Remember Cleanflicks?

Seriously, anyone?

"Cleanflicks" kinda dropped off the map after the Federal Courts effectively put them out of business by finding that "religious reasons" WASN'T in fact a circumvent-the-constitution-for-free card, so for a quick refresher see here: http://moviebob.blogspot.com/2006/07/justice.html

Basically, "Cleanflicks" was a Utah-based Christian video-store chain that exclusively trafficked in self-edited versions of popular movies, apparently founded after the company's founder discovered that an alarming number of people religiously-minded folk were apparently desperate for copies of "Titanic" with the only two worthwhile things in the movie cut out.

Aaaaaannnnyway, good riddance to bad rubbish. Or so I thought. Few days back, the company's co-founder Daniel Thompson - who'd recently opened up a similar Utah operation of his own called "Flix Club" - got himself into a little trouble. What kinda trouble? Let's just say it sounds like we've been cheated out of the best Chris Hansen ambush ever: http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_8083729

So, apparently the guy who runs a Family-Values Video Store mainly did so as a front for him and his buddy to sexually abuse teenaged girls for homemade pornography. Post kinda writes itself, dunnit? Though I will admit, the fact that two young women got raped kinda sucks 99% of the "ha-ha" out of this one.

I should note, for the sake of posterity, that the guy in question (Thompson) was NOT the "actual" founder of the Cleanflicks operation. That'd be Ray Lines, who was apparently not involved in either Flix Club or the Thompson's crimes.

INTERMISSION: A MEME AND A TEASE

THE MEME

While the projectionist threads up Dark Star it seems as good a time as any to take care of the latest meme. This time around Will Cubbedge from Fish In A Barrel has tagged me with one of the various book memes floating around.

The Rules

1. Pick up the nearest book (of at least 123 pages).
2. Open the book to page 123.
3. Find the fifth sentence.
4. Post the next three sentences.
5. Tag five people.

Believe it or not, the book closest to me at this time is the Videohound's Golden Movie Retriever. Honest. I'm not lying. Weeding out the credits, the fifth full sentence on page 123 starts the review of Blade Master.

"In this sequel to "Ator the Fighting Eagle," O'Keeffe as Ator is back as the Blade Master. Ator defends his people and his family name in a battle against the "Geometric Nucleus": a primitive bomb. His quest leads him and his small band of men to the castle of knowledge. D'Amato used the pseudonym David Hills."

Sounds right up my alley. Unfortunately I can't locate a copy of Blade Master from my usual sources. Instead, in honor of this meme, I'll post a review of the first movie, Ator The Fighting Eagle, when it becomes available. Inexplicably, it has a very long wait on Netflix, which means the world could end before it ever reaches my house.

Speaking of which, since I'm usually near the end of the line for these things, I'll tag Will Smith, the last man on Earth... to not have been tagged by this particular meme.

THE TEASE

The second closest book to me when I received this meme has the following lines starting with the fifth sentence on page 123.

"When I modeled her, I thought that she would be mine forever-but others came and admired her-others like you and your friend." The axe sliced through the air, missing Arthur and striking the brick wall. Sparks flew as the smashing contact was made."

Just what tome contains that masterpiece of prose will be revealed in a week or two.

Sorry for lack of posts: Been sick last few days...

Needless to say lots of excitement in the 3D world with the Hannah Montana show rolling into town with yet another round of sold out venues - this time movie theaters and of course the rousing critical acclaim of U23D.

Topping all this off is the growing story about the director(s) of the Hobbit(s) and whether or not Peter Jackson and New Line finally announce their intention to produce these movies in 3D.

Yes, lots to write about, yet I have been extremely sick with the flu since Monday night! Sorry for the delay in posts but I will endeavor to get back in the drivers seat here ASAP.

Thanks for the well wishes everyone!

SHORT FEATURE: THE THING (LEGO VERSION)

PART 1

PART 2

I realize that by sticking to my shtick here of reviewing only low budget productions, it means that a lot of people's favorite movies (including mine) got left out of our John Carpenter mini film festival. So, following the example of St. Paul in his First Epistle to the Corinthians, "I have become all things to all people, that I might by all means save some." Which, in this context, means saving you from the trouble of telling me how much I suck for not including your favorite John Carpenter movie. As it happens, I am able to give you The Thing, while at the same time still showing you something that probably cost about 20 bucks to make.

One of the central themes in The Thing is the total breakdown of the social structure when trust is removed from the mix. "We trust" is more important than it appears on the surface." writes Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J., "Without trust, there can be no hope... Our lives are built on hope. A hopeless life is a despairing life." Is there any better example of this than the final scene of The Thing in which the two surviving characters, still untrusting of one another, devoid of all hope, sit down in the snow and wait to die? Heck, it even comes across when it's done with Legos.

Word From Sources In Jackson Camp: Nothing Official Yet

I have received word from my sources embedded in Peter Jackson's camp and they are adamant that nothing has been finalized yet, despite rumors to the contrary (the original site is in French).

While it is true that there is a short list of potential directors and Del Toro has been going through the motions (whether a public relations smokescreen or not), absolutely nothing has been decided whatsoever. Jackson did contact Del Toro and talked about "possibilities" - plural. There is no word at all about him directing both movies and their discussion was solely about "The Hobbit" part one and their myriad of options.

This of course sets up the potential for Del Toro to direct the first movie and Jackson to direct the second as I posted today. And the original information that PJ would direct both may also still be 100%.

Is an announcement coming? Lets hope so - schedules mandate that it happens VERY soon. Our stance has softened on PJ doing both movies and has moved more toward the 50/50 directorial split due to the knowledge that PJ and GDT did in fact talk and it was about the first movie.

So, while insider information is subject to normal decision making - we endeavor to bring you the best information possible at any given time.

MarketSaw's stance as of right now? Del Toro directs Part One; Jackson directs Part Two. "We shall see what we shall see". Thats the best info we have at the moment. Straight to you.

No internal word on the 3D decision for "The Hobbit"(s) yet, but it could come out in the director announcement due VERY soon.

Hypothesis: What If Del Toro Helmed "The Hobbit" Part 1 and Jackson Directed Part 2?

After musing with my sources a bit on the subject, we believe it could be possible for the following to happen:

1. Guillermo Del Toro Directs "The Hobbit" (The book he has read and could feasibly co-write the screenplay)
2. Peter Jackson Directs "The Hobbit, Part 2" (For lack of a title - this is the bridge movie from The Hobbit to LOTRs)
3. One HECKUVA scheduling coordinator.

For these films to be shot concurrently and, as reported here first - in 3D, a lot of resources would have to be scheduled and utilized effectively - but the upshot is that the movies could be done quicker.

Now we are not backing down from our earlier stance that PJ directs them both and in 3D. Not by a long shot. But the possibility exists that PJ could change his mind at any time - he doesn't worry too much about what MarketSaw has to say! From what we have heard from people deep within his camp is that PJ directs. Is that changing? I have emails into my sources right now. I doubt it.

However, if Del Toro did the first movie and Peter the second, interesting synergies take place. Productivity increases ( if scenes are using different actors and sets of course!). More time would be made available to CGI and 3D cinematography with that bonus time. PJ could watch GDT and GDT could learn from PJ when scheduling conflicts arise. Remember that 3D is relatively new to PJ and foreign to GDT.

When push comes to shove though, we still feel that PJ will direct both. And in 3D. There is simply too much to overcome any other way.

Believe me, I will have an update for you soon.

FILM CLUB REVIEW: HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL

TAGLINE

The First Film With the Amazing New Wonder EMERGO: The Thrills Fly Right Into The Audience!

THE PLOT

Millionaire Frederick Loren has rented the legendary House on Haunted Hill for one evening so that his wife can give a party. The guest list, however, consists solely of five seemingly random strangers (test pilot, secretary, psychologist, gossip columnist, and the drunken owner of the house) whom Loren has promised $10,000 each if they stay the entire night. Oh, and survive, of course. Along with the alleged vengeful spirits which inhabit the house, it becomes evident to the guests that Loren and his wife Annabelle might not have the best intentions towards one another. Following a number of supposedly supernatural occurrences, Annabelle is found hung and pronounced dead by the psychologist. Suspicion naturally turns to Loren. After a few more ghastly happenings drive the secretary to the brink of madness, she panics and shoots Loren, believing he has come to murder her also. Meanwhile, in another part of the house, the psychologist revives the not-so-dead Annabelle and informs her that their scheme to have Loren murdered has gone as planned. There are, however, more games going on in the House on Haunted Hill than even Annabelle and her lover are aware of and the night just may not have claimed it's last victim.

THE POINT

Finally, it's the film club review that almost never was. This month, we dare to spend an evening with The House On Haunted Hill, the original 1959 classic starring Vincent Price. Christina from The Northern Cross and D. G. D. Davidson from The Sci-Fi Catholic pitch in again with complete reviews on their own blogs. Let's start with some excerpts from their posts.

CHRISTINA

...I was skeptical at first since I dislike scary movies, but found that I enjoyed this movie a lot. It's not really that scary at all, although I did jump a couple times. I also found it predictable though; as in I knew Annabelle wasn't dead, but couldn't figure out how she'd fooled a doctor, until it turned out he was her lover. Ok, that sort of makes sense, but how did Frederick know to invite him?

And that gets to what I was left wondering for the rest of the night. All the questions that just didn't make sense if there were no ghosts involved...

...I know many of my questions have answers, some probably do not, but it is probably best to leave it up to faith. As a scientist I often feel the need to get all the answers before believing something is true. Many times I've been tempted to accept the belief that unless I fully understood something I couldn't put my faith in it. However, the Catechism teaches us that Faith is "the theological virtue by which we believe in God and believe all that he has said and revealed to us, and that Holy Church proposes for our belief, because he is truth itself."...

(Read Christina's full review here.)

D. G. D. DAVIDSON

...The movie makes a number of forgivable mistakes. Central to the film is an elaborate attempt to commit a "perfect murder," but this murderous scheme has so many holes in it, it would be remarkable if it did work. Additionally, the movie sets up certain things but doesn't follow through: for example, a character is "marked" for death by the ghosts early in the film, but this never amounts to anything. Furthermore, the film's ending is hokey in the extreme and entirely unbelievable, yet emotionally powerful nonetheless.

The movie's greatest sin, and the focus of this discussion, is a conceit of poorly written horror, one I've encountered numerous times: inexplicable events occur, yet at the end of the story, we are expected to believe that it was all just a trick and that the ghosts were fake, even though they could levitate, travel through locked doors, and make objects move on their own. Several inexplicable events occur in House on Haunted Hill, but we get only a weak naturalistic explanation at the movie's conclusion...

...Catholics are used to stories of miracles and visions and similar supernatural events. Some of these are folklore, some are medical phenomena with no known explanation, some are witnessed miracles, some are visions, and some are all in people's heads. The Church examines many claims of miracles and visions; when unable to determine they are hoaxes or doctrinally objectionable, she labels them "worthy of belief," which means the faithful can take them or leave them, but are not obligated to believe in them...

(Read D. G. D.'s full review here.)

EEGAHINC

"Do you remember how much fun we had that time you tried to poison me?"

That one line of dialog should tell you all you need to know about the relationship between Frederick Loren and his latest wife Annabelle in this movie. Played pitch perfect by Vincent Price and Carol Ohmart, the unloving pair spends most of their screen time together trading snide quips and making veiled murder threats. I don't think it's going too far to say that without these two performances, this whole movie would never have risen above standard B-Movie schlock in the way that it does. And to give even more credit to the actors, it's got to be tough to play a couple consumed with hatred for one another and yet still make them so enjoyable to watch for the audience. Any time the Lorens are on the screen together it's just a blast.

I wouldn't want to know'em in real life, though. These two are nuts. If there was ever poster children for how things can go wrong in a marriage, this is them. "Every man experiences evil around him and within himself." the Catechism reminds us, "This experience makes itself felt in the relationships between man and woman. Their union has always been threatened by discord, a spirit of domination, infidelity, jealousy, and conflicts that can escalate into hatred and separation." Yep, that pretty much sounds like the checklist for any Saturday night at the old Loren household.

Maybe the Lorens could have avoided all this heartache by popping over to YourFriendlyDivorce.com where they have 10 helpful hints to make sure your marriage ends nicely. They include insightful tips like #3 Seek common goals with your spouse, #4 Learn to see things from your spouse's perspective, and #5 Have a parenting plan. "Let's face it: divorce is painful." the website explains, "But with proper planning and a desire to reach agreement, you and your spouse can achieve harmony, fairness and mutual respect." (Look, if you can't make your own smart aleck remark here, you're just being lazy.)

Another possible solution (and call me crazy, but I think it's the better one) would have been to enter into the marriage properly in the first place. And that's with one huge sobering thought in their heads from the get go, that "since God created him man and woman, their mutual love becomes an image of the absolute and unfailing love with which God loves man." Dietrich von Hildebrand, philosopher and theologian, wondered "Why does Holy Scripture choose this particular relationship as an image?" (Which was rhetorical, of course, because he immediately answered his own question.) "It is chosen because marriage is the closest and most intimate of all earthly unions in which, more than in any other, one person gives himself to another without reserve, where the other in his complete personality is the object of love, and where mutual love is in a specific way the theme (that is to say, the core) of the relationship."

That's a lot to strive for, but it sure beats the alternative, especially if the ending of House On Haunted Hill is any indication. I'm not saying all failed marriages end with a life-sized skeleton puppet shoving someone into a vat of acid, but I've met plenty of people who say it felt that way.

END CREDITS

Well, that wraps up another film club review. All thanks and praise to Christina and D. G. D. for sitting through another one of these nutty movies. If I think they can endure it, I might give it another try. And remember, this is open to anyone who reads the blog, so be sure to chip in next time if the spirit moves you. See you then.

Am I Seeing Double? Hannah Montana 3D Movie Seats Now Selling Out...

Remember when Hannah Montana's concert tour had sold out venues and tickets were going for outrageous sums of money? Am I seeing double here?

Be prepared for the same thing happening if Disney doesn't increase the number of days available for screening the movie "Hannah Montana / Miley Cyrus: Best of Both Worlds Concert Tour" from one week to two (at least). On the heels of another excellent 3D show, U23D - demand is skyrocketing and there are reports of some theaters already having sold out their weekend performances.

This seems to be unprecedented - Hannah Montana / Miley Cyrus is quite the phenomenon! For example, AMC Hampton Towne Centre 24 in Hampton and at AMC Lynnhaven 18 in Virginia Beach, have both already sold out some of their weekend slots.

So buy your tickets pronto or you could be wishing you did soon. Hundreds of shows are already sold out. You can purchase them here. Only 3 and a half days away!

Stereoscopic Displays and Applications Conference Opens Today!

The Stereoscopic Displays and Applications Conference opens today in San Jose and stays out until the 30th, if you are in the neighborhood - go on over to the San Jose Convention Center and check it out! Here is there conference link. Andrew Woods has kept me up to date with everything to do with this 3D event and it looks outstanding this year...

Del Toro In Talks To Direct "The Hobbit"?

According to The Hollywood Reporter, Guillermo del Toro is in talks with Peter Jackson to direct "The Hobbit" Could it be that my source is wrong on this one? Hmmm. I will have to see it to believe it. Even if he is hired the pressure on him would be immense to meet the expectations of Peter Jackson et al. Didn't Jackson screen Ryan Gosling and hire him too? Yeah, we will see what happens.

But more to the point, I am surprised that they are talking to him - could be a ploy for more publicity - more bang for the buck when Jackson finally announces that he is still the one to direct. But still, it is interesting enough to definitely post about it. Again I ask, could my sources be wrong? They said all along that PJ will be heading up the productions and in a way he is. I doubt very much that wires got crossed somewhere along the line however. We still say that Jackson will direct these movies. Stay tuned for this one! I will update when I hear more: Needless to say I am contacting my sources on my other Firefox tab as I type... :-)

Besides, Del Toro is SUPER busy. If you thought Jackson has a lot of his plate, look at Del Toro's (on top of his current commitments, he even recently announced his interest in his version of Frankenstein AND the final Harry Potter movie(s) - which seems to be destined to be broken into two movies as well!). A lot of distractions for that guy and with a huge $150-175 million budget for the two movies (to be shot concurrently) and a huge time sink. I can't imagine any director other than PJ doing it justice. Well they certainly will be getting publicity with this stunt. And I think that is all it is, a stunt. In fact, now that the Academy is recognizing stuntmen and women for the Oscars, PJ and GDT could be up for a little golden man. Effective though.

