Darren Aronofsky and Danny Boyle interview

Why does this not happen more often? Getting two awesome but entirely dissimilar filmmakers in a room together and just letting them ask whatever the heck they want. Can you imagine what David Fincher and Martin Scorsese would have to say to each other? Marty would probably just talk the whole time while Fincher looked terse. Or how about Steven Spielberg and Michael Mann? Yeah, I know, I don't think they'd have much to say either.

Anyways, there are 7 parts to this interview and youtube only has 4.

So yeah, I dunno...here's part 7.

End of Year Blues?

Every year from November 10th or so my life is consumed by a massive bubble which circles over me, and I think it is called the End of Year Blues.

No, I'm not excited for Christmas, or even hopeful for the upcoming New Year, I'm just mega-fuckin'-melancholy about...what? The things I didn't achieve during the year? The things I need to achieve in the year to come to make up for everything I did not achieve in the year that is now close to over? Ho hum humbug.

So how do I cheer myself up from all these end of years tears? Christmas movies, of course.

Shit loads of them.

Possibly the most rewatchable genre, we bring a little of ourselves to every Christmas film. Nothing brings the family together on a Christmas Eve night like a cheery tale of hope and togetherness where all our dreams can and WILL come true. SO here is a list of my TOP 7 favourite Christmas films.

Am I right? Or have I just eaten too much egg nog (okay, I'll admit it, I have never actually HAD egg nog. WTF actually is egg nog??? I want some - now)?

#1 The Muppet Christmas Carol

Michael Caine plus Muppets - how could you go wrong? Turns out you can't. The songs kick ass and the story is an oldie but a goodie. Why Jim Carrey and Robert Zemeckis are wasting their breath making another version is beyond me. This for me is the definitive version of the film. Each muppet is used for the perfect role. There is nothing wrong with this film at all. Period.

#2 Elf

Before Will Ferrell started recycling the same performance over and over again he was fresh and exciting, and hilarious as the man-child elf wannabee who travels to New York to find his father, who is none other than JAMES CAAN!!! What a match-up. Plus the lovely Zooey Deschanel as his lady friend. Such a feel good heart-warmer, with enough for good stuff to satisfy the whole family.

#3 National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation

A close contender for best Vacation film, tied with the original, who could ever forget the burnt cat in the Christmas tree, or Clark trying to get those lights to work. Comic gold.

#4 It's a Wonderful Life

Okay. I haven't seen this. But apparently it's great. So there.

# 5 Scrooged

Bill Murray and Christmas. How can you lose?

# 6 The Santa Clause

Tim Allen and Christmas. How can you lose? Well...very easily, but this is actually kind of great. Just ignore the two sequels.

# 7 Bad Santa

Save the best for last. This is Billy Bob at his comedic peak, spewing forth bile and hate at anyone who'll listen but somehow displaying an underlying vulnerability, especially in his conversations with the young boy he unwittingly takes under his wing. This is GOOD Billy Bob, but perhaps we have this to blame for all the BAD Billy Bob (ie. nearly every film after Bad Santa). Come to think of it, why won't he make another Sling Blade? That rocked.

Okay, so what did I miss? A Mom For Christmas starring Olivia Newton-John?

Big robot

Hmm...

They may have good intentions, but is this film REALLY necessary?

Facebook: the new Big Brother

The Age of the Stalker is here, friends. There is no privacy. Furthermore, we don't even WANT any privacy. We enjoy, no, thrive on sharing our innermost private secrets with a general undiscerning public. First there was Myspace, but that was a little segregated and individual, so along came Facebook to fill in the gap. And boy was there a gap. Now every activity, particularly any social activities, are recorded and commented on daily.

Society's mutual obsession with digital photography means that every bar we walk into, every house party we agree to attend, and every toke we partake, shall be visually recorded and placed online within 12 hours of it taking place. You will log on the next day and find that seven of your friends have discussed how much of a tool you really are. Oh yes, Facebook is a virtual slagger. The best place to vent out our frustrations and hate mail.

We have spent the past decade whinging and complaining about how the government is taking away our privacy, how we are constantly being monitored and controlled, (please refer to Enemy of the State, The Matrix, Eagle Eye et al) but honestly, deep down, we LOVE being watched. Because if we are being watched we are never alone. And the noughties is all about not being alone.

Yes, that's right, you with your mobile, i-phone, MSN messenger, partner tracker, GPS system, are connected to a huge technologically bound hub of paranoia where everything you say and do is universally known and announced. Just the way you like it.

A personal case in point: my friend Melvin was served by a pretty girl at Myer the other day. Her name was recorded on the receipt. "The girl who served me at Myer was pretty" he told me, and that was all it took to arouse my curiosity. I did a search for her on Facebook, and lo and behold there she was. I added her as a "friend", and an hour later she added me too. So there we are, me and the pretty girl from Myer, friends. I made a comment on her profile about her change of status from "single" to "in a relationship with [insert douchebag]". She sent me a private message - "I'm sorry, do I know you???". Aghast and lost for words, I struck gold when I saw that we in fact, by complete coincidence, shared a mutual friend. "Oh yes pretty girl from Myer, I'm friends with [insert mutual friend]." We chatted via private messages. But this was not private - I was showing all my friends and she didn't even KNOW me. She works at Vodafone at Myer she tells me (I, of course, already knew this). And so our relationship continues. I know who her friends are, what her hobbies are, what movies and movies she likes, what uni and school she went to, pretty much anything an aspiring stalker requires to track down and rape a pretty girl from Myer.

My point is not that I am a stalker. This was simply a harmless social experiment. My point is that if I WANTED to be a stalker it would not be hard. It would in fact be tremendously easy. Too easy, I feel.

So what is the lesson here? The moral of this torrid tale? Hold things close to your chest, people. Leave a little mystery. Sometimes it's best to not know everything about each other right off the bat. But then again I'm currently writing on a public blog, so who the heck am I to talk. I am a fucking hypocrite.

Over and out.

Elephant vs. 2:37

Last week I was so unwell so I watched six films in bed in one day, and two of them happened to have a few things in common. Well, actually, they had A LOT in common. One was called 2:37, and is an Australian film released in 2006, whilst the other was an American film called Elephant, which was released three years earlier in 2003.

vs.

Elephant was directed by indie demi-God Gus Van Sant, whilst 2:37 was directed by first-time 20 year-old Murali Thalluri. Both were set almost entirely in a high school over one day. Both used detached camera movements via a steady cam to follow its characters, often from behind. Both ended in a shocking tragedy (2:37 a teen suicide, Elephant a massacre). Both were edited the same, holding on a single dramatically inert shot for longer than usual. Both had the same gritty realistic visual style. Both films play around with chronology in exactly the same way. Both used classical music. Both had an in-class discussion about gay rights. Both had the troubled kid playing the piano. Both had bulimic girls throwing up in the bathroom.

It goes on...

But it is the dissimilarities between the two films which are even more intriguing.

Whilst Elephant was very (even offputtingly) detached and lacking in social commentary, 2:37 attempted to give a reason (emphasis, one reason) for each characters' social malfunction. This was achieved via documentary-like interviews where the characters talked directly to the camera. The effect? Directness, and almost no subtlety.

I strongly recommend any film fanatic to watch both films consecutively, preferably 2:37 first, then Elephant. On first glance 2:37 is a decent, if even good, film. Its professionalism considering the small budget and young director is exemplary. On that level I am tremendously impressed. There are some great camera moves, and the acting is very realistic. But when you watch Elephant, certain things become undeniably apparent: 2:37 is derivative, unoriginal, a soap opera, poorly written, exploitative. Juvenile.

Furthermore, upon reflection and consideration of its companion piece, Elephant becomes an even better film than it would have been if standing alone. Its subtlety and lack of directorial voice-box input is poetic, and truthful. its ultimate meaning, if any, is that perhaps there is no one tangible reason why some fall, and others fly. There may not be a solution to teen alienation.

But the director of 2:37 thinks otherwise, and the blame appears to be solely on our parents. This is not necessarily a morally reprehensible attitude to have or statement to make, but under the context by which it is outlaid to us the viewer it is nothing other than blatant manipulation. There is no discussion to be made - the director has already done all the talking for us.

vs.

The one thing 2:37 has over Elephant? The title.

First Public Enemies reviews are in...

Michael Mann's new film doesn't get released until July next year but some early reviews have slithered in at Aintitcool, and the general consensus is...shakey. I can't help but feel both reviewers wanted to love the movie, but something was wrong. Bale's cop Pervis seems woefully underdeveloped which is a tad strange coming from the director who brought us Heat (which you should all know created the greatest criminal vs. cop saga known to man).

REVIEW #1

Hey Cool Crew...
I had an opportunity tonight to catch a test screening of Michael Mann's Public Enemies.This was in Portland, OR at the same theater that held the Watchmen test screening about 6 weeks ago... far less security & Hollywood goons this time out.Didn't even make us sign NDA's...

They let us know that we were the second audience to ever see the film, and that there were SOME unfinished elements to it... warning us that what we were watching was a video transfer print, that the audio was not completely mixed, the skies in the film were not rendered yet, and that a pivotal "bullet to the face" scene was missing the blood. That all being said, I can genuinely say I was shocked how complete the film looked and felt as far as post production elements given that it has 6 months to go till release.

The short and not so short of it: Depp plays John Dillinger, a gangster that looks a lot like Ed Wood... Depp's performance starts good, but gets great. He is an elusive mouse for much of the first half of the film. Imagine if Jerry in Tom and Jerry had a machine gun. This is Depp in the first half. Running, outwitting, smiling, blowing the shit out of things. You start to get more of a feel for him in the second half. The classic hollywood scenes that I wanted in the first 90 minutes, finally came in the final 60. If this movie becomes a hit, it will be remembered mostly for a scene of Depp walking through a police station... classic Depp. The capture and demise of Dillinger is the stuff that Best Pictures are made of... it is a combo of the visual flair of De Palma's Untouchables mixed with the tension of Sergio Leone's westerns.

Bale is FBI agent, Melvin Purvis, who is pursuing Dillinger across the country. For me, he was a non entity in this film and should be reduced to a supporting character. Bale gives a one note performance throughout the film. You never feel for him, root for him, root against him, or quite frankly care when he is on screen. His character is WAY under developed. I would seriously call this a flaw in the current cut of the film. A major chunk of the film's resolution deals with Purvis facing his conflicts with J Edgar Hoover. A conflict that is not examined with any significance earlier in the film. Think Costner in Untouchable, a legit comparison... he had family torment in every direction, you wanted him to catch Capone, even though you kinda wanted Capone to win too. This film does NOT have that dynamic. The Bale scene in the closing 10 minutes pulls out the rug from the emotional build up of everything prior.

Billy Crudup serves up a scene stealing performance as J Edgar Hoover. He is a pretty minor character in this film at its current cut, but I HOPE HOPE HOPE that changes. His role, beefed up, even slightly, provides everything that Bale's character does not... he is the one who NEEDS Dillinger caught, he is the one that should be shown blowing his lid every time Dillinger escapes. They touch on this, but split this chase with Bale... unneeded. Crudup deserves props for bringing something more to this film that no other actor in the film does. Depp is great, but doing a great Depp part. Bale is doing Bale. But Crudup is doing something you have never seen him do before and it is very fun to watch. On a side note, I will be curious to see if anyone else thinks he looks alarmingly similar to Darren # 1 from Bewitched.

Last but not least, Marion Cotillard plays Dillinger's girlfriend, Billie. Although I thought their courtship went way too fast from fling to serious.... do not be mistaken, Public Enemies is a love story.It is for this reason I find the title to be very unfortunate. "Dillinger" is the perfect title for this film. It is about him, his heart, his passion for those important to him, above all, Billie. The emotional climax of this film has nothing to do with cops and robbers, but all about "the girl". Imagine if the Fugitive was all about Harrison Ford's character running back to his LIVING wife.... it changes a great action film into a helplessly romantic one. Now, take that, add the inevitable fate from "The Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge" and you have "Dillinger".

