Never have I watched a series in which I felt guilty watching other than True Blood. There's so much raunchy sex and violence in that show to make you feel like it's a sin watching it...no joke. The only thing that rivals my guilt is the graphic novel series Preacher.
For those of you who doubt True Blood let me just say this; the series is one of the most well written shows to ever come around. It goes to show how you can have crap content, but with proper execution that crap content can turn into gold!
The main point I'd like to stress is the structure of the show, everything is explained well and the best part of it is, is that the show doesn't rely solely on its vampirism and mythology to get by, there's actual human emotions that are greatly painted throughout the show with exceptional character development. And on top of that when the vampires are slain they die in a very Tom Savini-esque fashion almost reminiscent of Robert Rodriguez's From Dusk Til Dawn.
I too hated the show at first glance mainly due to my vampire bias, because of Twilight and the fact that Blade or a figure like Blade wasn't in the series...haha however, I still think the show can do better with someone like Blade in it. "Jussayin."
In this scene vampire Bill and his maker are having sex in front of a dying woman and her dead husband, whom they murdered.
Zombie movies have seriously run their course on the "big screen" nowadays.
There's proof in this because, George A. Romero; the father of zombie films has been making nothing that comes anywhere near his 1978 American Classic, The Dawn of the Dead and that was well...in 1978. Since then he made the "decent" Land of the Dead in 2005 and the just barely okay Diary of the Dead in 2007, I basically drew the final straw when I saw running zombies in the 2004 remake of Dawn of the Dead, which wasn't a bad movie but running zombies? The only time running zombies are okay is in 28 Days Later.
However! I do love the zombie genre, it's something about the vicarious imaginations I have when I picture myself living in a post zombie apocalyptic world, what would I do? What will I be doing for survival? Will I be alone? If I weren't alone who would be with me? How many would be with me? I am going to drive backwards on the freeway.
To me plot is not really important for the zombie genre, just structure. If you can create a successful parallel universe to make events that occur easy to relate to, then the audience will be enraptured, because that could be them in a not so distant future...The problem is Hollywood thinks one cannot make a zombie genre film without a story because the audience needs an ending otherwise you're going to have a lot of people who want their money back, and believe me nowadays you have to really think about going to a newly released movie (where I go tickets cost 12$). So, how do you satisfy the fans of the zombie horror genre? You make a television series out of the brilliant graphic novel The Walking Dead! And milk the franchise slow and steadily cause it's a television series!
The story is simple, it's a record of the trials and tribulations of a small band of people as they just try to survive on a day to day basis; testing the sheer limits of human mortality and humanity.
I always loved reading The Walking Dead, but due to financial issues I had to stop after Book 4 (major sadface).
But now AMC is coming in strong with this little gem:
Manoj Nelliyattu Shyamalan aka M. Night Shyamalan; is quite possibly one of the most gifted filmmakers alive today. So, why has he been failing miserably?
I am only thinking about him because I recently watched The Last Airbender, and was deeply mortified at how such a brilliant director ended up with this piece of shit film, and I've been seeing ads for that new movie Devil everywhere.
Back when I was really into "marketing" I read up on a lot of innovative marketing campaigns and methods that are being utilized to make us, the consumer want specific things. Of course throughout time people's way of thinking tend to evolve with the ever fast paced improvement in technology forcing marketers to also evolve with the times making certain methods look very archaic. But one thing sticks to my mind whenever I go out and stare at advertisements and that my friends is a simple concept known as "branding."
In short "branding" is what makes you buy Duracell batteries over Kirkland batteries or a piece of shit Sanrio toaster versus an actual toaster made by let's say like Black & Decker, get it? It's the association of a name and its value on an object. How much value you see in the name depends heavily on how it's marketed to you, which in turn adversely affects how much your willing to pay for the object; whether it's with time, money or even both.
So, why is M. Night Shyamalan's name being associated with the new film Devil even though he's just the producer of the film? Because M. Night also made The Sixth Sense and movie studios want you to remember that fact when you pay the inflated ticket price to go watch Devil. I think this is retarded because at this rate how will M. Night ever learn that he's not God and he needs to be slightly more open to criticism of his films rather than rejecting them, and labeling criticism as people misinterpreting his films. I only say this because I did enjoy The Sixth Sense and I thought Signs was amazing, and I would like to see M. Night get back to the top of his form. This will never happen if Hollywood keeps sucking up to him and allowing him to hog all the creative credits for his movies. Honestly, how many bad movies does it take for people to realize this man cannot handle all that workload on his own? When will numbers cease to measure the quality of a film? It's like if all of Scorsese's films made after Goodfellas was total crap but they were all advertised as "from the director of Goodfellas," yes this situation does aggravate me to no end.
I feel like the beginning of his downfall came when Time magazine called him, "the next Spielberg," even then I felt it was too preemptive to be calling such a new and young director a legend. Fuck you media.
I know this is an age old argument in Hollywood where studio heads are just looked at as money grubbing business men who have no appreciation in film, but come on!
This film is quite possibly one of the better Judd Apatow comedies I have seen, and I give all that credit to 3 people; Russell Brand, Jonah Hill and Nick Stoller.
Get Him to the Greek, is a film with all your typical story elements, the passionate and down to earth protagonist, the very particular know it all boss with nerves of steel and the out of control rock star.
So, what's great about the film? Everything. The writer/director does a good job taking all those typical elements and putting very strong performances to back them; Jonah Hill and Russell Brand's on screen chemistry is ridiculously harmonized throughout the film, there's never a dull moment when they are both on screen.
The plot is simple, a recording label needs something to re-ignite their revenue stream so a young aspiring intern by the name of Aaron (Jonah Hill) comes up with a brilliant idea to resurrect Aldous Snow's career by moving off the momentum of Aldous Snow's anniversary of his famous live performance before his major flop "African Child."
Yes, Russell Brand's character is the same one from Forgetting Sarah Marshall and the director does a good job at poking fun at that fact, in respect to the universe in which the two comedies thrive in.
That one portrait of the "Sad Clown" comes to mind whenever I watch comedies involving fame, money, passion, and realism. Especially, when it's coming from the new age writing that Judd Apatow seems to favor so much, the painful realization of watching people who make people laugh for a living end up getting kicked in the ass by reality is almost like a voyeuristic guilty pleasure for me; the audience.
I've been studying 2D art for the last two weeks and the basic principles of geometric shape placements. So, when I saw these renditions of the classic Star Wars trilogy I garnered a new found ounce of respect for the franchise.
This awesome graphic design work is brought to you by Andy Helms.
But just look how effectively the "triangle" is used to show the very essence of the classic trilogy, which are episodes 4,5 and 6.
Let's try some free association, when I say "Miramax" what comes to mind? Hopefully great titles like Gangs of New York, No Country for Old Men, Good Will Hunting, Pulp Fiction, Kill Bill Vol. 1&2, Gone Baby Gone, Chicago, City of God, Trainspotting, Chasing Amy, Clerks and even Chocolat. Pretty important pieces of cinema, no?
Not to mention the star power behind those names like legendary directors such as Quentin Tarantino, Martin Scorsese, Gus Van Sant, Kevin Smith, and The Coen Brothers. If any of those names mean anything to you then you know you're a major patron of cinema and thus have a strong affinity to at least one of those titles and or directors, and you know that having a strong collective of films and directors under one name is nearly impossible due to most of the talent demanding artistic freedom in their projects and most studios not giving it to them. So, even if you don't know much about cinema you know the people behind Miramax at least have an appreciation for talent and the art.
Who are these people? Bob and Harvey Weinstein.
They created the studio specifically for "art-house" style independent films back in the 70's, until the early 90's when Disney acquired it. The name Miramax was created by using elements of their parent's names; respectfully. So, yes such films like Pulp Fiction is technically considered a Disney film.
It wasn't until 2005 when the Weinsteins left Miramax due to some disagreements with Disney on the distribution of the film Farenheit 9/11. Thus, the company The Weinstein Company was created as its own entity away from the ever so powerful Disney sphere of influence.
Ok, that was a quick history lesson, let's fast forward to now. Over the past couple months Bob and Harvey have been negotiating with Disney to buy back Miramax for $600 million dollars the company they helped create from the ground up and this pleased me for the Weinsteins know their shit when it comes to film, atop of the obvious fact that the company is named after their parents so anyone would figure, why not?
Sadly, as it most often happens in Hollywood Disney decided to be total morons and sell the company off to some construction mogul by the name of Ron Tutor for $660 million. WTF does he have anything to do with cinema? I am sick and tired of irrelevant people with money acquiring things they don't deserve. So what if the Weinsteins are hard to work with and slightly out of whack? What genius isn't?