Let's face it - Del Toro couldn't even finish reading the LOTRs. Too dense. Too deep. He has admitted this himself and has been quoted! Now you want him to direct these very important two movies and have respect for where they are supposed to wind up? Think about it. Worst. Move. Ever.

Of course, "The Hobbit" will still be in 3D. I have heard nothing to the contrary on that level.

Additional "How To Train Your Dragon" Images!

Update: Images removed at the request of Dreamworks Animation. I am complying.

...and as I promised in my last post - here are even more images from one of MarketSaw's trusted sources for "How To Train Your Dragon" 3D: (Click to expand images)
Very, very interesting... What do you guys make of these pics? Awesome stuff huh?

Sneak Peak At "How To Train Your Dragon": Insider Creative Images

Update: Images removed at the request of Dreamworks Animation. I am complying.

Some exciting photos breaking right now! A well known source to MarketSaw sent me these "How To Train Your Dragon" (HTTYD) photos / drawings and said that they are from someone who was actually creating them. HTTYD is a 3D animation from Dreamworks that is pegged for release November 20th, 2009. Awesome insight into the thinking that is going into this huge production and the images show a massive amount of imagination. SPOILERS HERE - You may not want to view these photos. Your call!!! (Click images to expand)

I have more of these images too - enjoy!!! 3D animation at its best...

Digg This!

Updated Set Photo From James Cameron's 3D "Avatar" Set!

Here is a rather interesting "Avatar" set photo taken by "Cupid Stunt" over on his blog. Apparently he lives quite close to the set in Wellington, New Zealand and took this photo from his home! Awesome. He says that he was closer without his camera earlier, but will try to again get some closer shots when possible. Here's hoping!

Click for a larger image!

Looks like some sort of HUGE lighting device is being hung over the whole outdoor green screen set (remember, they are 4 stories high and built with shipping containers! View earlier shots here and here) No problem if they need to simulate daylight... or perhaps the light of an alien world?

REVIEW: Rambo (2008)

NOTE: The first half of this kinda turned into a longer "catch-up piece" for the "Rambo" franchise than I expected to. For those wishing to skip to the actual review, it begins directly following the bold-face "Mild Spoiler" warning.

If future generations (hell, CURRENT generations) ever want to get an immediately-clear idea of just HOW all-over-the-map the tone, ideology and zeitgeist of 1980s American cinema was, watching the original three "Rambo" movies will probably do it. The six year, three-film evolution of John J. Rambo - a decorated Vietnam vet suffering profoundly from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and seemingly unable to adjust to a non-warrior life - from a tragic figure of 'Nam-haunted America to one-man-army superhero to cartoonish "patriotic" Commie-buster is one of the most surreal results of the "sequelization" process; right up there with Godzilla's gradual metamorphosis from walking spectre of nuclear evil to baddie-fightin' single-dad.

"First Blood," the debut of the character (based on a book by David Morell,) largely "snuck up" on audiences of the time. The "psycho Nam-vet" had become a movie stock-character almost as soon as the first post-Nam movies started to come out; and at first-glance "Blood" didn't seem all that different from any other "turned into killers by the army and unable to turn back" stalking highways and turning small-towns into bloodbaths all over the exploitation/drive-in circuit of the day. The exception, folks would discover, was in perspective: The film casts it's sympathy overwhelmingly behind it's wounded-warrior, framing his violent outburst as an instinct/PTSD-based reflex-reaction to his being unjustly harrassed by a vindictive small town Sheriff's department.

This, as it turns out, made it the ideal movie for the strange transition underway in America's post-Nam view of itself - still hurt and bitter over the war itself, but now also beginning to feel the pangs of regret over how said bitterness got projected onto the returning veterans. At once stridently anti-war (anti-military, really, when you get right down to it) yet earnestly pro-warrior, it was simply exactly the right movie at exactly the right time, and megastar Sylvester Stallone's (then already near the pinnacle of his "Rocky"-era stardom) John Rambo was the right hero... A kind of modernized-anachronism, much like Rocky Balboa, given an extra boost with the return of the old-school "Army Hero" archetype to American pop-culture prominence - coming into being the same year, in fact: the revamped "G.I. Joe."

The down-right surprising willingness of the public to embrace Rambo as an anti-hero quickly led to his celebration as a straightforward hero, period. And while that said some pretty positive things about America's reconcilliation with her Vietnam veterans it wound up being less than the best thing that ever happened to the franchise: Strong and resourceful but still all-too-human to start with, Rambo found himself refitted into a pumped-up, nigh-invincible action figure capable of mowing down legions of foes with relative ease in "Rambo: First Blood Part II." A well-staged actioner and a huge hit at the time, the film today mostly plays out like a high-camp parody of it's own legion of imitators - imagine if "The Brave One" had been a sequel to "Nell" and you'll have an idea of how jarring it is for THIS movie to be the direct sequel to "First Blood."

The commitment to giving Nam vets their belated appologies and salute remains sincere, despite a fairly cheesey screenplay, but in the end it's more notable for the preposterous knots the story ties itself into in order to both concievably relate to the first film's "the-system-is-broken" nihilism and hit the "go-team" patriotic superheroism demanded of Reagan-era military flicks: Enlisted by his former army bosses to smuggle remaining American POWs out of Vietnam, Rambo blasts his way through NVA creeps and meddling Soviet interlopers... but his real wrath is saved for the American military beaurocrats who continue to abuse and discard his fellow soldiers. It makes for a unique time-capsule, if not necessarily a sturdy film. And even that "uniqueness" would be gone when the time came for the forgettable Afghanistan romp "Rambo III," which finally reduces Rambo to just another musclebound cipher kicking butt for the stars n' stripes. The franchise, along with "Rocky," waned and so did Mr. Stallone's status as a go-to action hero.

I believe that brings us up to date.

MILD SPOILERS POSSIBLE FROM THIS POINT ON

"Rambo," (which really should have been called "Rambo IV," "Rambo Returns" or maybe even "Last Blood,") isn't so much about completing or even altering the arc of a bygone-era's hero like "Rocky Balboa" was - John J. Rambo seems to enter and exit the film in about the same place mentally as he was the last three times and pretty comfortable with it to boot - as it is about reviving a particular form of action movie: In this case the muscle-n-hardware unappologetic blast-fests of the 80s that the "Rambo" franchise created and was ultimately consumed by. You'll find no stealthy Jason Bournes, no air-walking "Transporters" or mathematically-precise gun-kata here - this is about putting the biggest guns in the hands of the man bad enough to wield them.

John Rambo, now in his early 60s and somehow looking like MORE of an intimidating physical presence than before, has made something of a life for himself as a snake-trapper and riverboat captain in Thailand, just down river from the raging civil war in neighboring Burma (reportedly chosen by writer/director/star Stallone after both the U.N. and Soldier of Fortune magazine both told him that this was the part of the world most crying-out for attention of the Rambo variety) where government soldiers are brutally slaughtering the Karen Rebels. A group of Christian missionaries from Colorado want to hire him to take them into the aforementioned war zone so that they might hand out medicine, Bibles and moral support to the Karen, something he's not interested in doing (he's sure they'll get themselves killed) until the group's lone female (Julie Benz) begs him.

While on the river, the ideological gulf between the battle-hardened Rambo and the earnest but hopelessly naive and obnoxiously sanctimonious Missionaries comes into focus and sets up the theme for this go-round: A band of river pirates turn up with intent and ability for rape and murder, Rambo does what he does to rescue his passengers... who return this kindness by berating him for his sinful ways. "Taking a life is NEVER justified!!!" lectures the head Missionary, who may as well be named Ned Flanders and who earlier had similarly scoffed at the notion that they bring some weapons with them. Silly Rambo! Guns are for sinners! Bibles, prayers and good intentions are all the protection we need... and all the "help" we're looking to really offer the oppressed rebels. You can guess how that works out for them.

Now THIS, folks, is surprisingly interesting stuff. The overall arc, that of "peace at any cost" folks learning that sometimes violence IS the answer, isn't anything earthshaking for the genre - but the specifics at play here are. Normally, you see this routine in overly political terms, with pacifist "liberals" getting schooled in the "realities" of war by a gung-ho "conservative" army hero. That the opposing philosophies here - the shoot first modern cowboy and the devoutly religious - are BOTH generally claimed under the umbrella of the American "right-wing" effectively innoculates it against political overthinking. "Rambo" isn't a clash of left and right but of human practicality versus spiritual sanctimony... and more interesting still, it doesn't cheap-out: It has a WINNER.

The film sets up a badder-than-bad cadre of villians, lays out the John Rambo Method of dealing with them - human ingenuity, a willingness to FIGHT for what you know is right - and the Missionary Method - surrender your will/life/fate to a deity, ask him for help, hope he's on your side - and finds the Missionary Method wanting. Most of the time when this area gets covered, it's set up to split evenly on both sides... but "Rambo" has a refreshingly direct opinion on the matter... even more refreshing since it's the one you so rarely see get a thumbs-up in the popular culture. After suffering through watching the this-close-to-magnificient "I Am Legend" descend into bullshit "spiritual" twaddle a little while back, I'm not sure I can accurately convey how glad I am to see a major-market action blockbuster hinged on a theme of human brains, brawn, invention and pro-action triumphing where sanctimony fails utterly. It's not that I can't appreciate a bit of the ol' "Angels came and saved everyone, th' end!" when it's done right, I'm just thrilled to see some balance.

But even when they ARE satisfying, we don't go to "Rambo" movies for theme. You want to know how the action is. In a word? Brutal. Stallone has been paying attention to where the genre has gone, and where it's been, and he's delivered the kind of horror-movie-level violence you're usually only going to see when Mel Gibson gets his hands on a camera and some Jesus Costumes. He knows the formula well enough to refine it and make it work like a machine built for the singular purpose of eliciting visceral reactions of his audience: First you show a hero. Then you show bad guys doing unspeakably horrible stuff to both establish your bad-assery credentials. You're allowed to go nuts with it (and boy does he) because the audience knows they can experience the evil vicariously without any guilt in the knowledge that the pre-established hero is going to punish this evil by the end. Then you let the punishment begin, and the audience full-cheers at the vengeance inflicted upon the purveyors of the violence they were gasp-cheering earlier. Set the timer, walk away, 90 minutes later you've got a gorehound crowd-pleaser.

At first it almost seems like he can't possibly pull it off, the initial violence is so extreme. The Burmese villians race captives through minefields, stomp and gun-down children, torch people alive, rape and beat women (and children), toss toddlers into flaming buildings, feed prisoners to pigs and spray gunfire around like an infernal fertilizer. I can't remember the last time I saw this level of onscreen carnage in an American theatrical film... it easily out-gores "Apocalypto" and even horror splatterfests like "Saw" and "Hostel." It could well be the bloodiest movie of the year - and this is only the bad-guy-badness-establishing-violence... Rambo hasn't even started on them yet! Though rest assured, once he does (after the Missionaries' benefactor asks him to take a team of Mercenaries to the spot they were last seen) the result honors the genre-mandated agreement between you and the movie that all the "bad" violence you have to see in the first half will be doubly-revenged by "good" violence in the second. And yes, Rambo has brought along his bow and arrow.

The action is epic, the themes are genuinely interesting, but the film finally doesn't quite land in the realm of "great" (though it IS the best entry in the series after "First Blood.") It doesn't really do much to advance or broaden Rambo as a character - content to simply let him be Rambo once again stuck doing the dirty work he hates being so good at - the way "Rocky Balboa" put the final psychological period on it's titular lead. And while the lean n' mean editing and pacing is appreciated in terms of keeping the "ride" exciting, it must be said that the film could likely have had more ressonance beyond just raw thrills if it had taken a bit more down time to flesh out it's characters and central themes (it doesn't really have a "second act" between the setup and the payoffs.)

What we get is an old-fashioned blood and guts action flick, well made and utterly comfortable with itself, with the bonus of a more-interesting-than-really-necessary exploration of faith vs. fist philosophy. For a 20 years later relaunch of a dubiously-departed action franchise, that ain't bad at all.

FINAL RATING: 7/10

New Line NOT Merging With Warner; Shaye and Lynne NOT Retiring

Contrary to reports stating that New Line Cinema will dissolve into Warner and that Bob Shaye and Michael Lynne will retire - that simply is not true. I have a close source who has cast a huge dispel over that rumor. Time Warner has New Line as a business unit, but the two operate as separate entities with Shaye and Lynne at the helm. New Line claims to be the most successful independent film company in the world.

So the status quo stays put. Regardless, "The Hobbit" stays on track. No further news on when Peter Jackson will be announcing that he is directing the pair of movies and that they will be in 3D (along with a 3D re-master of the LOTR trilogy) - but we are all looking forward to that day!

More news when I get it.

COMING ATTRACTIONS: DARK STAR

For the last movie in our John Carpenter mini film fest , I've decided to go with his first. That's right, it's the director's senior thesis, 1974's Dark Star.

Toy Story Gets a 3D Woody!

While I haven't seen anything official from Disney or Pixar (now owned by Disney), The Hollywood Reporter claims that Walt Disney Studios plans to debut new digital 3-D versions of "Toy Story" and "Toy Story 2"! They are typically very trustworthy.

Here is the lineup:
1. "Toy Story": 2D - 3D Digital Source Conversion: Due Oct. 2, 2009
2. "Toy Story 2": 2D - 3D Digital Source Conversion: Due Feb. 12, 2010
3. "Toy Story 3": 3D Digital Animation: Due June 18, 2010

What is truly exciting about this project is the advantage that they enjoy in the 2D to 3D conversion: They already have the digital source code! They can therefore grab the original objects and add the 3D elements in a very efficient manner. Of course the third iteration of Toy Story that is due in theaters June 18th, 2010 will be 3D from the ground up.

Yet another movie franchise goes 3D - Toy Story. George Lucas is also re-mastering his entire Star Wars franchise to 3D. And, as you have exclusively learned here on MarketSaw, Peter Jackson will bring "The Hobbit" movies to 3D -AND- "The Lord Of The Rings" trilogy.

Oh yes - 3D is the future of Hollywood. After seeing U23D last night - I am absolutely thrilled at the prospect of more and more franchises being converted and founded on the total immersion of 3D. Guess thats why I love blogging!

U23D Review: You Experience It - You Do Not Watch It

You know when you wake up from a great dream and you want to go right back asleep to where you left off? That is what it feels like at the closing credits of U23D.

The movie is seriously like a dream state. One moment you are part of the audience (and I mean really part of the audience - the guys heads in front of you in the theater BLEND into the heads of the concert viewers; in fact on more than one occasion I briefly thought why is this person standing and waving in the theater?!) and then you are moved to the stage looking back at 100,000 screaming fans as if you were a rock star (and you actually feel like you are on stage - no joke. You feel like a rock star). Sounds corny huh? Not when you are experiencing it, believe me.

Most of the time however you are hovering around the concert like some sort of omnipotent being, witnessing a sea of humanity being entertained by one of the greatest bands of all time. I am a U2 fan, so I am biased; but I place only The Beatles ahead of U2. That says something as I am also a die hard Led Zeppelin fan. In my eyes they have surpassed Led Zep through longevity and sheer music catalog.

The best part about the movie is that it was real. No CGI (other than nicely done touch ups for effects) and the mass of Argentinians were so very NOT Beowulf. If you were confused as to what a 3D movie is after seeing Beowulf, do yourself a huge favor and see U23D. It was nice to see the pure randomness of a crowd of 100,000 that still somehow managed to move in synch to the music. CGI is not that good yet. Soon but not yet. The movie keeps getting better as it unfolds - closeups simply rock.

The movie makes me think what do we have in store for us from someone like James Cameron and his Sci-Fi "Avatar". If you take the pure experience of it and add in the flexibility that Cameron will have with his Weta team, the possibilities are endless. This is the guy that gave us Aliens and The Terminator. He has the vision. My God, "Avatar" will own the box office for a long time. Mark my words right now. "Titanic" may sink to second place for the all time record.

That being said, U23D stands up as its own masterpiece. It simply rocks in what it is - a concert. The bar has been set extremely high for other bands to follow. But follow they will because in this day and age of free Internet music, the entertainers have got to make their money somehow - theater concerts will become a big piece of it I believe. I have said it before - people will pay a premium to see a live 3D theater concert that has been sold out or that is not available in smaller cities. Then they will pay a normal amount to see the concert after the fact. This coupled with the actual revenue from the concerts themselves will bring in great rewards for the musicians.

This is the beginning of an era folks. Consider yourself lucky to have witnessed it. Get yourself to the theater and check out U23D - tell 'em Jim at MarketSaw sent you. That and the cost of admission will get you in...

REVIEW: There Will Be Blood

When we first meet Daniel Plainview (Daniel Day Lewis) he's dragging himself in and out of a pitiful pit of a would-be 19th Century silver mine, going through what ought to be the work of a team of men with his own two hands. It's a task that ultimately breaks him - literally - when a nasty fall lands him alone at the bottom with a broken leg. It's the first time (the actual opening is about 25 minutes long, free of discernable dialogue) that Plainview seems to be vulnerable... or even human, and it will be the last: Halfway to buried alive, he finds the evidence of silver, claws his way out of the Earth and drags himself across the desert to stake his claim. Soon he's traded silver for the new fortunes of oil, reborn as a sly businessman trekking across the American West gobbling up oil-rich land from unsuspecting farmers one step ahead of Standard Oil; winning them over by framing his monomaniacal paranoia as a kind of get-my-own-hands-dirty pioneer gumption. For added effect, he keeps his almost-entirely silent son H.W. at his side as the "partner" in his "family business."

The spark of inspiration here comes from "Oil!", a 1920s Upton Sinclair evils-of-capitalism tract that never quite did for the oil-biz what his own "The Jungle" did for the meat-packing biz. Writer/Director/Producer Paul Thomas Anderson tosses the names, most of the side-stories, strips out the fairly dated politics and messageering and zeroes in on his (re-named) lead for what amounts to an epic character-study. Given it's origins, the film constantly threatens to tumble over into message-movie territory - and it's not hard to imagine a kind of two-way critique of quintessentially American hangups over capitalism and religion breaking out once we meet Plainview's nemesis in manipulative false-prophet "holy man" Eli Sunday (Paul Dano.) But that moment never really comes as the film is content to observe it's central monster absent much commentary on anything around him.

At first it seems like even the NAME "Plainview" must have some kind of ironic meaning, but soon enough it starts to creep in that it's actually quite descriptive: Daniel Plainview ISN'T complicated - he's EXACTLY what he appears to be... to the audience, anyway. That, in a nutshell, is going to be a problem for a lot of audiences. We tend to be pre-conditioned by DECADES of modern and post-modern storytelling to expect that strange, even evil beings will eventually be "explained" by some flaw or past wrong - that the 'point' of watching a character behave reprehensibly is to eventually be told what his "Rosebud" was.

This movie isn't like that. There is no Rosebud, and there doesn't seem to be anything important that's secret or hidden (from the audience) about Plainview: He announces himself to anyone paying the slightest bit of attention as a creature for whom drive and conquest are goals in and of themselves right away, and while we might be surprised at some of the levels his mania reaches none of it seems "quirky" or outside the realm of possibility.

All of which leads to a pretty basic question: Is it REALLY worth spending 2-1/2 hours of movie watching a fascinating but largely unlikable nutcase cut a swath of bodies, blood and oil from one end of his life-story to the next? As it turns out... yes. The key here is that Anderson uses the period setting to establish an important distance between the modern audience and his 19th Century characters: Plainview's carefully-measured "reassuring" tone and demeanor whenever he's conducting "business" are, to us, the unmistakable voice and poise of a con-artist... but to the "simple" folk he wishes to swindle, it's bought entirely at face value. Scenes of Eli Sunday's similarly blatant church "performances" being swallowed hook, line and sinker help drive this point home: These are people of a different time and place, they don't or can't see what we see, they have no clue what either of these men actually are.

So, we're not ONLY watching Daniel Plainview do exactly what we know he's going to do, we're watching everyone else figure it out only too late or not at all - something like seeing "Twister" from the weather's point of view. Of all the characters, only Eli seems to approach him with a basic understanding of what he's really up against, the implication being that they're both con-artists working different versions of the same game... Plainview still holds a crucial edge here, though, as he seems to fully comprehend their similarlity while Eli may not.

Easily one of the year's best, and a must-see.

FINAL RATING: 9/10

Judyth Piazza chats with Jim Dorey, Creator of MarketSaw.com

Hey guys - check out my recent interview with The Student Operated Press here: Judyth Piazza chats with Jim Dorey, Creator of MarketSaw.com - we talk about all things 3D and it was really fun and interesting thing to do. I was on her Internet radio show "The American Perspective".

She is also Content Editor over at Newsblaze, a WWCI TV 10 news anchor, and a Freelancer at "The Sebastian Sun " Newspaper.

Judy is a great individual and I highly recommend her show and website to everyone. Check it out.

I'm A Fly On A Wall Tonight! Checking Out U23D Finally...

I am checking out U23D tonight thanks to my friends at Empire Theatres IMAX. I will have a review up TOMORROW - stay tuned!

If you do not have an IMAX near you, the wide release will be in February and will include Real D theaters. I will post this list of theaters when I have it.

For now, you can refer to my list of 3D theaters here.

Brendan Fraser Has Seen Star Wars in 3D!

In a recent interview with SCI-FI Wire, Brendan Fraser said that he has seen a segment of Star Wars being remastered in 3D:

"I've actually seen 15 minutes of Darth Vader entering and capturing [Princess] Leia," Fraser said. "The best part was that some of the extras are running around, and they wore helmets and stuff, and because it's in 3-D you see so much detail that you can see one of the extras was wearing, like, a construction worker's helmet that someone took a blowtorch to so that it melted to look different. It was yellow on the inside and spray-painted on the outside. So it'll have real charm going backwards to see that stuff."

I am very curious about the process they are using for this 2D to 3D conversion. I am sure George Lucas is ensuring that it is done right and I am positive it will be. Can't wait to see the final results!

He also mentioned a little bit about the 3D technology used to create "Journey To The Center Of The Earth 3D":

"Yeah, we saw [the 3-D effects] as we were shooting it, because it was all in real time," Fraser said during interviews for his upcoming film The Air I Breathe. He added: "The technology is now ... in [a] place where you can watch this and be satisfied by the images that you see and not feel like you're just being taken on a gratuitous roller-coaster ride."

This is definitely the Cameron/Pace technology that I know and love. Its got James Cameron written all over it - the ability to see real-time takes and bring up backgrounds and raw CGI to see where the actors should be performing all drastically speeds up the process and reduces cost. There is no question the 3D technology was in place and used for Journey 3D. Now, is it a good movie? I reserve judgement...

Looks Like I Will Keep Snapshots For A Little While Longer...

Thanks to all those who responded to my recent poll to ensure the reader experience is a great one on MarketSaw. I asked about whether I should keep "Snapshots" which is an add-on that allows you to view an associated snapshot of a website before actually clicking on its link. Saves time in my estimation - but some don't like the "landmine" effect of having them pop-up as they scroll down the site. I understand that reasoning 100%.

I will keep Snapshots up for the time being based on the poll results. 53% said keep it, 47% said to not. The snapshots will not appear unless you hover your cursor over the small icon after the link. One downside is all the images with links embedded will also spawn a snapshot. We'll see how well it is received over time. Here are the poll results:


As always, feel free to leave comments about this feature and any other improvements I can make. Thanks!

Want To Help Create James Cameron's Avatar? You Got What It Takes?

One of my most avid readers sent me this interesting post on the job board over at 2-Pop Forums which is used by digital filmmakers:

Seeking MotionBuilder Artists For Avatar - 2-Pop Forums via kwout

Personally, I would love to have the toolset to jump aboard this thing. "...realizing the strong creative vision of our director..." certainly sums it up. I can't imagine the surprises James Cameron has in store for us with Avatar and I would imagine if you can successfully stick to this position you would have extended work with "Battle Angel"! Can you work with MotionBuilder? Perhaps I can get a whiff of what is coming from whomever takes these positions? :-) Give me an email...

Heath Ledger 1979-2008

I know, by now everyone knows but I was at work all day.

Look... there's actually A LOT to be speculated about and hashed-over in terms of what this means about certain upcoming movies and other insider stuff, but right now I just don't have it in me and I'll be damned if it goes up before the obligatory Oscar nominations stuff... which, given this, I'm ALSO in no real mood to do right now. Yeah, the buildup-to and ultimate reception-of a certain huge blockbuster movie are now going to be drastically altered, and some poor guys in a certain studio's marketing department are right now both sweating bullets and feeling horribly awkward and guilty about it. You know it, I know it. But honestly I just don't feel right about even considering any of it. The whole thing just plain SUCKS.

He wasn't even 30 years old. He'd just started to show the potential a major talent taking shape. More importantly, he had a 2 year-old daughter. What a depressing fucking waste.

PRINCE OF DARKNESS

THE TAGLINE

"Before man walked the earth... it slept for centuries. It is evil. It is real. It is awakening."

THE PLOT

Having been summoned to a long abandoned church in downtown Los Angeles by Father Loomis (played by the perpetually nervous Donald Pleasance),  Prof. Birack and an assortment of graduate students are asked to investigate the origins of a mysterious cylinder of glowing green goo and a tome of indeterminate age written in an unknown language. It isn't long before strange things begin to happen as hordes of insects and worms appear, zombie-like homeless people gather outside the church, and the occupants within begin to experience a disturbing shared dream. Tensions mount as the cylinder is analyzed, the book is deciphered, and the meaning of the dream becomes clear. (What's actually going on in the church is kind of complicated, so I'll save all that for a little later.) With the truth revealed and the container's seals breached, a number of the students begin to fall under the spell of what's inside, joining the possessed homeless in an assault on those still unaffected. The dwindling number of survivors must not only find a way to escape the church, but also, as their dreams have revealed, save the world in the process.

THE POINT

"Martin Quartermass, whose first screenplay this is, overloads the dialogue with scientific references and is stingy with the surprises." Well, at least that's what the October 23, 1987 New York Times review of Prince of Darkness had to say upon the films release. The problem is, you see, Martin Quartermass never really existed outside of the credits of the movie. (God bless the NY Times, getting things wrong for generations.) As it turns out, the name was just a pseudonym for John Carpenter himself, who used it as a penname in tribute to the old Professor Quartermass films of the 60s. Long time genre fans were quick to catch the reference, especially since the plotline of Prince of Darkness touches on themes very similar to those in the brilliant 1967 film Quartermass and The Pit. In that movie, London is laid waste to after a buried space capsule is unearthed and the evil world-mind of the planet Mars, which the racial memory of humankind recognizes as Satan, possesses most of the population. That's right, the devil came from Mars.

Carpenter's take is slightly different, and also a little tougher to explain. You see, in Prince of Darkness, the ancient text the scientific team is decoding explains that Jesus was actually an extraterrestrial being who came to our planet in order to warn mankind about the antichrist. This entity, which is basically sentient evil in prebiotic liquid form, was sent from it's mirror universe to our world at the dawn of time in order to infect the world's population. The resulting army of evil would then prepare the way for Satan to breach the dimensional barrier and bring a time of darkness to God's universe of light. Upon delivering this warning, however, the alien Jesus was promptly crucified as a madman. Undeterred, His followers managed to capture the cylinder containing the antichrist and secret it away. They then established the dogmas of Christianity as a smoke screen so that no one could learn the real truth, a truth the science of the time could not prove. Once science had advanced enough, however, the Church still kept the cylinder a secret as it was unwilling to give up its phony teachings and thereby lose its means of controlling the hearts and minds of the population. (Got all that? Good. Now take a deep breath, because we're only halfway there.)

You would think that would be enough plot points for two or three films already, but Carpenter was reading a lot of quantum mechanics at the time, and couldn't resist throwing in one more little element. The disturbing dream. As the investigators come to learn, their shared dream is actually a future television broadcast showing the newly released Satan emerging from the church, a signal being transmitted backwards in time via faster than light tachyon streams. The hope is that the transmission, which is picked up by the subconscious of anyone sleeping in close proximity to the church, will warn the people of the past about the approaching apocalypse and allow them an opportunity to intervene and change the timeline. Neat, huh? Not only does this plot device set up an absolutely perfect payoff in the final scene, but it also provides a foreboding sense of doom throughout the entire movie that really amps up the tension. You want atmosphere? This film is swimming in it. (Got all that? Good. There just might be a pop quiz later.)

If all this sounds overly geeky, like you need to read some Stephen Hawking before popping the DVD in, then let me reassure you, we're still talking about a John Carpenter film here. As interesting as the ideas are in this movie, they only come at you scattershot amidst the usual Carpenter carnage. All that Star Trek manual type stuff gets squeezed in between scenes of zombies dissolving into puddles of insects, guys getting stabbed with bicycle seats, people vomiting the antichrist into each others mouths, etc. You know, all the fun thrill-ride stuff you actually rented the movie to see when you noticed John Carpenter's name over the title. In fact, if the movie has one noticeable flaw, it's probably that it's overcrowded, with Carpenter's typical "small group under siege" action scenario competing with all of the tech talk for screen time. Things can quickly become convoluted if you're not paying attention.

Along with being tough to follow, the movie also has serious budget problems in the effects department (the antichrist in human form kind of looks like somebody's mom with cherry pie all over her face) and some of the acting is a little wonky (if physicists are really this wooden when they fall in love, it's amazing they get a chance to breed at all). In fact, there's a good chance you might just hate this movie. But if you're like me, then this movie will slowly creep it's way up your list of favorites. You see, I'm just enough of an armchair intellectual (annoying nerd?) to really enjoy discussions of Schrodinger's cat and God-directed sub atomic particles being wedged in amongst all the neck snapping and eye gouging. This film is exactly the kind of grand guignol geekery that this blog was made for. Which is odd, I suppose, given the fact that the central conceit of Prince of Darkness is that everything my religion teaches, everything I profess to believe in, is a lie, a fabrication designed to steer people away from the real truth.

How then, you might ask, am I able to enjoy this movie so much? How is it that I'm not so offended by it's very existence that I don't go all Golden Compass on it? Probably because, in truth, there's no sense of real malice towards religion in Prince of Darkness. While the Church is indeed presented as deceitful and the priest does (temporarily?) lose his faith, the scientists fare little better as their arrogant confidence in a purely secular worldview crumbles before the realization that God and the devil are real (even if not quite in the way the Church taught). You could even say science gets the worst of it, as those students who doggedly refuse to accept that Satan exists are the first to get killed off. And, as Conrich and Woods' The Cinema Of John Carpenter: The Technique Of Terror correctly notes, God even gets in the last word as "Christian teachings apparently resurface in the self-sacrifice of Catherine who, while the priest suffers a breakdown, goes through the mirror to prevent the entity from bringing about the Apocalypse." (Kind of interesting to note that the authors don't see self-sacrifice as a scientific concept.)

No, unlike the aforementioned Golden Compass, Carpenter doesn't really appear all that interested in destroying my religion, he just seems to want to borrow ideas and start discussions. "I'm an atheist" Carpenter is quoted as saying in an interview with Big O Magazine, "but I have a great fascination with this issue - over God and whether there is one or not. I come to (my belief) personally for my own reasons and my own decisions. But I respect anybody who believes anything, I don't have the ultimate answers about anything." (Isn't it nice to be reminded sometimes that not all atheists are like Christopher Hitchens?) Really, Carpenter sounds like someone you could talk these things over with, especially if beer and nachos were part of the deal. And as the Catechism notes, Catholics have no reason to shy away from talking with people whose ideas clash with our own. "In defending the ability of human reason to know God, the Church is expressing her confidence in the possibility of speaking about him to all men and with all men, and therefore of dialogue with other religions, with philosophy and science, as well as with unbelievers and atheists."

That's how it always been from the beginning. As I made note of myself in the very first paragraph I ever wrote on this blog, "in Acts 17 of the Christian New Testament, St. Paul finds an altar in Athens dedicated to the “Unknown God”. It was one of those little stone thingies Tertullian mentions which the Greeks would erect just to make sure they were covering all their bases god-wise. You never know when some wandering Bulgarian Samodivi might wander into town and want a little sacrifice. Never one to pass up an opportunity, Paul uses the altar as a springboard for conversation with the locals about his new religion and its "Unknown God", Jesus." And that turned out okay, didn't it? Adherents.com speculates that there are over 1.1 billion atheists-agnostics-unbelievers in the world today. That number is only going to grow if we never engage those who disagree with our beliefs.

As recent as his December 21, 2007 speech to the Fifth General Conference of the Bishops from Latin America and the Caribbean, Pope Benedict XVI reminded us all that "those who have recognized a great truth, those who have discovered a great joy, must pass it on, they cannot keep it to themselves... In order to reach fulfillment, history needs the announcement of the Good News to all peoples, to all men and women... because the renewed encounter with Jesus Christ and His Gospel - and only that - revives the forces that make us capable of giving the right response to the challenges of our time." So, talk to them. Even if they tell you Satan is from Mars, go ahead and talk to them. Even if they tell you evil is nothing more than a big vial full of snot, just... talk to them.

THE STINGER

Pop quiz time. (Hey, you were warned.) Carpenter's atheism does get the better of him in one aspect of the script. Did you spot it?

In his history of the antichrist, rather than admit to the truth (even for the sake of the story) of the Church's spiritual teachings on the nature of good and evil, Carpenter couldn't resist falling back on one of the oldest chestnuts about the Church that there is, that we made it all up for the sake of power. "The name "atheism" covers many very different phenomena" the Catechism reminds us. "[One] form of contemporary atheism looks for the liberation of man through economic and social liberation. "It holds that religion, of its very nature, thwarts such emancipation by raising man's hopes in a future life, thus both deceiving him and discouraging him from working for a better form of life on earth."

Johnny Depp To Play A 3D Alice in Wonderland??

I have got to tip my hat to Johnny Depp - he is not afraid of ANY role. The Telegraph recently quoted him as saying:

If Depp has his way, he will soon be spending even more time with her (Helena Bonham Carter) husband. The 44-year-old actor says he would make a superb lead in Burton's forthcoming new version of Alice in Wonderland. "I'd like to have a go at it, if Tim lets me," he told me. "I could be the first male Alice. It would certainly give it a surreal edge."

You know what? That's not a bad idea dammit! Depp has played an eyeless gunslinger, a guy with scissors for hands, Willy Wonka, and a deranged singing barber and now why not a 3D Alice? He could more than likely pull it off and hey if Depp says he wants something, Tim Burton has GOT to follow him down that rabbit hole. So it could happen. Very interesting...

Alice In Wonderland is due to start shooting this May for Disney 3D and pegged for release in 2010.

INTERMISSION: ABOMINABLE SNOWMEN

As I was just reminded by D. G. D. Davidson, The Sci-Fi Catholic, I once again completely forgot about the film club THAT I STARTED. That probably doesn't bode well for the film club as a lasting feature here, but we'll see. Anyway, once again, those still interested in having a paragraph or two included in the film club review of the Vincent Price classic House On Haunted Hill, feel free to leave a comment in the combox, drop me an email at eegahinc@gmail.com with your review, or just send a link to your post sometime over the next couple of days.

My excuse this time. Snow!

It's impossible to explain to those of you who don't live south of Tennessee the extent to which apocalyptic zeal seizes this part of the country when white stuff begins falling from the sky.

How much did we get this year? One inch. That's it. But that was enough to shut down this part of Georgia on and off for the past five days. Seriously. Schools and businesses closed, bread and milk disappeared from store shelves, and some protestant churches canceled services. As for me, I neglected work and blogging and opted to spend most of the time introducing my 5 year old to his first snowfall.

Or slushfall as the case may be. You see, you've got two options down here when it comes to building snowmen. You can go large, in which case the result ends up being an abominable mass of dead leaves and mud barely held together by chunks of ice, or you can go small and clean. For the time being, mercifully, the little one isn't into mud, so we went the small route.

So, in the end, I got nothing done for the better part of a week. And the world kept turning. "God's action is the model for human action." the Catechism reminds us, "If God "rested and was refreshed" on the seventh day, man too ought to "rest" and should let others, especially the poor, "be refreshed." The sabbath brings everyday work to a halt and provides a respite. It is a day of protest against the servitude of work and the worship of money."

The sun's out now, though. Back to servitude and blogging.

The OFFICIAL Oscar Nomination Predictions

Our Oscar nomination predictions for Variety's office pool were due on Friday so here's what I submitted. Keep in mind, this is what I think will be nominated on Tuesday, not what SHOULD be nominated. Every year prognosticators offer up their expert predictions and every year Oscar yields plenty of surprises, so I tried to account for that unpredictable thinking with my picks. There were no alternates allowed on the sheet but I decided to offer them up for fun anyways. I'm also offering up a No, Really? nominee in selected categories for nominees that for some reason or other I don't think should be nominated. Here goes nothing. Oh, and an asterisk (*) indicates what I think will eventually win come Oscar night.

Best Picture:
Atonement
The Diving Bell and the Butterfly
Into the Wild
No Country for Old Men
There Will Be Blood*

Alt: Michael Clayton
No, Really?: Juno (box office leader but there's a well-deserved backlash)

Best Director (same 5 as Best Picture)
Paul Thomas Anderson, There Will Be Blood
Ethan and Joel Coen, No Country for Old Men
Sean Penn, Into the Wild
Julian Schnabel, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly*
Joe Wright, Atonement

Alt: David Fincher, Zodiac
No, Really?: Tony Gilroy, Michael Clayton (first movie and it was a little slow)

Best Actor
George Clooney, Michael Clayton
Daniel Day-Lewis, There Will Be Blood*
Johnny Depp, Sweeney Todd
Emile Hirsch, Into the Wild
Denzel Washington, American Gangster

Alt: James McAvoy, Atonement
No, Really?: Viggo Mortensen, Eastern Promises (way better in A History of Violence)

Best Actress
Cate Blanchett, Elizabeth: The Golden Age
Julie Christie, Away From Her
Marion Cotillard, La Vie en rose*
Angelina Jolie, A Mighty Heart
Ellen Page, Juno

Alt: Laura Linney, The Savages
No, Really?: Keira Knightley, Atonement (pretty face but a surface-level performance)

Best Supporting Actor

Casey Affleck, The Assassination of Jesse James...
Javier Bardem, No Country for Old Men*
Paul Dano, There Will Be Blood
Hal Holbrook, Into the Wild
Tom Wilkinson, Michael Clayton

Alt: Max von Sydow, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly
No, Really?: Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Charlie Wilson's War (one great scene, not much else)

Best Supporting Actress
Cate Blanchett, I'm Not There*
Jennifer Garner, Juno
Saoirse Ronan, Atonement
Amy Ryan, Gone Baby Gone
Tilda Swinton, Michael Clayton

Alt: Ruby Dee, American Gangster
No, Really?: Catherine Keener, Into the Wild (c'mon, are you kidding me? brian dierker outshone her)

Best Adapted Screenplay (same 5 as Best Picture)
Paul Thomas Anderson, There Will Be Blood
Ethan and Joel Coen, No Country for Old Men
Christopher Hampton, Atonement
Ronald Harwood, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly*
Sean Penn, Into the Wild

Alt: James Vanderbilt, Zodiac
No, Really?: Aaron Sorkin, Charlie Wilson's War (the very definition of an uneven movie)

Best Original Screenplay
Brad Bird, Ratatouille*
Diablo Cody, Juno
Tony Gilroy, Michael Clayton
Tamara Jenkins, The Savages
Nancy Oliver, Lars and the Real Girl

Alt: Wes Anderson, Roman Coppola, Jason Schwartzman, The Darjeeling Limited
No, Really?: Steve Zaillian, American Gangster (classic example of a good but not great movie, and the script was painted in broad strokes)

Best Original Score (NOTE: The Academy has disqualified There Will Be Blood and Into the Wild so I have amended their inclusion. Such a shame...)
Dario Marianelli, Atonement*
Paul Cantelon, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly
Alberto Iglesias, The Kite Runner
Alexandre Desplat, Lust, Caution
Michael Giacchino, Ratatouille

Alt: Marco Beltrami, 3:10 to Yuma
No, Really?: Howard Shore, Eastern Promises (forgettable)



Best Costume Design
Atonement*
Elizabeth: The Golden Age
Hairspray
Lust, Caution
Sweeney Todd

Alt: La Vie en rose
No, Really?: Across the Universe (even the costumes couldn't distract me from the mess onscreen)

Best Editing
Atonement
Into the Wild
Michael Clayton
No Country for Old Men*
There Will Be Blood

Alt: The Assassination of Jesse James...
No, Really?: The Bourne Ultimatum (slow down there Chris, let my eyes process what the hell I'm seeing before you cut to another shot for .0001 seconds)

Tiebreakers (total nominations WITHOUT GOING OVER):

Sweeney Todd: 4
Atonement: 6
The Diving Bell and the Butterfly: 4
Michael Clayton: 6

Prepared to be Rocked: U23D Reviews Have Elevation

The only negative thing I have heard about u23D to date is, well - not really negative about the movie but more about the individual: Jay Z left a recent screening of U23D early - too early to see the outstanding effects later on in the concert. So doesn't really count in my book. Besides, Beyoncé may have texted him to get his ass to Saks to help her shop. Who knows.

Reports are coming in from the Sundance premiere that the movie is simply a spectacle, a must see even if you are not a U2 fan, and the 3D rocks. Apparently as the movie advances, the 3D effects keep getting better with more and more innovation.

I will be finally checking U23D out shortly courtesy of my local Empire IMAX theater chain. Can't wait!

Bono and U2 Show Up At U23D Premiere

Well I guess the auction was right on the money - Bono and U2 did show up at the premiere screening of U23D at Sundance. Bill over at Summit Pacific said the Al Gore showed up too but the response to him paled in comparison to the Irish rockers. Kinda funny - but it is their show to be fair. Wish I could have been there!

Apparently Robert Redford was at the showing as well and was suitably awed by the technology.

Maybe it was worth $600+ for a pair of scalped tickets? Hmmm. Maybe.

Waiting patiently for the 23rd!!

REVIEW: Cloverfield

Here's the first movie in awhile to actually make digital-age "ballyhoo" work. So many films have attempted to use a slow buildup of leaks, rumors, red-herrings and the organic nature of internet Film Geek hype as the "first act" of a moviegoing-as-sideshow experience and come up short on the final "capper" of the film itself, but not so "Cloverfield." Here we are, a mere 18 days in and 2008 already has it's bold, stark "Movie Geeks vs. Everyone Else" dividing-line film - a promising start indeed.

"Cloverfield," as you probably already know, stages a classic-formula Giant Monster movie in the mold of "Godzilla" and "The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms" from the P.O.V. of a group of average New Yorkers (via their possession of what has to be the world's most durable camcorder) trying to get themselves and a potentially-trapped friend out of Manhattan while the Army fights what appears to be a losing battle against a gargantuan beast tearing up the cityscape. The film is presented in the form of said camcorder's recordings, apparently unedited, pressaged only by the unsettling indication that this account of "Incident Codename: Cloverfield" was recovered from "Area formerly known as Central Park."

I should preface this by pointing out that I despise shaky-cam cinematography and find the "found-footage" conceit to be completely played out... and I STILL loved this movie. Although it IS kind of interesting that the film hangs it's signature gimmick on the notion that it's sole point-of-view is a camcorder being operated by a guy set up as the dumbest of our none-too-sharp main cast... but that he's STILL got a better sense of when to hold the fucking frame steady than the "Bourne Ultimatum's" just-so-slightly-overrated Paul Greengrass does.

The first thing to understand about this movie, maybe the most important thing, is that what you're looking at is LITERALLY a cinematic sideshow attraction - the movie equivalent of a nondescript blob of vaugely-eerie "something" floating in a jar of formaldehyde purporting to be the preserved corpse of a Chupacabra. You KNOW it's a put-on, the point is to (hopefully) enjoy the skill with which the put-on is executed: How well the barker has pitched the show, how 'real' the patently-unreal thingee in the jar is, etc. It has to be done JUST RIGHT - too fake and it's no fun, too "flashy" (i.e. the blob looks more like an art-designed Geigeresque masterpiece than a 'could be anything' chunk) and the illusion of plausibility is broken.

So, basically, to complain (as MANY will do, garaunteed) that "Cloverfield" has a choppy narrative, little to no structure, largely-unlikable characters and an almost total lack of traditionally-cinematic "arcs" for said characters is to damn the film for doing exactly what it sets out to do: Look as much as possible like an authentic video tape recovered from a camera found in the aftermath of a movie-traditional Giant Monster Attack on a major city. YES, the 'story' plays out without structure because reality doesn't have act-breaks. YES, the cast of "average folks" are annoying, uninteresting and unremarkable because "average folks" ARE more often than not annoying, uninteresting and unremarkable - if they weren't, they wouldn't BE "average." Getting mad at this movie for these things is like getting mad at Tom Brady for completing a pass.

The second thing to understand is, despite the fact that this is visceral "ride" movie that can be enjoyed (theoretically) by anyone without much preparation, at the end of the day it's still a Monster Movie and thus a Geek Movie almost by-default - meaning that it's "principal" audience of interest are the devoted genre fans who're sufficiently well-versed in their Toho, Harryhausen and so-forth that they can plot the "classical" structure from memory and thus oughtn't be AS bothered by the lack of "explaining what It is and where It came from" scenes since you've seen your share enough to fully imagine them taking place beyond the frame.

You'll notice that I didn't open this with a "Spoiler Warning," because there's really nothing to "spoil." As I said above, the film is "getting away" with it's street-level view of a forumla genre film by having what "main" action we do see adhere to said formula as closely as possible. As such, those expecting some kind of grand surprise as to what "It" eventually "is" are setting themselves up for dissapointment, and if there IS some unique element to "It's" backstory it's not one we get to hear in the movie-proper. It's not Godzilla. It's not Cthulhu. It's not Voltron. It's not George, Ralph or Lizzie. It's not the Smoke Monster from "Lost," and no I didn't see any Dharma logos anywhere.

Something must be said, I think, about the film's seemingly deliberate evocations of 9/11 in the way it stages it's citywide destruction - and not JUST a big ol' told ya so (see: http://moviebob.blogspot.com/2007/07/cloverfield-has-poster.html) from me. While it's true that every movie that obliterates a major city is going to remind us of That Day for a long time, "Cloverfield's" upfrontness is unmistakable and undeniably effective: During the first attack sequence, a crumbling skyscraper sends a dust-cloud down the street and sends the heroes ducking into a deli to dodge it, watching the cloud blast by them through the windows. Afterwards, we even get dust-covered streets, scraps of paper "snowing" gently to Earth and ash-encrusted survivors wandering in shock. And that's some of the more SUBTLE stuff - there's at least one major visual reference that I'm genuinely impressed they pulled off without seeming in bad taste. This is hardly unprecedented; the original "Godzilla" repackaged post-Hiroshima angst into the form of a giant dinosaur, so it's appropriate that America now also have a creature-feature reflecting the shared national-nightmare of OUR day of devastation.

"Cloverfield" is, in the end, more of an attraction than a narrative-film. All said and done, it's a ride movie... but it's a unique and gloriously-executed one, and easily one of the best "found footage" stagings ever concieved - EASILY superior to "Blair Witch," "Cannibal Holocaust," "Last Broadcast" and most of the other so-called vanguards of the genre. Yes, part of me hopes that it's success (it's going to be BIG, count on it) will lead to some more traditional "Kaiju" city-stompers flooding the blockbuster scene (what the HELL ELSE is all this modern CGI technology here FOR!!??) for now I'm enjoying the hell out of this one. HIGHLY reccomended.

FINAL RATING: 9/10