This movie will remind some of The Assassination of Jesse James, though it not near as epic in cinematic scope, nor as lyrical. The directing is fine, for 2 hours, but brilliant for the last 30... could definitely be improved with more cuts and story restructuring. Make it a romantic tragedy, with Hoover chasing Dillenger as he chases the girl. Throw in some good supporting acting from Bale, and you have an oscar contender. As it is now, it is just a really good summer film.

call me Emmet Otter

REVIEW #2

I got into a preview screening of the new Michael Mann/Johnny Depp/Christian Bale movie tonight called PUBLIC ENEMIES at the Regal Lloyd 10 (here in Portland). And as I had suspected, it is about 1930’s criminal John Dillinger and his gang. The words ‘early cut’ were mentioned before the film and the show itself was delayed almost half an hour for supposed 'sound' problems. The cut I saw did seem too long but ultimately this is a really terrific movie that I assume will be rolled out for awards season next year. Apart from the two marquee stars, the cast is huge. As usual both Depp and Bale are great, if somewhat subdued. But there’s also Marion Cottilard (wouldn’t even recognize her from Ma Vie En Rose), Channing Tatum (small part in a chase scene), Leelee Sobieski (good to see her again), Giovanni Ribisi, Stephen Dorff, etc. Oh and Billy Crudup has a cameo as J. Edgar Hoover which is quite funny. And look, we all know how Michael Mann can excel with these crime flicks – HEAT, MANHUNTER, etc…this is his version of that in 1930’s period. In a way, it shows how violent early America gave birth to the obnoxious overseas big brother superpower we are now.

The movie hits the ground running with a great, ballsy ‘breakout’ scene from the Illinois State Penitentiary that is pure Mann: Dillinger (who has only been paroled from this sameprison 8 weeks earlier) simply walks in to the place pretending to have just been arrested before all hell breaks loose and he busts out his entire crew. From there we go to Melvin Purvis who is in the midst of chasing down Dillinger accomplice Baby Face Nelson (Channing Tatum). Purvis the sharp shooter nails the guy with his rifle from hundreds of yards away. Later on J. Edgar Hoover (Crudup) surprises Purvis by naming him new head of the FBI in the middle of a press conference. Purvis’ sole aim from there on is to get Dillinger. And there you have what is not only an early American crime saga but also a public relations cat-and-mouse game that both sides engage in.

The movie makes some interesting – even amusing – points about Dillinger’s celebrity. It posits Dillinger as the handsome ‘jackrabbit’ robin hood that the depression era public was fascinated by. And it plays out as a sort of power struggle between he and Purvis: who is the American public more fond of this week? Press conference scenes where Dillinger manipulates the reporters and plays for the crowd are very funny. And what I love about Depp is (despite Captain Jack) he has learned when to be a character actor and when to simply service the role: he never overplays this but always nails the character’s intent. Like you can see his mind working behind his eyes.

There is also a layer of personal one-upsmanship we see between he and Melvin Purvis: even when they’ve got Dillinger behind bars, the notion of who is in control is always shifting. There’s a great line where they surprise Dillinger by telling him he’s being separated by his fellow crew in jail and extradited to Indiana. His reply is something along the lines of ‘Why would you do that? There’s absolutely no business I need to attend to in Indiana”.

I’m rushing to get this posted so I can be first so I won’t go into all the famous episodes that are depicted here: the soap gun breakout, the bank alarm system scams, and the climax where Purvis and his men plot their capture of Dillinger at the Biograph movie theater where the ‘Lady In Red’ betrayal happens. But they seem to have covered everything. If they could trim this down to a clean 2 hours, I think this studio would have something major on its hands. I am very hot and cold on Mann’s movies (Miami Vice was unwatchable to me) but here he seems to have a clever, well honed script to work off of and the best possible cast around. Thumbs up from me.

EccoGamer

But how can this not be cool???

OVERALL IMPRESSION: I am concerned. Whilst neither review was negative per say, a distinct "meh" quality presided over both views. Michael Mann should not make "meh" films!!! And I know many people perceived Miami Vice to have a lot of that, so maybe Public Enemies will fall into that category. Personally, the element I felt was missing from Vice and was so predominant in Heat was a compelling story and interaction between the characters. Hopefully this film has these things in spades, perhaps through some more

...saw Australia

Worth the 18 bucks I'd say. Overblown melodrama with great cinematography and production design. Hugh Jackman was a great hero, and David Wenham a formidable villain (if slightly under-developed). Kidman was initially terribly hokey in her English-Aristocrat overracting, but slowly eased into her role and finally won me over.

