I've Made A Huge Mistake...; March 15, 2012
Apparently I have been formatting this blog entirely wrong by posting everything onto the homepage. In order to fix this I will be moving everything to separate links by category and make this a far simpler, understandable website. Once I figure it out that is...look for some major changes that might make this blog unreadable while that takes place. After "fixing" this, if I still can't embed multiple photos into a single entry then I will be switching domains.
The Artist vs. John Carter; March 14, 2012
I am a born graphical artist
What could a french silent film with a budget of $15 million and a $250 million Disney digital 3D juggernaut have in common? Nothing, but I saw them both on the same day and this title was the first thing I could think of. In my fruitless effort to make the title work, however, I began to realize that not only were these films dissimilar, they were impossibly dissimilar. And since I was able to buy into this lie to make the title work, so too shall you!
ABOUT The Artist: I want to reiterate, this film is a black and white silent film. Not only were there some confused people dealing with this revelation, I'm not so sure that the majority of critics have given this idea enough consideration. A silent film, given its nature, is largely esoteric and doesn't compare directly with "talkies." In fact, the plot of The Artist is that people no longer like silent films, and guess what I found out, I don't like silent films. That isn't to say I can't appreciate a silent film and what The Artist does well it does to near perfection; The cinematography in the film is absolutely beautiful, the acting is fantastic and the direction of the story is straight-forward. My issue is that the story plays out as a poorly paced, watered-down version of Dresier's Sister Carrie that would never have received any Oscar buzz if weren't a black and white silent film. The essential argument then is whether or not a film should win because it uses a new gimmick. Say a better silent film is released in 2013, should it be denied an Oscar because it was released after The Arist had rubbed away its esoteric charm? In fact, I wonder if The Artist would even be considered among the best silent films of its era, if it is, then I understand why the mode died. Overall, though its simple charm and talented cast make for a good film, rather than paying tribute to its genre such as Eastwood's The Unforgiven and Refhn's Drive, The Artist feels like the final nail in the coffin. 8.4/10
ABOUT John Carter: When John Carter is at its best, it is the opposite of a silent film, it's a loud adrenaline pumping war on Mars. When John Carter is at its worst, it is the opposite of a silent film, it's a talkie. I've never read the original novels, but from what I understood from the first half-hour of the film is that there are magic bald humans using red humans to fight against blue humans while a bunch of savage green people desperately survive. John Carter, a loner cowboy/ogre, just wants to go back to his cave/swamp, until he has a change of heart and jumps/trudges to save Princess Dejah/Fiona from the misguided Prince Sab Than/Farquaad. Yeah, the main story is that generic, simple and lovable, three things that veteran director Andrew Stanton, of WALL-E, Finding Nemo and Toy Story 1-3 fame, thrives in. Where John Carter goes wrong is where it deviates from Stanton's straightforward directing style and attempts to help the audience catch up on the novelizations sub-plots and back story. What does this mean? It means that characters in the film talk to each other with the sole purpose of conveying boring unintelligible pieces of information. The tragedy is that these scenes are not needed to explain the color coded fights and do little to explain whatever it is they were trying to. And in a movie as beautiful as John Carter, I would rather you show me than tell me what I need to know. 7.8/10
*Disclaimer: Despite its many virtues, The Artist was truly painful to watch and despite its many flaws John Carter was a treat.
ABOUT The Artist: I want to reiterate, this film is a black and white silent film. Not only were there some confused people dealing with this revelation, I'm not so sure that the majority of critics have given this idea enough consideration. A silent film, given its nature, is largely esoteric and doesn't compare directly with "talkies." In fact, the plot of The Artist is that people no longer like silent films, and guess what I found out, I don't like silent films. That isn't to say I can't appreciate a silent film and what The Artist does well it does to near perfection; The cinematography in the film is absolutely beautiful, the acting is fantastic and the direction of the story is straight-forward. My issue is that the story plays out as a poorly paced, watered-down version of Dresier's Sister Carrie that would never have received any Oscar buzz if weren't a black and white silent film. The essential argument then is whether or not a film should win because it uses a new gimmick. Say a better silent film is released in 2013, should it be denied an Oscar because it was released after The Arist had rubbed away its esoteric charm? In fact, I wonder if The Artist would even be considered among the best silent films of its era, if it is, then I understand why the mode died. Overall, though its simple charm and talented cast make for a good film, rather than paying tribute to its genre such as Eastwood's The Unforgiven and Refhn's Drive, The Artist feels like the final nail in the coffin. 8.4/10
ABOUT John Carter: When John Carter is at its best, it is the opposite of a silent film, it's a loud adrenaline pumping war on Mars. When John Carter is at its worst, it is the opposite of a silent film, it's a talkie. I've never read the original novels, but from what I understood from the first half-hour of the film is that there are magic bald humans using red humans to fight against blue humans while a bunch of savage green people desperately survive. John Carter, a loner cowboy/ogre, just wants to go back to his cave/swamp, until he has a change of heart and jumps/trudges to save Princess Dejah/Fiona from the misguided Prince Sab Than/Farquaad. Yeah, the main story is that generic, simple and lovable, three things that veteran director Andrew Stanton, of WALL-E, Finding Nemo and Toy Story 1-3 fame, thrives in. Where John Carter goes wrong is where it deviates from Stanton's straightforward directing style and attempts to help the audience catch up on the novelizations sub-plots and back story. What does this mean? It means that characters in the film talk to each other with the sole purpose of conveying boring unintelligible pieces of information. The tragedy is that these scenes are not needed to explain the color coded fights and do little to explain whatever it is they were trying to. And in a movie as beautiful as John Carter, I would rather you show me than tell me what I need to know. 7.8/10
*Disclaimer: Despite its many virtues, The Artist was truly painful to watch and despite its many flaws John Carter was a treat.
A Week and A Half in Reviews; March 12, 2012
My week minus the girl, foreveralone
After sitting here for the past fifteen minutes trying to come up with an excuse for why I haven't posted anything for the last seven days, I guess I'll just come out and say that I'm really lazy and have done pretty much nothing in the last week and a half. One thing I have done is watch movies, so lets do some reviews!
Friday, Tower Heist: On a Brett Ratner scale of Rush Hour 1-3, 1 being best and a 3 being worst, Tower Heist is a 2.3. Its a fast-paced family friendly adventure that those under the age of ten will likely remember forever despite their parents frustrations with the plots implausibility and lazy childish story telling. 6.5/10
Saturday, Young Adult: Jason Reitman is a character study director, but that doesn't mean he's always good at it. Thank You for Smoking and Up In The Air represent great character studies that approach their subjects from different angles and offer charming, developed protagonists who carry their flaws in a humorous audience supportable way. Juno offered us an over the top character study that approached its subject from an unreasonably supportive angle, watering down its subject with self-aware witticisms and a lazily tidy ending. Thankfully, Reitman truly has returned to form with Young Adult. Delivering the characters his fans yearn for, Reitman stays well out of the way allowing his talented cast to play their roles and his audience to feel comfortable with easy progression of events. We can feel Diablo Cody's touches on the script, but rather than the watered down treatment Reitman allowed with Juno, Cody's simple writing adds to the superficial simplicity of Theron's character's exterior. 8.9/10
Sunday, Safe House: There's nothing knew in this genre film. Take Ryan Reynolds from Smokin' Aces and pair him with Denzel Washington from Training Day for an unimaginative action flick. 7.2/10
Monday, Underworld: Awakening: I really don't understand what the story in the Underworld series is anymore. Are vampires the good guys or the bad guys? Are werewolves struggling to survive or are they the primary antagonist? The only constant are the inconsistencies in the lazy storytelling, and by lazy storytelling I mean that every movie ends with the protagonists violently and easily doing away with the antagonists. Its not the Resident Evil series, but its in that area. 3.0/10
Tuesday, The Lorax: Turning a children's book into an animated musical can't be easy and The Lorax handles these sequences with charm and precision. I just don't feel that the source material provided enough to warrant the film treatment and it shows in the stretched pacing and simple character treatment. 7.5/10
Wendesday, The Woman In Black: Pacing, pacing, pacing. This film just drags on and on waiting to deliver its on schedule scares, which it rarely delivers with any authority. The environment, the characters, the plot and story are all too weak to hold this film together. 4.5/10
Thursday, Jack and Jill: I could only watch about 45 minutes of this movie before I needed a break from Adam Sandler's work as Jill. The only highlights have been the cameos from Shaq, Johnny Depp and Al Pacino.
