The second video is up and it doesn't suck!
Watch it (and leave comments ... thousands and thousands of comments).
Also, I'd like to apologize in advance for poking fun at Roger Ebert's mouth ... it's not funny (but you know it is). You know I love you, Big E.
****1/2
As I sit here at my laptop, typing this review, the epic score to "Superman Returns" is playing idly over and over again in my head. Now I have it playing on my media player, directly behind this very window. This is of no consequence to you, the reader, of course. I just wanted to let you know, because it may affect my review just a little bit.
But only a little bit.
"Superman Returns," is the third film in the Superman franchise (it's actually the fifth, but "Superman III" and "IV" only exist in the minds of the mentally insane). It's been nearly two decades since the last Superman film (of whose name we shall not speak), but "Returns" picks up the storyline as easily as if it were only last year that the Superman saga came to a screeching halt. The transition is nearly seamless.
Superman (Brandon Routh, a Hollywood newcomer taking over for the late Cristopher Reeve) has been gone for five years, disappearing shortly after astronomers find what they believed to be the remains of the planet Krypton. The people of Metropolis, specifically a certain female journalist, have all grown accustomed to life without the Man of Steel around to save them. But when Superman returns from his little vacation, he falls right back into the role of savior. Heck, on his first day back, he prevents a malfuctioning plane full of people from crashing into a ballpark.
But all is not well in the life of Clark Kent. Turns out that
For me, "Returns" is the film that "III" and "IV" should have been. It's a sequel worthy of the original films, and director Bryan Singer (yes, the "X-men" guy) treats the subject matter with nothing but absolute respect and appreciation. The movie isn't attempting to re-invent the story so much as it's just trying to resurrect it from the land of camp and trash.
But the film also sports its own unique style. Where "Superman: The Movie" lacked intensity, "Returns" establishes a great sense of danger from the get-go. By adding a bit of depth to the character of Lex Luthor, he is no longer reduced to a bumbling villain. He is truly a threat to the life of Superman, and to the well-being of the world itself. This adds a fantastic touch of darkness and foreboding to the film.
The visual effects are, of course, phenomenal. Simply breathtaking. The flying sequences, fighting scenes and space shots are all incredible. It's a great looking flick.
The cast is superb. Newcomer Brandon Routh just carries the film on his shoulders. He's channeling Christopher Reeve through the entire film; the resemblance to the late actor, both in appearance and mannerisms, is uncanny. Not once did I question his right to be the Man of Steel. Kevin Spacey is, as usual, just fantastic. His performance does Gene Hackman proud. Young Kate Bosworth has a little trouble fitting into the role of feisty journalist Louis Lane, who was originally portrayed by Margot Kidder, but I grew to like her take on the character as the film progressed.
On the bad end of things, the film does drag a bit in the end ... it's about 10-15 minutes too long, and you should never find yourself bored in a Superman movie. But it's really not too bad, and I came out of the film with a big smile on my face none the less.
As far as superhero films go, "Returns" is right up there with movies like "Spiderman 2" and "Batman Begins." It presents something fantastic, like an invincible flying man, and handles it with the upmost realism and seriousness. The outcome is a greatly appealing film.
For fans of the original "Superman" films, this movie is chock full of throwbacks. Sly little references to the 1978 film pepper "Returns" thickly. Even the famous "fly-by" opening credits are present.
Personally, I'd like to see Mr. Singer direct a follow-up to this movie (he definitely left it wide open for a sequel). I hope he sticks with the series for a while longer, because I can't wait to see "Superman Returns ... Again."
Alright, so apparently there's still a few kinks to work out in this video blog thing. For some people, the video isn't loading at all. When I checked for comments this morning, it wasn't loading for me either. I'm not sure if this is a YouTube problem or a Mattinee problem. I'll look into it.
For now, just try refreshing the page a few times and see if that helps (worked for me). I will really try to figure out why it's being a little stupid about loading.
It was working last night, but it was too good to be true. Sit tight and I'll have this figured out. It is a flash application, so if you don't have Shockwave player installed on your computer, that might be part of the problem.
For me, it's just taking eons to load (which shouldn't be happening ... it's a relatively tiny file). It might just be the host video being slow ... I don't know. I'll see if it kind of fixes itself out in a few hours. If not, I'll go in and try to figure out what's wrong with the code of the embedded video.
Anyway, thanks for your patience, guys. This first episode has been a pain in the butt, but as I start getting the hang of it, the next episodes should come faster and easier.
UPDATE: Alright, well, it seems to be loading at a reasonable speed for me now. Please let me know if you guys have any further problems with it, and I'll try my best to fix it as soon as possible. Thanks for putting up with all this technology crap, guys.
Wow. This was a long and frustrating process to go through to get this stupid thing working. It's almost 3:00 in the friggin' morning, but I finally got it uploaded and playing! BIG THANKS to YouTube for hosting my videos. YouTube is truly a fantastic site.
I hope you guys enjoy. This video is pretty crappy, I know, but it's also the first one (and bear in mind I filmed it at about 1:00 in the morning). They'll get better as they go along. Anyway, let me know what you think. But I have work tommorow (crap ...) so, I'm going to bed. Peace out.
In case you didn't know, I LOVE the film "Dark City." It is, hands down, one of my favorite movies of all time. It's a cool little film by Alex Proyas of "The Crow" fame, and it's gained a faithful cult following since its release on DVD a few years back. Roger Ebert recently added "Dark City" to his "Great Movies" list, making it, I believe, the most recent film on there.
So, you have to understand, the people who love this movie really LOVE this movie. That's why this little tidbit of info has caused such an uproar amongst film geeks. Yes, Proyas let slip on the Mystery Clock forums that a sequel to "Dark City" is a possibility.
Some are upset -- why ruin something that's so perfect with a shoddy sequel? Some are ecstatic -- why not make a sequel to this fantastic film? Me? I'm somewhere in the middle, honestly. I'm very intriqued as to where this could go. Proyas is an extremely competent filmmaker, and I feel like he would treat the film with the respect it deserves.
And then there's questions like, "Will the cast return?" and "Will the film retain the style of the first?" It's a hard road to take with a film like "Dark City," but I feel like Proyas is more than up for the challenge.
So, in the meantime, I'm going to enjoy the director's cut DVD of "Dark City" due out soon, and watch keenly for any word on this sequel.
Also, just a quick note: my video blog will be up soon. I ended up having to buy a special firewire cable to hook my camcorder up to my laptop. Should arrive in the next few days, so sit tight!
****1/2
OK ... so, this movie "Brick." Where do I start? How about the fact that is was mind-blowingly original, wickedly funny and an utterly fantastic piece of cinema? Yeah, that should just about do it.
I've been following this film for a while now ... ever since its debut at Sundance last year. The premise of the film intriqued me. "A detective story," the poster tagline read. And "Brick" is exactly that; a film-noir detective story set in a modern day Southern California high school.
Brendan (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is a teenage loner who, after the mysterious disappearance of his ex-girlfriend, begins investigating an underground drug ring that she is suspiciously linked to. He enlists the help of The Brain (Matt O'Leary), a local whiz-kid who sees and hears everything, to aid him in uncovering the truth. But as Brendan delves too deep into the unknown, he finds himself embroiled in something bigger than him or his missing girlfriend.
With "Brick," first-time director Rian Johnson re-invents film-noir with the uptmost respect for the genre. The dialogue is fantastic -- quick, smart and slick. It just screams "1940's private eye flick." The characters are all film-noir archetypes, the camerawork is right out of "The Maltese Falcon" (look at the shot above ... just breathtaking cinematography). The film is such a beautiful homage, it's almost too tough to put it into words.
Needless to say ... I enjoyed "Brick" with every living fiber of my being. It was such a rich, enoyable theater experience. I only hope that the DVD won't take too long. I can't wait to watch "Brick" again ... and again ... and again ...
Anyway, I think my first video blog (yes, it's official -- expect to see the first episode of Mattinee in the next couple of weeks) will focus on "Brick" and how much I enjoyed it. Because, honestly, it's so hard to write about a movie that affected me so much as a film enthusiast.
Alright, so I'm going to take a break here to get serious for a bit. This is a topic that's been heavy on my mind lately, and it's one that deserves attention on this blog. Why? Because this topic directly affects my little acre of cyberspace I call Mattinee.
First, a question for you folks: does anyone actually read this thing? Besides my family, I mean? Does anyone browsing Blogger come across my little blog and take an interest? The significant lack of feedback I'm getting suggests that no one is really interested in what I have to say.
So, what's the deal?
Am I talking to an empty room on this blog? I've tried to broadcast, I've tried to advertise. Heck, I even set up an RSS feed so you don't have to navigate to my site to read my entries! I guess my problem is with the lack of communication between author and reader.
This blog is an open forum, and that goes double for the readers. Leave a comment, shoot me an email, whatever ... it doesn't matter. I'd be more motivated to update if I knew people were reading and enjoying.
But enough of my whining -- here's my "call to action," so to speak. If you read my blog -- if you check in here every few days, every few weeks, whatever to see what's new -- tell your friends. I'm not ordering you to email your sister like, "Check out this guy, he's so friggin' smart!" But honestly, get me some support.
And for the love of God, leave comments! What are you guys thinking? Do you agree completely with everything I say and dispute nothing? I'd hope not. I'd love to get some actual discussion going on here. It'd be fantastic to have a small group of regular readers and supporters who actively participate in this blog.
I've worked hard on this little blog of mine. It's a great outlet for me, whether people are reading or not. It's not like I'm going to take the blog down if people don't start responding to my entries. No, I like writing whether people are paying attention or not. It's just that I, like any other writer, would like some comments, questions, suggestions, or even constructive criticism. It helps a lot to know people are reading.
So, sorry for that lengthy entry. It's just something that's been bugging me for a while now, and I had to get it off my chest. This blog is my outlet, you know.
Anyway, thanks for reading. I know there's a few faithful out there, and you have my love. Expect a review of "Brick" up in the next couple days. Also, I'm contemplating going back to the original "four star" rating system that Mattinee had in its inception. I'm starting to dislike the scale of 1-10. Whatever, I'll fiddle with it a bit. Also, there could very well be video blogging in the near future for Mattinee. That way, you can all see my pretty mug while you listen to me complain about movies. Very exciting times.
As an admirer, reader and overall fan of Mr. Roger Ebert, it deeply saddens me to see him in such a sorry state. This review of "Garfield: A Tale of Two Kitties" and this review of "Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift" had me reeling when I read them yesterday. These two are the kind of movie I can safely say are crap without having actually seen them.
I couldn't believe what I saw. Three stars? It's pure insanity.
But watching "Ebert and Roeper" last night, I found Ebert's enjoyment of the films to be genuine. He really liked them. I couldn't believe it. Ebert has made some bad calls before, but thumbs up to both of them? He had Roeper giggling like a girl during his review on the air. I think Roeper was just as shocked as I was to hear the words "I liked Tokyo Drift" leak out of Ebert's mouth.
Ebert has cancer. He's had it for years. It's a tumor in his mouth, I believe. It's a very sad state, and Ebert has had several surgeries trying to correct it. I read recently an article saying that Ebert's cancer troubles had re-surfaced and that he'd be going in for surgery again to stem the problem.
I'd like to think that poor Mr. Ebert was loopy on pain killers when he watched those two flicks. There is no other explanation whatsoever. The man is just too smart to have actually liked "The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift" and "Garfield: A Tale of Two Kitties."
Also, another item of note: my blog now has an RSS feed. For those of you who don't know what that is, here's a quick explanation: an RSS feed is a link that you place on your Google, Yahoo, Hotmail etc. homepage. This link is updated everyday, and in the case of a blog feed, you can see, from your homepage, if I've posted anything new. Nifty, eh? The feed is located on my sidebar, next to my "Blogger" icon.
Wes Craven, the man behind “A Nightmare on Elm Street” and the “Scream” films, has moved away from gristly horror in exchange for tense thrill in “Red Eye.” In “Red Eye,” Craven attempts to create a different film – one that is full of tension and panic, but that doesn’t rely on plot twists or crazy reveals to woo the audience into enjoying it. Though the attempt is an honest and novel one, the film ultimately falls flat because of its lack of substance.
Lisa Reisert (Rachel McAdams) is a young, successful hotel manager away on business. When she arrives at the airport to catch a plane home, she finds that her flight has been delayed. In line at the ticket desk, she meets Jackson Rippner (Cillian Murphy), a charming, handsome young man who seems to have taken an odd liking to Lisa. The two hit it off over drinks and nachos. When Lisa finally boards she finds that she is seated next to Jackson. Coincidence? Actually, no.
You see, Jackson is actually a professional assassin hired to kidnap Lisa. The plan is thus: Jackson is to force Lisa to aid him in the offing of a political figure staying in her hotel. If she fails to cooperate, Jackson will have one of his men kill Lisa’s father (who’s played by a criminally underused Brian Cox).
The majority of the film takes place on the plane, and the location works wonders. It’s cramped and claustrophobic in there – no way out, and no one to help. Craven utilizes the space and, for a little while, delivers in thrills.
But once the two get off the plane, the film turns into a mindless chase sequence, and the film loses all semblance of quality. The ending is anti-climatic and dull, and the action is just poorly executed. Lisa, who is a tiny, lithe woman, dispatches Jackson with relative ease. Before the films end, Jackson is stabbed in the throat with a pen, outrun multiple times, attacked with a shoe and a stick, and shot.
The two young talents are fine in the film. McAdams and Murphy both have immense potential, and the couple has fantastic on-screen chemistry with one another. The performances, however, lose any substantial meaning in the climax.
“Red Eye” starts out strong, picks up momentum near the middle, and then trips and falls flat on its face in the end. It’s a promising opening with a disappointing conclusion.
The Final Verdict: 5/10
Some of you may already know this (if you do, it's worth reading about again; yes, it's that good), but it's an important piece of cinema information that everyone -- absolutely everyone -- should be informed of. "Blade Runner," Ridley Scott's 1981 sci-fi masterpiece, is being re-released into theaters in 2007 as a special edition "final cut."
As most Blade-whores know, there are already two existing versions of Scott's film; the theatrical cut, which underwhelmed at the theater (Scott himself hates this version -- the studio forced him to create a "happier" ending and add a stupid, noir-ish voice-over so as not confuse idiots), and the director's cut. The director's cut is what I own and enjoy on DVD. It's how "Blade Runner" should be watched.
However, fans have long suffered with the current DVD transfer of the film. The picture quality is horrible, the sound sub-par. The cover itself is one of the ugliest things I've ever seen (it's made of cheap, pliable cardboard crap rimmed with plastic). And the menu? Don't even get me started. I'm not one for flashy menus, but this film has to have the most boring, uninteresting, horrendously ugly DVD menu in the world. Not even exaggerating.
So, what I'm trying to get across is that "Blade Runner" has never really recieved the treatment it deserves. And for young fans, ones that weren't around to see the film in the theaters, it's hard to appreciate the film for the beautiful piece of filmmaking it is.
Not only is the film being re-released, but Scott is finally unveiling the long-rumored two-disc, special edition final cut DVD for sale a month after the film's theatrical debut.
Salivating yet? Good.
I'm going to be the first in line for the film and for the DVD when it goes on sale. I consider myself a huge "Blade Runner" fan. It ranks in my top ten films of all time, and I cannot wait until this splendid film recieves the care and reception it deserves.
I know what you're thinking: "Have I ever!" I know I have. I know that every time I see that man's ugly smiling mug I just want to plant a solid punch square into his nose. I just want to lay into him like a sack of potatoes. Honestly, who doesn't want to put him in a wheelchair? The man is single-handedly destroying cinema. I'm almost positive than anyone with even a fleeting interest in the preservation of film and theater would enjoy kicking this guy in the crotch. Repeatedly.
Well, rejoice, crotch-kickers! Mr. Boll has invited five of his most passionate haters to face him in the boxing ring. Boll will read negative reviews of his films sent to a special email account. From them, Boll will pick the five most blatantly slanderous pieces and challenge their authors to a fist fight.
Don't believe me?
Rotten Tomatoes posted this press release earlier today. It details the competition, and the rules and regulations. Anyone interested (being an accredited critic is a plus, obviously) can take up Boll's offer for a chance to take a few swings at him (and maybe even KO the idiot ... he doesn't look so tough).
All I have to say is: good idea, Boll. In stead of refuting critics with an intelligent rebuttal in your signature broken English, you've opted to best them in a competition of physical strength. You're a real winner, Mr. Boll. That playground mentality of handling situations is really going to help your image.
I will, of course, be entering this competition. How could I not, really? The honor of saying that I tried, the feeling of accomplishment I get from essaying to take Boll out will be enough. And if I get accepted?
Well ... if I enter the ring with Uwe Boll, with the spawn of Satan himself, the punch I swing at him will be for you -- the faithful readers. It's all for you, readers!
Oh, and I can't wait to see Ebert take Boll down in the second round. Maybe Ebert will kill him like that guy in "Cinderella Man." We can only hope, right?
I was opposed to a remake of classic horror flick “The Omen” from the very beginning. Not only has the 1976 original film stood the test of time and proved to be superiorly frightening even today, but it’s also a staple of horror and thriller filmmaking. It was subtly creepy. A film that was violent without being gory and frightening without inducing heart attacks. It was a beautifully balanced film.
But now, with the remake, the filmmakers opt to throw subtlety and refinement out the window in exchange for taking the horror, the evil and the overall creepiness of the original film and shoving it down our throats with the clumsy abandon of a B-Movie.
Robert Thorn (Liev Schreiber) and his wife Kate (Julia Stiles) are young, attractive and wealthy. When Robert rushes to the hospital after receiving word of “complications” with his wife’s pregnancy, he finds that his newborn son has died during delivery. Kate doesn’t know yet, and Robert is stricken with grief. But a priest at the hospital offers Robert an alternative to telling his wife that their son has died – adopt the orphan Damien, an infant who lost his mother in childbirth. Robert agrees.
For a few years, everything is fine. Damien’s a cute enough kid – blue eyes, dark hair, cherubic face. His mother has no idea Damien isn’t her child, and the couple loves him like their own. But after he turns five, some crazy stuff starts happening. First, the nanny hangs herself from their terrace at Damien’s birthday party (much to the dismay of the parents of young children attending). Then, Damien becomes more and more detached from his parents. At one point, he panics and attacks his mother as the family approaches a church service. He grows exceedingly fond of his new nanny (Mia Farrow, who starred in 1968’s “Rosemary’s Baby,” another film about a demon child) and eventually turns on his parents all together, pushing his mom off a balcony. Now Robert has to make a choice – should he believe that his son is the spawn of Satan and kill the child? Or should he ignore the signs and put himself and his wife in possible danger?
The remainder of the film follows Robert and a cursed photographer (David Thewlis) as they trek across Europe, searching for clues of Damien’s unnatural birth and the coming of the Apocalypse.
As far as horror movies go, “The Omen” just doesn’t stack up. I was looking forward to at least a quality R-Rated thriller. Instead, I was left bored and disappointed. The films lacks any sense of nuance or tension, and the majority of its scares include brief flashes of frightening images (Damien holding a noose, a skeletal jackal, etc.) accompanied by loud noises. These moments succeed only in making the audience jump. They have absolutely no lasting affect on the audience.
The acting is terrible and uncommitted, the plot a cookie-cutter skeleton of the original. It lacks any substance. By the end, I could care less if Robert or Kate bit the dust. The performances of Schreiber and Stiles leave nothing for the audience to sympathize with.
If you’re thinking of seeing “The Omen,” do yourself a favor – rent the original. Of course, seeing Mia Farrow get hit full speed with a car is almost worth the price of admission.
The Final Verdict: 3/10
I grew up on the X-Men comics and cartoon series. I know every character, their powers and who they had an affair with in The Amazing X-Men #13 (okay ... I'm not THAT big of a geek). Joking aside, though, I had relatively high hopes for "X-Men: The Last Stand," the third and presumably final chapter in the X-Men film trilogy (though the post-credits scene says otherwise). I had expectations for this film, because it contained, in my opinion, several of the most important plotlines in the X-Men universe.
The Dark Phoenix saga, in which Jean Grey (played in the films by Famke Jannsen) returns from the dead only to wreak havoc on her former friends (and, in the comics, destroy an entire planet). It also tries to work with the story of "the Cure," a recent plotline by Joss Whedon of "Firefly" fame. And then there's the Iceman/Rogue/Shadowcat love triangle, the Danger Room and even the Sentinels crammed in there.
The title says it all, folks. I just watched in absolute horror as former rapper and tentacle-hair afficianado Coolio turned into a vampire ... and then proceeded not to bite people, as you would think vampires would do, but to knock a handicapped man out of his wheelchair and kick him repeatedly in the leg until a stock-blonde actress ran in and shot him.
The movie? It's a little Sci-Fi Channel Original masterpiece called "Dracula 3000." The plot? Count Dracula is alive and well in the year 3000 and decides to stow away on a spaceship. The result? Possibly the worst thing I have ever seen. I was channel surfing when I came upon this steaming pile, and I couldn't help but watch -- my curiousity got the better of me! But it was even worse than I could have ever imagined. I couldn't sit through more than four minutes of the stupid thing.
The dialogue in the scene was just horrendous ... not even worth repeating. But the absolute worst aspect of the film (if you can even call it that) is the acting of Coolio. The guy can't act, people -- he couldn't even jump around like and idiot properly.
The point of this post? To warn you against the evils of Sci-Fi Channel Original Movies. The "Original" in the title roughly translates to "craptacular."
