Cybersurfing: Hollywood's Future Rests In The Hands Of A Plastic Few

Toy Story 3In a New York Times article
titled “Hollywood Hopes Toy Story 3 Can Spur Summer Sales,” authors Michael Cieply and Brooks Barnes discuss the movie industry and the recent decline in ticket sales. The discussion has been everywhere in entertainment news, having been sparked from the fact that this past Memorial Day weekend – generally one of the highest grossing during the summer – was the lowest it has been for years. The piece looks over the most recent theatrical releases and examines their expectations vs. where they eventually ended up in box office sales. Cieply and Barnes also touch on a number of points regarding the decline and the possible reasons behind it. And while they make several very interesting arguments, their impact is muted, as the article seems to drown in a sea of numbers. Much to its detriment, the key reasons behind the floundering of Hollywood are glossed over.

While mentioned briefly, the fact that perhaps those in the audience are a bit more intelligent and not quite the cattle studios believe them to be bears further examination. It is astounding to think that after decades of movie making, there is still a pervasive “Buyer Beware” attitude in Hollywood. Instead of innovation, it is imitation that still rules in movie land as studios take well-worn plots and redress them as the next big thing. While it is not impossible to take a cliché story and turn it into a fascinating film, it is impossible to pull off when no real effort is put into it. A prime example of this is the recent release of PRINCE OF PERSIA: THE SANDS OF TIME. This property, based off of the video game of the same name, is rife with interesting plots, sub-plots, and characters, all of which could have been combined in any number of ways to bring an exciting and, more importantly, interesting film to the screen. But the studios – in this case Disney – opted for the quick buck, hoping that brand identity, star power, and over-the-top special effects would mask the fact that the film had no real substance. They KNEW the film had no real substance and yet, they were fine with that. They were happy to put it in a theater and ask you to pay $12.50 for the “honor” to see a movie that will most likely go straight to Netflix streaming in a month or two.
But this attitude can’t be placed entirely on the studio’s shoulders. We, the audience, are indeed partially to blame. Perhaps it is a genetic imprint left over from ‘20’s era Hollywood, a time when people had no choice in what to see at the movies. As time went on, studios started to offer more films per year and hence more choices, yet empty spectacle still drew in the crowds. Now, in modern times, we find ourselves at an impasse: The audience has evolved but the studios haven’t. We have seen greatness, those few movies that have made it through the system and come out as beacons of what could be. And we like it. But for the moviemakers, true greatness takes too much time and besides, there are quotas to meet and money to collect…why deviate from a good thing? What has worked in the past will work again, right?
In the end, the relationship between audience and studio must be mutually beneficial. In order for the studios to return to their former glory, they must provide the audience with the quality they demand. And in return, demand we must. It is easy to sit back and criticize studios for lazy filmmaking. But next time you do, keep in mind…they had to have gotten that idea from somewhere. And that somewhere is your wallet.

Cybersurfing: Salon seeks meaning in Torture Porn

SAW 2Earlier this week, Salon.com posted an interesting article regarding the recent trend in “Torture Porn” horror, in which films like SAW and HOSTEL show graphic depictions of mutilation and gore. Interviewee Thomas Fahy, the director of the American Studies Program at Long Island University, approaches the subject in a scholarly and insightful way, making valid and interesting points about underlying social commentary in the horror genre. However, there are a few points Mr. Fahy overlooked that deserve to be mentioned.
Not every reason for the success of these movies is related to some cultural relevance.
There is the very real possibility that, at the start of this whole thing, audiences were just flat-out bored with the same horror structure. The only twist ever added was that the good guy doesn’t get away. With the first SAW movie, people were shown something that made them squirm again, much as they did during the first horror movie they ever saw. Freddy putting a razor-tipped hand through someone’s chest had become old hat, but a man forced to saw through his leg to escape – the plausibility alone fascinated everyone. The continued success, despite the declining quality, could simply be a result of people being interested to see how the each new sequel will top the previous  one.
Insecurity.
Should you want to delve into cultural significance, an alternative theory that at least applies to the American audience is the idea that our world has been turned upside down. From a cultural point of view, the last decade has shown not only a decline in the American image abroad, but also here at home. From being attacked, to the war and its subsequent fallout, to recession – we as a people find ourselves reeling and uncertain of where we will land. These torture porn films provide a focus for this feeling, showing characters trapped in dire situations – without understanding why – struggling to right the ship once more. The end may not be pretty, but there is sometimes a sense of hope that at least things can move on.
History Repeats Itself.
Despite the examples Mr. Fahy makes in the article, it can certainly be argued that the basic horror movie mores are still present. While it may be true that THE LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT remake has a female attacker, the fact remains that the victim is portrayed as a helpless girl who must be saved and avenged by her parents. Also, the recent remakes of famously violent horror films aren’t adding and expanding to the message of the originals. It is all about the money, playing off audience recognition of a famous title with the idea that, in today’s society, they can get away with more! And as said before, bloody curiosity may just get the better of moviegoers in that respect.
An important thing to consider is that these movies, for all of their twisted traps and diabolical deaths, are in no way pushing the genre forward. People will, as they did prior to the first SAW, get tired and move on to the next shtick. Torture porn may be here, but not for good.
ARTICLE LINKS:
SALON.COM (Original Article): http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2010/06/07/philosophy_of_horror_movies?source=newsletter
NYTIMES.COM: http://nymag.com/movies/features/15622/
SPINETINGLER MAGAZINE: http://www.spinetinglermag.com/2010/03/31/the-new-six-figure-torture-porn-industry/

CYBERSURFING: WANTED – 1 Director For “The Hobbit”, Will Pay Handsomely

guillermo del toroThe blogosphere, twitter feeds and various interwebs exploded this week with the news that Guillermo Del Toro, who was set to direct THE HOBBIT (the prequel to THE LORD OF THE RINGS films), would be stepping down due to scheduling conflicts brought on by studio delays. Yet the madness didn’t stop there. As fans of any major franchise tend to do, speculation began to run rampant as to who would take his place. Lists and charts popped up here and there, ranking various directors by number, popularity, sexiness (ok, that one was made up…probably…).
However, while lists can be a fun distraction for film fans, for others they tend to be a deceptive beast. They are made to start conversation and compare ideas but end up creating a “false hope” in some fans and, in the end, whatever director is chosen will ultimately fall short of the expectations of those die-hard few who were 100% sure that would get the job. It is fun to speculate and wish, just as long its understood that these lists are exactly that…wish lists.
Here are a few pointers on surviving the speculation madness:
• While Del Toro is an excellent director and a great choice, it is not a written rule that to direct a good movie about hobbits, one needs to look like them.
“Peter Jackson is the PERFECT choice to direct this movie!” – Well, ok…duh. However, the man has said many times he doesn’t want to. Anyone who spends a decade making what truly amounts to a 9-hour smash hit deserves a LONG vacation. If he decides to, he will. Until then, keep your pants on…someone good will be found.
• Most lists feature big-name directors in the top spots, those who have a track record of making epic movies. Fans tend to think that only the current best in the business directors should be able to get their hands on THE HOBBIT. Should I remind people that, prior to the release of THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING, Peter Jackson was relegated to cult-status. Sure, he had paid his dues and had an ever-increasing list of successes, but the number of naysayers prior to the 1st film’s release was too many to count. The director may well be an unknown, but this is no reason to fret – Neil Blomkamp was a virtual unknown until the Jackson-produced DISTICT 9 hit theaters.
• Finally, to take a line from THE HITCHHIKER’S GUIDE: Don’t Panic. Though the delay in production is disappointing, this movie WILL be made. You don’t shelve a film with a built-in fan base somewhere in the hundreds of millions.
Links to various lists can be found below. Read them and enjoy. Just don’t be surprised if most of those wishes don’t come true!
Cinemablend: http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Who-Will-Direct-The-Hobbit-Our-Readers-Advise-Peter-Jackson-18796.html
Cinematical: http://www.cinematical.com/2010/05/31/who-should-direct-the-hobbit
Television Without Pity: http://www.televisionwithoutpity.com/mwop/moviefile/2010/06/non-geek-directors-who-should.php
Io9: http://io9.com/5552022/who-should-direct-the-hobbit

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Outlander (2008) DVD Review

OUTLANDERIn the race to create the next LORD OF THE RINGS franchise, studios and producers have tried several different tactics. Most have failed, only to be lost into the “C” movie nexus. OUTLANDER is one such title, a movie seeking to achieve an epic grandness through a modified conceit that sounds like sci-fi variation on the story of Beowulf and Grendel: what if a man from space crash-landed amongst the Vikings and helped them defeat an evil…an evil he brought with him? The film received extremely limited theatrical exposure last year before heading off to video; now it’s back with a new Blu-ray release.
Jim Caviezel (PASSION OF THE CHRIST) stars as Kainan, an extraterrestrial running from the annihilation of his colony. Unbeknownst to him until it’s too late, one of the creatures responsible for the colony’s destruction has snuck onboard his ship, causing it to crash land on the nearest planet – which just happens to be Earth. Kainan awakes from the crash to find his fellow astronaut dead and the creature long gone. After being captured by a Viking tribe led by Rothgar (John Hurt of 1984 fame) and his daughter Freya (Sophia Myles, UNDERWORLD), Kainan must convince the Vikings that the creature he hunts is real before it is too late for all of them.
The plot of OUTLANDER is a typical formula, tweaked slightly to come off as fresh and original. What if we have an outsider come in and claim to have seen some terrible horror and the villagers don’t believe him until it’s too late? When they finally see it for themselves, they rally behind the stranger and overcome evil. It’s been done before, and done better than it is here.
Not all is lost in this movie, however. The majority of performances are quite good, with a very solid cast. John Hurt lends some weight, while Sophia Myles more than holds her own. And lets not forget to mention Sci-Fi stalwart Ron Pearlman in an awesome, though much too brief, showing as the duel-hammer-wielding Gunnar. Unfortunately, the performance that matters most is the weakest of the lot: Jim Caviezel has truly convinced me that his face contains no emotion whatsoever. Serious Kainan, emotional Kainan, happy Kainan – all contain a straight mouth and tired eyes. However, every now and again, he erupts in a sudden burst of angry yelling that jars you into thinking that his performance might be turning around. Let me save you the time: it doesn’t.
Outlander (2008)
OUTLANDER‘s special effects are okay, but not great. You can tell that, with a bigger budget, the effects would have really blistered your eyeballs. As it is, the visuals are passable but far from impressive. However, the concept of the monster itself is cool as hell. I won’t get too far into the details, but suffice to say I can think of worse ways to die than getting a fantastic light show before you are eaten.
These small bright spots are not enough to overcome a weak script, terrible pacing, and sub-par special effects. As with most movies, there is an audience niche for this film. People like space, people like Vikings – why not combine the two? But from a movie standpoint, OUTLANDER find’s itself between gripping Sci-Fi and typical SyFy. In the Hollywood Hit machine, OUTLANDER should have been left in to bake for a few minutes more.
The DVD (released May 19, 2009) includes your standard pack of extras. Nothing much really pops out, though if you are a fan of the computer design aspect of film, the Visual Effects Tests will be right up your alley. Features include:

  • Deleted Scenes
  • Animatics
  • Visual Effects Tests
  • Production Design Galleries
  • Audio Commentary by Writer-Director Howard McCain and Producers Dirk Blackman, Chris Roberts and John Schimmel

Vivendi Entertainment’s recent Blu-ray re-release (May 18, 2010) ports over these bonus items and adds a “Making of Outlander” featurette.
OUTLANDER (copyright 2008; theatrical release, January 2009; home video debut, May 2009).  Directed b Howard McCain. Written by Dirk Blackman & Howard McCain. Cast: James Caviezel, Sophia Myles, Jack Huston, John Hurt, Cliff Saunders, Patrick Stevenson, Aidan Devine, Ron Perlman, Bailey Maughan, John Nelles, James Preston Rogers.
[serialposts]

The New Daughter (2009) – DVD Review

The New Daughter
click to purchase

Beautifully shot and well acted, this horror-thriller leaves too many unaswered questions.

As a movie lover living in New York City, I’ve become a bit jaded in terms of film-watching. New York is one of those places they refer to when using the phrase, “Opens in Select Cities” during movie trailers, and aside from getting to see most independent films a good 3-4 months before the rest of the country, there are also opportunities to see screenings of many major releases early as well. Film buffs take note: New York City is the celluloid “High Life”. Which is why it is always a bit unsettling to find a recent DVD release that completely slipped under my radar. Case in point: THE NEW DAUGHTER, which snuck in and out of theatres last December.
THE NEW DAUGHTER is a horror-thriller directed by Luis Berdejo ( the writer of [REC]) about a recently divorced father named John (Kevin Costner) who moves to rural South Carolina with his two children, Louisa (Ivana Baquero of PAN’S LABYRINTH fame) and Sam (Gattlin Griffith from CHANGELING). Exploring their new property, the kids stumble upon a mysterious mound at the edge of the woods. While Sam and John both feel ill at ease around it, Louisa seems inexplicably drawn to it. Shortly thereafter, Louisa’s behavior begins to change as she becomes more withdrawn and aggressive, all while spending more and more time out at the mound. Hoping to understand what is happening to his daughter, John researches the property and finds that an ancient evil may lurk underneath the mound. With no options left, he takes it upon himself to save Louisa and end the horror once and for all.
Lets get the pros out of the way: This movie is beautifully shot by D.P Checco Varese, who finds the perfect mood lighting for each scene and also resists the recent trend in movies to overuse the Steady Cam/ Handheld camera approach, opting instead for a traditional smooth and steady shot to get the point across. And despite whatever your feelings for Kevin Costner may be, the acting in THE NEW DAUGHTER is not bad. Costner is definitely in his element here: small, intimate scenes placed in the South (so right there, no pesky accents to master). He is believable as a father having a hard time with the change in his life but doing his best for the kids.
Unfortunately, that’s where the pros stop and the cons begin. The editing definitely leaves something to be desired – there are so many blackouts, you might think someone spiked your soda. While it may make for gripping suspense the first two times, after awhile you start to expect commercials to pop up. But this leads us to the main problem with THE NEW DAUGHTER: the script. While I can’t speak to the source material (the film is based off the short story by John Connolly), the screenplay is all over the place. It wants to pack as much tension and suspense into a scene as possible but often gives no context for said tension and suspense. The script attempts to include the back-story in a subtle manner that doesn’t overshadow the rest of the plot.; unfortunately, it is so subtle that it requires a scene in which a scientist comes in and says a few words, then disappears. Rather than a gradual 5-course meal of information, it starves viewers and then suddenly hits them in the face with a cream pie of plotline. By the time the ending rolls around, the audience has no clear understanding of the plot and, therefore, no stake in the fate of the characters.
Overall, THE NEW DAUGHTER is a noble attempt that trips and falls on its clunky screenplay. The ideas are interesting and the film provides us with a glimpse of possible future movie stars (Ivana Baquero is definitely one to watch), but in the end there are so many unanswered questions that even a second viewing won’t come close to answering them all.

The DVD (Standard Def. Version reviewed)

While certainly not extensive, the DVD does have your standard package of extras:

  • Deleted Scenes – The best that can be said for these is that they definitely are scenes and yes, they were deleted. Most of the offerings here are simply transitional bits that provides no insight into the film itself: i.e. ambulances pulling up to a house.
  • Audio Commentary – The sole commentary comes from director Luis Berdejo, who spends most of the time discussing what they were attempting to do.
  • Behind The Scenes – The most insightful extra on the DVD, includes interviews from the cast & crew. John Connolly, writer of the short story on which the film is based, discusses his inspiration, and he seems like the kind of guy you want to go get a beer with.

[serialposts]

Did Hollywood whitewash Last Airbender and Prince of Persia?

Dev Patel and Shaun Toub in THE LAST AIRBENDER
Dev Patel and Shaun Toub in THE LAST AIRBENDER

In an AP article from May 25th, author Deepti Hajela brings to light a controversy many may not even think of : Whitewashing. Whitewashing is the practice of casting Caucasian actors in the roles of ethnic characters. The examples cited are two upcoming fantasy films, THE LAST AIRBENDER, which has 3 white actors in the lead roles despite the fact that their cartoon counterparts are Asian, and PRINCE OF PERSIA: THE SANDS OF TIME, which casts Jake Gyllenhaal as…well, a Persian Prince. While the article discusses the controversy itself, I wanted to provide my own view of this practice and, begrudgingly, play the devil’s advocate.
One would have to be blind to not see that this happens in film…hell, its been happening practically since the beginning. But this practice should be viewed for what it truly is: it’s not about race, it’s not about appealing to the “white audience”…it’s about money. Pure and simple. Each studio has its summer blockbuster, and in order to sell that blockbuster, they need a recognizable face on that poster. So they will go to the A-list stars to get it, those celebrities who are constantly being photographed for People and TMZ. They go to them because the audience, no matter their race, know them, identify them with movies that they’ve done and in some way enjoy what they’ve seen. Presumably, the audience would want to repeat that enjoyable experience. Hollywood is not ignorant of non-white actors but rather ignorant of the audience itself and what the people want.
For those who don’t agree, let me present another argument: You have a favorite Middle Eastern actor who is just starting to make a splash on the International film scene. Do you really want his first major studio film to be PRINCE OF PERSIA? Putting ethnic stereotypes aside, I think that we all know, deep down in our guts, that this movie is going to be a stinker. Disney has taken a gritty video game and adapted it to Kid-approved eye candy. If it failed, our hypothetical actor from the East would suffer a huge set-back in his career, whereas an actor like Jake Gyllenhaal is established and can definitely rebound from taking a hit. And lets not forget the possibilities that well-known foreign actors may have been approached, but were smart enough to turn the script down.
The arguments the author brings up are warranted and worth talking about, but the examples presented in the article are all concern popcorn flicks, not films. It concerns people getting upset over movies designed to appeal to our basest of instincts, to instill a sense of awe and wonder by flashing lights in our faces for a solid hour and a half. These movies are not high art; these are not though-provoking representations of people in our world, of characters with deep flaws. These are cash cows, here today and gone tomorrow (until the DVD pops up a few months later).
[serialposts]

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]