Friday, Jack and Jill: I could only watch another 20 minutes before I finally decided to call it quits. I just do not understand what this film wants to be. Is it supposed to be a character study about women from the Bronx or did Adam Sandler just want to play a woman? I can't watch this movie. 2/10
Saturday, [Rewatch] Sling Blade: It's hard to talk about Sling Blade without mentioning Forest Gump, which speaks volumes as to how good this film is. 9.4/10
Sunday, Mother's Day: On a Darren Lynn Bousman scale from best to worst of Saw II, Saw III, Saw IV and Repo! The Genetic Opera, Mother's Day is a Saw III. The plot has enough twists to keep its audience interested but the pacing feels jerky and the characters seem inconsistently dimwitted, clever, aimless and driven all at the same time. 7.2/10
Friday, Tower Heist: On a Brett Ratner scale of Rush Hour 1-3, 1 being best and a 3 being worst, Tower Heist is a 2.3. Its a fast-paced family friendly adventure that those under the age of ten will likely remember forever despite their parents frustrations with the plots implausibility and lazy childish story telling. 6.5/10
Saturday, Young Adult: Jason Reitman is a character study director, but that doesn't mean he's always good at it. Thank You for Smoking and Up In The Air represent great character studies that approach their subjects from different angles and offer charming, developed protagonists who carry their flaws in a humorous audience supportable way. Juno offered us an over the top character study that approached its subject from an unreasonably supportive angle, watering down its subject with self-aware witticisms and a lazily tidy ending. Thankfully, Reitman truly has returned to form with Young Adult. Delivering the characters his fans yearn for, Reitman stays well out of the way allowing his talented cast to play their roles and his audience to feel comfortable with easy progression of events. We can feel Diablo Cody's touches on the script, but rather than the watered down treatment Reitman allowed with Juno, Cody's simple writing adds to the superficial simplicity of Theron's character's exterior. 8.9/10
Sunday, Safe House: There's nothing knew in this genre film. Take Ryan Reynolds from Smokin' Aces and pair him with Denzel Washington from Training Day for an unimaginative action flick. 7.2/10
Monday, Underworld: Awakening: I really don't understand what the story in the Underworld series is anymore. Are vampires the good guys or the bad guys? Are werewolves struggling to survive or are they the primary antagonist? The only constant are the inconsistencies in the lazy storytelling, and by lazy storytelling I mean that every movie ends with the protagonists violently and easily doing away with the antagonists. Its not the Resident Evil series, but its in that area. 3.0/10
Tuesday, The Lorax: Turning a children's book into an animated musical can't be easy and The Lorax handles these sequences with charm and precision. I just don't feel that the source material provided enough to warrant the film treatment and it shows in the stretched pacing and simple character treatment. 7.5/10
Wendesday, The Woman In Black: Pacing, pacing, pacing. This film just drags on and on waiting to deliver its on schedule scares, which it rarely delivers with any authority. The environment, the characters, the plot and story are all too weak to hold this film together. 4.5/10
Thursday, Jack and Jill: I could only watch about 45 minutes of this movie before I needed a break from Adam Sandler's work as Jill. The only highlights have been the cameos from Shaq, Johnny Depp and Al Pacino.
Friday, Jack and Jill: I could only watch another 20 minutes before I finally decided to call it quits. I just do not understand what this film wants to be. Is it supposed to be a character study about women from the Bronx or did Adam Sandler just want to play a woman? I can't watch this movie. 2/10
Saturday, [Rewatch] Sling Blade: It's hard to talk about Sling Blade without mentioning Forest Gump, which speaks volumes as to how good this film is. 9.4/10
Sunday, Mother's Day: On a Darren Lynn Bousman scale from best to worst of Saw II, Saw III, Saw IV and Repo! The Genetic Opera, Mother's Day is a Saw III. The plot has enough twists to keep its audience interested but the pacing feels jerky and the characters seem inconsistently dimwitted, clever, aimless and driven all at the same time. 7.2/10
Review: Journey 2: The Mysterious Island; February 29, 2012
It's ok son...this movie will be over soon.
To some, taking the time to review a movie meant for children might seem like a pointless endeavor. Here on Pointless Points, however, we believe that children deserve a cinematic experience as complete as any. That being said, no child deserves to see this film.
Superficially the film follows a similar plot to its predecessor: Hutcherson is struggling in his relationship with a new parental figure, Hutcherson gets a message from a long lost relative, Hutcherson goes to a magical land with said figure, Hutcherson and figure barely escape and find a new respect for one another. This one just does it extremely poorly. Now I'm not saying that Fraser's original film was a cinematic masterpiece, it was awful, but there were a few important differences between the two:
1) Fraser's Journey did not have Brian Gunn as a screenwriter - Brian Gunn's last great writing achievement was 2ge+ther. I had always assumed that 2ge+thers's script was poorly written as to better satirize its subject matter, now I see that Brian Gunn simply writes poorly.
2) Fraser's Journey did not have a love story - Josh Hutcherson is a decent young talent in the film industry, but if Zach Effron failed to make Vanessa Hugens look like a legitimate actress, what chance did he have? The only reason Hutcherson's character is even attracted to Hudgens's character is purely because she's good looking and wears tight clothing. Many films have used a watered down love at first sight angle rather than bothering to develop characters, but Hudgens's character is not only underdeveloped but unlikable to boot! Even Dwayne Johnson's "peck pop of love" couldn't make this "romance" look like anything other than a tragedy. On a side note, Fraser's Journey actually had a romantic side-plot but it felt natural and never derailed the main plot of the film.
3) Fraser's Journey had Eric Brevig at the helm - Having Journey to the Center of the Earth on your resume is hardly a great way to start a career as a director, but Brevig's visual effects background in films such as Men In Black and Pearl Harbor really came through in the 3D aspects of his film. The only time you would be able to notice the 3D effects in Journey 2 is when you're actually shelling out the extra three dollars.
4) Journey 2 did not have Brendan Fraser - When you remove a major character from the sequel of the film for scheduling reasons with the actor, please let your dedicated fans know what happened to that character? I do have to give the studio credit for replacing Fraser with Dwayne Johnson, a natural in these roles who slid into the series and did an admirable job trying to add humor, emotion and importance to a tremendously terrible script. On the other hand, adding Michael Cain as a Willy Wonka styled tour guide actually made me like Michael Cain, the film and myself a little less.
5) Journey 2 is child-sploitation - You can make a bad movie when trying to make a good movie and that's okay. Journey 2 was not made to be a good movie, it was made to pinch the last few pennies out of an uninformed consumer base and that is not okay. It's a shame that children are subjected to a standard of lazy film making like this simply because their options are limited and they don't know any better. This disaster of a film lacks charm, intelligence or any moralistic identity to add value to a blossoming child's life, I would rather let my future kids watch Saw II.
Superficially the film follows a similar plot to its predecessor: Hutcherson is struggling in his relationship with a new parental figure, Hutcherson gets a message from a long lost relative, Hutcherson goes to a magical land with said figure, Hutcherson and figure barely escape and find a new respect for one another. This one just does it extremely poorly. Now I'm not saying that Fraser's original film was a cinematic masterpiece, it was awful, but there were a few important differences between the two:
1) Fraser's Journey did not have Brian Gunn as a screenwriter - Brian Gunn's last great writing achievement was 2ge+ther. I had always assumed that 2ge+thers's script was poorly written as to better satirize its subject matter, now I see that Brian Gunn simply writes poorly.
2) Fraser's Journey did not have a love story - Josh Hutcherson is a decent young talent in the film industry, but if Zach Effron failed to make Vanessa Hugens look like a legitimate actress, what chance did he have? The only reason Hutcherson's character is even attracted to Hudgens's character is purely because she's good looking and wears tight clothing. Many films have used a watered down love at first sight angle rather than bothering to develop characters, but Hudgens's character is not only underdeveloped but unlikable to boot! Even Dwayne Johnson's "peck pop of love" couldn't make this "romance" look like anything other than a tragedy. On a side note, Fraser's Journey actually had a romantic side-plot but it felt natural and never derailed the main plot of the film.
3) Fraser's Journey had Eric Brevig at the helm - Having Journey to the Center of the Earth on your resume is hardly a great way to start a career as a director, but Brevig's visual effects background in films such as Men In Black and Pearl Harbor really came through in the 3D aspects of his film. The only time you would be able to notice the 3D effects in Journey 2 is when you're actually shelling out the extra three dollars.
4) Journey 2 did not have Brendan Fraser - When you remove a major character from the sequel of the film for scheduling reasons with the actor, please let your dedicated fans know what happened to that character? I do have to give the studio credit for replacing Fraser with Dwayne Johnson, a natural in these roles who slid into the series and did an admirable job trying to add humor, emotion and importance to a tremendously terrible script. On the other hand, adding Michael Cain as a Willy Wonka styled tour guide actually made me like Michael Cain, the film and myself a little less.
5) Journey 2 is child-sploitation - You can make a bad movie when trying to make a good movie and that's okay. Journey 2 was not made to be a good movie, it was made to pinch the last few pennies out of an uninformed consumer base and that is not okay. It's a shame that children are subjected to a standard of lazy film making like this simply because their options are limited and they don't know any better. This disaster of a film lacks charm, intelligence or any moralistic identity to add value to a blossoming child's life, I would rather let my future kids watch Saw II.
Pasta Night Already?; February 28, 2012
Since this is one of my first posts and I've already run out of ideas, I decided to pay homage to one of the better film blogs of our time, Cinemoose. And by "pay homage" I mean "lazily re-post one of his earlier gems without his knowledge or permission", enjoy! My own driveling input will appear in green, like this.
The Five Most Overrated Directors In Film
1. Martin Scorcese
The most overrated hack of them all, Scorcese is the king of cinematic masturbation and the “Look, ma, I’m directing” style of filmmaking. He represents almost everything that’s wrong with self-indulgent directing. The critics love him because of his ability to move the camera. If only he could move the audience. But then again, why bother telling a story when you can swoop through an overblown scene with a steadicam. Or get the brilliant actor Daniel Day-Lewis to do a Robert De Niro impersonation for over two hours opposite Leonardo DiCaprio. He finally won an Oscar when he took the depth and resonance out of the sublime Hong Kong thriller Infernal Affairs and remade it into the overblown, shallow snoozer The Departed.
The Goodfellas is a good movie. The first hour and a half of The Goodfellas is a great movie. And that is precisely the problem with Martin Scorcese's vision of film-making. The "Hush, I'm making a masterpiece, get out of my way" run times, the dumbed down Dickinsonian personality quirks that strip characters into caricatures rather than adding depth... and, well, Shutter Island.
2. Steven Spielberg
No one can deny Steven Spielberg’s talent. Then again, it takes a singular talent to reduce the Holocaust to a black and white cartoon like Spielberg did with Schindler’s List. I am constantly amazed by his ability to oversimplify and sanitize every story from slavery (Amistad) to terrorism (Munich) with his over reliance on sentiment and infantile moralism. Spielberg is the father of the modern blockbuster film and, while he may not have started the practice of lowest common denominator filmmaking, he certainly perfected it.
Things brought to us by Stephen Spielberg: Drew Barrymore's career. Though this alone should condemn the great Spielberg, he's actually a pretty good director. His recent endeavor, The Adventures of Tintin,is precisely the style of straightforward storytelling that should be rewarded rather than snubbed by Oscar committees. Though in retrospect, his career does include duds such as Indiana Jones 4, War of the Worlds and A.I. Artificial Intelligence among others.
3. Quentin Tarantino
If you want a poster boy for self-indulgence, then look no further. For those of you who want to make movies the Tarantino way, follow this simple recipe:
1) Drink lots of coffee.
2) Watch 20 B-movies in a row without sleeping.
3) Write a script copying sequences verbatim.
4) Cut up script and rearrange the sequences at random.
5) Insert conversation you had with racist/sexist wino on the bus into script.
6) Record for 2 hours as you channel surf through white trash oldies radio. This will be your soundtrack.
7) Send script to Harvey Weinstein.
8) Get a big head (literarlly and figuratively).
9) Direct with big head firmly planted up ass. Tell actors to treat your dialogue like its from the Bible.
10) Make sure the running time is over 2 hours.
11) Go to imdb.com and look up obscure films. Claim them as your influences.
For every great Tarantino scene, there's a pointless Uma Thurman scene around the corner. In fact, there could be an entirely pointless Uma Thurman driven duo of movies followed by the worst use of Kurt Russel since this around that very corner.
4. Christopher Nolan
Christopher Nolan is only on this list because of his tendency for lazy storytelling and his over reliance on narrative gimmicks. What do I mean by lazy storytelling? I mean that when encountered with a narrative problem, Nolan almost always takes the easy way out even if it changes the rules of the world he has set up. For instance, take Memento. Here we have a character who loses his short term memory only when it is convenient for the story. Numerous examples of this type of lazy storytelling abound in all of his films. While I believe that Mr. Nolan is a brilliant technician, he needs to stop being so damn lazy before he turns into David Twohy.
For those unfamiliar with David Twohy, he's the director behind such classic films as Pitch Black, Below and The Chronicles of Riddick, films where the implied rules of a science-fiction world are spontaneously altered to make way for plot points. It's clear that Nolan has chosen the side of Twohy over Cinemoose considering his follow-up films, The Dark Knight and Inception, both involve a series of underdeveloped characters literally explaining changing rules, themes and roles to the audience for over two hours. Let's see what Christopher Nolan will explain away with this years The Dark Knight Rises.
5. Paul Thomas Anderson
A Scorcese wannabe that has managed to capture some of Scorcese’s cachet with the critics and fanboys, Mr. Anderson has never met a long tracking shot he didn’t love. His movies are self-indulgent, pretentious and bombastic. You want to know how to make a movie filled with sex about the porn industry boring? Watch Boogie Nights. And what’s with the frogs in Magnolia? While I have not liked any of his movies to date, I do admit to wanting to see There Will be Blood as I am a fan of that setting and time period.
I actually disagree with Anderson's name on this list. Anderson is so bad that he isn't overrated, he's irrelevant. Many of us will only remember There Will Be Blood for its laughable milkshake scene and hopefully will have either avoided or forgotten Magnolia and Punch-Drunk Love.
The Five Most Overrated Directors In Film
1. Martin Scorcese
The most overrated hack of them all, Scorcese is the king of cinematic masturbation and the “Look, ma, I’m directing” style of filmmaking. He represents almost everything that’s wrong with self-indulgent directing. The critics love him because of his ability to move the camera. If only he could move the audience. But then again, why bother telling a story when you can swoop through an overblown scene with a steadicam. Or get the brilliant actor Daniel Day-Lewis to do a Robert De Niro impersonation for over two hours opposite Leonardo DiCaprio. He finally won an Oscar when he took the depth and resonance out of the sublime Hong Kong thriller Infernal Affairs and remade it into the overblown, shallow snoozer The Departed.
The Goodfellas is a good movie. The first hour and a half of The Goodfellas is a great movie. And that is precisely the problem with Martin Scorcese's vision of film-making. The "Hush, I'm making a masterpiece, get out of my way" run times, the dumbed down Dickinsonian personality quirks that strip characters into caricatures rather than adding depth... and, well, Shutter Island.
2. Steven Spielberg
No one can deny Steven Spielberg’s talent. Then again, it takes a singular talent to reduce the Holocaust to a black and white cartoon like Spielberg did with Schindler’s List. I am constantly amazed by his ability to oversimplify and sanitize every story from slavery (Amistad) to terrorism (Munich) with his over reliance on sentiment and infantile moralism. Spielberg is the father of the modern blockbuster film and, while he may not have started the practice of lowest common denominator filmmaking, he certainly perfected it.
Things brought to us by Stephen Spielberg: Drew Barrymore's career. Though this alone should condemn the great Spielberg, he's actually a pretty good director. His recent endeavor, The Adventures of Tintin,is precisely the style of straightforward storytelling that should be rewarded rather than snubbed by Oscar committees. Though in retrospect, his career does include duds such as Indiana Jones 4, War of the Worlds and A.I. Artificial Intelligence among others.
3. Quentin Tarantino
If you want a poster boy for self-indulgence, then look no further. For those of you who want to make movies the Tarantino way, follow this simple recipe:
1) Drink lots of coffee.
2) Watch 20 B-movies in a row without sleeping.
3) Write a script copying sequences verbatim.
4) Cut up script and rearrange the sequences at random.
5) Insert conversation you had with racist/sexist wino on the bus into script.
6) Record for 2 hours as you channel surf through white trash oldies radio. This will be your soundtrack.
7) Send script to Harvey Weinstein.
8) Get a big head (literarlly and figuratively).
9) Direct with big head firmly planted up ass. Tell actors to treat your dialogue like its from the Bible.
10) Make sure the running time is over 2 hours.
11) Go to imdb.com and look up obscure films. Claim them as your influences.
For every great Tarantino scene, there's a pointless Uma Thurman scene around the corner. In fact, there could be an entirely pointless Uma Thurman driven duo of movies followed by the worst use of Kurt Russel since this around that very corner.
4. Christopher Nolan
Christopher Nolan is only on this list because of his tendency for lazy storytelling and his over reliance on narrative gimmicks. What do I mean by lazy storytelling? I mean that when encountered with a narrative problem, Nolan almost always takes the easy way out even if it changes the rules of the world he has set up. For instance, take Memento. Here we have a character who loses his short term memory only when it is convenient for the story. Numerous examples of this type of lazy storytelling abound in all of his films. While I believe that Mr. Nolan is a brilliant technician, he needs to stop being so damn lazy before he turns into David Twohy.
For those unfamiliar with David Twohy, he's the director behind such classic films as Pitch Black, Below and The Chronicles of Riddick, films where the implied rules of a science-fiction world are spontaneously altered to make way for plot points. It's clear that Nolan has chosen the side of Twohy over Cinemoose considering his follow-up films, The Dark Knight and Inception, both involve a series of underdeveloped characters literally explaining changing rules, themes and roles to the audience for over two hours. Let's see what Christopher Nolan will explain away with this years The Dark Knight Rises.
5. Paul Thomas Anderson
A Scorcese wannabe that has managed to capture some of Scorcese’s cachet with the critics and fanboys, Mr. Anderson has never met a long tracking shot he didn’t love. His movies are self-indulgent, pretentious and bombastic. You want to know how to make a movie filled with sex about the porn industry boring? Watch Boogie Nights. And what’s with the frogs in Magnolia? While I have not liked any of his movies to date, I do admit to wanting to see There Will be Blood as I am a fan of that setting and time period.
I actually disagree with Anderson's name on this list. Anderson is so bad that he isn't overrated, he's irrelevant. Many of us will only remember There Will Be Blood for its laughable milkshake scene and hopefully will have either avoided or forgotten Magnolia and Punch-Drunk Love.
So It Begins; February 27, 2012
The 84th Academy Awards were over. The film industry had once again thrown itself the super sweet 16 of the year and we didn't have to tune in to know that Michel Hazanavicius's The Artist, a sycophantic tribute to the film industry, and the always self-indulgent Martin Scorsese's Hugo, a tribute to the film industry, had made off with all of the candles. Truth be told, nobody had really tuned in to the big party since the 90s when the gala had averaged ratings of 31.164, 29% higher than the 24.008 and 24.073 ratings of the subsequent decades. To a clique as self-impressed as Hollywood's plastics, however, the decades declining ratings have meant nothing more than an increasingly tasteless and passé public who should most likely be ignored.
I myself, both tasteless and passé, skipped the Academy Awards altogether to watch Sean William Scott in young director Michael Dowse's 2012 sports comedy Goon, a lighthearted retelling of Sling Blade on ice and a pleasant surprise for the night. For those unfamiliar with Sling Blade, the film follows a mentally handicapped Billy Bob Thornton as he becomes both a father figure and an eventual protector of a damaged young boy whom he befriends. Goon, following the same story as Billy Bob's critical darling, albeit a starkly different plot and tone, in many ways does what Sling Blade does right and flows with an ease that the directors of Academy Award favorite's Ides of March or The Descendants seem not to understand. The current trend of rewarding "look at me I'm making a movie" cinematography and ignoring simple, straightforward and enthralling storytelling has created a major divide between movie-goers and the film industry that seems to be growing with each passing season. Apparently, rewarding the consumer in the entertainment industry is about as chic as....well sweatpants on Mondays.
Pondering all of this and more I turned to my dear friend and said, "I'm going to start a blog and let the world know all the things I have to say." Facing me, the glint of realization in his eyes, his face weary from having watched so many of Hollywood's tiresome award winners, he whispered, "Dear god, please don't do this...nothing you say has any value." Nodding slowly, my face beaming in anticipation of the admiration of millions, I said to him, "Yes." And so it begins.
I myself, both tasteless and passé, skipped the Academy Awards altogether to watch Sean William Scott in young director Michael Dowse's 2012 sports comedy Goon, a lighthearted retelling of Sling Blade on ice and a pleasant surprise for the night. For those unfamiliar with Sling Blade, the film follows a mentally handicapped Billy Bob Thornton as he becomes both a father figure and an eventual protector of a damaged young boy whom he befriends. Goon, following the same story as Billy Bob's critical darling, albeit a starkly different plot and tone, in many ways does what Sling Blade does right and flows with an ease that the directors of Academy Award favorite's Ides of March or The Descendants seem not to understand. The current trend of rewarding "look at me I'm making a movie" cinematography and ignoring simple, straightforward and enthralling storytelling has created a major divide between movie-goers and the film industry that seems to be growing with each passing season. Apparently, rewarding the consumer in the entertainment industry is about as chic as....well sweatpants on Mondays.
Pondering all of this and more I turned to my dear friend and said, "I'm going to start a blog and let the world know all the things I have to say." Facing me, the glint of realization in his eyes, his face weary from having watched so many of Hollywood's tiresome award winners, he whispered, "Dear god, please don't do this...nothing you say has any value." Nodding slowly, my face beaming in anticipation of the admiration of millions, I said to him, "Yes." And so it begins.