|
BillShakespeare
|
read my profile
sign my guestbook
Interests: include curling, paleontology, skeet shooting, geo-political economic policies specifically in Asia and the Middle East, and Parkhurst's mom.
Expertise: passive consumption
Occupation: Research and development
Industry: Textiles
Message: message me
Member Since:
2/11/2004
|
|
| I know the Oscars took place several weeks ago but I would just like to take this time to publicly state for the benefit of Ernest Hemingway that I was wrong when I said "The Departed" probably wouldn't even be nominated for best picture because it was too violent to win. Only war movies and historical epics are allowed to have that high a body count I naively said. You were right Papa Hemingway. I hope your happy. | | |
| It's January which means it's time once again for the Best Movie Going Experience of the year list, only this year it's going to be very short. Two reasons for this: 1. this year was not a spectacular year for cinema 2. I didn't see many movies this year. Shocking I know, something about being poor, becoming an uncle, planing a wedding. I realize these are sad excuses but there all I can come up with so they'll have to do. Since I didn't get to the theater as much as I would have liked in '06 we'll start with the movies I wished I'd seen in order of regret. 1. Little Children 2. Volver 3. Marie Antoinette 4. Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby 5. Notes on a Scandal The Best Movie Going Experience of '06 goes to seeing the remake of The Omen on 06-06-06. There was equal part screams and laughter coming from the audience throughout and I got to pry my then future wife's hands away from her face multiple times. Plus Mia Farrow gave the most iterating supporting female performance of the year as the Satanic nanny who was so pissed they took away her own demon spawn she had to get in tight with someone else's. There was also an unintentionally hilarious decapitation sequence, an view into the real cause of John Paul II's death, and a very serious performance by everyone involved except the a-formentioned matron of all devil children. I didn't see The Da Vinci Code, but trust me this end time's rubbish had to be more entertaining than any heretical conspiracy theory. | | |
| When your in a large group and your movie lets out and you're too excited to wait until you leave the building to respond to try and discuss the entertainment you have just witnessed you should not congregate right in front of the theater entrance talking loudly about why you didn't like plot twists while other moviegoers are filling in for the next showing. If you do this and you see someone you know filling in to the see the film you are boisterously ripping apart and you wave do not expect them to wave back or acknowledge your presence in anyway. In fact you should hide among your fellow philistines in the hope that the acquaintance does not notice you as he shoots death rays at the inconsiderate horde of which you are a part.
Also, while it is annoying to talk loudly through previews in a nearly empty theater it is not a violation of the civilized rules of entertainment consumption, however you should shut your fat trap as soon as the movie starts. Also when a theater is nearly empty and you are in a large group try and persuade your friends to chose a row besides the one that is right behind the only other couple in the room.
That couple will greatly appreciate your cooperation and refrain from swearing at you when next they see you in public.
In conclusion I love my fe-aunce very much and am excited about the prospect of sharing a bed room with her in our new home on Alabama ave. instead of sleeping next to a hairy papist who's snore could wake the dead. (No offense P-Daddy. Thanks for the beer.)
| | |
| The infant's skull is staring at me accusingly. | | |
| For the record "Superman Returns" is a three star flick. It's good. It's everything one would expect a remake of "Superman" to be: glossy, filmed with cutting edge digital technology, it is filled with iconic images of the man of steel saving the day and dispencing saftey advice in corny monologues, and above all it's respectful of it's predecessor. Too respectful. It's a big budget omage to the 1980's films which starred Christopher Reeves, may he rest in peace. Fresh faced Brandon Routh does his best to follow Reeves lead but his imitation of the original man of steel quickly grows tiresome escpecailly when he is bumbling around as Clark Kent. During many of these sequences I felt like I was watching a really good impression of a character that lets face it isn't all that interesting to begin with. Superman although the most famous of all the superheros is also one of the most boring. There isn't alot of depth or suspense when it comes to his story line. He is good and can do anything and he will triumph over evil although it might take him longer if evil is in possession of large quantities of kryptonite. To complain about this would be like complaining that there is too much blood in Hellraiser V, or criticizing Jane Austen for being boring. Everyone knows this so whats your point?
My point is why remake Hellraiser V?
This is a movie that has been in the works for roughly a decade which was plenty of time to think of something that would cause this Seeker of Justice to stand out from early depictions. Over the past ten years many actors were whispered to be chosen for the lead including Jude Law and Nicolas Cage. If Law had been chosen it would be hard to concieve of him being able to not look frightening whereing his underwear outside of his tights and smerking while dispensing common sense saftey tips about air travel saftey, and Cage whose characters always seem to swing between meloncholy and phsychotic would also have been a risky choice, but both would have been more interesting than a blank slate on which the audience can project the image of a now dead movie star.
It is important to point out that "Superman Returns" is not meant to be a remake. Director Bryan Singer, who is responsible for the first two X-Men films said that he was not interested in rehashing the origins of Superman because it was already covered in the first movie some twenty years ago; Singer's new film is supposed to take place after "Superman II" some time and presumably before Sumperman III and SupermanIV, or perhaps he is smart enough to ignore the exitence of the later Man of Steel instalements. But if he is worried about back tracking why make a Superman movie at all, and why make one that feels so much like the first one? He even uses Williams Oscor winning score and the same font for the opening titles, which is the best part of S.R. as it was the best part of the original "Superman."
The point is while Lois Lane realizes throughout the corse of the film that the title to her pulitzer prize winning article "Why the World Doesn't Need Superman" is wrong, she needn't worry. If Metropolis is any kind of metropolis they've got a Walmart and Superman I and II are currently on sale for five fifty each. Buying both will still be cheaper than going to the theater and shelling out eight fifty to see a bunch of great actors play other great actors playing iconic comic book characters. (Incidentally new Lois, you are better than Margot Kidder so the above jab is not meant for you. Although you look remarkably like Rory Gilmore.)
| | |
|