One huge flaw: Baz Luhrmann is not funny. He is lame. And the first 30 minutes were pretty excruciating with all the slapstick bulltwat he kept dishing out to us. But once the actual story began the humour subsided and I enjoyed the flick. A real popcorn epic, very old-fashioned and simplistic, but why not? Bit of fun, I'd say.

Stopping it from potential greatness: the romance lacked sexual tension or believability. It just kind of...happened...and while it was lovely to see them happy, they were more like best friends than lovers, and I think the film could have benefitted from a more passionate love affair within the film's dramatics.

Raising it from okay to good: the Aboriginal-white half-caste Brandon Walters, the heart of the film and very rarely annoying, which is a major feat in itself. Great casting.

Overall: my favourite Baz Luhrmann film, mainly because it does not try quite as hard to be a Baz Luhrmann film. Its generic cliches become kind of endearing. It's a shame it's such a flop in the U.S. I guess the kiddies need something more quickly-edited with teenage vampire lovers to get them going these days.

Tie for film of the year...

...with Benjamin Button.

Does this not look amazing? Rourke is my man. The dude has been cranking out some awesome films for years. It actually enrages me how people knock this dude, and all these parallels they're drawing between his character in The Wrestler and himself are obviously apt (here is a link to a fantastic interview where he discusses this), but did we not watch Domino or Sin City where he kicked ass?

Who actually thinks he doesn't kick ass? Cause I'll kick YOUR ass!

Go watch Angel Heart. Rumble Fish. Barfly. Heck his 5 minutes in Body Heat are electrifying, plus his cameo in The Pledge was heartbreaking.

At least this film will bring him back into the public's eye, but all you people who say he's back - he's not back, he's been here the whole time (we'll give the 90's some slack, he was busy getting his face bashed in).

The Box delayed

Richard "Donnie Darko" Kelly's new film The Box has been delayed from March '09 to November '09. That's a long wait, and since it's a genre film I doubt it's to make it accountable for Oscar considerations.

First pic. Not exactly riveting, but could be great.

Coming after the big-time flop Southland Tales, this is not comforting. We all loved Donnie, but Southland was a pretentious mess, and made me ponder over my own filmmaking. Richard went out with his B-grade cast and millions of dollars and made what is essentially an avant-garde experimental film that makes little sense unless you have also read some accompanying graphic novels (I have not). Now, there are a few things of relevance here:

- These graphic novels would need to be separately purchased at amazon.com. If they were provided as a freebie with the movie ticket or DVD that would be a different story.

- Richard Kelly is playing with MILLIONS of dollars here. His vision required that amount of cash, but if he doesn't provide an opening for a [generally willing and keen] audience, how do you justify that kind if cash? It is an undeniable truth that large budget films are made for an audeince, and not only for the director and his legion of loyal fans.

- Southland was actually quite an enjoyable frollic. It made no sense, but it was fun. I just wish there was something more profound I could have taken from it.

The actual film is even more bewildering.

Coming back to The Box, the Cameron Diaz-starrer was commonly seen as Kelly's sellout after the washout of Southland Tales, and I was actually happy with this. He needs a hit, we need a comprehensible film. We all win.

So why the wait? I guess we won't really know until next November...

For Your Consideration

Best Picture. Let it happen.
It will be a big breakthrough for Hollywood cinema.

Twilight made 70 million

What is this film? It looks like Buffy and Angel all over again.


Cinematical reports:

The numbers just rolled in, and it looks like Twilight has grabbed a whopping $70.5 million in its opening weekend, slightly above earlier estimates of $45-65 million. For a film catered more toward young female audiences, these numbers are pretty damn impressive -- especially since these sorts of openings are usually reserved for big-budgeted action/superhero blockbusters featuring big names and lots of explosions. Twilight, however, starred the relatively unknown indie hopper Kristen Stewart and equally-as-unknown Robert Pattinson -- both of whom will no doubt return for the sequel, which was officially announced yesterday. Despite the Twilight army, Disney's Bolt still managed to squeeze out $27 million for third place, while Quantum of Solace dropped to second place with $27.4 million.

