagonist is Girl Talk, a mash-up musician topping the charts with his sample-based songs. But is Girl Talk a paragon of people power or the Pied Piper of piracy? Creative Commons founder, Lawrence Lessig, Brazil’s Minister of Culture Gilberto Gil and pop culture critic Cory Doctorow are also along for the ride.

    A participatory media experiment, from day one, Brett shares his raw footage at opensourcecinema.org, for anyone to remix. This movie-as-mash-up method allows these remixes to become an integral part of the film. With RiP: A remix manifesto, Gaylor and Girl Talk sound an urgent alarm and draw the lines of battle.

    Which side of the ideas war are you on?

    MAFIA – DVD Review

    00095470-947063_275Watching PUBLIC ENEMIES last week put me in the mood to take advantage of watching a series that out some reality back into my television watching.

    For some it’s Friends or the Office or some variation on the sitcom we’ve all come to know and revile, for me it’s a solid documentary. Specifically, I’m addicted to the seedier side of our American heritage and nowhere else has this addiction been better satisfied than with the History channel’s examination into the mob with The Mafia. In what feels like 10 brisk hours you go from thinking you know everything about the mob because you’ve watched all the seasons of the Soprano’s to having a better understanding on a subject that has all levels of great storytelling: love, murder, revenge and the dark realization that this is still going on in the world. (Just ask the author of Gomorrah, Roberto Saviano. He wrote an expose on organized crime in Naples and was put under police protection.)

    The DVD set is currently available through the History Channel and, an added bonus, on sale. For $28.00 you are getting more than a history lesson, you’re getting a dose of cold reality that even though the Irish help build America it was a sect of Italians who were there to make sure they got a piece of the action.

    A little bit more about the DVD:

    MAFIA: THE HISTORY OF THE MOB IN AMERICA – VOLUME ONE

    Starting with the prohibition years, this groundbreaking investigation traces the origins of the ethnic gangs that capitalized on criminal activities by turning them into family enterprises. With men like Al Capone, Lucky Luciano, and Lepke Buchalter at its heart, and bootlegging, racketeering, and murder at its soul, this four-part series is a sweeping saga of bloodshed, betrayal, and big business.

    * THE PROHIBITION YEARS / BIRTH OF THE AMERICAN MAFIA: Prohibition spells 100 proof profit for local gangs…Until the “families” arrive from Sicily.

    * THE KENNEDYS AND THE MOB: The Kennedys’ murky past returns to haunt them.

    * UNIONS AND THE MOB: The Mafia takes on the Communists for control of the unions.

    * EMPIRE OF CRIME: The Mob steps on a gold mine in World War II.

    * BONUS FEATURES: Documentary “American Justice: Mob Hitmen”.

    * LUCKY LUCIANO: CHAIRMAN OF THE MOB: He ran the Mob like a corporation–diversifying rackets, organizing gangs and running his own political candidates–and his top-secret war efforts earned him parole from a 50-year sentence.

    * MEYER LANSKY: MOB TYCOON: From the pogroms of Eastern Europe to the heyday of the Vegas Mob, rare footage and interviews reveal the double life of the man known as the Mob’s financial leader.

    * GENOVESE: PORTRAIT OF A CRIME FAMILY: Known for their high level of sophistication, the Genovese family not only played a leading role in creating the structure of organized crime in America, but in shaping how the mob used its vast power.

    * BUGSY SIEGEL: Handsome, glamorous and the most vicious crime boss of all, Benjamin “Bugsy” Siegel began as a hit man on the streets of Brooklyn and died the victim of a mysterious murder, but not before turning a desert mirage into a Las Vegas dreamland.

    * MAN, MOMENT, MACHINE: AL CAPONE AND THE MACHINE GUN MASSACRE: Crime boss Al Capone elevated the violence of Prohibition Chicago to a new level with the Thompson submachine gun, a messenger of death that led to one of the most famous mass murders in history.

    * DEAD MEN’S SECRETS: AMERICA AND THE MOB: WARTIME FRIENDS: Did WWII spur a partnership between the U.S. government and organized crime? In 1942, fire broke out on the luxury liner-turned-troop carrier, the Normandie. While some mafia leaders claimed responsibility, an alleged protection deal with the government kept the blame on “Nazi sabotage.”

    * BIOGRAPHY: THE GAMBINOS: THE FIRST FAMILY OF CRIME: Trace the rise and fall of one of the most famous Mafia families, from crime legend Carlo Gambino to his successor Paul Castellano, and the reign of John Gotti.

    PUBLIC ENEMIES – Review

    public-enemies-posterThe very thing that makes PUBLIC ENEMIES a fresh entry into the summer movie dogfight is its Achilles heel.

    When Michael Mann made the decision to shoot the film about the notorious gangster John Dillinger (Johnny Depp) and the FBI agent assigned to catch him, Melvin Purvis (Christian Bale), he shot a film throughout the Midwest corridor that tries to capture 1933’s America.

    Banks were seen as the real public enemy, much like if we had a gangster knocking down AIG branches if there were any, their locations already familiar to Mann who knows how to break down and block a bank robbery, down to the detail of the crook letting the common man know that their money is not the money they want. There is a kind of reverse vigilantism at play in some portions in this film but one of the sticking points this story has is that Dillinger was not ever ready to go back to jail and, if given the opportunity, he would just as soon as mow down a pack of coppers with his tommy gun as he would proclaiming how untouchable he is. Marion Cotillard, playing Dillinger’s flavor of choice throughout the movie, is another Mann trademark, a woman whose odd sense of independence is overwhelmed by the machismo of her male suitor to the point of rendering her all but feeble and powerless to fend off the advances of such a Lothario. One of the frustrating things about women like her, like HEAT’s Brenneman, is that they are caught up in this gangster lifestyle without so much as a terrible crisis of faith. It’s easy to see how a man like Depp could become the criminal he is just by the quickly shot opening moments of this film but Marion’s flip to a life of crime just doesn’t connect and that’s really what prevents this film from becoming anything else but a slicker dramatization of something you could see on the History channel any night of the week.

    The set pieces, though, are gorgeous. Mann takes full advantage of this HD world in a way that challenges an audience’s expectations of what a period piece should look like. Mann brings an immediacy to the moment and takes what could have been a very simple recreation of past events look and feel like something that happened yesterday. This plays into Mann’s favor. One of the things that linger with you, or ought to, is that for anyone who thinks that using HD somehow disturbs the sense of time and place go to any moment when Depp walks into a bank. The richness of the colors, the polish on the floor, the marble that shines everywhere, the ornateness of the ceilings it all adds another dimension to the world that Mann wants to create. To those people in the 30’s life was in HD to them. This was how their world looked and felt. What some may fail to recognize is that Mann faithfully executes 1930’s America in a way that has never before been done in cinema. When Depp traipses through Purvis’ office, leisurely, quietly you cannot help but feel that you are there in moment with him. The only issue with the way he has decided to shoot his film, however, comes in the moments when you see the limitations of the technology plays with trying to capture a time when there was none.

    There are great gun battles, to be sure. Outside of a bank, a couple of banks actually, fleeing from a jail in a daring and brazen prison break and a fantastic fire fight that occurs late at night. It’s the latter tussle that causes some of the weaker moments of this film to be exposed. It is HD’s inability to be consistently crisp which can lead some viewers to be jarred while keeping an eye on the action. There are moments when the characters “ghost” on the screen, they leave a faint trail at times that can be distracting to those paying attention if the action moves too fast, and can actually get in the way for real cinematic tricks where film, actually, could have brought a better result.

    As well, the movie cannot stand on just the promise of derring-do and double-speak for those looking to an escape for a true crime film. The movie actually suffers from a lack of context. John Dillinger, yes, was a crook and criminal but where are the moments that show a more defined man? To deny Dillinger his humanity, and anyone pointing to his treatment of Cotillard as an example might as well long for the days when cavemen dragged their ladies by the scruff of their hair, is to deny the audience a real opportunity to feel emotionally invested in what happens to the man. Surprising as it is coming from Mann who so effortlessly humanized Robert De Niro in HEAT in a moment that few people could ever forget, the scene where he plays against Al Pacino in a diner, and made you root for him when he came to settle things up with Waingro. It’s surprising because you know how it ends for Dillinger. Any text book could tell you, any television show could recreate the moment but a real opportunity was missed in bringing some semblance of a human being to the screen.

    To think more about Christian Bale’s performance only highlights the egregious oversight about Dillinger’s wasted character arc as Bale simply exists in this landscape with nothing more to do than just act out the lines he’s given. It’s not that he can’t bring something exciting as the man in charge of bringing Dillinger in but unless Purvis was a real drip Bale’s performance illustrates his inability to actually bring some emotional depth to this agent of the law. It’s disappointing that what we get is just Bale being Bale but with a twangy accent to go along for the ride. Billy Crudup provides some of the best unintentional comedic relief as his J. Edgar Hoover impersonation feels as if it belongs in a Saturday Night Live sketch about the man who founded the FBI as it fails to embody the sense that here was a man who was in charge of bringing some kind of order, some semblance of safety to a landscape that felt out of control.

    While the film plods along, it’s examination into what happened in these pivotal years when Dillinger strolled free through Chicago before eventually meeting his demise simply does nothing more than just regurgitate recreated moments on the screen, it still is a wonder to look at on the big screen. There are real moments of good filmmaking here but it is a disappointment that there aren’t real moments of excellent filmmaking from a man who shown better depth dealing with men who bear arms.

  • Trailer Park: TRANSFORMERS 2 – Review

    By Christopher Stipp

    The Archives, Right Here

    So, 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.

    And now, you can follow me on TWITTER under the name: Stipp

    uni

    THE UNIVERSE: THE COMPLETE SEASON TWO

    Forget about your DARK KNIGHT Blu-ray as the benchmark against which you’ll judge any other disc as The Universe: The Complete Season Two is absolutely breathtaking.

    One of the things that you notice when you settle in to this collection of 4 discs is that the programs that you used to watch as a kid which sought to explain the nuances of the universe are now completely irrelevant. What this series does, in 18 episodes, is to redefine how you spatially think of outer space.

    I never was one who paid much attention to my science teachers when it came to this subject as I was, and still am, a visual learner. The fundamental problem with space, you see, is that it is very much based on factoids, theoretical assumptions and basic math. I’m not much for any of those things. What this series manages to do, in an arresting visual style, is contextualize the science and make it understandable to anyone who can sit in front of the television and watch the images and listen to the narration. This series has quickly become one of my favorites as nowhere else has there been a show that mixes the abject vastness of space with the kind of sensibility that understands that not everyone is an Einstein. The program introduces topics usually reserved for those with a scientific bent but it does so with a casual narrative style.

    If you have to have the kids inside watching a show this summer you couldn’t do more perfect than The Universe.

    The product description:

    As the orbiting Hubble’s final makeover makes headlines, consumers who look to the stars may be wishing for their very own ultra-powerful space telescope. This July, A&E Home Entertainment invites home audiences to peer deeply into the cosmos with THE UNIVERSE: THE COMPLETE SEASON TWO BLU-RAY EDITION. A hi-def, visually-arresting journey across the galaxy, this 4-disc collector’s set features all 18 dramatic and original episodes from one of the top-rated series on HISTORY — and exclusive programming — for $79.95 srp. It’s the next best thing to having a deep space telescope in your living room – and a must-have for anyone with a Blu-ray player

    In THE COMPLETE SEASON TWO, HISTORY ventures outside of our solar system in another epic and high-definition exploration of the universe and its mysteries. With strikingly realistic computer re-creations, armchair astronomers will travel to the edge of the unknown: visit strange and unfamiliar worlds in “Exoplanets,” prepare for the worst in “Cosmic Collisions,” and uncover the secrets of our own galaxy in “The Milky Way.” And that’s just the beginning: more mysteries are unveiled as “Dark Matter” is demystified; take a front-row seat for the ultimate light show with “Supernovas,” and find out more about “White Holes” which, unlike black holes, actually create matter.

    BRUNO – Arizona Screening

    bru_field_300x250-1I remember seeing BORAT for the first time at the San Diego Comic-Con years ago. The expereince of getting tickets to see then film and then being one of the first people in the world to review it was a delight in knowing that this film was genuinely going to become a favorite with a lot of people when it was going to be released months later.

    Fast forward 3 years and now we get Sacha Baron Cohen’s second iteration at cinematic immolation: BRUNO. Based on one of the characters he used in Da Ali G Show, Bruno was a character that played seek and destroy against mavens in the fashion and glamor arena. What made Bruno so great is that it shared some of the elements with Borat. The character mirrors the shallow, desperate affectations of those who deal in the industry of beauty and he isn’t above a few of the more physical pranks that Sacha is now known for.

    To this end, I have FREE passes to see the Arizona screening of BRUNO on Tuesday, July 7th at 7 p.m. at the Tempe Marketplace in Tempe.

    If I need to sell this movie any further you best let the fans get to these and then wait to hear from them about why you should’ve seen it in the first place. Shoot me a note at Christopher_Stipp@yahoo.com to let me know if you want to go.

    THE PROPOSAL – A Product Placement Correction

    alaskan-new-w-mountians-72I am reminded, every so often, of Frances ‘Chainsaw’ Gremp from SUMMER SCHOOL. You may recall, from this paragon of a film, that Frances had sunglasses that were constantly breaking. So, with a little prodding from Shoop Frances rattled off a missive to Cool Dudes Sunglasses to let them know how he felt. At the end of the letter writing campaign, and many pairs of free sunglasses later, Frances exclaims, “Power of the pen!”

    Every now and then I get such a moment and am reminded of how small the Interwebs are. Last week I made mention of a rather stark, at what I thought at the time, product placement. Alaskan Brewing Company was featured prominently throughout a few scenes in THE PROPOSAL and I made mention of it in my review.

    Lo and behold I heard from someone at Alaskan Brewing. A very, very nice letter made its way into my inbox and I was set straight about what was NOT a paid promotional placement. An excerpt:

    “I may be a little biased but have to admit that I was equally mesmerized by our red-labeled beer bottles throughout the movie, and almost shocked because Alaskan Brewing actually didn’t pay anything for the placement – the production company even covered the shipping costs. Last April they asked us to send a few cases of Alaskan Amber and signs to Massachusetts for the set design, and while we would have preferred they actually filmed in Alaska we were excited they wanted to include Alaskan in the film. We never really expected to see such extensive coverage of our beer.
    If you look closely at the general store and internet café, their production team did a pretty good job of including products from all over Alaska, from the brown and beige Xtra-tuf boots (which are a footwear staple here in Southeast Alaska) to boxes of Alaska Wildberry Products candies, Smoked Copper River Salmon and Alaskan-made salsa. They even found some well-known artwork to hang in the unbelievably large family house in “Sitka.”

    We have spoken with a few of the other businesses shown in the film and it’s my understanding none of those companies paid for product placement either.”

    No one could be more shocked than I was when I learned that nary a penny traded hands for what amounts to some of the best free advertising this side of the Rio Grande. It’s nice to hear when some companies are just the lucky receipients of the marketing lotto. Hopefully this translates into some actual sales or, at the very least, awareness of the brand as THE PROPOSAL hopes to build on what was solid word-of-mouth and pretty enjoyable film, all things being equal, as it heads into its second week at the box office.

    transformers_2_run_posterTRANSFORMERS 2: REVENGE OF THE FALLEN – Review

    It’s the cinematic equivalent of putting on your fat pants before downing a soft roll of raw cookie dough.

    For all the talk of how empty this movie will make you feel after you endure it’s 149 minute run time there is no question after seeing it that Michael Bay is a master of blowing things up real good. To say he is a master of the pyrotechnic technique would under emphasize the level of destruction he manages to bring to this summer film. He manages to fill every last inch of screen with shrapnel, smoke or action when there’s action to be had and that’s why it’s everything that a 13 year old boy could want in a film directed squarely at them.

    This film has to make money. It is designed to generate money. It’s sole purpose, it’s raison d’etre, is to put paying customers in seats in exponential numbers. Once you synthesize this, examining the film as a grand economic exercise helps to put things in the proper perspective.

    What should be apparent by the time our young Shia LeBouf (Sam) makes his way to college, leaving his gear head of a girlfriend Megan Fox (Mikaela) back to tend to the home fires, is that this movie isn’t concerned with a coherent plot. It wants excuses to get loud, get dumb and get some kinetic action going at every opportunity. To wit, we’re given Hong Kong at dusk. There is an operation going on with a couple of our human heroes, Tyrese and Josh Duhamel, tracking down Decepticons through the highways and byways of the crowded city. Logic would follow, wouldn’t it, if you having an all out battle of robots made out of metal all over the world that there would be more than just a couple of Internet nerds vying for the hearts and minds of conspiracy theorists who seem to believe that robots walk among us? No, and you would be silly for making such an assumption as the film wants us to believe that this is a secret that has been perfectly kept across multiple continents during multiple skirmishes with Michael Bay-ian level action. However, I’m fine with this.

    I’m fine with the movie wanting me to believe this is all very routine and certainly I’m fine with a dweeb like Shia ditching his girlfriend at the first taste of college life, coincidentally being paired up with a roommate who is the head of the robot conspiracy movement. You could hurt your mind just trying to explain all the happy coincidences, all the completely improbable things that just don’t make any sense whatsoever. Again, to illustrate the point, remember the very real auto accident that put Shia’s performance in this movie in jeopardy? It’s almost laughable, and it is, to see the exact moment in the film when this happens. Without so much as an explanation as to how he ends up with a hand wrapped in gauze with no discernible explanation of where it came from and we’re just led to believe this is all part of the world these characters inhabit, where gauze is readily available even in the middle of the desert. I started to feel insulted at this point but then I remember what this movie is supposed to be about and it helped put everything in perspective. The irony that the original kids show, along with the likes of G.I. Joe, was an ancillary extension of the marketing campaign for the Transformers toy line and that this film is basically a meta extension of that, isn’t lost on me. In fact, I am surprised no one else mentions this as a way to explain why else this movie works as a cinematic achievement.

    And make no mistake, this movie is absolutely an achievement. The level of dedication that Bay has placed in making a film that you can’t help but admire for its technical prowess, it’s effects are dumbfounding in more than a few ways, should absolutely explain why this movie is poised to be a fiscal juggernaut. The effect For all the talk of artistic integrity director Michael Bay has succinctly distilled his ability to take the mundane into something exciting and the way he places ordinary people into extraordinary situations is brilliantly executed on the screen. Summer blockbusters are not made out of the charity to help others and while there is a metric ton to bemoan about this ultimately tepid film Bay has the formula down. You can make fun of Carrot Top all you like but when he’s relaxing in his zero edge pool while you’re stuck pushing paper inside a gray cube who is the real winner in the equation?

    The mechanical problems with this film are many. The excruciatingly boring characters that LaBeouf, Fox, Turturro, et al., play are all expendable in my eyes; it shows you what a gimpy script by Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman turned in, they could have all died a sinister death by robotic means and I wouldn’t have cared. The running time is just unnecessary as any 5 year-old with safety scissors could have trimmed enough time off this movie to make it endurable. And the ultimate leaps of time and space are embarrassing; when one moment you have robot cars wheeling through a city street and, the next, battling in the middle of a forest there is no need to consult a map as you just aren’t supposed to think about these things.

    Ultimately, TRANSFORMERS 2: REVENGE OF THE FALLEN is everything that show business is supposed to be about: creating a spectactle by any means neccessary, ensuring the fiscal health of the studio that helped to finance it by attracting the largest audience possible. Bay is an absolute capitalist and this film is an homage to the best, and worst, parts of what makes America great.

  • Trailer Park: THE PROPOSAL – Review

    By Christopher Stipp

    The Archives, Right Here

    So, 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.

    And now, you can follow me on TWITTER under the name: Stipp

    SCREENINGS, SCREENINGS, SCREENINGS

    bruno_posterI know, it sucks when you don’t live in New York or LA.

    They get all the good things but the nice thing about having me around like a corpse you decide to stick in a chair, just taking up space and requiring no maintenance at all, is that it’s a good thing to live in the Valley of the Sun. I know it’s been strange around here as of late if you were to listen to Howard Stern, with there being a runoff election being decided by cutting a deck of cards (yeah, we’re real progressive in this state) and some a-hole who tried to end it all by sticking a samurai sword in the steering wheel and trying to ram a wall only to go through the goddamn wall and end up not finishing what he started, but I’ve got screenings to invite you to: BRÜNO and, later in July, FUNNY PEOPLE.

    BRÜNO will be screening on July 7 at Harkins Tempe Marketplace and FUNNY PEOPLE will be screening on July 28 at Harkins Tempe Marketplace.

    I hope to have more information on how many tickets I’ll have for each but until that time, block out your calendars as scuttlebutt has been pretty positive for both.

    TWITTER CHAT WITH THE DIRECTOR OF FOOD, INC. THIS FRIDAY AT 10 am PST

    food-inc-posterNo, I haven’t been able to see this documentary about all the lovely things that go into making our meals but word’s been good for this movie and now you can feel free to talk directly to the director himself. Now, I’m still on the fence about how “interviews” on Twitter can be effective but if any of you give this a whirl and find it useful please let me know. The information for this follows below…

    Food Inc. Live Twitter Chat with Director Robert Kenner this Friday at 10 am PST!

    Food Inc opened in select markets last week to an overwhelming response! As we prepare to open around the country this Friday we want to give fans an opportunity to conduct a live twitter chat (at #foodinc) with the director, Robert Kenner.

    It’s simple to participate. At 10am PST this Friday (June 19th) login to twitter and put #foodinc in the search bar and hit enter. You are now following the conversation! If you have a question, be sure to include the #foodinc tag. This way the question will stay on this thread. We hope for a large turnout so please be patient while we try to answer as many questions as possible. We appreciate your support in getting our vital message out to the public!

    In the meantime, please follow Magnolia Pictures on twitter and Facebook for updates on Food Inc. and all of Magnolia’s upcoming films.

    THE PROPOSAL – REVIEW

    proposalThere’s a moment in the movie when you realize that basing a review on its actual mechanics would be a fish/barrel situation.

    For some reason, and if you just pay attention to the screen you’ll notice it, Alaskan Brewing Company has paid for a product placement. The movie takes place, for the most part, in Alaska and everyone seems hooked on Alaskan Amber. The bottle is everywhere and when you dig a little further into the line of brew this company puts out you see that they have 8 different varieties. This product placement is curious because you find your eye drifting to the red labels of this beer, extras are drinking it, Craig T. Nelson is drinking it, Sandra Bullock is drinking it, Malin Akerman is drinking it, the whole town seemed zombified by this beverage and, I’m pretty sure, this is not what you want someone like me doing while watching your film: wondering why everyone is hooked on Alaskan Amber and not their pale, IPA, ale, stout varieties. And this is all neither here nor there but this is what happens when you have a script that’s about as airy and delicately put together like a petite madeleine and performances from the likes of Bullock and Reynolds that, honestly, felt like they were done with about as much regard for the audience as a 10 year-old is on Valium. That said, though, you could have done a lot worse.

    Noticing that this hackneyed story, the theme of the mean curmudgeon who suddenly has a new outlook on life by the end of the film, is something that is as old as time is eternal. THE PROPOSAL doesn’t look to blaze any new trails when it comes to the romantic comedy formula and, in fact, it takes some of the more basic elements of what makes them so enduring like bubblegum pop music. You have the wacky comedic relief played by Oscar Nunez who is absolutely the funniest thing in this film when you realize that he embraced the kind of role usually reserved for a John Turturro-type and explored all the ways in which he could make a true mark on this film; his unshaved bikini area absolutely solidified this. You have the wise one who knows what’s good for everyone, played here by Betty White who is just a delightful and spry actress who brings a bubbly effervescence to the role as the grandma who knows it all. You have the evil, metaphorically mustachioed, character that is looking to tear everything asunder, played here by Denis O’Hare whose character actually becomes funnier when he’s off camera at the end of the film. You also have the red herring of the group, Malin Akerman, who is not only wasted in her performance as an old girlfriend who, in other films, is used as someone who represents the lost lover who might-possibly-maybe be the one our protagonist decides to fall in love with instead but she’s horribly utilized in this movie. These four players represent what’s usually at the core for a successful romantic comedy and, to be fair, everyone does what they are supposed to do. They’re caricatures of real people and they play their far-removed-from-reality roles as best they can. It falls on Bullock and Reynolds to make it work.

    The two of these actors work well with one another. Ryan Reynolds without question has the kind of comedic timing and subtlety necessary to make this movie more than just a bland story about how one person is going to need to marry the other in order to keep them in the country. Reynolds shines as someone who could actually bring a much needed relief to those who are dragged to these movies with their significant others (read here: men) because he understands the kind of movie he’s in. It’s not a question of whether or not he can pull it off, much like a Matthew McConaughey who embodies sleepwalking through a film as of late, but how he can make a film feel much more livelier than it isn’t. On paper this is about as routine as it comes, first time writer Pete Chiarrelli making good use of the basics in a romantic comedy that will bring people to the multiplex, and disappointingly it’s Sandra Bullock who fails to bring anything fresh to a genre that would have done well with some of what made her performance in 2006’s THE LAKE HOUSE a surprising delight.

    Playing the shrew of a boss who no one likes respects or admires, stop me if you’ve heard that one before, the film goes out of its way to showcase Bullock as a woman who simply hates the world. I don’t think she loves anything, money, power, advantage, none of these things, as the film paints her an inhuman robot that not even the most testosterone fueled type-a personality would be able to match. That’s what makes her glorious transformation into a woman who can find love that much more grandiose but it genuinely does a disservice to a film that is broadcasting that it is simply a vehicle to make a buck and to be forgotten as soon as you walk out of the door. Bullock has her moments but, as the script is written, there isn’t much more she can do other than not exude a real human emotion for more than 1/2 of the film; it just doesn’t feel like acting, it’s more akin to following instructions on a piece of paper as if it were a table from Ikea that needs some assembly. She doesn’t acquit herself well in this role and it’s really not Bullock’s fault if you try and understand what’s really amiss. That fault lays at the feet of Anne Fletcher who has been in this territory before.

    Bursting on the scene like an adolescent zit, Fletcher gave us her opening salvo as a director, the abominable STEP UP in 2006. This gave her enough juice to take the reigns of the genuinely terrible 27 DRESSES. DRESSES, if you read some of the comments leveled at her by other critics, garnered the same criticism which I am leveling at it. THE PROPOSAL feels like a movie that is devoid of any human tethering. From its unnatural use of lighting, set design and set-ups you would be hard pressed to find a modicum of reality stitched within the layers of this rancid onion. Craig T. Nelson feels like a caricature of a dad who is having trouble connecting with his son, the mother feels like an oblivious opposite to Nelson’s distant behavior and the film suffers as if it were a sitcom put to celluloid. Truly, if you want to know why some films are critic proof the answer is embedded within this film. It is because there is nothing of value to criticize. Like the petite madeleine the film crumbles upon inspection. It cannot stand up to someone taking the movie to task for all its shortcomings because, yes, it would be like picking on someone smaller than you, weaker than you. It’s strength is in its weakness and middle America is going to devour and eat this up.

    This is Ryan Reynold’s film and thankfully he makes all this pap tolerable as it’s forced down the gullet of your brain. Should you find yourself laughing it’s not because there isn’t anything to laugh as there are a few good moments but a few moments does not a movie make. It may be good enough for the ladies of America who believe this movie is what they’re looking for this summer but they would much be better served with a movie that comes out next month, 500 DAYS OF SUMMER, a movie that wants to be more than a romantic comedy; it wants to be remembered.

    THE PROPOSAL is a film that you can tolerate, even enjoy, for its run time. There are more than enough moments for those with a low threshold of what they find funny to laugh at, and it will most certainly entertain them, but for those who are looking for a film they would actually want to enjoy beyond the superficiality of its plot I would recommend to keep looking.

  • Trailer Park: THE TAKING OF PELHAM 1 2 3 – Review

    By Christopher Stipp

    The Archives, Right Here

    So, 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.

    And now, you can follow me on TWITTER under the name: Stipp

    Note Bene: It’s been a long week for and I have some great news to share next week about a writing project that has a lot to do with a documentary and John Hughes. Stay tuned…

    PUBLIC ENEMIES – Arizona Screening

    pe_field_300x250So, is it bad that I hope this is the real summer movie that Christian Bale is in?

    I know a lot of whiners out there want to take the movie to task for using digital but I, for one, applaud Michael Mann for using what worked for well for him in COLLATERAL and MIAMI VICE. Those two movies benefited from a technology that brought a different film going experience to the multiplex. It’s obvious some people like it, some not but Christian Bale and Johnny Depp? I’m sorry but Bruce Wayne in his non-Batman throaty scratch and Depp playing a role that doesn’t require him channeling Keith Richards is a movie I want to see.

    So, if you’re free June 25th and can make it to Harkins Fashion Square for a sneak preview then I will have passes for you, some of you anyway. Shoot me a note at Christopher_Stipp@yahoo.com and I’ll enter you for a chance to win.

    THE TAKING OF PELHAM 1 2 3 – Review

    taking_of_pelham_1-2-3_2009It’s nice that my parents finally have a summer movie to call their own.

    The biggest problem I have with this film, which is about as close as a Paint-By-Numbers exercise in filmmaking as you can get when you consider how rote Tony Scott’s direction is in this clone of a movie, is how utterly vapid and cardboard the characters are.

    You’ve got a tougher than sun dried leather man in John Travolta playing the film’s resident badass, Ryder. His foil, the angel to his devil on his shoulder, is Walter Garber played by Denzel Washington. For those who need the crash course in what this movie is about, it seems that Ryder wants to hijack a subway car for a lump sum of cash. Garber is a dispatcher who just happens to be at the other end of the call demanding that money but the issues that are glaringly obvious as soon as this plot starts to push forward like a labored moving subway car is that the movie can’t capture the same riveting intimacy as the 1974 classic because Scott wants to employ all the frenetic camera movements, and we’ll get into this shortly, in his wheelhouse. The problem is that this isn’t a movie that is served by quick shots, sets drenched in hazy green lighting, stylized slo-motion clips or, quite literally, spastic camera jiggling. 1974’s version of PELHAM worked because it didn’t have the same access to effect work as Scott obviously does and, here’s the thing, wants to remind you that he’s in charge of directing this thing.

    This film doesn’t need to be treated as an equal to the previous PELHAM, it is obvious it has no concern for it, but if what we have in the first 1/3rd of this movie is so appallingly numbing with its insistence on pushing its literal vision on an audience there shouldn’t be any reason why any other part of the film should be regarded with any care as well. Lucky for us, Scott doesn’t.

    The performances that are eked out of Travolta is nothing short of campy and should be placed in the realm of bombastic simply for the sake of it, Denzel seemingly sleepwalking through a role that has about as much weight as a dozen balloons filled with helium. This ought to be a film about a savvy mastermind who wants to mete out his revenge in a thoughtful, dramatic fashion and who has no qualms about taking the lives of those he’s taken hostage. A simple illustrative comparison of what made Hans Gruber such a sinister bad guy was that he was at once suave, intelligent and dangerously cold blooded. Both films used the idea of having a crime take place in a tight, confined space, and I realize these are two different kinds of films, but Hans was a character that was used to a lot better effect than Travolta hamming it up here was able to do. Travolta is PLAYING the part of being a telephone tough guy but he isn’t tough, he’s all bark. It’s only because the script calls for him to pop a guy or two that you believe he’s capable of killing as he certainly doesn’t earn any genuine intimidation when he’s on the screen.

    Now, Denzel, on the other hand, deserves a little bit more credit but not much. Playing a character who’s on probation for suspicion for doing something so morally objectionable certainly doesn’t display any of the affectations of someone who is at the precipice of losing it all. The character he plays isn’t as likable, to drag this comparison back to DIE HARD, as Sgt. Al Powell who also had to use nothing but a microphone to sell his character. Denzel had to act against a microphone and does a pretty decent job. I say decent because there isn’t any way I could care less or more about his circumstances. I don’t know whether I should think he’s just an innocent man caught up in a dire situation or if he’s just as bad as the guy leading the hijacking; obviously, there is an overt difference between the two but the problem is the movie doesn’t make that distinction. It lets that sort of float out there in the ether of flashy editing. The movie misses a great opportunity to differentiate the two men or to completely muddle the idea that maybe they aren’t different. We just don’t know and that’s the failure of the film: it doesn’t want to invest in any emotional tethering.

    I want to feel a certain amount of pity for Denzel. I want to believe that there might be a way to get through to Travolta. I certainly want to feel something. But with all the other circus characters that are introduced James Gandolfini (the Mayor of New York), John Turturro (the negotiator), and a host of others just become dizzying distractions to what is already a mess of lifeless corpses. I simply don’t care about, nor am I given much reason to, anyone here. Sure, Denzel is the real protagonist here but simply because someone is put in a dire situation doesn’t mean you earn the right for me to care. There is a real opportunity missed in turning the one moment of this film where the line between thief and thief is blurred and making that a touchstone. No, we’re just pushed along because Scott has a finish line, and dammit, we’re going to make it. The final 20 minutes of this film are genuinely anticlimactic in the very worst sense. There is no danger, no imminent danger to anyone, no real threat and that’s one of the greatest crimes committed against audiences who deserve to be thrilled and who are only left mildly piqued by what they’re given.

    That brings us to Tony Scott’s direction.

    I’ve never really seen a movie that embodies the idea of over stylized than I did as Scott employed the very same tricks here as he has with DOMINO and DEJA VU. Not only that but should a viewer be more consumed with wondering why a scene suddenly ends with a freeze frame or wondering why the camera seemingly is having an epileptic fit in the middle of a scene or why any number of overtly in-your-face shaky cam sequences are employed one after another? No, as the filmmaker’s job is not to be there but to lead you to one moment to the next without ever making their presence felt. If I am wrong about that assumption then I take back all I’ve said about being aware every few minutes that this was absolutely, positively, without question a Tony Scott film.

  • Trailer Park: Ed Helms of THE HANGOVER

    By Christopher Stipp

    The Archives, Right Here

    So, 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.

    And now, you can follow me on TWITTER under the name: Stipp

    hangover1Ed Helms brings a unique flavor to the funny served up in THE HANGOVER.

    While I did find the antics of Zach Galifianakis more endearing and weirdly comedic Ed Helms proved that he can be front and center in a film and not just relegated to the background. His turn as Stu Price, the spineless and browbeaten boyfriend of a woman more likely to tear your manhood off before ever going to a place like Las Vegas just to ensure your fun doesn’t get out of hand, is masterfully executed. His time with the Upright Citizens Brigade helped to hone the ability to bring the comedy within a group and it pays dividends in this movie. He stopped by Phoenix recently to answer some questions in a roundtable fashion, he participated in a Q&A the night before to a general audience that actually asked the question “Did Mike Tyson really hit Zach Galifianakis?” (yeah, we breed geniuses up in this desert), and I’ve made sure to break out which questions I actually asked. And, yeah, to paraphrase Ed, it was fuckin’ hot out there…

    THE HANGOVER opens today.

    QUESTION: Welcome to Arizona.

    ED HELMS: Thank you very much.

    Q: How has it been treating you?

    HELMS: I just got in last night and have been driving around all morning to all these different interviews so it’s been fun.

    Q: Well you got here on a day when it’s not too hot and crazy, so that’s good.

    HELMS: Is that right? Because it’s pretty fuckin’ hot out there.

    Q: This is mild compared to what’s coming.

    HELMS: Oh boy. Glad I don’t live here.

    Q: I have to ask about the missing tooth thing. It looks so real.

    hangover2-fHELMS: OK, so the tooth is totally real in the movie. I actually have an implant here that I got when I was about 15. It’s been there for about 20 years and when we were discussing how to make the tooth look like it was gone, we tried to black it out, we did some camera tests and then they made a prosthetic for me but it made me look like a donkey so there was no way we were doing that. Then I just thought “Hey, why don’t I just ask my dentist what’s the deal with this?” and he said, “Yeah, I think we can actually do that safely.” So we took the tooth out for three months and I had a removable tooth for those three months and now that the movie wrapped it went right back in and this is the new one and it’s permanent again.

    Q: Did they have that written before?

    HELMS: Totally. It was in the script.

    Q: So what are the odds?

    HELMS: Yeah, just super lucky and ironically when I was a teenager I had a removable tooth before I got the implant and I took it out for a high school play too where I played this redneck. So I guess that was good training or something.

    Q: How close did you get to the tiger and was it more or less ferocious than Mike Tyson?

    HELMS: I got really, really close to the tiger, closer than we are sitting right now on numerous occasions. In my head it was the most ferocious animal ever, in reality I think it really was pretty docile. Tyson was ““ there was no comparison. He was a delight. He was really cool and fun and disarming and eager to screw around and have a good time. The tiger though was crazy and the whole time you’re working with the tiger there’s this little voice in the back of your head just saying “this is so stupid ““ you should not be here.”

    Q: A bunch of guys on the set with tranquilizer guns?

    HELMS: No, they had a few trainers around and the trainers have them on a leash but the lease isn’t anchored to anything and the tiger weighs twice as much as the trainer so it’s like, is this sufficient? The trainers had this cavalier attitude where at one point ““ you know the scene where I toss the steak to him ““ we did a bunch of takes of that and a couple takes in Todd Phillips said try to hit them in the head with the steak. And I’m like, I don’t think that’s a very good idea. And he said, come on, just try it and let’s see what happens. So I asked the trainer, what happens if I hit him in the head? Because I was so close to the tiger and I knew I could hit him in the head. I asked the trainer if he thought he would flip out if I hit him in the head. He said, “I don’t know. Let’s try it.”

    (Laughs)

    And that was their attitude about everything by the way. There was no scientific process here. It was just, “Fuck it…What the hell…Let’s give it a try.” Against all better judgment I did try to hit the tiger in the head and it turns out, you can’t do that because the tiger’s reflexes are so quick he will catch the steak anywhere near his head if it’s airborne. I keep trying to hit him in the head but he would just catch it in his mouth. I don’t think any of that is in the movie. I don’t remember which take they used.

    ho30CHRISTOPHER STIPP: I think the very last one. You mentioned it last night.

    HELMS: Oh you were at the Q&A?

    CS: You said you were out of steaks.

    HELMS: And I was using the plastic steak. But there’s a few edits in that but maybe not. I don’t remember now. The very end of the shot is a composite of the tiger leaping at a trainer and me running away scared. But I think it cuts to a reverse like over the tiger of me coming in at one point. I can’t remember now. I have to look at again.

    CS: Speaking of that, tied into the way you explain Zach Galifianakis’ impersonation of the pepper on the steak, Ben Stiller this week on Howard Stern was talking about what a miserable experience Mystery Man was and he kind of talked about it on a larger sense and said, “You know what, for comedy to really work on film you have to be one of those guys who does one take, two take, you can’t over think it.” You can’t over think it. You can’t overdo it. You just have to go in there, know what’s funny, do it and be confident in that. How was it working with Todd and his philosophy on when he thinks he’s got the funny on film?

    HELMS: I’m curious ““ I’m not sure what Ben meant. Did he say just do as many takes as you want?

    CS: No, that’s what was so aggravating to him, that they lost that spontaneity and ended up with a laborious…”Alright, let’s do take 37.”

    HELMS: Who directed that movie?

    CS: I don’t know but he said he hasn’t done anything after that.

    HELMS: I’m trying to remember. I think it was a commercial director. Anyway, it wasn’t a terrible movie.

    CS: No, it was good but he just stressed how you just can’t over think it.

    HELMS: Yeah, I totally agree with that. Todd is a master. He’s such a good director. He knows what he wants but is so collaborative, he listens but also incredibly manipulative in a good way. You’ll find yourself doing things that maybe you were hesitant about and then find out that he cajoles you into it and you’re glad he did at the end of the day, because it looked great or it was a really strong comedic choice.

    I know Zach. He’s so funny because the baby thing and wearing a jock strap ““ there were a number of jokes that Zach actually pitched ironically as a joke, like wouldn’t it be funny if I did this”¦and then Todd said, “Yeah, you are actually going to do that now.” And Zach was like “Dammit, I got talked into it” and of course, they are the funniest bits of the movie. So there’s a lot of trust we all put in Todd and I think he earned it and used it wisely.

    As far as over-thinking…I like to do lots of takes because I love to play around. I’ve actually worked with Ben and we’ve done lots of takes too. As long as, and I’m going to try and read into Ben’s words but I didn’t hear it firsthand , but there is something, even when you are doing lots of takes you want to keep it fresh. You don’t want to talk about it too much because it just doesn’t help. Just throw it out there and in the time it takes to discus if something’s funny, you could have done four takes and tried it four different ways and I totally agree with that. You also get momentum when you do a lot of takes when you don’t stop and talk because talking puts the brakes on your process as you are trying to stay in the moment. It’s fun to whittle something down over a series of takes. You get a little kernel of an idea you riff on it and start going but it’s too long, you didn’t quite get it right. So you do it again and it’s a little shorter and there’s lots of moments like that in the movie.

    ho22Like when we come back to the hotel after Mr. Chow beats us up with the crowbar and we get to the door of the hotel room and Zach goes what about the tiger? And Brad is like, “Oh yeah, the tiger.” And I say “I wonder why” or something like that and then Zach goes, “That’s one of the side effects of herpes, you forget things.” Brad says “I keep forgetting about the tiger, how did the tiger get in there” and I look at Zach and go, “I don’t know, I don’t remember. ” Doesn’t pick up on it, just “Yeah, one of the side effects of herpes” and I go “You are literally too stupid to insult” and he goes, “Thank you””¦just completely straight. We must have done that about 15 times and always different with different riffs and tangents but over a series of takes, Todd would say “Take that out” or “Do this” and our own discretion would filter in and we wound up with a really quick little exchange that has a couple of great beats in it. So, that’s a little bit about the process.

    Q: Who makes you laugh?

    HELMS: Oh my gosh, so many people make me laugh. If I go way back, some of the initial reasons I decided I wanted to get into comedy was really those SNL shows in the 80’s, like when I was a very little kid I started watching Saturday Night Live and I just was so enamored with the energy of the show. I didn’t get it I don’t think at the time but I just wanted to be a part of that energy. Eddie Murphy was hands down one of the reasons I ever wanted to do comedy but his era around that time was also Joe Piscopo, Martin Short, Harry Shearer, Christopher Guest, Michael Keaton. Phil Hartman is one of my all time favorites and I still get misty sometimes because I always wanted to meet him and it breaks my heart I will never get that chance. He just meant so much to me and I was really devastated when we lost him.

    The next chapter of SNL is Mike Myers, David Spade, Chris Farley, Adam Sandler, Chris Rock, Rob Schneider, and they all just made me laugh and made me want to be a part of it ““ Will Farrell and Terry O’Terry and that wave Chris Kattan”¦ So really SNL was a big thing and everyone in it ““ Ellen Cleghorne ““ just so many moments and such a fun world. Outside of SNL I was a huge Bill Cosby fan as a little kid. I had a bunch of his records and I got super into Jerry Seinfeld and still just adore. A lot of comedians make me laugh.

    Q: I’m thinking about the banjo. Are you a fan of Steve Martin?

    HELMS: Yea, Steve Martin. He’s the man. He’s an idol of mine on many fronts. He is just a guy that leads his life in a very upstanding way and has maintained an incredible career as a comedic actor and then of course he’s an insanely good banjo player. I love a lot of the songs he’s written. I learned a bunch of them. So, yea, he’s definitely on that list. I could go on forever. In the standup area, there’s this guy, Brian Regan. Do you know who he is?

    Absolutely.

    HELMS: He’s just one of my favorite comedians ever. Jim Gaffigan, Patton Oswalt, Mitch Hedberg, really make me laugh. And Zach is a great stand up. He’s just this wickedly, witty guy. I don’t know what it is. He’s just got something really special. That’s a long list.

    (Laughs)

    HELMS: And it’s really longer too. I just love comedy and comedians. Such a fun world.

    ho7Q: In 100 words or less describe Heather Graham’s kiss.

    (Laughs)

    HELMS: Hmm”¦.100 words or less. How about this? Just silky smooth.

    (Laughs)

    HELMS: Is that less than 100 words?

    Q: Did you screw up that scene enough so you could retake it over and over again?

    HELMS: Yeah. I asked Heather to rehearse that a bunch but she didn’t want to do that. No, it’s a funny thing. Everyone asks me that but the reality is in that scene I’m surprised by the kiss so I don’t actually kiss her back. So, it’s not a mutual kiss. It’s her kissing me. So to be totally candid, it wasn’t that great for me because I didn’t get to engage the kiss in anyway. But that said, just to have Heather Graham kiss you, even on the cheek, is just so uplifting. She’s so peculiar because she’s this sunshiny, bright effervescent woman but also has this Buddha like serenity and comfort with herself and just drops these little pearls of wisdom about her life experience. And it’s like, wow, I think she could be a guru. People would really follow her.

    Q: Wasn’t she in that movie?

    HELMS: Oh, she was? Yes, she’s really something.

    Q: Are you anything like Stu in real life? And if not, if you were actually in the events of The Hangover, which character would you be more like?

    HELMS: I am like Stu. I regret and it pains me to admit I am a bit more like Stu than I would like to acknowledge. Am I exactly like Stu? Of course not. I think I have a little more awareness and not in as much denial about issues in my life, particularly regarding relationships and so forth as Stu is. That said when I was doing the movie and thinking about how to respond to moments in the narrative, I really tapped into my own gut reaction to things and I think we all did actually. It is sort of why the movie stays somehow, in the face of the most craziest and most ridiculous things happening, it stays plausible to me. At least to me it does. That was a lot of Todd wanting us to be ourselves and respect us and respond honestly to each situation.

    CS: Coming through UCB which has produced just an enormous amount of talent, you can talk about the west coast Groundlings, how did that ““ you went from a lover of comedy when you were younger and then said to yourself I have to learn to do comedy and went to New York or doing UCB, getting your way on the Daily Show, then The Office, how does that transform when you were learning what’s important on live theater when working in front of a live group, The Office is perfect as is the Daily Show because you have to work with an ensemble. It obviously came across on the film because you, Bradley and Zach seemed like a very cohesive ““ the chemistry is perfect ““ how did that at least when you were learning how to deal with the group dynamic in comedy ““ did you ever go from thinking comedy was one way and then going into UCB and actually learning what the secrets are as to what makes good comedy?

    HELMS: I don’t think UCB has a monopoly on any sort of secrets as to what’s funny, or how to be funny but that said, it has very quickly established itself on par with the Second City in Chicago and the Groundlings in LA, both of which were avenues which I considered going down. When I was in college I wondered how I was going to do this. I had to get into comedy. So, I analyzed the careers of those people I mentioned before and really thought methodically about how they went about it and I boiled it down to three tracks basically. One was the Groundlings in LA and that was Will Ferrell and Phil Hartman and Molly Shannon, Sherry O’Terry, Chris Purnell, Chris Kattan, they all came out of the Groundlings.

    Then there was Second City which had the real old tradition of Saturday Night Live going all the way back to Belushi and Aykroyd and also the Toronto Second City with Martin Short and John Candy. Then the other avenue was doing standup in New York City which was Adam Sandler and Chris Rock and a handful of others, Eddie Murphy. And, Eddie Murphy was again my guy. He’s the one I wanted to be like the most. And Jimmy Fallon I think also came into the New York City comedy bracket. So, that just seemed like the best fit for me and I wanted to be in New York City. And it wasn’t for a few years, around 2000, I had been doing standup in New York for a while and started to establish some credibility and started to ratchet it up a bit and then that’s when USB started to pick up steam and offer classes and some comedian friends of mine were starting to look into it and I just loved that energy. I went to go check it out and started hanging out there doing shows.

    ho3It was really cool because in Chicago the impov and standup worlds are very competitive and separate. It’s a different world. In New York they just reinforced each other in a really cool way in a symbiotic kind of relationship between the improve world and the standup world. The UCB was hosting standup shows at their theatre and I just worked my way up and took all the classes and I joined a team there so I could perform regularly. The improve training, as great as UCB is I don’t think anyone has a monopoly on these ideas but I did happen to learn at UCB about being incredibly present in the scene or as an actor listening to the other actors in the scene because that’s what improve is all about. They hammer it into you. It’s almost like a weird ““ something bigger than the individual ““ an energy ““ a good energy ““ a good improve scene is bigger than anyone in it. Something happening that everyone is contributing to. It’s like jazz. People make that analogy a lot. Good jazz is everyone doing their own thing and putting a little spice and flavor in places and creating something that no one could have created by themselves.

    It’s a real sort of celebration of communal effort and that’s something, that’s certainly as a standup you don’t ever learn but it’s what forms great comedy. When you see it on film, guys like Ben Stiller and Seth Rogan who are so generous with what’s going on around them and with what’s going on with the other actors, it’s not about owning a moment, it’s about sharing it and I try to the extent that I can, try to bring it to my work too.

    Q: Bigger diva? Colbert or Stewart.

    (Laughs)

    HELMS: I would say that Colbert is a huge diva but a lot of it’s ironic and adorable. Stephen Colbert is ““ I am just so lucky to have been around him at that time because he and Carell are like huge ““ all I did was copy them. I showed up on the Daily Show and I was like these two guys have cracked it. They are doing it right. They are very different but Colbert and Carell have very different MO’s on that show and they are doing it right so I’m just going to try and do what they do and maybe over the course of five years maybe I found my own voice a little bit, but it started out like I just gotta do it the way they do it because they are so good.

    Colbert was so supportive. He had a lot of seniority when I joined the show but I always would go to him for advice and he was really generous with it. It’s really cool. Stephen is so smart and so quick and also a step ahead of you. But there are moments after a while that I think he began to get to know me and trust me as a friend that you get these fleeting moments of genuine interaction with him and it’s incredibly gratifying. He’s a really smart and generous guy. Really. How fuckin’ funny is his show? I email him from time to time and just say that was genius. And, it’s just pure him. Obviously he’s got a great staff, I don’t want to take anything away from them, but his brain is something that’s extremely rare.

  • Trailer Park: THE HANGOVER – Review

    By Christopher Stipp

    The Archives, Right Here

    So, 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.

    And now, you can follow me on TWITTER under the name: Stipp

    hangoverTHE HANGOVER – Review

    A ra-tard.

    A ra-tard is perhaps the one word that I have been chewing on like a cow gums cud for weeks after seeing THE HANGOVER. It’s delivered by Alan (Zach Galifianakis) and it’s such a non sequitur, one of many, that you wonder what’s taken so long to get Zach into the mix of modern cinematic comedy; he’s the cosmic little brother of Danny McBride. And it’s Zach who illustrates why THE HANGOVER is the comedy that will keep people coming back for a 2nd or 3rd viewing.

    What everyone should know going into this film is that the premise of it is deceptively simple: Doug Billings (Justin Bartha) is going to Vegas to have a bachelor party. Aided by an ethically challenged mischief maker Phil Wenneck (Bradley Cooper), browbeaten and p-whipped whipping boy Stu Price (Ed Helms) and Alan the boys go off to enjoy an evening of frivolity and licentiousness. The brilliance of the comedy really begins after we’ve established who everyone is and are watching these gents offer a toast to one another as they look forward to their last evening with their bachelor friend.

    Time fast forwards without you seeing nary a moment more of the evening and you have a scene that is reminiscent of the SIXTEEN CANDLES after-party when we find Farmer Ted trapped in a table. Here, though, that table is shattered, furniture is smoldering, nudity abounds and there’s a tiger in the toilet.

    The non-linear storytelling is a unique way to tell the story even if this wasn’t a comedy. It’s a bold decision to make because we don’t know, aren’t told and there are not any convenient flashback sequences to assist in filling in the gaps as we get acquainted with the reasons why their very expensive hotel suite has gone from pristine to thrashed and why Doug is MIA. Now, and of course, we’ll eventually figure out why there’s a big tiger hanging out in their bathroom but Todd Phillips as a director metes out the information in small bites, opening up the ability to have Galifianakis, Cooper and Helms to really explore the comedic possibilities of what did happen last night.

    The mix of performers here is what heightens the comedic effect of two comedians doing their thing and one actor who is just reacting to the obnoxiousness of it all. To that point, this is really an ensemble comedy, much like Phillips’ ROAD TRIP where you have a non-comedian in Breckin Meyer who was at the center of the maelstrom that was Seann William Scott and company, and that is spearheaded by Galifianakis and Helms. The former, a celebrated underground comedian who trades in the sharpest forms of subtlety, and the latter, in Helms, who has been a periphery player in another ensemble comedy, The Office. The pair are one/two punches of non-stop quips, parries, offhanded comments and totally wrong behaviors. To wit, Galifianakis’ opening salvo to the puerile funny about to be unleashed on the audience has him taking a baby, who they’ve just happened to find in their hotel room, an using the child’s hand to perform auto erotica. Yeah, it’s not going to be your parents’ STARSKY AND HUTCH.

    While these gents try and piece together what exactly happened to their missing groom (his disappearance is one of the better sleight of hands in cinema as of late as you almost think of him as an afterthought while the film progresses) the wackiness that ensues is really the core of the film’s comedy. You have improbable characters popping up left and right, you’ve got a nude man who makes a break for it after climbing on Bradley Cooper like a spider monkey and the number of sub-plots abounds. One of those plots, where Helms finds out he married a Vegas stripper is one of the more heartfelt moments (if this could even be classified as one) throughout the film as Stu really goes far afield for the usual henpecked man who finds the stones to stand up to his domineering significant other but he makes it work to great comedic effect. Bradley Cooper, meanwhile is just the face man throughout this circus; he’s just a willing accomplice to the frivolity and the profane that happens as they track down their missing groom. The real star here in this movie is Galifianakis.

    His strange, Asperger inspired behavior is the real treat that you should be watching as he is part enigma, part sideshow. He’s more than willing to go along with the physical humor required of him when the boys make their way to a police station and he’s incredible at not letting on to anything remotely funny that escapes his lips. He makes you work for the comedy, his dry wit translates well to a movie that depends heavily on some of the basest forms of modern comedy (nudity, slapstick, bestiality, et al..) but it’s his perceived innocence that makes him the true darling of this movie. You almost fear for his well being as the boys get into physical altercation after altercation and he knows how to make mental illness funny again. He’s the man you root for. He’s the guy who can deliver a joke about roofies with not so much as a smirk on his face. This movie is the vehicle, I will assert, that captures his comedic essence and, equally assert, it’s a shame that I predict you won’t see it in its natural form on the big screen any time soon.

    Ed Helms acquits himself well in this movie as the film’s resident p-whipped weakling but Helms displays the ability to not only display humor in a broad, bombastic way but he’s just as razor sharp if you compare him to Galifianakis. Helms’ most nuanced line comes as the boys come back to their hotel room after a long day of searching for Doug. They are no doubt exhausted and as one of them complains of having a foggy head Galifianakis makes a quick remark to which Helms picks right back up to score one of the best lines in the film.

    Cooper, for his part, just plays well with others. He isn’t especially compelling but he is the Moe to the other Stooges on display and, in fact, provides a real weight to the film’s narrative. He brings a level head, a suave tone and simply makes the film nicer to look at. From knowing how to wrangle Galifianakis, to dealing with the police when it’s time to strike a deal Cooper is exactly what this film needs.

    This movie couldn’t be any more recommended. It is absolutely the reason to go to the movies if what you need is just a good laugh. It is so out there, so bizzarre, so completely unrealistic that it finally brings Todd Phillips back to where he belongs: in an elevator getting head. His last few films have been weak entries into a career where his only aim should be to figure out how to be incredibly entertaining, fantastically out there while employing the talents of those, and this is key, who know how to be funny. Anything less would warrant having a roofie popped in your Pepsi before going in to see it.

  • Trailer Park: DRAG ME TO HELL

    By Christopher Stipp

    The Archives, Right Here

    So, 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.

    And now, you can follow me on TWITTER under the name: Stipp

    land_of_the_lostposter

    LAND OF THE LOST – SCREENING

    Who here is from Arizona?

    Who has some time next Tuesday to see a screening of LAND OF THE LOST, starring Will Ferrell and Danny McBride? I have passes galore for some lucky Quick Stop Entertainment readers so if you’re going to be around please shoot me a note at Christopher_Stipp@Yahoo.com and I’ll make sure you get in.

    For those of you who are still in the dark about the film, here’s a breakdown:

    Space-time vortexes suck.

    Will Ferrell stars as has-been scientist Dr. Rick Marshall, sucked into one and spat back through time. Way back. Now, Marshall has no weapons, few skills and questionable smarts to survive in an alternate universe full of marauding dinosaurs and fantastic creatures from beyond our world – a place of spectacular sights and super-scaled comedy known as the Land of the Lost.

    Sucked alongside him for the adventure are crack-smart research assistant Holly (Anna Friel) and a redneck survivalist (Danny McBride) named Will. Chased by T. rex and stalked by painfully slow reptiles known as Sleestaks, Marshall, Will and Holly must rely on their only ally – a primate called Chaka (Jorma Taccone) – to navigate out of the hybrid dimension. Escape from this routine expedition gone awry and they’re heroes. Get stuck, and they’ll be permanent refugees in the Land of the Lost.

    Based on the classic television series created by Sid & Marty Krofft, Land of the Lost is directed by Brad Silberling and produced by Jimmy Miller and Sid & Marty Krofft.

    Doctor Who S4 - The Next DoctorDR. WHO?

    People love their Dr. Who.

    While I could never get into it in the way a lot of you do I just received this in my in-box and thought I would share with the fellow geek community if you didn’t already know.

    I remember being in 8th grade and having a friend who was REALLY into it. Even then I could see it was a really important series to some people so I figure this is my way of helping out a contingent of people who have a deep reverence for this program. I am equally a fan of BBC America and think that the programming on that channel whips the tar out of 90% of our own domestic network offerings (Check out Skins, people…Seriously…) so I like to help when I can. Without any ado here is the release…

    U.S. PREMIERE OF DOCTOR WHO SPECIALS ON BBC AMERICA

    – BBC AMERICA premieres five specials from TV’s longest running sci-fi series –

    New York, NY ““ May 28, 2009 ““ BBC AMERICA today announced the acquisition of five new specials from Doctor Who, television’s longest running science fiction series and a global phenomenon. The deal gives the cable channel the exclusive first window to the Doctor Who 2009 Specials (4 x 60), the final four adventures of the tenth Time Lord played by David Tennant. As part of the same deal, BBC AMERICA acquired the 2008 Christmas Special, The Next Doctor featuring David Morrissey and Dervla Kirwan. It will air Saturday, June 27, 2009.

    The first of the 2009 specials, Doctor Who: Planet of the Dead, premieres in July. As a London red bus takes a detour to an alien world it forces the Doctor (Tennant) to work with the extraordinary Lady Christina (Michelle Ryan, Bionic Woman). But the mysterious planet holds terrifying secrets hidden in the sand and time is running out as the deadly Swarm gets closer.

    “The outstanding quality of the Doctor Who scripts from Russell T Davies and the on-screen dynamic that David Tennant brings to the role are a magic combination for our viewers. Russell’s spin-off series Torchwood is already our highest rated show on the channel and I know the fans will follow these new specials with equal passion and support. We’re thrilled to bring this iconic show to BBC AMERICA, home of the best British sci-fi programming on television,” says President, BBC Worldwide America Garth Ancier.

    Doctor Who: The Waters of Mars is the second special and along with the two additional untitled specials will premiere later in 2009 and early 2010.

    Building off the successful Supernatural Saturdays programming block, Doctor Who will be leveraged across multiple platforms including Doctor Who: Planet of the Dead, the first Doctor Who DVD to be released on Blu-ray, shortly after the U.S. broadcast premiere.

    The writers are Russell T Davies and Gareth Roberts (The Sarah Jane Adventures) with Executive Producers Russell T Davies and Julie Gardner (Torchwood, Life on Mars). It is a BBC production and distributed by BBC Worldwide.

    drag-me-to-hell-posterDRAG ME TO HELL – REVIEW

    David: Have you seen the movie, Texas Chainsaw Massacre?

    Anna-Maria: No. It is good?

    David: Oh, I’ve got to tell you, I love this film. It had passion and a plucky spirit. And, the characters had integrity, like when Leatherface went on that strict diet of human flesh, he had to cut out chicken and fish completely.


    Francis “Chainsaw” Grimp: Dave, I agree with you. I’ll go a step further, sure Leatherface, he wore a mask made out of human skin, and he hung people on meat-hooks, but hey, we’ve all got quirks, I got ’em, you’ve got ’em Dave, that’s what makes this character so, so compelling. Thumbs up for me.

    David: Same here.

    Francis “Chainsaw” Grimp: To sum it up, I’m Chainsaw . . .

    David: I’m Dave.
    Francis “Chainsaw” Grimp and David: Will see you . . . At the Movies.

    – SUMMER SCHOOL, 1987

    It was a tenuous peace at first but, Lord, did I almost have to look away by the end.

    When first we meet Christine Brown (Alison Lohman), a beautiful heroine if ever there was one, not strikingly gorgeous nor feeble and weak as so many other films would have made her, she’s introduced as a bland loan officer who works for a one-dimensional boss by the name of Mr. Jacks (played pitch perfectly by David Paymer). Christine and her weasel of a co-worker are vying for a promotion within the small bank where they work.

    The seemingly bland and head-scratchingly inane set-up had me wondering momentarily whether I had walked into a movie that would be just yet another entry into the horror genre this year (think MY BLOODY VALENTINE, FRIDAY THE 13TH, et al.) where spectacle is being used as a replacement for genuine thrills and chills. DRAG ME TO HELL separates itself from its predecessors precisely at the moment when we meet Mrs. Ganush (Lorna Raver). Decrepit, frail and overtly disgusting she is everything that Michael Myers and Jason Voorhees as of late are not and that is unnerving. Raver is perhaps the one linchpin in making this film far more original than cliché; I have no qualms at admitting that merely reflecting on her role in its entirety still raises little bumps of flesh on the back of my neck. She is played with the right amount of camp and eerie sensibility.

    The movie has such a basic and forced beginning, you almost start wondering what the hype is all about, that when things start getting fantastical it thrusts the film’s hum-drum reality into a sphere . Much of believing in this character’s universe, obviously, goes to director/writer Sam Raimi and his brother Ivan Raimi for establishing such a compelling premise. What’s more is that the two of them seem to be operating at a level that is not meant to be demeaning or insulting and, point of fact, are playing around in a sandbox of fundamentals. Fundamentals with regard to getting at what makes a good scare, to not having one jump out of your skin moment but to pummel you continuously with them at any one time, creating one-note characters (read here: Justin Long’s parents, Lohman’s boss, co-worker) who only help to serve the spooky vibe of the film and not take away from it, wrapping absurdist comedy up within moments that shouldn’t have it and, finally, how to keep you locked in and keyed up to what’s happening.

    All of these elements come in to play continuously throughout the film but when Lohman is thrust into the cursed world of the Lamia through a quite disconcerting battle between her and Mrs. Ganush there couldn’t be a more precise distillation of all these elements into one prickly scene that, if you are fully on-board with the movie, properly punches your ticket into one of the best reasons to be in the theater this summer. From the fight to the eventual curse that is put upon her this is beats out any battle you’ll get in the month of May from any other blockbuster playing at the multiplex.

    As the film progresses you can’t help but feel a strong connection to the story. Sam and Ivan deserve the kind of credit that you would give to an author like Stephen King but the ruse is that they’re not like Stephen, and this isn’t meant as a slap, they’re more on par with Richard Matheson or authors like him. The story feels small, intimate, powerful. Some of the best horror fiction, for me anyway, always centers on the personal and individual circumstance. There is no room for sprawling narratives in these stories and this movie should be applauded for keeping things tight. As it weaves its reality, Lohman employing the help of soothsayer and psychic Rham Jas (Dileep Rao) to deconstruct what she needs to do in order to unsaddle herself from the eventual demise that is coming for her. Rao is given a bit part, for sure, but his presence in this film is quite entertaining as he provides the push needed for the events to unravel as they do.

    Justin Long, for his part, plays his role better than anyone in his position has a right to as it is just a role that you see in countless other horror films where you have to have the sensitive significant other who has to sympathize, but not necessarily do anything about, the present condition of the protagonist. It’s a throwaway role, almost, but Long is delightful as the concerned boyfriend who can’t do anything about his lady’s impending doom and, almost like Rao, only serves the plot when needed. In terms of leanness and scales of economy, taking a page from writers who are good at not adding anything that doesn’t serve the plot, there isn’t a wasted character or needless inclusion of a hot best friend, a little kid or any number of other insignificant elements that drag some horror films, and their pacing along with it, down.

    It’s about here where talking any more about the film’s cracks, crags and nuances would only serve to spoil what should be experienced as cold as possible. The thrill of this film is not knowing too much about what is to follow, expecting and knowing where a scare is coming from only defeats the great triumph of the Raimis. Sam has managed, SPIDER-MAN 3 be damned, to actually go back to what made him such an endearing element to independent horror fans. I will however make note of the scene where Lohman needs to visit a graveyard where she expects to rid herself of the foul curse that saddles her soul.

    Lohman’s moments in the comedically stereotype that is a Raimi graveyard is played with the kind of ferocity, brutality, excitement and sexiness (the delicately brushed away mud splash on her porcelain white skin was a nice touch) that I came to love and fear in a similar moment in POLTERGEIST during a pool scene many here should know all too well. The gross-out factor is compounded by a few things but, again, the moment is tinged with both abject horror and farcical humor in a blend that deserves not to be spoiled by anyone much less me.

    And, it should be mentioned, you may not notice the work Sam does with sound and music throughout but he deserves kudos here as well. He pays attention to the way sounds move within the speaker field and Christopher Young’s excellent and chilling score only helps to accentuate the action on the screen.

    DRAG ME TO HELL is a wondrous film going experience that not only reminds you why horror can be so much more than just updating it to satisfy the torture porn sensibilities of young moviegoers who demand their horror to be brutal. The Raimis give the kind of scares that are worth so much more than the quick cuts, slick production values and ostentatiousness of films in its genre. The movie reads like a delicious short story that you want to read again just so you can see if it hits the same high points.

    If ever there was a reason to get out and enjoy a movie with dozens of others, if only to hear the squeals and screams of others in attendence, DRAG ME TO HELL is it.

  • Trailer Park: TERMINATOR SALVATION

    By Christopher Stipp

    The Archives, Right Here

    So, 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.

    And now, you can follow me on Twitter under the name: Stipp

    A lot of talk this week about Quentin Tarantino’s newest film screening at Cannes. Consensus? It’s talky, light on action and seems like a WWII DEATH PROOF.

    TERMINATOR SALVATION – REVIEW

    terminatorThere absolutely shouldn’t have been any blessing given from James Cameron with regard to TERMINATOR SALVATION. The only religious intonations given over this movie should have been its last rites.

    Now, I can’t stop you from seeing this movie. You will see it irrespective of anything I have to say on this. I realize this.

    You’ve been sold on it, I was sold on it, director McG’s P.T. Barnum huckster antics during preview showcases to fanboys teased and titillated audiences everywhere (“I really fought hard for those mammaries to be in there, fellas!”) but there is no escaping the fact that behind the tell-tale daa-daa-daa-daa-daa drum beat we all know as the sonic opening calling card for this franchise is nothing but a lot of smoke and a weak film. A film, mind you, which McG himself said should speak for itself. If it did it would say: Don’t spend $10 on me. Wait for Netflix.

    There are a few things that make this a truly remarkable misstep in a franchise that should have ended 2 films ago but one of them comes early on as we meet John Connor (Christian Bale) who absolutely owns the first few minutes of the film in the way he carries his heavy burden as the leader for the resistance and the Batman-like voice with which he wants reality to conform to his own. He’s badass, he chews nails for fun and he’s not going to let crashing in a helicopter, which is a great special effects moment in this film, stop him from thrashing a terminator that deserves leaded violence.

    The problems begin with the moments following when Bale is flying over an ocean, wanting to get back to resistance headquarters. He’s been beat up, almost killed and is denied entry to the underwater base of operations. But that’s not going to stop him from getting in! Much like another summer movie hero from over two decades ago, Jack Ryan in HUNT FOR RED OCTOBER, he’s going to get on that damn sub. The fundamental issue which is wholly representative of what ails this movie is that in OCTOBER there was some emotional weight, genuine drama as he unhooked himself from that line to get in that submarine; there was tension, mood, atmosphere, a real sense of danger. Bale’s bullheaded bravado, masked by the tired trope of cinematic bullheaded machismo as he flippantly tosses himself out of the low flying aircraft into the ocean, is nothing more than a cheap way to try and make this guy seem like a real tough guy.

    When next we see Bale, he’s sitting in a chair looking all kinds of torqued, moody, getting chewed out by Michael Ironside, playing a character I am not unsure of whether is any different than we saw from any number of 80’s movies where his role is to try and be an even tougher character than those he’s acting opposite of, all the while it begs the question of how much suspension of disbelief is going to be required of me in this film?

    It’s a trick question, of course, as the film has moments like this peppered throughout the entire film. For example, the people who have been living without real homes since Judgment Day. They’re fantastically dirty and dusty but the glare coming off their teeth as their lips and faces are sullied with the detritus of a cataclysmic event reminds you that at least they have their Colgate. Another: When Marcus Wright (Sam Worthington, and you’ve got to appreciate the grade school irony in a script that names a man Wright) meets up with young Kyle Reese (Anton Yelchin) in one of the best sequences of the film as we have our first look at a terminator who is at once zombie-looking and completely sinister. Hours later, after escaping death, Marcus fiddles with a radio. He just happens to fix it at just the time when, speak of the devil, Connor is broadcasting his fireside chat with those out in the field regarding their next moves. Never mind the timing, the way they catch the signal at just the right frequency or the acknowledgment that it’s Connor speaking to them. It’s just all very convenient.

    Later, Reese is part of an escape from a very bad situation from a slew of terminating machines. He and Marcus are departing the explosive moment in a tow truck when moments later he has to pull a single lever at just the right time to make the scene work; forget logic, it begs us, as not only does Reese pull the right one at the right time from a literal array of choices it does nothing to help the dramatic thrust of the film. There is no danger here, no threat of imminent danger, because these guys have an exponential amount of luck on their side and this is the problem with the film.

    Further, in the film’s first hour, we find out early that the resistance has found a way to stop the machines, a poorly explained software program that is embedded on a jump drive that needs a clunky boombox to use. About this time, Connor sends his team to fetch an aqua terminator, a lot like the squids from the MATRIX sequels, to which they find one, bring it aboard, all the while being able to keep it from informing other aqua terminators that its been captured or of its current location. This sonic disruptor is one of the weakest McGuffins as it leads exactly nowhere. It’s a ruse, a poorly devised plot device whose sole purpose is used to an awful and regrettable convenience when finally employed to its strongest effect. The film is riddled with lapses in logic, and honestly if an action movie were on point doing what it has to, we shouldn’t care but from rain that just seems to stop on cue to a fiery explosion that singes nary a hair on the person who is caught in a fireball there is more than enough to puzzle at.

    Moon Bloodgood, for all that McG has made about her, is actually one of the more redeemable things about this film. Along with Sam Worthington and Anton Yelchin as the reluctant hero you have the three best reasons to see the film. I would even posit that their story, by itself, could have been a more entertaining diversion than what we build up to here. Marcus’ second lease on life is slightly introspective and rather interesting. Kyle’s progression from hesitant killer to lethal hero is wonderfully laid out. But that’s the most frustrating thing about this film. It has fits and starts of potential and has excellent action set pieces only to dumb itself down to appease the lowest common denominator as moments just happen to break positively for those we are supposed to care the most about in the movie. When the “big reveal” in the 3rd act happens near the end try and convince me otherwise that it doesn’t make you feel cheated. The shadows, the calculated angles, the careful placement of bodies, it feels more like a math assignment than it does a celebration of all that’s great in excellent action movies. The effects at this point felt on par with THE CROW. The penultimate battle between man and machine, in the bowls of Skynet headquarters, however, tries to win you back with a glorious display of physicality and menace but by then it’s too late. The film cannot elevate itself above a 2nd tier auctioneer when compared to more thought out films in its genre; leave it to Nolan to raise the bar for everyone else who comes behind him. I commend McG for not bowing to the pressure of actually integrating more of the terminators in the film, Lord knows that would’ve made it far more intriguing and add to the summer spectacle this should have been, but he demurs to telling a bullet ridden story with nowhere to end but with a whimper.

    For all his ruminations about how Bale said he flatly turned down this role until he was given a script that you would have thought came with gilded light pouring down from every page if it got Bruce Wayne to say “Yes” to it after turning it down what you have is a story that is full of logical missteps, plots that go nowhere, effect work that at times has you wondering whether it was worth the cameo and the questionable taste for an actor that proved with DARK KNIGHT you could have a great summer film that was designed, and whose sole purpose was, to make money for its cash master while being reasonably intelligent. TERMINATOR SALVATION is a wonder as it doesn’t want to be intelligent, it doesn’t even want to be smart, it just wants to be a throwback to the films you could enjoy on basic cable and be done with once you’ve seen it. It’s an embarrassment of spectacle that leaves a lot of money on the table.

    From a pure franchise standpoint, a solely economic exercise, McG may win the weekend but he will lose the summer war.

  • Trailer Park: MODERN TOSS

    By Christopher Stipp

    The Archives, Right Here

    So, 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.

    And now, you can follow me on Twitter under the name: Stipp

    This week saw Alex Billington take flight to Cannes and the raves that Pixar’s UP has been getting is far too much for me to bear as I slowly wade my way to the day when the screening happens. As well, I’m getting things together in order to bring you an interview with *the* Ari Gold from ADVENTURES OF POWER.

    lotl_field_300x250

    LAND OF THE LOST

    Couple of bits of information for you kids this week as we head in closer to the premiere of LAND OF THE LOST on June 5th. I got sent a link to an online game set up for the film and, while it doesn’t have the same panache as the online game for DAWN OF THE DEAD, it is at least worth you checking out as I will have tickets to the advance screening in Phoenix:

    CHAKKER GAME:
    Will, Holly, and Rick are in trouble, and Chaka is the only one who can save them! Help Chaka maneuver across the treacherous terrain, avoid contact with all kinds of Land of the Lost critters, and finally rescue his friends! Try your hand at the rescue mission at www.landofthelost.net/game and challenge your friends to join in!

    GIGANTOR

    gigantorv1_3d2Have any of you ever sat in wonderment at a cartoon?

    I have heard in hushed whispers about the glory that is this black and white beauty of a cartoon, Gigantor and I recently had the opportunity to check out the DVD that has collected this series in one slick package and should be on anyone’s list of DVDs worth spending your money on. I think, apart from the fact that when this series came out in 1966 it was envisioning a world set in the year 2000 the show has an exuberance that is lost on most of the caffeine injected action cartoons that have been produced in the last few decades.

    Forget your G.I. Joe, your Tranzor Z, this series made me reflect on what was quite possibly the wet dream of every young boy who watched this program. Yes, some of the footage obviously overlaps from one episode to the next but, please, we’ve already established that even Walt Disney reused animation from his films to be used in other films. What makes this series so nerd cool is the embrace of modern technology which, if you again realize this was made in 1966 was quite impressive. The press release follows and I couldn’t have enjoyed this trip down a memory lane I never was down before…

    Never fear, the great GIGANTOR returns this spring to save the world from evil criminals, enemy robots and hostile aliens. The influential cartoon series> about a giant heroic robot and the young boy that controls him blazed a new trail for Japanese animation in America. Long unavailable on home video, E1 Entertainment presents the classic cartoon in a newly packaged 4-DVD collection of 26 uncut episodes in their original air-date order, with bonus interviews and commentary, six complete Gigantor comics on DVD-ROM, and a brand new collectible 16-page booklet. GIGANTOR: THE COLLECTION ““VOLUME 1 arrives in stores May 5, for $39.98 from E1 Entertainment.

    In the “future” year of 2000, young Jimmy Sparks has control of a virtually indestructible flying robot built by his father. Gigantor was originally designed as a weapon, but has been reprogrammed as the ultimate guardian of peace. With the help of Dr. Bob Brilliant, secret agent Dick Strong, and Inspector Blooper, Jimmy and Gigantor must battle to save the world from a never-ending as sault by ruthless villains.

    Gigantor began as the brainchild of Japanese cartoonist Mitsuteru Yokoyama (Giant Robo, Sally the Witch) who released 92 anime episodes in Japan in the mid “˜60s as “Tetsujin 28-go.” The series was soon acquired for broadcast in the United States, adapted for U.S. audiences by producer Fred Ladd (creator of Pinocchio in Outer Space, “The Big World of Little Adam”), and aired for two seasons (52 episodes) starting in 1966. GIGANTOR: THE COLLECTION ““ VOLUME 1 features the first 26 of these uncut, black and white episodes, digitally transferred from the original 16mm film. Enlightening extras include an in-depth interview and audio commentary on select episodes with director/producer/writer Ladd, and an interview with anime historian Fred Patten from Animation World magazine. In addition, this deluxe set features special DVD-ROM content ““ issues 1-6 of the Gigantor comic book series from Ben Dunn and Antarctic Press, published in 2000. The 4-disc set also includes a 16-page collectible booklet with a brief history of the series, episode summaries as well as rare archival press materials/photos.

    MODERN TOSS – INTERVIEW

    modern_tossOne of the most strange and wonderfully enrapturing series to air this year has to be Modern Toss. The best way to explain this show to someone who has never before come near its beauty is imagine a live action and animated program that uses foul language in ways that are not only creative but wicked, toss in a British sensibility, some strange series regulars, weird premises and wrap it all in laughter. What you come up with is Modern Toss, a program, to quote Wikipedia, that stars some of the following animated harbingers of anger:

    • Mr Tourette: a French sign-writer who produces offensive signs bearing no relation to his customers’ instructions. This usually culminates in his customer being totally unhappy with the work and Mr Tourette calling them “some kind of cunt”.
    • Alan: a sociopathic, scribble-like creature who plays extreme practical jokes on his middle-class brother-in-law, usually involving Alan turning up uninvited to a social event, causing a large amount of destruction to the tune of “I Like To Move It” by Reel 2 Real before running away, leaving his brother-in-law to shout “Come back, Alan, you wanker!”
    • Prince Edward, Royal Entrepreneur: the prince tries to make money out of anything associated with the Royal family, no matter how tasteless.
    • Citizens Advice: irate and often illogical complaints from members of the public about goods, services and employers, usually concluding with the question “where do I stand legally?”

    Created by Mick Bunnage and Jon Link ,Modern Toss started as a comic book that starred some of the series’ regulars. The comic made its way a couple of years later to a late-night television in 1996 on Channel 4 and finally, 3 years later, made its way to IFC. The program makes you scratch your head, wonder at its idiosyncrasy and marvel at its ability to be entertaining even though you may not have a firm grasp on what’s happening. It’s worth seeking out and I recently had a chance to catch up with Mick and Jon to talk about their series.

    CHRISTOPHER STIPP: Gentlemen. How are you doing?

    MODERN TOSS: We’re doing well.

    CS: Great. I have watched the first three episodes and I am absolutely blown away by what I thought British humor, traditionally being more reserved, sly, what have you, was supposed to be. I shouldn’t say shocked but I was surprised by the level of sort of in-your-face comedy.

    TOSS: Was it the bad language?

    CS: Well, it was quite a change of pace from what I’ve come to expect from what British comedy has to offer.

    TOSS: It was an experiment. I normally don’t let people like us near the telly but things are going well so far.

    coverpackshotCS: Where did this begin? Where did the real genesis for Modern Toss come from?

    TOSS: Well, we both used to work for a magazine in the 90’s. And we drew funny little cartoons to pass the time really and started sticking them in the magazine. One of them was about a cockney villain who just went around punching people in the face and that worked out very well and that’s how we got started. Then we did another cartoon after that which was about violence in the workplace that worked out well.

    CS: And can I ask about the genesis of some of these characters? Obviously you have lots of different things going on here but I’m really interested to learn how Drive By Abuser began.

    TOSS: Oh, that’s a tricky one. He’s not sophisticated but he does make us laugh….a sort of poet on a motorbike.

    CS: He seems to just take pleasure from such mundane things and his whole persona is predicated on overreaction to the most simplistic things.

    TOSS: Yeah. He’s trying to make friends as well. Trying to make conversation, really. Not that anyone understands what he’s trying to do but he’s doing his best.

    anotherbookthumbCS: And then from there, one of my favorites is Alan, who doesn’t say hardly anything but where did he come from?

    TOSS: Yeah, Alan. He’s a bit like a force of nature really. He’s everyone’s kind of troubled friend. Not a lot of family support around Alan. If you are having weddings or christenings, for heaven’s sake, don’t invite Alan.

    (Laughs)

    CS: This is my first entry into the series so this is all new to me but for you gentlemen, this is going on three years. You have obviously lived with it for a few years, so how has it progressed? When you first started you must have had an idea of where you wanted to go and what you wanted to do with it, so how has it grown for you?

    TOSS: I don’t think we had a plan really. It’s all a big adventure for us. We kind of make it up as we go along. We started off with a comic and we had to learn how to do that and we didn’t really have a plan. We had a vision but no plan. Didn’t know where we were going. It’s developing all the time.

    CS: And how did it go from being just a comic until someone said, “You know what, I’d like to see this on TV.” There are so many comics out there. Who took a shine to it and said, “I really want to turn this into something?”

    TOSS: We’re a bit old fashioned in a way. It’s not a very normal thing in England. Everyone does narrative stores now. I think maybe that’s what made us unusual. We put in as few words as possible. We bring it right down to the basics and don’t worry about the drawings. We usually take the first take and that’s something we stick with. There’s no polishing.

    cottonbagCS: And now you just released the newest comic, Volume 5?

    TOSS: Yeah. Complete with plastic bag.

    CS: I saw that bag ““ I want that issue just for that bag.

    TOSS: We’re going to take America by storm and apparently somebody has put it up on a website.

    CS: I am going to buy it and went through all 3 episodes last night and really enjoyed it .

    TOSS: We’re going to send one of those bags to Obama as well.

    (Laughs)

    We think he’d really get on board with the message.

    (Laughs)

    CS: That brings up a good point. This kind of show wouldn’t fly on our network stations here. What do you think about the way we consume our content here in America? We don’t like our bad words or nudity ““ we reserve that for our really far off channels, whereas every other part of the world doesn’t have a problem with it.

    TOSS: British TV is still pretty conventional ““ there are a few channels that show our stuff but not many. It’s mainly about celebrity, comedians, and such like that. And our stuff is pretty much out there, even for England. How it’s going to go down in America is unknown.

    CS: Mr. Tourette, if I had a favorite, he would be mine. He is so bizarre with the nonsensical words that he comes up with but I find myself just endeared to the character. Where did this guy come from?

    TOSS: France.

    (Laughs)

    answer4I think people like him is because he does what he wants. He’s got a good attitude for work. It would take like an English plumber to get some of the jokes.

    CS: The show, and I think you should be commended for it, which I like, it never goes for the cheap gag, it’s pretty minimalist but it’s straight forward. I look around me and I see a lot of shows where you try to dumb everything down and this show doesn’t compromise in that fashion.

    TOSS: Yeah, we’re dumb enough.

    (Laughs)

    The company that commissioned it in England just pretty much left us alone and we just did what was right. It just worked. The best kind of comedy programs are the ones that take few chances anyway.

    CS: Ah, but that’s where some people can get into trouble where they see that they can make a quick buck or make a name for myself if I just do what everyone expects or wants.
    Was there ever anyone trying to speak in your other ear saying maybe you should make this more consumer friendly? You said you were left alone but was there anyone trying to get their way?

    TOSS: No. They just left us alone.

    CS: What are you gentlemen doing now? Volume 5 of the comic book series just came out, are you producing more episodes of the show?

    TOSS: At the moment, we are going to do a live version of it but it’s pretty sketchy beyond that, especially in England. Doing PR for an animation type series at the moment but not part of the sketch show. There are different things we are developing.

    CS: Regarding that, when I look at what you’ve done with this show, is this something you think you can keep doing? I know there are some leanings to at least the way I perceive things is when you have a really successful show in England, you do a few seasons and then you are done with it basically, whereas here, we just keep cracking them out year after year and people just never leave. Is there a time when you will say, “I’ve said everything I want to say?”

    TOSS: No. We started with a comic, then TV stuff, and live TV stuff and back to comic. We’ve never run out of stuff.

    CS: Well I think if you were to compare I think this is something very real to the two of you and there has been no compromises with what gets on the screen.

    TOSS: That’s right. We just go for it.

    CS: Thanks gentlemen, so much, for talking to me. I really enjoyed the show.

    TOSS: Thank you, Chris.

    PHOENIX FILM FESTIVAL – BY RAY SCHILLACI

    PFF Highlights: And the winner is…

    2fe7736d47a285c17728669ec586Let me queue you in, I have never been a documentary fan, although I have been more open-minded to them of late. I think I was originally turned off to any educational media at an early age with a combination of far too many viewings of “Mr. Wizard” (a kid’s science show in the late 50s and 60s) and Disney’s “Jiminy Cricket” children’s educational show, “I’m No Fool” ““ the 16mm reel still endlessly rattles in the back of my head. Much later in life I was to discover that documentaries could be as powerful and more effective than the average cinematic experience with my first viewing of 1978’s “Scared Straight!” a group of cocky juvenile delinquents (Are there any other kind?) spend a no holds barred day with actual convicts ““ “Oh Bubba, I’m too young to be somebody’s bitch.” Fast forward to this year’s crop of fine documentaries at PFF. What a pleasant surprise had by all. It was no easy feat picking “Best Documentary”. It eventually came down to a couple of emotionally powerful one-two punches, “The Way We Get By” and “Shooting Beauty”.

    I’ll cut to the chase; “The Way We Get By” won Best Documentary by a nose, and I will challenge that on a technicality, of course this is just my opinion and I’ll explain later. That is not to take anything away from the winner. “The Way We Get By” is a valiant achievement by director Aron Gaudet, capturing the lives of the senior citizens who’ve found a higher calling by greeting our military men and women who come and go to the Iraq war. This older set shows their resilience and support of our troops (and not necessarily the war) with handshakes and hugs, and the power that accompanies these small but grand gestures.

    Over 800,000 soldiers and Marines have been met with warm and heartfelt enthusiasm at the Bangor International Airport 365 days a year. This is a far cry from what are men and women experienced after Vietnam and it is a point beautifully driven home. The story focuses on three of the seniors, Bill Knight, Joan Gaudet and Jerry Mundy who let us get more than a glimpse into their world and views. They struggle with the conflicts that many Americans are facing today and couple it with the wisdom of their years while doing battle with loneliness, and for some poor health. This is in no way maudlin or manipulating. This story could have gone the easy route and just tugged at our heartstrings, instead it approaches the subject matter with an insightful wallop that makes us think rather than cry. Oh, don’t get me wrong, there are teary moments, but they are not relied on to move this informative piece along and it makes us appreciate director Gaudet and his players all the much more.

    Especially thought provoking is WWII veteran, Bill Knight. An eccentric lost soul after the death of his wife, Bill grapples with bouts of uncomfortable solitude and the inevitable short time he has left on this world. Gaudet’s close-ups on this tired old trooper capture more meaning than anything said. It is Knight’s thoughts and recollections of years gone by that set the mood for the entire piece. Yet the movie refrains from being a downer with the reaction of our troops to the seniors and their well-placed intentions. It is in these moments that the movie really shines capturing warmth and a crossover appeal between generations. This is truly a captivating experience for all. With that being said, on to something really special…

    shooting-beauty-1As mentioned before, I am not taking anything away from the winner, but the later film, “Shooting Beauty” goes beyond the call of duty as a documentary and as a film in general. There are few times in cinema history that one is swept away with a wave of emotions and taken on a journey that is so unique, the experience sets it apart from the rest. The films that come to mind; “Elephant Man” “Cinema Paradiso” “Life is Beautiful” and dare I say, “E.T.” (Set aside the crass commercialism that accompanied it) These are films that are to be experienced and not just seen with a bag of popcorn and soda. They put us through a meaningful emotional journey and that is exactly what “Shooting Beauty” does with one exception ““ it is not scripted. Director George Kachadorian and his partner/wife, Courtney Bent beautifully captures the human drama (and comedy) of their tale of triumph of the human spirit, unconquerable by adversity.

    Aspiring fashion photographer, Courtney Bent, has an enjoyable refreshing visit with a small group of people with severe cerebral palsy and other disabilities. Her attempt to capture the experience with her camera becomes hindered when she inadvertently discovers that her own deep-rooted prejudices blurred her vision, developing pictures that are depressing and dark. Taking a step back, Ms. Bent comes upon a revelation; why not have the group take the pictures themselves and capture a unique journey that can be shared by all. This is no easy task having to create makeshift apparatus to enable the group the freedom to shoot how they see themselves. Thus we are taken on a remarkable odyssey bringing us into a world rarely seen that is as informative as it is poetic.

    Kachadorian and Bent had to be guided by the hand of God to encapsulate the remarkable lives of these people. Bent’s unusual assignment turns into a fascinating look into some very genuine people. Mary Joe, EJ, Ernie, Cheryl, and Kerri are just some of the amazing personalities that end up making us laugh out loud at their veracity and crush our hearts with the love and affection that we (in our world) can barely imagine. Especially standing out amongst the group is Tony Knight who provides wonderful motivation with his view on a world that attempts to treat him different, and Tom Herrick, the loner, whose life is not only heart wrenching, but ultimately born again by the camera experiment. Watching him come out of his shell is like witnessing the birth of a butterfly for the first time.

    What transpires from all of this will leave you cheering for everyone involved. This documentary is an eye opener, and I am hard-pressed to even describe the wave of emotions this film evokes. This is probably why it won the Audience Award at PFF. Perhaps now is the time to let you in on the reason it may not have won Best Documentary. Both documentaries are very powerful and focus on worthwhile subjects, but “The Way We Get By” was a far better film technically. The problem with that thought is, people with disabilities photograph much of “Shooting Beauty” and they are not professionals. This is the charm and power of this ingenious documentary, which for my book puts it as the very Best Documentary I’ve seen in years. Kudos goes out to George, Courtney and the wonderful people at UCP Day Experience Program in Watertown, Massachusetts.

    I had the pleasure of chatting with George and I was surprised to discover that he was still seeking distribution at the time and representatives of PBS had turned him down. I could not fathom how this was possible nor could so many others at the festival. Last I heard, a prominent documentary filmmaker had caught a screening and made a quick call to HBO. HBO contacted him right away. No word yet if they have picked it up. Currently they are running in the festival circuit with great and well deserved word-of-mouth.

    Next highlights from PFF will include air drumming, a social dysfunctional gamer generation, and “Clerks” meets “The Breakfast Club” (may not sound appetizing, but it is appealing). None of which are documentaries. Till then, stay Swine free and happy!