Okay, so, I know that doing this post makes my last post a lie more or less but do I care? (maybe), ANYWAY, if you don't get the title, I'm actually taking this post to respond to one Mr. Chris Jones and his post titled Super Duper...http://musingsofamoviedouche.blogspot.com/2011/06/alright-its-been-something-like-400.html. In said post, Mr. Jones states his three favorite comic book based films, well I plan on doing the same, damn it! I'm also going to take it a step farther and include my three least favorite (these are on;y the ones I've seen too, there are probably worse ones that I didn't even bother seeing, like Catwoman, The Green Lantern or Elektra).
First are the tops...
My number three is...
A tie between X-Men 2 (2003) & Spiderman(2002)
The story of the film tells of the X-Men's continued conflict with The Brotherhood of Mutants, and also goes deeper into Wolverine's back story. Now, don't get me wrong, I don't like this film that much (there are just so few decent comic based movies to choose from), I wish that Wolverine's back story wasn't the primary story in the film (Wolverine isn't my favorite character). You have to look at this film in context along with for what it is. It's better than the other X-Men films, the first one was boring as hell, the third was a mindless action film and X-Men Origins: Wolverine was a travesty (I haven't seen X-Men: First Class yet). X2 was a redeemable comic film with just enough action to not be boring as hell, but enough story to be decent (and the opening scene with Nightcrawler was super badass). Now, why would this film tie with Spiderman? Well, for two reasons, as bad as the Sam Raimi series was, the first one was the most acceptable, AND because the first one did something. As I have mentioned before, the first Spiderman film started this whole thing. It made comic book movies a real sub-genre and showed that everyone wanted to see the spectacle of a tight wearing man flying around and beating up guys. That's why I semi-respect it, that and no matter how bad the series is, I'll probably always be able to watch the first film and remember when I was 11 and saw if for the first time.
My number dos is...
Hellboy (2004)
The film is about the demon spawn that was raised from hell by Nazis and raised by an American scientist that eventually becomes an agent in a supernatural police force. I love the Hellboy series, why? Well for one, I like the comic books, for two I like the directing of Guillermo del Toro AND I like the use of folk lore and mythology in the setting of a police drama or investigation story. I thought the acting was good (or at least good for what it was), and the monsters were excellently done. Of course, del Toro always does a great job with his monsters and I respect the fact that he usually opts for make-up and puppetry over CGI. I think CGI ruins things and never looks good enough. A serious scene can be ruined by seeing a completely obvious animation standing there and trying to give dialogue (one reason why I don't want to see The Green Lantern). ANYWAY, Hellboy was a very solid comic book adaptation and the sequel, while not being as good, is also a very solid sequel (and as much as I dislike how the story of the sequel isn't in the comic, I respect that they made their own story over possibly ruining an already created one).
Finally, my number one is...
The Dark Knight (2008), of course
Now, this is probably everyone's favorite super hero film, and for a good reason. The film takes the super hero into a gritty and realistic place, but I already explained the importance of this films and the way it caused "the reboot" in nearly every super hero series in an earlier post, so I won't get into that. One thing that makes this film really surpass all other super hero films isn't just because it has a good plot or is entertaining. One major thing is Heath Ledger's Joker, one of the most complex and well acted villains in any film (especially comic films). His portrayal out weighed the questionable performance of Christian Bale and the horrible helplessness of Gary Oldman (also Morgan Freeman and Michael Caine are just wonderful too), but Heath Ledger steals the show. So I say thank you to Christopher Nolan for making, possibly, the ONLY good comic based film. Beware though, there are too many problems with this film to warrant more than the occasional viewing (every time I go through a subsequent viewing I find something that makes me cringe a bit).
NOW, for my three least favorite out of the shit sludge that is comic based films (however, will I only be able to pick three!)...
Now, if you know me, you may be expecting to see Watchmen on this list, while I can give you reasons why that movie was bad (or 300), I'm going to stay away from those. There are countless comic based films that are just the worst, but I'm choosing three so shut up and deal!
Number three is...
Spiderman 3 (2007)
This film was just, god awful and, I'd say, single handedly killed the Sam Raimi series. Why is the third one so bad? Acting, animation, plot, horrible comedic elements, the incorrect use of characters, and last but not least the complete waste of a great villain. One of the most gut-wrenching things to have seen as a Spiderman fan is seeing Venom die after only being in 1/4 of the film. On top of that, just to get to Venom you had to sit through an uninteresting story dealing with Harry Osborne and Sandman, and the bastardizing of a great Spiderman story arch. What is even sadder is the fact the the second one did a decent job of portraying another serious Spiderman story arch. The third almost makes a mockery of the entire franchise.
Number two is...
Ghost Rider (2007)
In my opinion, Ghost Rider is one of the most pointless super heros to make into a film (next to Blade perhaps). The plot was pitiful, the CGI was even more pitiful and (I know this will make Mr. Jones cry salty tears of Nicholas Cage love), I don't really like Nicholas Cage. The film was just bad and I don't know why I saw it for sure.
Finally, my number one is...
A tie between Batman Forever (1995) and Batman & Robin (1997)
These were some of the most horrible and ridiculous super hero films that relied much too heavily on the campy, Adam West-yness of Batman. First off the series lost it with the change of both director and actor (it never really had it to begin with though). The acting was bad (Arnold Schwarzeneggar cold puns), the writing was horrible and the design was just sad (the bat suit had nipples, why?). Really these two films were a travesty (much like the Wolverine film) and probably shouldn't have been made, but damn, did I love them when I was 7!
So there it is, three good (or at least decent) comic films and three (don't know how I chose so few) horrible ones.
Now, for my album/film recommendations...
For the album I'm going to say Bon Iver by Bon Iver. The album is super chill but really good and a great follow up to the crazily acclaimed For Emma, Forever Ago. Pretty much all of the songs are really good with the exception of the last track "Beth/Rest" because it sounds like an 80s yacht rock song (not my thing, sorry).
For the film I'm going to stay with the comic themed films and go with Dick Tracy (1990). The film was directed by Warren Beatty and stars him. Don't let the fact that Madonna is in it fool you, the movie isn't bad. It may not be one of the best comic films but it's colorful campyness works well with the 30s gangster comic story. It may not be your thing but it's entertaining and I remember watching it as a kid so I suppose I'm a bit partial to it (at least I'll admit that it isn't that great), and I mean, it has Warren Beatty, classic (AND it has Al Pachino in ridiculous make-up, c'mon!)
Friday, June 24, 2011
Thursday, June 23, 2011
The Thirty-third Forest (can you tell I'm running out of ideas?)-- Just Another One of Those Things I Guess...
Alright, before I really start in on this here post, I'm going to start with what I said I would do from now on in my last post. Daily album and movie recommendations!! (get excited!). My film for all of you to watch would be American History X by Tony Kaye, it's about a former skinhead who gets sent to jail for killing a black guy. He gets released to help the police shut down the skinheads he was once part of and to help his little brother who is becoming like he used to be. It's an excellent film, Edward Norton's role is superb, and it's really a film I should talk more about, AND I WILL! (but not now). My album recommendation today would be Hissing Fauna, Are You The Destroyer? by of Montreal. It's pretty crazy, flamboyant electro-pop. of Montreal are always a joy to watch and their music is just strange. It's been a while but it is worth listening to for sure.
Okay, so, my initial plans was to do this post on Jimmy Stuart, one of the greatest actors of the golden age of Hollywood. However, I've become uninterested and just plain too busy for this blog so I'll not be doing that. Instead I think I'll end it here (because I'm typing on an iPod, annoying), and say adios for a while. It was nice knowing you, we had a good run and maybe I'll be back soon, who's to say? (in fact, chances are I'll be writing a new post within a week), but until next time, keeping doin what you love and lovin what you do.
You stay classy... Planet Earth!
Okay, so, my initial plans was to do this post on Jimmy Stuart, one of the greatest actors of the golden age of Hollywood. However, I've become uninterested and just plain too busy for this blog so I'll not be doing that. Instead I think I'll end it here (because I'm typing on an iPod, annoying), and say adios for a while. It was nice knowing you, we had a good run and maybe I'll be back soon, who's to say? (in fact, chances are I'll be writing a new post within a week), but until next time, keeping doin what you love and lovin what you do.
You stay classy... Planet Earth!
Monday, June 13, 2011
The Thirty-second Cut-- Give The Psycho Some Rope
So, I started a post on Jimmy Stuart that is yet to come, but since it's been a little bit since my previous post (due to my summer courses and getting my next college steps set up), I'm just gonna sneak in another...
So how have you guys been? Good? How's your mother? How's work going?
I want to discuss the flooding on the Missouri real quick, I live in Iowa and it's getting almost frightening how high the river is getting. My thoughts go out to all of the families and farmers who lost their homes and land to the flood also. Really if you can, help out, people need it, animals need it, things are getting bad and with one of the levees being breached and more rain on the way, it'll just get worse. My girlfriend, Samantha and I took a few pictures of the flooding...
If you're not already, keep up on the flooding, who knows how bad it'll get.
Today I'm going to talk about something... what is it you ask? It's a few films! A film starring Jimmy Stuart! and another.
The films are Rope (1948) and Psycho (1960) by Alfred Hitchcock. I'm going to talk about these films because they are two good films by a man who was extremely influential to the innovation of film making. A director who changed how things were done.
Rope is about two upper class kids who murder one of their friends then have a dinner party at his apartment while his dead body is stuffed in a chest. The film is actually really good (and if it doesn't sound like your thing, give it a shot). Jimmy Stuart's role in the film is great, the icing on the cake, he plays a very intelligent man who eventually catches on to the fact that something isn't right, and is played excellently. The film uses a lot of unorthodox techniques such as zooming in on a character's back to switch takes, in an attempt to appear flawless (the goal of the film was to be one long take). In other words the film is good, the rest of the characters may not be acted well (some of the female's voices are laughable, and the killers' reactions are ridiculous), Jimmy Stuart, however, is really good (like usual). ANYWAY, if you dig on some Hitchcock, check this one out.
Next is Psycho. The film about the mysterious murders at the Bates Motel. I will not ruin the ending for you, but this one is worth the watch without a doubt. Anthony Perkins, who plays Norman Bates does a stupendous job with his role. It's one of the most classic Hitchcock films for a reason. I don't know what else I can really say about the film Psycho (at least not without revealing too much, but you probably know the whole film anyway). Even if you have not seen the film or know anything about it at all, you probably know the shower scene, one of the most iconic movie scenes ever. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VP5jEAP3K4, Watch the film though.
Anyway, I know it's another short one, but my heart just hasn't been in it, dunno why, I'm sorry to everyone... but here are a few more flood photos to think about...
So how have you guys been? Good? How's your mother? How's work going?
I want to discuss the flooding on the Missouri real quick, I live in Iowa and it's getting almost frightening how high the river is getting. My thoughts go out to all of the families and farmers who lost their homes and land to the flood also. Really if you can, help out, people need it, animals need it, things are getting bad and with one of the levees being breached and more rain on the way, it'll just get worse. My girlfriend, Samantha and I took a few pictures of the flooding...
If you're not already, keep up on the flooding, who knows how bad it'll get.
Today I'm going to talk about something... what is it you ask? It's a few films! A film starring Jimmy Stuart! and another.
The films are Rope (1948) and Psycho (1960) by Alfred Hitchcock. I'm going to talk about these films because they are two good films by a man who was extremely influential to the innovation of film making. A director who changed how things were done.
Rope is about two upper class kids who murder one of their friends then have a dinner party at his apartment while his dead body is stuffed in a chest. The film is actually really good (and if it doesn't sound like your thing, give it a shot). Jimmy Stuart's role in the film is great, the icing on the cake, he plays a very intelligent man who eventually catches on to the fact that something isn't right, and is played excellently. The film uses a lot of unorthodox techniques such as zooming in on a character's back to switch takes, in an attempt to appear flawless (the goal of the film was to be one long take). In other words the film is good, the rest of the characters may not be acted well (some of the female's voices are laughable, and the killers' reactions are ridiculous), Jimmy Stuart, however, is really good (like usual). ANYWAY, if you dig on some Hitchcock, check this one out.
Next is Psycho. The film about the mysterious murders at the Bates Motel. I will not ruin the ending for you, but this one is worth the watch without a doubt. Anthony Perkins, who plays Norman Bates does a stupendous job with his role. It's one of the most classic Hitchcock films for a reason. I don't know what else I can really say about the film Psycho (at least not without revealing too much, but you probably know the whole film anyway). Even if you have not seen the film or know anything about it at all, you probably know the shower scene, one of the most iconic movie scenes ever. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VP5jEAP3K4, Watch the film though.Anyway, I know it's another short one, but my heart just hasn't been in it, dunno why, I'm sorry to everyone... but here are a few more flood photos to think about...
OH OH! and for my album and movie recommendations are Take Me to Your Leader by King Geedorah, which is a hip hop album by MF Doom (under the name King Geedorah), that uses samples from Japanese shows and older TV shows. My film recommendation is There Will Be Blood, the film about oil men in Texas, the film is pretty brutal and by the ned of it you will be very frustrated, however, it's a wonderful film (and scored by Johnny Greenwood of Radiohead), so go watch that now!
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
The Thirty-first Scrimmage-- Pointless?
I'm going to be vain in this post for a second and give you some more information about myself (not personal information though, not too much at least), why am I doing this? because I'm excited right now and I wanna share some things! I'll probably also include some other random things so consider this my next random topic post, sound good?
Now, as I included in one or two of my previous posts, my friend has started an artist collective called . Now, what I don't believe I included is MY place in this group, well, I'm a bit of a musician (a very small bit) and record under the name Winter Chairs. Now, you're probably thinking, "so what, why do I give a fuck about this dumb ass's life and what he does and all that shit, I came here for some mother fucking film and I demand no less!! DAMN HIM!!!" well hold on sir, I'll have some film for you momentarily (scout's honor), I'm just getting excited about what I'm doing in this group and I want to share things with you, you mean, ungrateful bastards. ANYWAY... as an Well, not only does The Frosty Seats (yeah, I'm gonna keep changing my band name), have an EP ready, called B.Y.O.B (don't laugh at me), but a full length LP about done called Meet The Cactus. I'm also planning a concept LP based on characters, with every song tell one character's story AND an LP full of poor recordings and demos of songs that I've either forgotten or don't want to rerecord and do better for an actual LP. None of that is what I'm excited about though! What I'm truly excited about is my musical project that will include a good amount of artists (I hope) called The Darwin Project. What is this you ask? Well my good sir, it is a sample (a simple sample), that I have created that I'm sending out to the musical artists. The trick of the project is that the artist must use the sample, unaltered, at least once in a song. After that they can either change it however they would like, or not use it again (sounds fun huuh?). Well, I suppose it's my way of working with people, indirectly of course. Why did I choose the title The Darwin Project? well, let me tell you that also my young lad. I liked the idea of using Charles Darwin, the father of evolution theory, to explain this project. I wanted the artists to take my little sample (my monkey, so to say) and evolve it into something different and more complex (or make it into a man, more or less). That's why it's The Darwin Project! (lame? maybe!) Now, the most exciting thing about this project is that the first song relating to it is done, and it was done by one Evan Campbell (thank you Evan), and here's the video... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81qYCc80obQ , check it out, it's awesome, I'll keep posting who has songs done as they get finished (hopefully, most, if not all will have videos). I can't wait to see what happens with it next!
Now a bit more about myself... I'm a student, I'm a new vegetarian, I'm broke, I wouldn't say I'm an artist, but I dabble in the arts, primarily audio and visual. My dabbling is why I want to be a film maker, I have many ideas for films I'd love to make someday and I have said a few of these in one of my past posts. More or less I have a lot of ambitions and very little drive. Will I ever make it as a film maker? who knows, but I want to give it a shot, I'm willing to take nearly any job I can land in the field though. I like fucked up things, monsters, drug imagery, psychological things. I like depth in my film and art, but I can also be a sucker for stupidity (I love the film Anchorman). I generally dislike action films and despise super hero movies (with the exception of the rebooted Batman series), I usually dislike horror too, but there are exceptions there, like the Hellraiser films (at least the first few). I'm fairly opinionated, but try to be open to new things and I'm generally willing to give things multiple second chances (especially if it's an interest of someone close to me). I love music and listen to too much of it, I could easily write a music blog considering that I have studied it since I was 13. Film is a bit new to me, bit it is definitely a passion and learning is my reason for doing this blog. I have a beautiful, amazing, perfect, awesome girlfriend who means more to me than anyone will ever know, I owe her so much it's crazy. I try to be deep, but I feel like I'm not too deep. I want to get started writing a short story script, but something keeps on keeping me from it (I'll probably be too busy this summer to really do anything with it anyway). I'm about to head off to University, I'll be going to Lincoln, so if you're there and somehow read this blog, let me know, we can chill. I'm very introverted and don't make friends easily but I always want to talk to intelligent people who share some of my interests. I don't know if I have a favorite director but I enjoy the works of Wes Anderson, Quentin Tarantino, The Coen Brothers, Alfred Hitchcock and a few others a lot. I have a HUGE HUGE HUGE soft spot for old movies, I don't care what type, I just love old Hollywood, everything seemed so much better back then (I especially love the old comedies, the stars could do EVERYTHING!). I spent a lot of my time watching movies or playing music but I don't as much anymore. I have an odd love and fascination with masks, and will probably attempt to incorporate masks into any films I attempt. I love many different styles of music but I hate country. As you know, I love monsters. I think that's all you really need to know about me for now though, maybe I'll share a bit more as time goes on.
Okay, I'm going to go on to some other stuff, I think with this post I'm going to start giving you all one album recommendation and one movie recommendation per post (sound like a decent idea?). For this post, one album you should definitely check out (if you haven't heard it already) is Seven Swans by Sufjan Stevens. It's one of my favorite (if not my favorite) Sufjan Stevens album and is a religiously charged, poetic folk album. It's super chill and has some of his best songs (at least in my opinion), it's wonderful from start to finish. My movie recommendation for this post will keep with the seven title thing and be The Seventh Seal by Ingmar Bergman. The joking tale of a knight who comes back from the crusades and gets into a game of chess with Death. It's a classic of international cinema (it's Swedish so be prepared for that). I looked back at my old Deviant Art account and realized I did this in my notes back then (which were like a much more pointless blog), so apparently I'm prone to this shit. There are my recommendations for today though, now on to the next subject in this hodge podge of a post!!
So, this is hilarious, but also really REALLY lame, it was a bumper at SXSW and is Mario as an indie film... It COULD be a funny and interesting idea... if it didn't include so many lame game related jokes and puns, sort of ruins it... it's still pretty funny though. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TdczoetXk4
So, this is hilarious, but also really REALLY lame, it was a bumper at SXSW and is Mario as an indie film... It COULD be a funny and interesting idea... if it didn't include so many lame game related jokes and puns, sort of ruins it... it's still pretty funny though. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TdczoetXk4
Well, it looks like I'm gonna jump onto the movie stuff now (see, I got there you impatient droogs!). I'm going to give you a brief summary of the movie studios! (I know you're so happy). First off, by the 20s, the production companies became so big that they controlled everything from the production to the distribution to even the theaters and stars themselves. This and the policies of the major studios led to the "studio system", there were 5 major studios and they were 20th Century Fox, RKO, Paramount, Warner Bros. and MGM. RKO is no longer a company and MGM almost went under also. The three smaller studio companies, known as "The Little Three" are Universal, Columbia and United Artists. These were considered little because they didn't own their own theaters. These are not the only studios, there are minor studios and independent studios, however, they were always more lenient than the majors.
Anyway, I'm tired now, I'm sorry that I didn't give much information on this blog, I'll do better next time I swear! It was nice chatting with you, have a great day.
Anyway, I'm tired now, I'm sorry that I didn't give much information on this blog, I'll do better next time I swear! It was nice chatting with you, have a great day.
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
The Thirtieth Blow-- That's Just Weak Songwriting. You Wrote a Bad Song, Petey!
Now on to my fifth director post, the first one being about M. Knight Shyamalan, which can be read here, http://onthetopicoffilm.blogspot.com/2011/04/eleventh-day-what-twist.html (of course I suppose my first could technically be my Surreal post about David Lynch and Luis Bañuel). The second being about Kevin Smith, http://onthetopicoffilm.blogspot.com/2011/04/fourteenth-commandment-clerks-guy.html. The third was about Quentin Tarantino, which can be read here, http://onthetopicoffilm.blogspot.com/2011/05/twenty-first-issue-what-does-marsellus.html. Finally the fourth was about Terry Gilliam, which I did just a few days ago, http://onthetopicoffilm.blogspot.com/2011/06/twenty-eighth-discussion-only-american.html. Today, my fifth director post is going to be about another film maker that I enjoy, Wes Anderson.
I like the films of Wes Anderson, his odd, dry form of indie comedy. He's not the greatest, but I like him.
I'm gonna take a tangent for just a sec and post this (don't hate me), http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8fv6Sw5O64, if you're a fan of Radiohead you might find this a funny as I did (or just be insulted), but anyway, back to business, Wes Anderson business.
Wes Anderson was born in Huston, Texas in 1969 and attended the University of Texas at Austin and graduated with a B.A. in philosophy. Anderson often works with many of the same actors and crew on many of his films. He's very methodical and is involved in every aspect of his films, he also uses a lot of primary colors throughout his movies. His first 5 films are all distributed by the Criterion Collection. Like my other director posts, I'll give you a brief rundown of his films...
Bottle Rocket (1996) was Anderson's first feature length film. The film was co-written by Owen Wilson and is based on a short film that was also directed by Anderson. Even though the film was a failure commercially, it did well critically and got some attention from other directors like Martin Scorsese. The movie tells the story of three guys you go on a robbing spree through Texas, after robbing a bookstore they end up staying at a motel where one of the group falls in love with a spanish-speaking maid. They end up trying a real heist and it all goes to hell, more or less. I thought the film was very humorous, it's a good start for Anderson (if you haven't seen his stuff), it's got a good amount of humor but is fairly dry, anyway, give this one a shot.
Anderson's next film is considered one of his best, Rushmore (1998) was also co-written by Owen Wilson and tells the story of an eccentric, intelligent and bored kid named Max Fischer and his friendship with a rich older gentleman, and their rivalry over the love of an elementary school teacher. The film goes through everything from Max getting kicked out of high school to his setting up an elaborate play about the Vietnam war. The film launched the career of both Anderson and actor Jason Schwartzman, and was the movie that restarted Bill Murray's acting career (ever wonder why he does mostly indie comedies now?). Anyway, this film is probably the best movie to watch to really get into Anderson's films, it's really funny and probably has more humor than his other movies which are generally extremely dry (but don't get me wrong, this movie is still VERY dry). It's a good film and one worth watching for sure.
Yet another film co-written by Owen Wilson was Anderson's third film, The Royal Tenenbaums (2001). The film tells the story of three siblings that were extremely gifted as children and how their lives fell apart, along with their parents' marriage. They are all put back into the same house with their family after something bad happens to each. The film focuses on the ironic and absurd, and has very intricate and, at times, hilarious humor. It's one of Anderson's best known works, including an all star cast and many award nominations, including an Academy Award nomination. The film is based on J.D. Salinger's Glass family. I thought the film was good, the story is excellent and intricate, it's very funny but may not be the best place to start for people who are new to Anderson. Make sure to watch it at some point in your journey through Anderson's films, or if you just want something different, it's worth it.
Anderson's fourth film is The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou (2004), and was co-written with Noah Baumbach. The film tells the story of Steve Zissou who is an oceanographer who formerly had his own show about it. He goes out to hunt an allusive shark who ate his partner, and it tells the story of his finding his long-lost son and even includes a battle with a rival oceanographer AND pirates. The film didn't do very well critically or commercially, and is really only popular with Anderson fans. I didn't think the movie was all that bad, however, I wouldn't say it was Anderson's best film (I did like how all of the weird fish looked like clay animation). I'd say watch if you dig on Anderson films (or want to see Willem Dafoe play a German), but otherwise, it's not the best. It IS, however, still included in The Criterion Collection!
Next is probably my favorite Anderson film so far, The Darjeeling Limited (2007). The film was co-written by Roman Coppola and Jason Schwartzman. It's, more or less, a sequel to one of Anderson's short films, Hotel Chavalier (2007). The film tells the story of three brothers aren't very close who go to India for spiritual enlightenment and to find their mother, who is a missionary, after their father's death. They start off on a train ride across India, but get thrown off the train and have to find other routes to get where they're going. It got favorable critical reviews and was, in a way, a make up for his previous film. The film has good humor and one of my favorite scenes in an Anderson film (the scene with the pepper spray). I don't think this film is the most accessible Anderson film, but it should definitely be on your list of movies to watch. Like many of Anderson's film the soundtrack includes an original score along with a collection of British Invasion songs (in this one, it was a lot of The Kinks).
Anderson's most recent film was his 2009 stop-motion animated film, Fantastic Mr. Fox, which was based on the Roald Dahl novel. This film was Anderson's take on children's movies and is actually one of my other favorite films by him (the title of this post was taken from this movie). The movie combines Anderson's odd sense of humor with a child's odd sense of humor and it works surprisingly well, it's probably Anderson's most accessible film because it has the most blatant humor out of all of his movies. It tells the story of Mr. Fox, who attempts to come out of retirement and steal from the three meanest farmers in the land, only to get his nephew kidnapped and all of his animal friends forced underground. I know it sounds "kiddy" but it's actually really funny and totally worth a watch. The film got very positive critical reviews and was even nominated for a few Academy Awards.
Anderson's next film is stated for a 2012 release and will be called Moonrise Kingdom. It's co-written by Roman Coppola and will star Bruce Willis and Bill Murray and be set in the 60s. What I've heard of it sounds entertaining and I'll always be willing to go see a Wes Anderson film.
There it is, my fifth director post in the bag! I'm done now, it's cold and loud here and I'm going to go on to do something else. I'll leave you all with an album recommendation today, go listen to Helplessness Blues by Fleet Foxes, it's melodic folk with excellent vocal harmonies similar to Crosby, Stills and Nash. I've been getting into Fleet Foxes a ton over the last week and this is their most recent album... but anyway, take it easy and have a splendid day!
I like the films of Wes Anderson, his odd, dry form of indie comedy. He's not the greatest, but I like him.
I'm gonna take a tangent for just a sec and post this (don't hate me), http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8fv6Sw5O64, if you're a fan of Radiohead you might find this a funny as I did (or just be insulted), but anyway, back to business, Wes Anderson business.
Wes Anderson was born in Huston, Texas in 1969 and attended the University of Texas at Austin and graduated with a B.A. in philosophy. Anderson often works with many of the same actors and crew on many of his films. He's very methodical and is involved in every aspect of his films, he also uses a lot of primary colors throughout his movies. His first 5 films are all distributed by the Criterion Collection. Like my other director posts, I'll give you a brief rundown of his films...
Bottle Rocket (1996) was Anderson's first feature length film. The film was co-written by Owen Wilson and is based on a short film that was also directed by Anderson. Even though the film was a failure commercially, it did well critically and got some attention from other directors like Martin Scorsese. The movie tells the story of three guys you go on a robbing spree through Texas, after robbing a bookstore they end up staying at a motel where one of the group falls in love with a spanish-speaking maid. They end up trying a real heist and it all goes to hell, more or less. I thought the film was very humorous, it's a good start for Anderson (if you haven't seen his stuff), it's got a good amount of humor but is fairly dry, anyway, give this one a shot.
Anderson's next film is considered one of his best, Rushmore (1998) was also co-written by Owen Wilson and tells the story of an eccentric, intelligent and bored kid named Max Fischer and his friendship with a rich older gentleman, and their rivalry over the love of an elementary school teacher. The film goes through everything from Max getting kicked out of high school to his setting up an elaborate play about the Vietnam war. The film launched the career of both Anderson and actor Jason Schwartzman, and was the movie that restarted Bill Murray's acting career (ever wonder why he does mostly indie comedies now?). Anyway, this film is probably the best movie to watch to really get into Anderson's films, it's really funny and probably has more humor than his other movies which are generally extremely dry (but don't get me wrong, this movie is still VERY dry). It's a good film and one worth watching for sure.
Yet another film co-written by Owen Wilson was Anderson's third film, The Royal Tenenbaums (2001). The film tells the story of three siblings that were extremely gifted as children and how their lives fell apart, along with their parents' marriage. They are all put back into the same house with their family after something bad happens to each. The film focuses on the ironic and absurd, and has very intricate and, at times, hilarious humor. It's one of Anderson's best known works, including an all star cast and many award nominations, including an Academy Award nomination. The film is based on J.D. Salinger's Glass family. I thought the film was good, the story is excellent and intricate, it's very funny but may not be the best place to start for people who are new to Anderson. Make sure to watch it at some point in your journey through Anderson's films, or if you just want something different, it's worth it.
Anderson's fourth film is The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou (2004), and was co-written with Noah Baumbach. The film tells the story of Steve Zissou who is an oceanographer who formerly had his own show about it. He goes out to hunt an allusive shark who ate his partner, and it tells the story of his finding his long-lost son and even includes a battle with a rival oceanographer AND pirates. The film didn't do very well critically or commercially, and is really only popular with Anderson fans. I didn't think the movie was all that bad, however, I wouldn't say it was Anderson's best film (I did like how all of the weird fish looked like clay animation). I'd say watch if you dig on Anderson films (or want to see Willem Dafoe play a German), but otherwise, it's not the best. It IS, however, still included in The Criterion Collection!
Next is probably my favorite Anderson film so far, The Darjeeling Limited (2007). The film was co-written by Roman Coppola and Jason Schwartzman. It's, more or less, a sequel to one of Anderson's short films, Hotel Chavalier (2007). The film tells the story of three brothers aren't very close who go to India for spiritual enlightenment and to find their mother, who is a missionary, after their father's death. They start off on a train ride across India, but get thrown off the train and have to find other routes to get where they're going. It got favorable critical reviews and was, in a way, a make up for his previous film. The film has good humor and one of my favorite scenes in an Anderson film (the scene with the pepper spray). I don't think this film is the most accessible Anderson film, but it should definitely be on your list of movies to watch. Like many of Anderson's film the soundtrack includes an original score along with a collection of British Invasion songs (in this one, it was a lot of The Kinks).
Anderson's most recent film was his 2009 stop-motion animated film, Fantastic Mr. Fox, which was based on the Roald Dahl novel. This film was Anderson's take on children's movies and is actually one of my other favorite films by him (the title of this post was taken from this movie). The movie combines Anderson's odd sense of humor with a child's odd sense of humor and it works surprisingly well, it's probably Anderson's most accessible film because it has the most blatant humor out of all of his movies. It tells the story of Mr. Fox, who attempts to come out of retirement and steal from the three meanest farmers in the land, only to get his nephew kidnapped and all of his animal friends forced underground. I know it sounds "kiddy" but it's actually really funny and totally worth a watch. The film got very positive critical reviews and was even nominated for a few Academy Awards.Anderson's next film is stated for a 2012 release and will be called Moonrise Kingdom. It's co-written by Roman Coppola and will star Bruce Willis and Bill Murray and be set in the 60s. What I've heard of it sounds entertaining and I'll always be willing to go see a Wes Anderson film.
There it is, my fifth director post in the bag! I'm done now, it's cold and loud here and I'm going to go on to do something else. I'll leave you all with an album recommendation today, go listen to Helplessness Blues by Fleet Foxes, it's melodic folk with excellent vocal harmonies similar to Crosby, Stills and Nash. I've been getting into Fleet Foxes a ton over the last week and this is their most recent album... but anyway, take it easy and have a splendid day!
Monday, June 6, 2011
The Twenty-ninth Child-- Shoot!
So, I've noticed doing these blog posts that nearly all of them fit into a style or category. I have my genre posts, my director posts, my script posts, and my sort of random things posts. Then on top of that I have the few that don't fit like my post about The Beatles, or my history post about HUAC or my movie post about Citizen Kane. Well today I'm going to do another out of category post, this one is about camera shots.
First off, let me say that I had this whole post done and it deleted it all, so I'm totally starting over from scratch... I'm pissed...
ANYWAY, if you like my blog go check this motherfucker out... http://musingsofamoviedouche.blogspot.com/
AND, after you're done reading this here, check out this crazy British film maker... http://www.cyriak.co.uk/
Alright, let's restart this piece of shit I guess...
First off we have an aerial shot, which is a far away, high shot, generally to capture landscapes. A crane or helicopter is usually used to get this kind of shot. An aerial shot can also make a character seem insignificant.
Next up is considered an "American shot" (at least in France) or a 3/4 shot. It's a medium-long shot of a group of characters, all of the characters are set up strategically so that all of them are on screen at once. It's used to allow for dialogue without a lot of camera changes. The reason it's known as an "American shot" is that French critics mistakenly thought that the shot was common in all American films when it was really only common in low-budget films.
There's the bird's-eye shot, which is an overhead shot where the camera looks directly down at the top of the subject.
A close up is a tight shot on a subject. It gets close up on a subject or part of a subject to show emotion or emphasis on something specific. They are very detailed shots that can have many purposes.
Next up is the crane shot (pretty much like the aerial shot). A crane shot is done solely with a crane in order to shot large groups or to view actors from above or move away from them.
A dolly zoom is an in-camera special effect used to cause an unsettling feeling or feeling of vertigo. It's made by having a zoom lens shift the angle of view as the camera moves toward or away from the subject in an attempt to keep the subject the same size. It was used by Alfred Hitchcock in the movie Vertigo.
Then there is the dutch angle. This is when the camera is tilted off of it's axis in order to raise the uneasiness of a scene. Dutch angles are used often by directors like Terry Gilliam, Sam Raimi and Tim Burton and a lot in the old Batman TV series.
Establishing shots set up a scene and shot the relationship between characters and settings. It shows where or when the scene will take place.
A follow shot or tracking shot is where cameras pursue a character.
Forced perspective is an optical illusion to make an object appear farther or closer or larger or smaller. It's done by having the larger thing closer to the camera making the thing farther away seem smaller.
The next shot is the freeze frame. It's a still frame that is repeated multiple times to make it appear that no movement is occurring
A hanging miniature is another in-camera special effect where there are still subjects in the foreground with the action all in the background. It's similar to a matte shot.
High-angle shot is when the camera is placed above eye-line and looks down on a character, it usually makes the character seem powerless or vulnerable.
Another is the long shot. It depicts a character's entire form and places them in relation to its surroundings. A scene setting long shot that shows location more is an extreme long shot.
A long take is an uninterrupted shot with no edits. It's very unusual in film and hard to achieve. The Alfred Hitchcock film Rope (1948) was intended to be all one long take, but due to cameras at the time, they had to switch film rolls (however, the entire film only consists of 11 takes).
A low-angle shot is, more or less, the exact opposite of a high-angle shot. This is when the camera is below eye-line looking up at a character.
A master scene is a scene, from start to finish, all of the characters are in the scene and in view. It's usually used as an establishing shot.
Mattes are in-camera special effects where two or more frames are combined into one single frame. It usually combines one frame in the foreground put over something else in the background. Traveling mattes are background mattes that move, static mattes are background mattes that stay in place.
Next is a medium shot, which is a camera shot from a medium distance. It's a bit hazy as to what constitutes a medium shot.
An over the shoulder shot is a shot of someone taken over the shoulder of another character. The character who's closest to the camera's head and shoulder are generally shown in the shot.
Panning is a technique where a camera moves or rotates horizontally, either following or moving across the subject.
Next is a point of view shot, it shows the thing that character is looking at from the perspective of the character.
Racking focus changes the attention of the viewer by shifting the focus from a subject in the foreground to one in the background, or vice versa.
Another technique is a reaction shot. The shot cuts away from the main action of a scene to show a character's reaction. It's used to show emotion.
A sequence shot involves a long takes and a intricate movement of the camera.
Another is the shot reverse shot (or a shot/countershot). It's a technique where one character is shown looking at and talking to another character and then turning the camera around to show the other character.
The SnorriCam is a bit less common in film but much more common in music videos. This film technique is when a camera is attached to the body of an actor and pointing toward the actor. It gives the affect of the character standing still and everything around it moving.
A tilt is another technique where the camera moves up or down vertically.
A tracking shot (or dolly shot) is where a dolly mounted camera follows a subject. It can be used to move toward, away from or next to the subjects.
Next is a trunk shot, this is a shot where the camera is placed in the trunk of a car pointing up at the actors, it's in the perspective of whatever's in the trunk.
Another is a two shot, which is a simple technique where two characters are displayed on screen at once, with once actor generally in the foreground and another farther off in the background.
There are a few shots used in films, I hope that helps with understanding films. However, if you're not interested in studying films you may not care, anyway, hope you've enjoyed it.
Hasta La Vista babies!
First off, let me say that I had this whole post done and it deleted it all, so I'm totally starting over from scratch... I'm pissed...
ANYWAY, if you like my blog go check this motherfucker out... http://musingsofamoviedouche.blogspot.com/
AND, after you're done reading this here, check out this crazy British film maker... http://www.cyriak.co.uk/
Alright, let's restart this piece of shit I guess...
First off we have an aerial shot, which is a far away, high shot, generally to capture landscapes. A crane or helicopter is usually used to get this kind of shot. An aerial shot can also make a character seem insignificant.
Next up is considered an "American shot" (at least in France) or a 3/4 shot. It's a medium-long shot of a group of characters, all of the characters are set up strategically so that all of them are on screen at once. It's used to allow for dialogue without a lot of camera changes. The reason it's known as an "American shot" is that French critics mistakenly thought that the shot was common in all American films when it was really only common in low-budget films.
There's the bird's-eye shot, which is an overhead shot where the camera looks directly down at the top of the subject.
A close up is a tight shot on a subject. It gets close up on a subject or part of a subject to show emotion or emphasis on something specific. They are very detailed shots that can have many purposes.
Next up is the crane shot (pretty much like the aerial shot). A crane shot is done solely with a crane in order to shot large groups or to view actors from above or move away from them.
A dolly zoom is an in-camera special effect used to cause an unsettling feeling or feeling of vertigo. It's made by having a zoom lens shift the angle of view as the camera moves toward or away from the subject in an attempt to keep the subject the same size. It was used by Alfred Hitchcock in the movie Vertigo.
Then there is the dutch angle. This is when the camera is tilted off of it's axis in order to raise the uneasiness of a scene. Dutch angles are used often by directors like Terry Gilliam, Sam Raimi and Tim Burton and a lot in the old Batman TV series.
Establishing shots set up a scene and shot the relationship between characters and settings. It shows where or when the scene will take place.
A follow shot or tracking shot is where cameras pursue a character.
Forced perspective is an optical illusion to make an object appear farther or closer or larger or smaller. It's done by having the larger thing closer to the camera making the thing farther away seem smaller.
The next shot is the freeze frame. It's a still frame that is repeated multiple times to make it appear that no movement is occurring
A hanging miniature is another in-camera special effect where there are still subjects in the foreground with the action all in the background. It's similar to a matte shot.
High-angle shot is when the camera is placed above eye-line and looks down on a character, it usually makes the character seem powerless or vulnerable.
Another is the long shot. It depicts a character's entire form and places them in relation to its surroundings. A scene setting long shot that shows location more is an extreme long shot.
A long take is an uninterrupted shot with no edits. It's very unusual in film and hard to achieve. The Alfred Hitchcock film Rope (1948) was intended to be all one long take, but due to cameras at the time, they had to switch film rolls (however, the entire film only consists of 11 takes).
A low-angle shot is, more or less, the exact opposite of a high-angle shot. This is when the camera is below eye-line looking up at a character.
A master scene is a scene, from start to finish, all of the characters are in the scene and in view. It's usually used as an establishing shot.
Mattes are in-camera special effects where two or more frames are combined into one single frame. It usually combines one frame in the foreground put over something else in the background. Traveling mattes are background mattes that move, static mattes are background mattes that stay in place.
Next is a medium shot, which is a camera shot from a medium distance. It's a bit hazy as to what constitutes a medium shot.
An over the shoulder shot is a shot of someone taken over the shoulder of another character. The character who's closest to the camera's head and shoulder are generally shown in the shot.
Panning is a technique where a camera moves or rotates horizontally, either following or moving across the subject.
Next is a point of view shot, it shows the thing that character is looking at from the perspective of the character.
Racking focus changes the attention of the viewer by shifting the focus from a subject in the foreground to one in the background, or vice versa.
Another technique is a reaction shot. The shot cuts away from the main action of a scene to show a character's reaction. It's used to show emotion.
A sequence shot involves a long takes and a intricate movement of the camera.
Another is the shot reverse shot (or a shot/countershot). It's a technique where one character is shown looking at and talking to another character and then turning the camera around to show the other character.
The SnorriCam is a bit less common in film but much more common in music videos. This film technique is when a camera is attached to the body of an actor and pointing toward the actor. It gives the affect of the character standing still and everything around it moving.
A tilt is another technique where the camera moves up or down vertically.
A tracking shot (or dolly shot) is where a dolly mounted camera follows a subject. It can be used to move toward, away from or next to the subjects.
Next is a trunk shot, this is a shot where the camera is placed in the trunk of a car pointing up at the actors, it's in the perspective of whatever's in the trunk.
Another is a two shot, which is a simple technique where two characters are displayed on screen at once, with once actor generally in the foreground and another farther off in the background.
There are a few shots used in films, I hope that helps with understanding films. However, if you're not interested in studying films you may not care, anyway, hope you've enjoyed it.
Hasta La Vista babies!
Thursday, June 2, 2011
The Twenty-eighth Discussion-- The Only American Python
I'm not necessarily expecting all of you to guess what this post is about by the title really, but if you can then you must either be a big fan of this film maker OR a huge fan of Monty Python...
ANYWAY... this post is about the works of one Mr. Terry Gilliam, in no way a favorite director of mine, but I DO enjoy some of his films.
I think I'm going to take this blog and opportunity to talk about Monty Python too, because, love it or hate it, the British comedy troupe was a major driving force in modern comedy. So, here we go, let's have some fun, shall we?
Terry Gilliam was born in 1940 in Minnesota, making him the only member of the Monty Python comedy troupe NOT to be born in Britain (see, my title makes sense). Gilliam began as an animator before going to Europe and joining the Monty Python group.
Monty Python was a British surreal comedy troupe from 1969 to 1983. The Pythons consisted of John Cleese, Graham Chapman, Eric Idle, Terry Jones, Michael Palin, and Gilliam. The group created the influential sketch comedy show Monty Python's Flying Circus that ran on the BBC from 1969 to 1974, the show launched the group and set them up for larger fame and movies and stage shows, albums and musicals. The group wrote and performed their own material and popularized absurdist comedy that influenced everything from Saturday Night Live to The Mighty Boosh. The films that were created by Monty Python were And Now For Something Completely Different (1971), Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975), Monty Python's Life of Brian (1979), Monty Python Live at the Hollywood Bowl (1982), and Monty Python's The Meaning of Life (1983). Even after the breaking of Python, many of the members went on to work together. One major Python collaborator who was never part of the troupe was Neil Innes.
However, this post is supposed to be about the post-Python career of Terry Gilliam, so let's get back to all that business...
The first film Gilliam directed was Monty Python and the Holy Grail, which he co-directed with Python Terry Jones. I'm assuming that you've all seen this film (or at least heard the quotes from it WAY too many times), however, if you haven't, I would recommend it, it's a classic and really explains Monty Python. Gilliam even played the small role of Patsy in the film. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071853/synopsis
Gilliam's first post-Python film was called Jabberwocky (1977). Starring Python alum Michael Palin as a boy in medieval times who has to slay the mythical dragon from the Lewis Carroll poem, who killed his father. I haven't seen the film so I have no first hand opinion of it, however, any opinion I have gathered is mixed. On one hand, the film did horrible with critics and horrible at the box office, on the other hand, it's a cult classic, so really, I'd say see it if you're a huge Gilliam fan. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076221/plotsummary
Gilliam's second film was Time Bandits (1981), and lucky (or unlucky, depending on how you look at it) for you, I HAVE seen this one! The film tells the story of a little boy who ends up getting pulled through time and space by a group of dwarves and their time and space map, eventually having to fight evil. The film is actually fairly entertaining (I remember watching it with my brother, he seemed to dig it too), they continually run into a couple named Vincent and Pansy (Michael Palin and Shelley Duvall, respectively), and a slew of famous characters from history and fiction such as Robin Hood (John Cleese), Napoleon (Ian Holm) and King Agamemnon (Sean Connery, yeah, that's right, Sean Connery), and they also end up on a ship that turns out to be the hat of a giant Polynesian man. Throughout the entire movie they're running from The Supreme Being (who is pretty much God) and eventually fall into the hands of Evil (more or less the Devil). I'd say this film is worth a watch, it's not the best film in any way, or even the best Gilliam film but it's funny and has all the whimsical style of Gilliam, it's a good (and more light hearted) introduction to his style, give it a shot, it's also one of the three Gilliam films to be included in the Criterion Collection. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081633/synopsis
Brazil (1985) was Gilliam's third film, and questionably, one of his best. It tells the story of a man in a dystopian country where the world is run by a tyrannical bureaucracy and runs on out of date and broken down machines, he rebels and ends up considered a terrorist. The film has been considered one of the best cinematic versions of George Orwell's 1984, even though it was not based on the book (however, it was heavily inspired by it). Many titles were proposed, such as 1984 1/2, but ultimately the film was named Brazil after the song that repeatedly appears throughout it, "Aquarela do Brasil". This film is the second of Gilliam's three films to be included in the Criterion Collection. Even though it didn't do very well outside of Britian, it became a major cult classic. I would recommend this film also (for I have also seen it), the film is a good combination of dystopian sci-fi and fantasy (I mean, the guy flies around on Icarus wings more or less). If you want a weird film with a decent political theme then check this one out, simple as that. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088846/synopsis
1988 brought Gilliam's next film The Adventures of Baron Munchausen. Even though his three films after Jabberwocky aren't actually related, Gilliam considers them a trilogy, he calls "The Trilogy of Imagination", the reason for this is that he sees it as a telling of life through the imaginations of men of different ages. Time Bandits being a child, Brazil being a middle aged man, and The Adventures of Baron Munchausen being an old man. It tells the story of an old man named Baron Munchausen who tells his story of heroism in flashbacks and eventually saves a city from the Turks. The film was nominated for four Oscars (even though it won none), but only had a limited US release. I've never seen the film so I can't say how good it is personally, but it seems as entertaining and whimsical as Gilliam's movies before it. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096764/synopsis
In 1991, Gilliam directed The Fisher King, starring Robin Williams and Jeff Bridges. It tells the story of a shock-jock who ends up helping a homeless man whose life he inadvertently ruined. The film did very well critically and, even though I've never seen it, I'd like to. I'd say see it, it sounds like a very touching film. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0101889/synopsis
Next up is another Gilliam film I have never seen, 12 Monkeys (1995). The film tells the story of a criminal that is repeatedly sent to the past in an attempt to stop the outbreak of a virus that will force Earth to migrate underground. The film also received positive critical reviews and is another film I'd like to see eventually. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114746/synopsis
Now at this point you're probably saying, "this kid has seen like, no Gilliam films, what the fuck is he writing this for?" well, we're coming up on, probably my favorite Gilliam film (and probably the reason I'm writing this), and THAT film is...
Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998), the film that is based on, what is considered, possibly one of the most impossible books to make a film out of. Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas is a 1971 novel by Hunter S. Thompson. It's a fictional retelling of a drug induced trip Thompson and his attorney made to Las Vegas to cover a sporting event. For the longest time, the book was thought to be one that could never be adapted into a movie (along with Naked Lunch by William S. Burroughs, which was eventually made into a film by David Cronenberg). After many thoughts and false starts, the film was put into the hands of Gilliam and, in my opinion, he did an excellent job with it. As I have already stated, this film is my favorite Gilliam film (at least out of the ones I have seen). The film was a box office failure but has since become a cult hit and is the third Gilliam film to be included in The Criterion Collection. Johhny Depp does a good job of portraying a spastic Raoul Duke and Benicio del Toro plays an, at times, psychotic Dr. Gonzo. The drug hallucination scenes were done well (Gilliam's odd fantasy style fits the drug imagery great), and it follows the story as perfectly as a movie CAN follow a book. The film as a classic midnight movie and a hit with a wide audience (as it should be), really if you haven't seen this film, you really should, go out and see it. Even though The Fisher King, 12 Monkeys and Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas were not actually related, Gilliam considers them his "Trilogy of Americana" since they were written by other people and take place in North America, they also focused less on fantasy. ANYWAY... http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120669/synopsis
Gilliam's film after that was 2005's The Brothers Grimm, which I HAVE also seen. It tells the story of two brothers who go around and tell stories then set up supernatural creatures to rid small towns of. Eventually they get hired to solve a REAL supernatural mystery. The film was okay but very childish and I don't know if I'd really recommend it, it's not one of Gilliam's best works, not too impressive. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0355295/synopsis
2005 also saw the release of Tideland. I have never seen the movie but it seems very dark and I'd like to, it actually sounds better than The Brothers Grimm was. If you see it before me, tell me how it is. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0410764/plotsummary
Finally is Gilliam's most recent film (and Heath Ledger's final film), The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus (2009). It tells the story of an old immortal who can let people live their wildest dreams for a short amount of time, however, he has to attempt to save their souls from The Devil (Tom Waits). For this power though, he has to save so many souls or his daughter is forfeit to The Devil. When I heard that it was Ledger's final film appearance I had to see the film, and knowing that Tom Waits was in it only raised my excitement, unfortunately, it did not deliver. The film is not bad, don't get me wrong, it's just so painfully simple, there's no depth to it like a lot of other Gilliam films and overall the film wasn't great. I would say watch it, but don't be like me and get disappointed. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1054606/synopsis
Gilliam's next film will be The Man Who Killed Don Quixote, I don't know if I'll go see it, but if I DO, I'll let you know how it is.
Another fun fact was that Gilliam was supposed to direct the Harry Potter series but ultimately did not get it, fun fact! yeah... fun fact...
ANYWAY, there she is! The post on Terry Gilliam, hope you enjoyed it a bit, keep tuned in, and much like the title of the show were any Monty Python stars started, Do Not Adjust Your Set! there's more to come!
ANYWAY... this post is about the works of one Mr. Terry Gilliam, in no way a favorite director of mine, but I DO enjoy some of his films.
I think I'm going to take this blog and opportunity to talk about Monty Python too, because, love it or hate it, the British comedy troupe was a major driving force in modern comedy. So, here we go, let's have some fun, shall we?
Terry Gilliam was born in 1940 in Minnesota, making him the only member of the Monty Python comedy troupe NOT to be born in Britain (see, my title makes sense). Gilliam began as an animator before going to Europe and joining the Monty Python group.
Monty Python was a British surreal comedy troupe from 1969 to 1983. The Pythons consisted of John Cleese, Graham Chapman, Eric Idle, Terry Jones, Michael Palin, and Gilliam. The group created the influential sketch comedy show Monty Python's Flying Circus that ran on the BBC from 1969 to 1974, the show launched the group and set them up for larger fame and movies and stage shows, albums and musicals. The group wrote and performed their own material and popularized absurdist comedy that influenced everything from Saturday Night Live to The Mighty Boosh. The films that were created by Monty Python were And Now For Something Completely Different (1971), Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975), Monty Python's Life of Brian (1979), Monty Python Live at the Hollywood Bowl (1982), and Monty Python's The Meaning of Life (1983). Even after the breaking of Python, many of the members went on to work together. One major Python collaborator who was never part of the troupe was Neil Innes.
However, this post is supposed to be about the post-Python career of Terry Gilliam, so let's get back to all that business...
The first film Gilliam directed was Monty Python and the Holy Grail, which he co-directed with Python Terry Jones. I'm assuming that you've all seen this film (or at least heard the quotes from it WAY too many times), however, if you haven't, I would recommend it, it's a classic and really explains Monty Python. Gilliam even played the small role of Patsy in the film. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071853/synopsis
Gilliam's first post-Python film was called Jabberwocky (1977). Starring Python alum Michael Palin as a boy in medieval times who has to slay the mythical dragon from the Lewis Carroll poem, who killed his father. I haven't seen the film so I have no first hand opinion of it, however, any opinion I have gathered is mixed. On one hand, the film did horrible with critics and horrible at the box office, on the other hand, it's a cult classic, so really, I'd say see it if you're a huge Gilliam fan. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076221/plotsummary
Gilliam's second film was Time Bandits (1981), and lucky (or unlucky, depending on how you look at it) for you, I HAVE seen this one! The film tells the story of a little boy who ends up getting pulled through time and space by a group of dwarves and their time and space map, eventually having to fight evil. The film is actually fairly entertaining (I remember watching it with my brother, he seemed to dig it too), they continually run into a couple named Vincent and Pansy (Michael Palin and Shelley Duvall, respectively), and a slew of famous characters from history and fiction such as Robin Hood (John Cleese), Napoleon (Ian Holm) and King Agamemnon (Sean Connery, yeah, that's right, Sean Connery), and they also end up on a ship that turns out to be the hat of a giant Polynesian man. Throughout the entire movie they're running from The Supreme Being (who is pretty much God) and eventually fall into the hands of Evil (more or less the Devil). I'd say this film is worth a watch, it's not the best film in any way, or even the best Gilliam film but it's funny and has all the whimsical style of Gilliam, it's a good (and more light hearted) introduction to his style, give it a shot, it's also one of the three Gilliam films to be included in the Criterion Collection. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081633/synopsis
Brazil (1985) was Gilliam's third film, and questionably, one of his best. It tells the story of a man in a dystopian country where the world is run by a tyrannical bureaucracy and runs on out of date and broken down machines, he rebels and ends up considered a terrorist. The film has been considered one of the best cinematic versions of George Orwell's 1984, even though it was not based on the book (however, it was heavily inspired by it). Many titles were proposed, such as 1984 1/2, but ultimately the film was named Brazil after the song that repeatedly appears throughout it, "Aquarela do Brasil". This film is the second of Gilliam's three films to be included in the Criterion Collection. Even though it didn't do very well outside of Britian, it became a major cult classic. I would recommend this film also (for I have also seen it), the film is a good combination of dystopian sci-fi and fantasy (I mean, the guy flies around on Icarus wings more or less). If you want a weird film with a decent political theme then check this one out, simple as that. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088846/synopsis
1988 brought Gilliam's next film The Adventures of Baron Munchausen. Even though his three films after Jabberwocky aren't actually related, Gilliam considers them a trilogy, he calls "The Trilogy of Imagination", the reason for this is that he sees it as a telling of life through the imaginations of men of different ages. Time Bandits being a child, Brazil being a middle aged man, and The Adventures of Baron Munchausen being an old man. It tells the story of an old man named Baron Munchausen who tells his story of heroism in flashbacks and eventually saves a city from the Turks. The film was nominated for four Oscars (even though it won none), but only had a limited US release. I've never seen the film so I can't say how good it is personally, but it seems as entertaining and whimsical as Gilliam's movies before it. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096764/synopsis
In 1991, Gilliam directed The Fisher King, starring Robin Williams and Jeff Bridges. It tells the story of a shock-jock who ends up helping a homeless man whose life he inadvertently ruined. The film did very well critically and, even though I've never seen it, I'd like to. I'd say see it, it sounds like a very touching film. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0101889/synopsis
Next up is another Gilliam film I have never seen, 12 Monkeys (1995). The film tells the story of a criminal that is repeatedly sent to the past in an attempt to stop the outbreak of a virus that will force Earth to migrate underground. The film also received positive critical reviews and is another film I'd like to see eventually. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114746/synopsis
Now at this point you're probably saying, "this kid has seen like, no Gilliam films, what the fuck is he writing this for?" well, we're coming up on, probably my favorite Gilliam film (and probably the reason I'm writing this), and THAT film is...
Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998), the film that is based on, what is considered, possibly one of the most impossible books to make a film out of. Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas is a 1971 novel by Hunter S. Thompson. It's a fictional retelling of a drug induced trip Thompson and his attorney made to Las Vegas to cover a sporting event. For the longest time, the book was thought to be one that could never be adapted into a movie (along with Naked Lunch by William S. Burroughs, which was eventually made into a film by David Cronenberg). After many thoughts and false starts, the film was put into the hands of Gilliam and, in my opinion, he did an excellent job with it. As I have already stated, this film is my favorite Gilliam film (at least out of the ones I have seen). The film was a box office failure but has since become a cult hit and is the third Gilliam film to be included in The Criterion Collection. Johhny Depp does a good job of portraying a spastic Raoul Duke and Benicio del Toro plays an, at times, psychotic Dr. Gonzo. The drug hallucination scenes were done well (Gilliam's odd fantasy style fits the drug imagery great), and it follows the story as perfectly as a movie CAN follow a book. The film as a classic midnight movie and a hit with a wide audience (as it should be), really if you haven't seen this film, you really should, go out and see it. Even though The Fisher King, 12 Monkeys and Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas were not actually related, Gilliam considers them his "Trilogy of Americana" since they were written by other people and take place in North America, they also focused less on fantasy. ANYWAY... http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120669/synopsis
Gilliam's film after that was 2005's The Brothers Grimm, which I HAVE also seen. It tells the story of two brothers who go around and tell stories then set up supernatural creatures to rid small towns of. Eventually they get hired to solve a REAL supernatural mystery. The film was okay but very childish and I don't know if I'd really recommend it, it's not one of Gilliam's best works, not too impressive. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0355295/synopsis
2005 also saw the release of Tideland. I have never seen the movie but it seems very dark and I'd like to, it actually sounds better than The Brothers Grimm was. If you see it before me, tell me how it is. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0410764/plotsummary
Finally is Gilliam's most recent film (and Heath Ledger's final film), The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus (2009). It tells the story of an old immortal who can let people live their wildest dreams for a short amount of time, however, he has to attempt to save their souls from The Devil (Tom Waits). For this power though, he has to save so many souls or his daughter is forfeit to The Devil. When I heard that it was Ledger's final film appearance I had to see the film, and knowing that Tom Waits was in it only raised my excitement, unfortunately, it did not deliver. The film is not bad, don't get me wrong, it's just so painfully simple, there's no depth to it like a lot of other Gilliam films and overall the film wasn't great. I would say watch it, but don't be like me and get disappointed. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1054606/synopsis
Gilliam's next film will be The Man Who Killed Don Quixote, I don't know if I'll go see it, but if I DO, I'll let you know how it is.
Another fun fact was that Gilliam was supposed to direct the Harry Potter series but ultimately did not get it, fun fact! yeah... fun fact...
ANYWAY, there she is! The post on Terry Gilliam, hope you enjoyed it a bit, keep tuned in, and much like the title of the show were any Monty Python stars started, Do Not Adjust Your Set! there's more to come!
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
The Twenty-seventh Wound-- Copies, Pirates, Graffiti, Music and Things
So... anyone look at the box office lately? Depending on when I finish this blog post, it may be old, but the top film at the box office was The Hangover Part II. Would I go see The Hangover Part II? the answer is no. Why wouldn't I go see The Hangover Part II? well, it's not just because The Hangover was so dull to me, it's not just because I have a personal distaste for modern big-budget comedies, AND it's not just because I think the only thing keeping the first film even semi-entertaining was Zach Galifianakis alone... No, it's a lot because, not only was The Hangover sub-par, but The Hangover Part II is just a copy of the first. "Oh how can that be??!?!" you're asking, "how could he be saying this about my beloved Hangover?!?!?!" Well look at the facts of the movie... It involves the night before a wedding, it invloves someone getting lost and/or kidnapped, it involves gangsters and shady characters, it involves asians, it involves a search for what happened the previous night, it involves Zach Galifianakis' character spiking things with drugs and having a small companion (in this one it's a monkey instead of a baby), it even ends with them looking through the pictures of the night before and deleting them. The film even goes as far as to include Mike Tyson once again in both a cameo AND thr fact that Ed Helms has the same face tatoo. I didn't really respect the first film, I thought it got WAY too much hype and didn't deliver, but to just repeat the same things in a sequel is disgraceful (the Austin Powers films are a great example of this). Anyway, if you're not going to be clever after already not being funny, then why bother?
Okay, enough of my bitching... Onto the next topic... Now, I mentioned how The Hangover Part II was #1 on in the box office, now I'll discuss the film that was #3, Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides. Now I thought the first Pirates movie was decent, it wasn't too deep, but it was entertaining, it had a horror aspect and Geoffry Rush, I thought, did an excellent job playing his character. Now we're on the fourth film in the saga, however, and it's getting a bit old. The second two films were not nearly as fun as the first and after 4 shots at it, Johnny Depp's flamboyant, possibly drunk, possibly high, possibly mentally handicapped Captain Jack Sparrow is not as humorous as it used to be. The search for the Fountain of Youth is something I will probably not see, once again. These blockbuster film series' are getting warn out, and fast. The stories are hurting, the acting is suffering and the characters are just not as good the 100th time around. There's is one thing that always gets me about the Pirate movies, the one thing that I really enjoy about them, and that's the character design. I especially love it on the pirates that are either known in pirate lore (such as Davy Jones), or the pirates that were real and living people (such as Blackbeard in the newest film). That and the representations of their famous ships and the beauty of the locations are also nice. I used to be interested in pirate lore and I read pirate stories (from Treasure Island to One Piece), and I'm not the only one, they actually have a pirate magazine out, but the stories and big blockbuster-ness of the Pirate films is really off putting and makes me not really like them, but I'm always interested in seeing what the new big pirates will look like. So let's take a look shall we?
We have Captain Jack Sparrow, Captain Barbosa, Davy Jones and Blackbeard IN THAT ORDER...
and I know I'm a lame ass for posting those picture, you don't have to tell me that...
On top of that, I also liked the design of the ships they used in the films too, like The Black Pearl, The Flying Dutchman and The Queen Anne's Revenge...
Anyway, if you put together that my title is talking about what my topics are AND the order which I'm discussing them, you may be wondering what I mean by "graffiti", well, as I mentioned in my last post, I went to Lincoln to see (and now I own) the movie Exit Through The Gift Shop, now I plan on talking a bit more about the film. The film is about street art, but more specifically about a frenchman named Thierry Guetta, who filmed his obsession with street art and eventually became a street artist himself. The film features street artists Banksy, Shepard Fairey, Space Invader, Monsieur André, and Thierry himself, who eventually takes the name Mr. Brainwash. I rather enjoyed the film, I thought it was very interesting and comedic. While the film the Guetta makes is questionable, Banksy ends up taking over and making a better edited films, while he sends Guetta off to create his own art show (which is depicted in the film). According to the producers of the film, it was a long and frustrating process and they only ending up with seconds of usable film from tapes and tapes of home movies. I would recommend this film to anyone, it's a great movie, it got incredibly high reviews and was even nominated for an Academy Award (however, people are skeptical whether it's an actual documentary or a mockumentary). Either way, go watch the film, it's excellent.
I will leave you with this... the Hobbit movies have now been titled... here's the news... http://www.imdb.com/news/ni11204748/
Also, I generally dislike Tim Burton, but this is pretty sick, check it out, his short film Vincent...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASHP-vgnjAw
Have a kick ass day, all of you and I hope to see you again soon, bye bye now!
Okay, enough of my bitching... Onto the next topic... Now, I mentioned how The Hangover Part II was #1 on in the box office, now I'll discuss the film that was #3, Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides. Now I thought the first Pirates movie was decent, it wasn't too deep, but it was entertaining, it had a horror aspect and Geoffry Rush, I thought, did an excellent job playing his character. Now we're on the fourth film in the saga, however, and it's getting a bit old. The second two films were not nearly as fun as the first and after 4 shots at it, Johnny Depp's flamboyant, possibly drunk, possibly high, possibly mentally handicapped Captain Jack Sparrow is not as humorous as it used to be. The search for the Fountain of Youth is something I will probably not see, once again. These blockbuster film series' are getting warn out, and fast. The stories are hurting, the acting is suffering and the characters are just not as good the 100th time around. There's is one thing that always gets me about the Pirate movies, the one thing that I really enjoy about them, and that's the character design. I especially love it on the pirates that are either known in pirate lore (such as Davy Jones), or the pirates that were real and living people (such as Blackbeard in the newest film). That and the representations of their famous ships and the beauty of the locations are also nice. I used to be interested in pirate lore and I read pirate stories (from Treasure Island to One Piece), and I'm not the only one, they actually have a pirate magazine out, but the stories and big blockbuster-ness of the Pirate films is really off putting and makes me not really like them, but I'm always interested in seeing what the new big pirates will look like. So let's take a look shall we?
We have Captain Jack Sparrow, Captain Barbosa, Davy Jones and Blackbeard IN THAT ORDER...
and I know I'm a lame ass for posting those picture, you don't have to tell me that...
On top of that, I also liked the design of the ships they used in the films too, like The Black Pearl, The Flying Dutchman and The Queen Anne's Revenge...
Anyway, if you put together that my title is talking about what my topics are AND the order which I'm discussing them, you may be wondering what I mean by "graffiti", well, as I mentioned in my last post, I went to Lincoln to see (and now I own) the movie Exit Through The Gift Shop, now I plan on talking a bit more about the film. The film is about street art, but more specifically about a frenchman named Thierry Guetta, who filmed his obsession with street art and eventually became a street artist himself. The film features street artists Banksy, Shepard Fairey, Space Invader, Monsieur André, and Thierry himself, who eventually takes the name Mr. Brainwash. I rather enjoyed the film, I thought it was very interesting and comedic. While the film the Guetta makes is questionable, Banksy ends up taking over and making a better edited films, while he sends Guetta off to create his own art show (which is depicted in the film). According to the producers of the film, it was a long and frustrating process and they only ending up with seconds of usable film from tapes and tapes of home movies. I would recommend this film to anyone, it's a great movie, it got incredibly high reviews and was even nominated for an Academy Award (however, people are skeptical whether it's an actual documentary or a mockumentary). Either way, go watch the film, it's excellent.
I will leave you with this... the Hobbit movies have now been titled... here's the news... http://www.imdb.com/news/ni11204748/
Also, I generally dislike Tim Burton, but this is pretty sick, check it out, his short film Vincent...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASHP-vgnjAw
Have a kick ass day, all of you and I hope to see you again soon, bye bye now!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)