So just to warn you right off there may be a spoiler, and it may be a bit of a Guillermo fest.
The Orphanage, produced by Guillermo del Toro, directed by Juan Bayona. Right off you can surmise why Guillermo would produce a ghost story taking place in an orphanage. If Guillermo had directed this movie I would have started off skeptical because he's already coved that ground in Devil's Backbone. However I can see why he produced it and, if I'm not mistaken, can see his influence (either direct or otherwise) in this movie. Not that I am a Guillermo expert, I've only seen three of his fantastic movies. A definite style prevails in his movies tho, simple stories with complex intertwining themes that marry fantasy with reality. I will have to check out Bayona's other movies and see if his style is indeed that similar to Guillermo's.
El Orfanato seems to progress smoothly taking you through the story, not forcing you to assume the course of events to try to set up a surprise twist (Re. 6th sense) ending, but giving you both sides at the same time. You naturally assume the supernatural safe in you comfy seat, but if you were experiencing these things the storyline gives you and the supporting characters an 'out.' setting up the tension beautifully. The action progresses in an unpredictable but undeniable way, progressing in ways I didn't expect (eg typical horror tropes) but once there it seemed the natural progression of things.
all in all a great movie, one that makes me wish more new material would come out in broad release in the states.
Friday, November 30, 2007
Saturday, November 3, 2007
Film Making
So among you readers, I'm sure there is at least one burgeoning
filmmaker out there (I know because the only other reader is max :-). I thought it would be cool to use this post as a seed for any comments or suggestions you readers (max) might have for other (hypothetical) readers out there as far as resources on the web for a beginning filmmaker. Pod casts, stock video sources, software recommendations, etc. Basically a place to start for those wide-eyed beginners that have yet to budget out their first script and saddle up to investors with the promise of stinking-rich money.
So to get the ball rolling i recommend you check out the filmmakingcentral podcast, it gives a kind of 'one mans perspective' to film making. I would recommend you go to the site except the podcast page says you have to sign in to get the podcast?! (Edit: He has the wimpy player on the front page that has all of the pod casts, why it's not on the podcast page... who knows.)I don't want to get into a web design tangent so we'll leave it at 'look for it on your podcast aggregator.'
A book that the Film Making Central guy (David Basulto) recommends that looks pretty cool is "The DV Rebel's Guide." I've picked it up but have yet to browse through it. Perhaps I'll do a more in-depth review later on, but the dust cover is pretty compelling provided your the type who likes jumping into the nitty-gritty of your projects. Another book "Make Your Own Damn Movie!: Secrets of a Renegade Director" By Lloyd Kaufman is an entertaining read, and provides some good tips on making low/no budget films (my favourite tip is never do a casting interview alone with an actor when there is nudity involved, unlike the B-movies your making - nothing good can come of it. learn from Lloyd's mistake :-)
So feel free to leave your comments with suggestions to the newbies (me included).
filmmaker out there (I know because the only other reader is max :-). I thought it would be cool to use this post as a seed for any comments or suggestions you readers (max) might have for other (hypothetical) readers out there as far as resources on the web for a beginning filmmaker. Pod casts, stock video sources, software recommendations, etc. Basically a place to start for those wide-eyed beginners that have yet to budget out their first script and saddle up to investors with the promise of stinking-rich money.
So to get the ball rolling i recommend you check out the filmmakingcentral podcast, it gives a kind of 'one mans perspective' to film making. I would recommend you go to the site except the podcast page says you have to sign in to get the podcast?! (Edit: He has the wimpy player on the front page that has all of the pod casts, why it's not on the podcast page... who knows.)I don't want to get into a web design tangent so we'll leave it at 'look for it on your podcast aggregator.'
A book that the Film Making Central guy (David Basulto) recommends that looks pretty cool is "The DV Rebel's Guide." I've picked it up but have yet to browse through it. Perhaps I'll do a more in-depth review later on, but the dust cover is pretty compelling provided your the type who likes jumping into the nitty-gritty of your projects. Another book "Make Your Own Damn Movie!: Secrets of a Renegade Director" By Lloyd Kaufman is an entertaining read, and provides some good tips on making low/no budget films (my favourite tip is never do a casting interview alone with an actor when there is nudity involved, unlike the B-movies your making - nothing good can come of it. learn from Lloyd's mistake :-)
So feel free to leave your comments with suggestions to the newbies (me included).
Friday, October 19, 2007
Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind
I have been catching up on my anime and animation in general for about two years now. Seeing movies and shows that are on 'must see' lists. Thank Krom for Netflix. Hopping back and forth through the time line of Miyazaki & Studio Ghibli's productions I've found that I love these guys. Their work trails often into the steampunk realm even includes blimps and airships, kickass! So going into this flick I was not pessimistic about the amount of entertainment i would receive from watching it, and I was not disappointed.
Setting: It has been a millennium since a global war known as the "Seven Days of Fire" destroyed human civilization. Only a tiny remnant of humanity survives, huddled in small enclaves across the continents. The Fukai, a thick jungle whose spores and plant life are poisonous to humans, covers much of the Earth's surface.
This early (cir. 1984 CE) Miyazaki & Studio Ghibli production is the fruit born of the sci-fi cartoons of the 1970's. It's a fantastic story that I found worthwhile, and the world shown to us is totally different from the world of 'today' and looks alien. It is evident that Miyazaki took full advantage of animations distinct ability to be totally alien from live action. You can see the early makings of the Miyazaki style in this film but it is distinctly it's own.The english dub (done in 2003) is great and I'm glad Disney got Patrick Stewart and Alison Lohman they did a great job, as did Luke Skywalker. Uma Thurman was ... well, Uma. (*Jumping the tracks*) I've never been a fan of Uma's acting I think she looks great, can certainly do action scenes and beauty shots but I have always thought her emoting has been at the level of Keanu Reeves. Which poses a problem when, in animation, all you have is your emotion. (*back on track*) Overall this is a great movie and, unlike some anime movies, didn't seem episodic; but a story unto itself.
Setting: It has been a millennium since a global war known as the "Seven Days of Fire" destroyed human civilization. Only a tiny remnant of humanity survives, huddled in small enclaves across the continents. The Fukai, a thick jungle whose spores and plant life are poisonous to humans, covers much of the Earth's surface.
This early (cir. 1984 CE) Miyazaki & Studio Ghibli production is the fruit born of the sci-fi cartoons of the 1970's. It's a fantastic story that I found worthwhile, and the world shown to us is totally different from the world of 'today' and looks alien. It is evident that Miyazaki took full advantage of animations distinct ability to be totally alien from live action. You can see the early makings of the Miyazaki style in this film but it is distinctly it's own.The english dub (done in 2003) is great and I'm glad Disney got Patrick Stewart and Alison Lohman they did a great job, as did Luke Skywalker. Uma Thurman was ... well, Uma. (*Jumping the tracks*) I've never been a fan of Uma's acting I think she looks great, can certainly do action scenes and beauty shots but I have always thought her emoting has been at the level of Keanu Reeves. Which poses a problem when, in animation, all you have is your emotion. (*back on track*) Overall this is a great movie and, unlike some anime movies, didn't seem episodic; but a story unto itself.
Monday, September 3, 2007
Jacob's Ladder... of PAIN!
*Spoilers follow* (although this movie has been seen by almost everyone that's going to see it ;)
I liked this flick, and I realize I'm a little late in seeing it (released 1990 CE). I am, you'll find late in seeing a lot of movies. Jacob's Ladder is better than I had imagined it would be; initially I had written it off as another horror movie, and it did have it's share of horror, but ended up being pretty interesting despite it's heavy reliance on overt biblical references. Of course this movie would have faltered and failed if Tim Robbins hadn't been playing the lead, his burden was not the tonnage of Jeff Goldblum's in Mr.Frost, but Tim certainly carried this movie much farther then it had legs for. Elizabeth Peña tho I must say did her share to help Tim out. Her portrayal of Jezebel was spot on for me, just creepy enough, but evened out with sexy and a touch of compassion that didn't play as fake. Jacob's Ladder has in common with Mr. Frost the afore-mentioned biblical theme, but with a more evangelical execution (eh! eh! Get it?!). Maculay Culkin was no better than he was in any other movie with his unnaturally red lips that make him look like he just ripped apart a small bunny with his teeth. But I digress.
My favourite part of the movie was the tool-like head shaking and stop-motion work that made it into the film. Adrian Lyne certainly did a pretty good job considering this content is far from Flashdance. I thought the stop motion was well executed and not overdone to the point where the effect becomes tiresome.
My biggest problem with the film would be the overt biblical references. This is of course a personal preference, but I like my references to be more subtle, especially when you know the major portion of your audience is already familiar ( voluntary or involuntarily ) with the iconic subject matter. I may have been watching too many movies, but aside from the scary daemons, the advertising in the subway at the beginning of the movie was enough for me to realize that Jacob was in hell. More mystery about his spiritual stat MAY have interfered with the HOW of it all tho, so I guess it still works. Just not as elegantly as I would have liked.
:-Prof. D.
I liked this flick, and I realize I'm a little late in seeing it (released 1990 CE). I am, you'll find late in seeing a lot of movies. Jacob's Ladder is better than I had imagined it would be; initially I had written it off as another horror movie, and it did have it's share of horror, but ended up being pretty interesting despite it's heavy reliance on overt biblical references. Of course this movie would have faltered and failed if Tim Robbins hadn't been playing the lead, his burden was not the tonnage of Jeff Goldblum's in Mr.Frost, but Tim certainly carried this movie much farther then it had legs for. Elizabeth Peña tho I must say did her share to help Tim out. Her portrayal of Jezebel was spot on for me, just creepy enough, but evened out with sexy and a touch of compassion that didn't play as fake. Jacob's Ladder has in common with Mr. Frost the afore-mentioned biblical theme, but with a more evangelical execution (eh! eh! Get it?!). Maculay Culkin was no better than he was in any other movie with his unnaturally red lips that make him look like he just ripped apart a small bunny with his teeth. But I digress.
My favourite part of the movie was the tool-like head shaking and stop-motion work that made it into the film. Adrian Lyne certainly did a pretty good job considering this content is far from Flashdance. I thought the stop motion was well executed and not overdone to the point where the effect becomes tiresome.
My biggest problem with the film would be the overt biblical references. This is of course a personal preference, but I like my references to be more subtle, especially when you know the major portion of your audience is already familiar ( voluntary or involuntarily ) with the iconic subject matter. I may have been watching too many movies, but aside from the scary daemons, the advertising in the subway at the beginning of the movie was enough for me to realize that Jacob was in hell. More mystery about his spiritual stat MAY have interfered with the HOW of it all tho, so I guess it still works. Just not as elegantly as I would have liked.
:-Prof. D.
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
3:10 to YoMomma
So with the generous gifting of a movie pass by Gayle I saw the movie '3:10 to Yuma' and enjoyed it. Now this movie is a remake, I have been on the record and off the record on hating remakes in general There is always exceptions to this, and this movie is one. Of course it helps I had to be told this movie is a remake and then I put reason to the nagging feeling that I'd heard the phrase '3:10 to Yuma' before. I will expound on remakes later. For now I will expound on this delightful movie.
Without having seen TttY ('Three ten to Yuma' 1957) I can safely say I can see why they remade it. What's that you say? Where do I get off? Why at Yuma of course. But enough of your frivolities. TttY is a western, but strip the (enjoyable) veneer of western, and under that bullet-ridden chase movie, you will find and psychological struggle between two disparate characters.
Ben Wade (Russell Crowe) is a self-possessed outlaw who robs a stagecoach, and is casually apprehended when he lets his guard down (with a woman ;-). Mr. Crowe infuses his character with a stillness that he brings to most in his movies. Which works for this movie, making Ben Wade a world-worn ruffian who is seemingly wizened by his travels. Ben Wade considers himself better then most of the farmers, petty railroad men, and animalistic cohorts he's surrounded by. Ben feels people out by talking to them, taunting them or listening when they talk; Most he finds two dimentional and uninteresting. Not so when it comes to Dan Evans.
Dan Evans (Christian Bale) is a down-on-his-luck farmer with a family to feed and no money. Dan sees an opportunity to make some money by accompanying the men taking Ben Wade to the prisoner train (The '3:10 to Yuma'). Evans seems to be driven by his need to provide for his family. Proving himself by earning not only the money he needs at this dangerous task but his manhood by doing his part for justice. Mr.Bale gets into his character in the usual method (Huh?! HUH!? Get it? 8-) and stays on the sane side of desperation without trailing into psycosis. We think we have Dan sussed out at the beginning of the movie, but as the story progresses his reasons for taking the job are taken away one by one until he's left to question why in the face of heartless lawful and charismatic lawless he should take this man to answer, not to the lives he's taken but the money he's stolen.
The payoff at the end pays off. The progression of the movie is well paced especially for a western where most screen times are taken up by one big gunfight. I was with this movie pretty much the whole time. I could see where an MTVBaby would get bored at some points but even they would still enjoy this movie overall. You don't have to enjoy westerns to get this film either, it's psychological subtest is plenty to carry you; But that said if you hate westerns (and do i need to say this?) don't go to this movie. I wouldn't consider myself a western guy, but I do like good movies. While not the prime date movie, it's certainly seems better than a romantic comedy.
Without having seen TttY ('Three ten to Yuma' 1957) I can safely say I can see why they remade it. What's that you say? Where do I get off? Why at Yuma of course. But enough of your frivolities. TttY is a western, but strip the (enjoyable) veneer of western, and under that bullet-ridden chase movie, you will find and psychological struggle between two disparate characters.
Ben Wade (Russell Crowe) is a self-possessed outlaw who robs a stagecoach, and is casually apprehended when he lets his guard down (with a woman ;-). Mr. Crowe infuses his character with a stillness that he brings to most in his movies. Which works for this movie, making Ben Wade a world-worn ruffian who is seemingly wizened by his travels. Ben Wade considers himself better then most of the farmers, petty railroad men, and animalistic cohorts he's surrounded by. Ben feels people out by talking to them, taunting them or listening when they talk; Most he finds two dimentional and uninteresting. Not so when it comes to Dan Evans.
Dan Evans (Christian Bale) is a down-on-his-luck farmer with a family to feed and no money. Dan sees an opportunity to make some money by accompanying the men taking Ben Wade to the prisoner train (The '3:10 to Yuma'). Evans seems to be driven by his need to provide for his family. Proving himself by earning not only the money he needs at this dangerous task but his manhood by doing his part for justice. Mr.Bale gets into his character in the usual method (Huh?! HUH!? Get it? 8-) and stays on the sane side of desperation without trailing into psycosis. We think we have Dan sussed out at the beginning of the movie, but as the story progresses his reasons for taking the job are taken away one by one until he's left to question why in the face of heartless lawful and charismatic lawless he should take this man to answer, not to the lives he's taken but the money he's stolen.
The payoff at the end pays off. The progression of the movie is well paced especially for a western where most screen times are taken up by one big gunfight. I was with this movie pretty much the whole time. I could see where an MTVBaby would get bored at some points but even they would still enjoy this movie overall. You don't have to enjoy westerns to get this film either, it's psychological subtest is plenty to carry you; But that said if you hate westerns (and do i need to say this?) don't go to this movie. I wouldn't consider myself a western guy, but I do like good movies. While not the prime date movie, it's certainly seems better than a romantic comedy.
Monday, August 27, 2007
An attempt to keep it real... ( reviewing Stardust )
Or, at least to keep this blog alive. I shall endavour to 'keep it real' as well.
On to the goods: I just saw Stardust and yes I liked it. Initially I tried to keep my self from having too many expectations. I am a Neil Gaiman fan, not super-fan mind you just the regular kind, and have read ( and enjoyed ) the original graphic novels. Not to mention I am a huge fan of anything remotely related to neo-Victorian/steampunk. So I had my work cut out for me, and I sedated my excitement with the luke-warm reviews and lack of 'underground buzz.' Thank the gods. I love being impressed. It has been a while since I've read the graphic novels ( since I had them signed by Neil around their initial release; seriously tho, NOT a super-fan, just a name-dropper ;-), and it was nice seeing this story play out without remembering what happens next. I can't even remember enough to tell the differences between the movie's storyline and the graphic novels'; which is great because I am always put off when I experience a story that I've already been exposed to in a different medium and it is slightly different. Just enough to open a window in the fourth wall and let that cold breeze through.
On to the movie itself: A fantasy in the traditional storybook context, it extracts itself from the stereotype with an interesting story that gives you exactly what you want in the way you didn't know you wanted it. The movie has been compared to Princess Bride, Goonies, and The Never Ending Story in that it contains that timelessness inherent in those movies, certainly it does not yet contain the emotional context those movies from my youth do, but given a chance I believe it could come close. I am a sucker for well executed love stories ( RARELY will a romantic comedy not involving Steve Martin fit the bill ) and the delicate on screen chemistry is hard to get. While it wasn't a mind-blowing success the chemistry between Claire Danes and Charlie Cox is playful and present when it counts. The interactions with the supporting characters is fantastic as well; the princes being the only weak point, dealing with that many backstabbing characters I'd imagine it's hard to write a script that adds enough depth to all of them. The actors portraying the princes did a bang up job tho, and while a little flat where fun to watch non-the-less.
A guarantee for fantasy fans, especially thoes of Gaiman descent.
On to the goods: I just saw Stardust and yes I liked it. Initially I tried to keep my self from having too many expectations. I am a Neil Gaiman fan, not super-fan mind you just the regular kind, and have read ( and enjoyed ) the original graphic novels. Not to mention I am a huge fan of anything remotely related to neo-Victorian/steampunk. So I had my work cut out for me, and I sedated my excitement with the luke-warm reviews and lack of 'underground buzz.' Thank the gods. I love being impressed. It has been a while since I've read the graphic novels ( since I had them signed by Neil around their initial release; seriously tho, NOT a super-fan, just a name-dropper ;-), and it was nice seeing this story play out without remembering what happens next. I can't even remember enough to tell the differences between the movie's storyline and the graphic novels'; which is great because I am always put off when I experience a story that I've already been exposed to in a different medium and it is slightly different. Just enough to open a window in the fourth wall and let that cold breeze through.
On to the movie itself: A fantasy in the traditional storybook context, it extracts itself from the stereotype with an interesting story that gives you exactly what you want in the way you didn't know you wanted it. The movie has been compared to Princess Bride, Goonies, and The Never Ending Story in that it contains that timelessness inherent in those movies, certainly it does not yet contain the emotional context those movies from my youth do, but given a chance I believe it could come close. I am a sucker for well executed love stories ( RARELY will a romantic comedy not involving Steve Martin fit the bill ) and the delicate on screen chemistry is hard to get. While it wasn't a mind-blowing success the chemistry between Claire Danes and Charlie Cox is playful and present when it counts. The interactions with the supporting characters is fantastic as well; the princes being the only weak point, dealing with that many backstabbing characters I'd imagine it's hard to write a script that adds enough depth to all of them. The actors portraying the princes did a bang up job tho, and while a little flat where fun to watch non-the-less.
A guarantee for fantasy fans, especially thoes of Gaiman descent.
Friday, August 10, 2007
Friday, July 27, 2007
Episode One
Max: Here we discuss a film we'd just seen called Killer of Sheep.
Dale: Yeah, check out the homepage for killer of sheep. I recommend seeing a screening in a city near you.
Episode Zero
So this is our first attempt at holding a film discussion vlog. Call it an experiment. As we continue on, the format will change here and there, so we'd love to know what you think!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)