I am tired of corporate influence in art, it really depreciates it value and often times misses out on great opportunities because at the end of the day the people in power only care about one thing, money. Hard work apparently isn't enough nor is $600 million. If you ask me this was a deliberate "fuck you" from Disney to the Weinsteins. To sell such a renowned studio to an irrelevant figure in the world of rich people for a chance to make $60 extra million dollars sickens me. I know Disney doesn't need the money since they are out hunting down everything i.e. 2006's purchase of Pixar for $7 billion making Steve Jobs a board member of Disney and if that's not enough who can forget last years purchase of Marvel for $4 billion? Owning Pixar and Marvel is a surefire way of making money...forever and yet they still have to fuck over the Weinsteins over $60 million? Maybe there's more to this than meets the eye and I hope so, but from the information that's open to the public all I see is a series of unfortunate events...haha
Speaking of movies have you seen the trailer for Sucker Punch?
The most multi-faceted film of the year; Inception is a psychological "how-to" guide to dreaming. This film has so many layers in it that by the time you peel a majority of it back you realize the movie is already halfway through and you ask yourself, "whoa...how exactly did I get here?"
One of the things about this movie that I thoroughly enjoyed was the simple fact that you can establish whether or not you like this movie within the first five minutes of viewing. Whether it's crazy visuals to dramatic slow motion close ups and the linking of several almost unrelated scenes, Inception is a film that grabs your attention and forces you to keep watching so you can figure out the "how."
Inception, is the story of a rich corporate dude played by Ken Watanabe who hires Leonardo DiCaprio; whom is the self proclaimed "best" at stealing ideas from people's dreams; an "extractor" by profession. He challenges Leo to enter the dream of Cillian Murphy and instead of stealing an idea he asks him if it's possible to plant an idea so deep within his psyche that upon waking up he'll think it was an idea of his own; this is called an "inception." Don't ask me exactly who and what Ken Watanabe exactly does in the film other than being a device that pushes the plot along.
Now enter the "dream team," Leo's personal crack team of people to accompany him in carrying out his mission. You have the "no nonsense all business" Joseph Gordon Levitt who I think had one of the most memorable scene in the movie, you know...the part in the trailer where people are floating in zero gravity. Tom Hardy who plays the slick talking Brit whom is like the "Matt Damon" from the Ocean's trilogy. Dileep Rao who provides the team with a strong sedative to allow them to fall into a dream within a dream...within a dream? And finally Ellen Paige, whom is the newbie in the group and is only hired due to her architectural background via the recommendation from Michael Caine's character; who doubles as Leo's father in law and a teacher at some prestigious University in Paris, that's how he knows about Ellen Paige's exceptional qualities.
Now peel back another layer and you realize Cillian Murphy, who plays the other rich corporate dude whom Leo must plant an inception within has enough daddy issues to make even the resilient George Lucas feel ashamed for his contributions to cinema for the last 11 years.
Now peel back another layer and you learn that Leo is haunted by a past that will not be revealed until later in the film. And embodying his emotion charred past is his deceased wife played by the beautiful Marion Cotillard.
I don't even want to know how long it took Christopher Nolan to be satisfied with this story and all of its "rules." From start to finish the film is an interesting foray in dreams, and all the rules that follow so that all must abide by to successfully "extract" an idea from a dream. The audience learns these rules via Leonardo DiCaprio's mentoring of the young Ellen Paige, whom of course seems to grasp these complex concepts rather quickly because she like Leo is a "rule breaker." This quality is apparently necessary when stealing people's ideas and or planting ideas deep within their psyche.
Inception is a beautifully crafted summer blockbuster with enough explosions, chase sequence, and trippy Mc Escher inspired visuals to keep even the most ADD at bay while still stimulating the minds of those who look for more in film.
Transforming Clint Eastwood into the iconic role of the man with no name; Sergio Leone made his first western, "A Fistful of Dollars." The real beauty of this western is that its romance is captured through the eyes of an Italian director thus, the term "spaghetti western" is coined.
The plot is simple, two rival gangs that run a town through violence and fear meet their match when a gun-toting stranger enters the town and plays both sides to earn their trust and their money. But that's not all, this hero has another hidden agenda which is to ultimately free the town from the wretched grasp of tyranny. Of course this simple plot alone is enough driving force to fuel all the showdowns and shootouts in the film.
There is a certain sense of beauty in all things simple and that is exactly what Leone does.
From the cinematography to the soundtrack this film delivers pure beauty, intensity and a lot of borrowed style from that of a Kurosawa film. (Just replace the samurai with a gunslinger)
To me this movie is all about the angles. I love how much more intensity is added to a gunfight just by its closeups and even through the simple act of reloading. Leone plays on every emotion one can have in a gunfight and or even a showdown.
It must have been really hard on Eastwood to keep up his tough guy gaze, with the constant bearing down of the sun's bright rays...
A quick reload in a life or death situation.
Angles; changes everything about the shot. Leone doesn't waste a single shot. Greatness is captured.
Never have I watched a series with a bigger "wtf" expression on my face then Lost. And now that it's finally over, what now? A show of this caliber and definitive moments can only leave you with a yearning for more, but to what extent? Who really knows...
I knew going into this there would be a lot of opinions that factor into whether or not the quality of the finale is actually considered "good." So, without being unbiased I'm going to go ahead and say the creators did a good job explaining a very complex idea that inspired them to create a show for the masses on a major network too. I cant even begin to imagine the difficult tasks the creators had dealing with the fact that they are interpreting death through a television series on ABC (yes those factors do matter because then the show becomes much more then just a creative outlet for the creators to express their beliefs it becomes a business).
With that being said I really enjoyed watching the finale mainly because it resolved a lot of outstanding questions about the show, mainly being, wtf was the purpose for everything? Simple. The answer to that is answered via another question, wtf happens after death? The show displayed a very keen interest on multiple lives that were filled with turmoil, suffering, oppression, depression etc. And somehow through an act of God? or more appropriately through an act of Jacob? (haha) All those lives ended up on the same flight that crashed on a mysterious island where they all learned through extreme danger and time travel to cope with all the wrong doings in their life.
Yes, the show does use alternate universes or realities to explain what happens after death or lack thereof? I only say that because death just seems to be a relative term they use so that the characters on the show understand what happened to themselves. And I know for some that can be a real hang up because people don't like relying on the super natural to explain their favorite television series due to how open ended the ending can be, leaving some unsatisfied. But when tackling topics like faith and beliefs leaving things open ended is probably the best solution so it appeases everyone (once again probably another network decision) but still well executed.
The show really inspires those who understand its content; to know that although as tough as life may be, happiness isn't an impossibility, whether it's achieved through mysterious means or through impossible tasks. All you need is faith. And sometimes being "Lost" is the only way to be found. = P (that ones for aly)
Jack standing amidst symbols of multiple religions. I thought this shot was really important considering he's dealing with his dad's death.
Art is always interpreted by those who have a passion for it. Whether it's on film or on canvas many times what the artist displays is left for interpretation, thus causing much confusion and differences in opinions. But, as a filmmaker is it the director's duty to create a film some/all will enjoy? Or is it just their duty to make sure THEIR "art" is brought to life as they envisioned it on film? Can everything be done to the T correctly, to the director's standard but, yet the audience can still be left with a film they don't understand or like? Does that still make it a good movie?
(I am aware it's in Spanish...I like this poster the most)
The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus is directed by Terry Gilliam. No other director is alive today in which I view their movie and have mixed emotions about all throughout the film. On one hand there's a ton of philosophical and human nature exhibitions, crazy set design, and even crazier depictions of images and costumes in the film, on the other hand there's a ton of awkward closeups, acting, and even actions performed in the film that makes me question what exactly Gilliam is going for when he directs the actors. Who knows?
Overall though I thoroughly enjoyed this movie as I do sitting through most of his films. Heath Ledger's performance is slightly lukewarm compared to his Joker, but then again what performance of Ledger's outshines that of the Joker?
Sadly, this was the actor's last performance due to his accidental overdose earlier on in January of 2008, which explains why, but still makes sense with the story that we see a triumvirate of actors play Heath's character throughout the spiritual awakening sequences. Johnny Depp fulfills the shoes very comfortably and respectfully, Jude Law brings an innocent charm into the film and Colin Farrell is....yea.
The film centers on a traveling troupe that move around in an old school horse drawn carriage that is clearly an anachronism placed by Gilliam for aesthetic appeal, and for symbolism in that the group Dr. Parnassus has put together is legit and that good things can come when you least expect it; since they help people realize the greatness in themselves by entering Dr. Parnassus' Imaginarium.
The film has a positive message about material wealth, self esteem, self awareness, self gratification, good vs. evil, and lastly sacrifice. And a ton of crazy hallucinogenic induced imagery. An annoyingly conscientious Verne Troyer, and a couple "wtf" moments, beacuse well...some of the scenes in this movie are just highly unnecessary. My only gripe and hope is that maybe one day Gilliam will make that perfect film that hits me where it counts; my heart and not just my mind.
Favorite scene in the movie. Here you see instead of an admission collection they instead insist that those participating take from them instead.