I'm not against the books or film (sequel already greenlit), but why did this catch on? 70 million is a farking shitload of moolah. Vampires are not exactly original material, plus these guys can hang out in the sun.

WTF???

Australia: 2 and 2

There are 2 things about this film that get me excited:

1) Hugh Jackman. This guy is the real thing. With the exception of the piece of trash Van Helsing (horrible, horrible film), Mr. Jackman has always exuded charm and charisma even in lukewarm films like Deception. He makes his films emminently more watchable.

2) Australia. The country, I mean. We need this - a huge, sprawling saga celebrating our country. America has so many of these films, why can't we get one. I just hope it doesn't turn into too much of an Australian Tourism commercial.

There are 2 things about this film that get me worried:

1) Baz Luhrmann. The dude is a show off. His style is so over the top I can't believe people aren't having epileptic attacks in the cinemas.

2) Nicole Kidman. A great actress with the right role, I can't help but think this is not the right role, and for one main reason: I cannot believe that Nicole Kidman would fall in love. Australia is being promoted as an epic love story, but I would bet a lot of money I won't buy the love. No matter what you have to say about Mr. Cameron's Titanic, we believed that Leo and Kate were in love. Hell, we believed that the old lady playing Kate years later loved Leo. And it was this love that got people [ie. women] flocking back to the theatre over and over again.

Only the latter will have any significant impact on the film's box office, because mainstream audiences seem to LOVE Luhrmann. I mean, love him. I don't get it, but each to their own. He is a visionary, I just don't emotionally connect with his vision. But the latter is a problem. When has Kidman excelled? When she played cold, calculating, emotionally withdrawn bitches really, eg. The Hours (she was better than the film), To Die For (her best role), and Margot at the Wedding (which no one saw). Australia has her cast as a prude, and I'll buy that, but in the obligatory second act when she is going to cast off her shackles we have to feel this rousing passion, and I doubt I will. I'll want to, cause I love Hugh, but I won't.

It will be interesting to see what it makes opening weekend, and whether it is a bigger hit here or overseas. Here's the trailer:

Tom Cruise and the Top Ten

You didn't ask for it but you're gonna get it. I'm in a furious mood today, because I am sick and tired of people shitting on Tom Cruise. That's right, Tom Cruise. He is a whacky Scientologist. He enjoys jumping on couches and screaming really loudly. He possibly enjoys the company of men. He enjoys Joey Potter in his bed (a personal issue I have with him).

Get over it.

Tom Cruise is a phenomenal actor and has had, and is still having, a phenomenal career. He is everything Hollywood is good for. Why? Here's ten reasons.

#1 Risky Business (1983) - Joel Goodsen

Mr. Cruise's breakout role. His mixture of cockiness and innocence created the mould for the Tom Cruise of the future. He was charming. He was sweet. He was intelligent. The film itself is a wonderful exercise in 80s yuppie-youth sub-culture. The trippy music, the skewed sexual values, the time when Rebecca De Mornay was actually in good movies. We trusted Tom, even then. Plus he was FUNNY. The iconic dancing in his underwear scene is hilarious and utterly unselfconscious.

#2: Top Gun (1986) - Lt. Pete 'Maverick' Mitchell

Don't try and tell me you didn't wanna jump Tom's bones in this movie. I know I did. He was hot. He was Maverick. Why do you think Maverick has become the generic slang term for sexual domination i.e. "getting the hot chick"? Because Tom was The Man. What he said, you did. Tony Scott's hyperkinetic action film which made very second male in the world want to join the Air Force (allegedly half of these men actually DID), and increased the sales of Ray Ban sunglasses by 40% is a cultural signpost of the 80s. Sure it's shallow, sure it glorifies war. But it's excess is it's beauty. Michael Bay owes this film a lot. And Tom Cruise was the man reason why it succeeded.

#3: Born on the Fourth of July (1989) - Ron Kovic

Just when you thought Tom Cruise was some empty headed pretty boy, here he goes shitting on himself in a Vietnam War drama to prove you wrong. