What Is "Lee's Adventure?"

I'm being told on good authority that a Chinese film called "Lee's Adventure," billed as the big breakout vehicle for Jackie Chan's son and just screened at Fantastic Fest, is the next great "movie about video games." Based on an animated short, plot concerns a teenager with a bizarre mental affliction attempting to complete a game which he believes will allow him access to time-travel. Trailer below the jump:

Fraulein - Ein Detusches Melodram

The last made for TV movie by Michael Haneke before doing his first big screen film (later he did two more made for TV movies) is a film that honestly really confused me. My first spontaneous reaction was that this movie does not fit what I have in my head regarding Haneke as to me film looks and feels quite normal. Yes found film to be similar to several European movies from those years (the eighties) and before, as film is set in the near past, post-WWII and there was nothing I could find that told me this was a Haneke film. Sigh. But that doesn't mean at all that I didn't enjoy watching this unusual melodrama, a film that to enjoy it you have to really recall many movies, some cinema history and some WWII history, I'll explain later.

Then I started to read about this movie and what follows is a mix of what I read and what I saw in film. Let's start by sharing that this film is considered by some cinema academics as the "response" to Rainer Werner Fassbinder's Die Ehe der Maria Braun (The Marriage of Maria Braun) and perhaps it is as definitively this film looks like what Haneke said: "a deliberate attempt to create a counter-film against the heroizing of German postwar mentalities". In this film the lead role Anna, played by Angelica Domröse, is more concerned with her life and the inconveniences that came when his husband, believed to be dead, suddenly returns to the small German village; which is very different than the patriotic view that predominated in post-war set German cinema. I don't really remember Fassbinder's film as saw it a very long time ago, but maybe will see it again to see with my own eyes the two films relationship.

Nevertheless from what I read, what got my attention is that cinema academics claim that with this film Haneke "overcame" his Fassbinder "obsession". If factual, then we have to thank this film that helped Haneke to develop his own particular master style.

As mentioned film tells the story of Anna, who has a good life 10 years after her husband, Hans, became a POW in Russia. Film starts with Hans family discussing that is time to declare Hans dead, Anna's refusal and showing us how happy life was for this family in this sleepy German village. Anna has two teenage children, works/owns a movie theater and has a companion, Andre, who is accepted by all her family, including her in-laws. Everything changes when she gets a letter from the association of war returnees, telling her that Hans is returning home. Not a bad story, even when only seen in the surface, without analyzing the movie clips, the historic events and news seen in the movie theater and other screens.

If something I discovered after reading about film is that film is complex, very complex. To me contemporary Haneke's films have been quite easy to decode, but this one was not, even when I'm familiar with many -not all- the movie clips and other elements shown in film. Maybe now that I learned so much about this movie I could watch it again to decode all elements; so, I do recommend you read as much as possible about this movie before watching as surely will help to enjoy more film. Unlike previous Haneke's TV movie I posted, this film has many references and analysis that you can easily find in the net.

Spontaneously film as a film bothered me a lot because editing which I found intrusive instead of explanatory, which is not at all how contemporary Haneke's films are. But film has many absolutely beautiful compositions that are truly visually stunning and yes, is a black and white film that only at the end, for a few minutes, becomes full color.

Would I be talking like the above if film was not a Haneke film? No, probably not; but it is a Haneke film and had to learn more about film before writing and yes, surely will watch film again but have to wait a while as watching two Haneke's films in one day was too much, I knew it but couldn't resist watching. Sigh.

If you enjoy Haneke's contemporary work then this film is must be seen for you but as mentioned, suggest you read about film before watching; if you enjoy classic European melodramas then I know you could also enjoy this film.

I'm still amazed that this is a made for TV movie (German TV) as definitively does not look or feel like that; film looks and feels like big screen movies from the seventies and eighties, like many films from great French, Italian, and German directors. Truly surprising as before watching these two Haneke's films perhaps the best TV related film was 1989 Dekalog miniseries; but have to admit that I haven't seen Fassbinder's made for TV movies. If you wish to see film, use the link provided in previous Haneke's made for TV movie post.

Enjoy!!!

That Time The Muppets Met Mario

Something fun, for your Sunday.

I think "Muppet Babies" might be (by default) the closest to "overrated" any of the mainline Muppet productions ever got, mostly because it was probably a certain generation of kids first exposure to the characters. Absolutely not a BAD show, by any means, but watching it again now it's kind of unnavoidable that the ratio of preschool-moralizing to actual humor is a bit lopsided in the not-as-funny direction (also, yes... having all the character voices pitched so high starts to grate after a bit.)

But, fond memories I still have; particularly of the handful of episodes I had on tape and watched incessantly as a kid. One I only think I saw once, however, was (for obvious reasons) burned into my head just enough that before you could look these things up on the internet there was a period when I thought I'd imagined it: "It's Only Pretendo."


If you're not familiar with (or don't recall) the premise of the show, the Babies would play this or that make-believe game, which would flip back and forth between the "real world" of their nursery and elaborate visualizations of what they're pretending is going on; often using mixed-media additions of movie and TV footage (usually public-domain, but sometimes big stuff like "Star Wars" which is why this isn't on DVD yet.)

This episode is built around playing "Pretendo," which you'll gather is supposed to be a video-game console (the "lesson" turns out to be "play friendly and share" rather than "put that down and go outside," UNHEARD OF in any other cartoon of the era where gaming was involved!) Aside from the obvious, I think the reason this one probably stuck out to me as a kid was that you almost NEVER saw video games being played by characters on TV and you definitely never saw reference to ACTUAL games. But that's what goes on here, as the main part of the show is essentially wall-to-wall reference to Donkey Kong, Super Mario Bros, Zelda, Frogger (of course) Q*Bert and even The Power Pad(!) plus relative obscurities like Keith Courage and Fantasy Zone.

Enjoy! Part I   Part II   Part III

Lemminge, Teil 1 Arkadien (Lemmings, Part 1: Arcadia)

Fascinating early work by Michael Haneke that fast will grab your attention, hold it and won't release you until the very end. Most impressive is that this was about the fourth Haneke film and is a made for TV movie! Yes a TV movie. But never before have seen a made for TV movie like this one, and have seen my good share of old TV movies from Europe.

To be brief I'll do a comparison as reference and because there has to be a relationship. This 1979 movie feels like Haneke's 1997 Funny Games as has similar storytelling style that magnificently introduces us to characters and slowly their downturn begins. It does not look like the mentioned movie as here I believe he goes darker, very darker, disturbingly darker. Not only with narrative but also with the use of light. Yes I believe this is darker than Funny Games that was strictly violent, disturbingly violent.

Written by Haneke tells a story of five teenagers, a slice of their lives that begin at one point and end at another point; nothing much is said about before and you have to imagine what follows after the end. But obviously that's not what movie is about. This is a strong exploration of post-war youth and how damaged they are thanks to living in a morally very restrictive society. As in many of Haneke's films story is set in the past but is truly impressive how current they are, even today, 33 years after first was screened on Austrian TV.

Even if is told in movie, let me share a definition of Lemmings, one that is not about the rodent: a member of any large group following an unthinking course towards mass destruction. That's exactly what movie is all about.

Never is too late to discover Michael Haneke's early work and my purpose is to eventually watch all his TV movies that seem have his very distinctive mark. This movie has a second part, Lemminge, Teil 2 Verletzungen (Lemmings, Part 2: Injuries) which obviously I'm dying to see.

If you wish to read detailed plot for both films I suggest you check an excerpt of the book Funny Frames: The Filmic Concepts of Michael Haneke by Oliver C. Speck, that you can find here.

If you enjoy the current work by master filmmaker Michael Haneke then this film is must be seen for you. Film was uploaded today here (has English subtitles) and strongly suggest you watch film in your TV, not your computer.

Big Enjoy!!!

PACIFIC RIM 3D Conversion Silver Lining - And What A Silver Lining!

You guys know me by now, if you're going to release a movie that's been converted to 3D you have to plan the production around that. So I mean, have a stereographer working side by side with the director to ensure the shots that are being set up and shot will work very well in three dimensions. That probably means a depth script even though it's not being shot in 3D. It also means consideration to how the movie is lit as well.

But then there's Guillermo del Toro. Obviously he was cleared to shoot PACIFIC RIM in 2D and no one is going to blame him for his reasons for doing so. He's the creative force. I may have a different opinion but would I have gone to see it in 2D? Absol-freakin-lutely.

Here's the thing though. Guillermo is one smart director. Legendary is calling the shots as far as money is concerned and wants it converted. So how can del Toro turn this into something wonderful? He's already in a compromised position due to the fact that he is now going to have a 3D movie that was shot for 2D. So how does he pull this off?

With suitable del Toro gusto. I love this guy! Guillermo is well versed in what makes great 3D and here's the proof - in his own words - on how he approached the executives (Warner Bros and Legendary):

"What happened was, in the weeks and months following Comic-Con, what I asked from the studio was to agree to four points that I wanted to do," he says. "The more the ILM shots arrived, the more I realized that there were only a few shots that would miniaturize. I asked the studio, number one, that we would not hyper-stereo-lize the thing. That we would not force 3D on the beauty shots. That we would keep the giant dimensions. They agreed. Number two, they agreed to something very unusual. Normally a conversion takes a few weeks. I asked to start it immediately so we could take the full 40 weeks to do the conversion. As an example, 'Titanic' took about 50 weeks to convert. The final thing that I asked that they agreed to, which was amazing, was that I asked them to give me an extra budget, which is considerable, to actually have ILM composite the shots that are CG native 3D. We're not giving elements. ILM is giving the composite in 3D from the get-go. That's a huge, huge element. Now I'm going to be involved in supervising it. What can I tell you? I changed my mind. I'm not running for office. I can do a Romney."

So to be clear, here's his list:
1. Don't exaggerate the 3D during some of the massive robot shots - his 'beauty shots'.
This makes sense. Some shots simply will not hold water if you force 3D upon them. Further, audiences need time to relax their eyes in between full immersive 3D. A 3D movie does not need to be, nor should it, always be forcing 3D - unlike some movie blog sites out there that claim they should be by how they rate the genre.

2. He got Legendary to agree to a 40 week conversion!
This is massive. Of course there is more to getting this job done than time, but time is one of the key components of any great conversion. You need time, money, appropriate content and resources. With 40 weeks, you can strike that component concern off the map. Love it!

3. Asked for and received more money - then throwing this at ILM for native 3D visual effects scenes!
The most intricate conversions would have been the action and impact scenes. In one fell swoop, Guillermo negotiated for and won the right to pay Industrial Light and Magic to not only fulfill his visual effects needs, but to render them in native 3D from the beginning. No need to convert these scenes and we'll end up with awesome 3D.

Don't fool yourself. Guillermo del Toro knows what he is doing in 3D. He hasn't shot in native 3D yet, but given his past awareness of the format (he spoke about myself and 3D right here), his clear knowledge of the format in what he negotiated for and won from Legendary for PACIFIC RIM, and of course his close friendship with James Cameron (they were going to do AT THE MOUNTAINS OF MADNESS together) - shows his affinity for what we know and love here at MarketSaw.

Best of luck with the conversion Guillermo! You truly have my support in this. You've addressed your needs to make a great 3D conversion and I for one, believe you can do this thing. You've rightly said that TITANIC took 50 weeks and it was a stunning conversion. Can't wait to see this thing on as large a 3D screen as I can find! Bring it on GDT...

PACIFIC RIM opens in 3D on July 12, 2013.

Source: STYD
Thanks: David S. Cohen

Has LEGO Revealed a MAJOR "Man of Steel" Spoiler??

Everyone else is running this, so I figure I might as well get my clicks while I can.

In one of those developments that I'm sure I'll be hearing about as the "symbolic death of film journalism" at the next critic's meetup; major movie news has once again been (potentially) made by the release of a toy company's product schedule: LEGO has been giving retailers the heads-up as to their 2013 licensed products, and references therein seem to have let some possible-surprises slip a little early.

One of them isn't all that much of a surprise (pretty much everyone has figured out who/what Ben Kingsley is ACTUALLY playing in "Iron Man 3," yes?) but the other MAY have given away the game for Zack Snyder and Christopher Nolan's "Man of Steel."

All speculation at this point, but still... POTENTIAL MAJOR SPOILER AFTER THE JUMP!

Last chance to turn back, kids:

/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/

The last entry on LEGO's product list for playsets reads as follows: 76009: SUPERMAN BLACK ZERO ESCAPE. If there's an especially well-versed DC Comics fan reading this in the vicinity near you, it may be wise to give them a bag to breathe into.

Who or what is "Black Zero?" Well, to give you an idea of why this could be the mother of all spoilers for this particular movie, the Silver Age (1968) story that introduced the first iteration of the character/concept was called "The Man Who Destroyed Krypton."

Yeah.

In the story (now long-deleted from "official" Superman canon by a Crisis or fifty) Black Zero is an alien "space saboteur" who specializes in causing the destruction of entire planets; and reveals that while Jor-El had been right about Krypton's demise being probable, the "internal pressures" issue would actually have worked itself out had Black Zero not given them an extra shove. When Zero turns his attentions to Earth, Superman is forced to release a Kryptonian supervillain named Jax-Ur from The Phantom Zone in order to defeat him.

In post-Crisis continuity, "Black Zero" is the name of a terrorist organization that was part of a clones-vs-natural-borns Civil War on ancient Krypton whose superweapon "The Destroyer" set in motion the milleniums-long chain reaction that eventually. resulted in the planet's ultimate demise. There's also been a "Black Zero Computer Virus" and the original's name/costume were adopted by an alternate-universe doppleganger of the post-Doomsday Superboy.

So, then... assuming that this is legit, what is "Black Zero" in "Man of Steel?" Is "what destroyed Krypton?" part of some big overarching mystery in the film? Is it a character? An organization? Just a "shout-out" for fans? Mucking around and "over-complicating" the Krypton backstory has been sketchy territory for Superman adaptations in the past... but it's also something I can easily imagine Warners aiming at to give the character some Batman-ish angst; and it'd be VERY typical of the ultra-literalist, mechanics-fixated Nolan Bros. to want to tie the end of Krypton in the backstory to the main story (re: Superman has to literally protect Earth from the same fate his father failed to prevent on Kypton.)

I'll be honest... neither of those theories sound like particularly good ideas to me, but I'm intrigued.

Devin Faraci Muscles In On My Territory

I kid, I kid.

So, BadassDigest has joined the ranks of web video shows, and I think the result is pretty slick: Faraci, Amy Nicholson and Jeremy Smith breaking down the overall pretty-meh Summer 2012 offerings. Check it out: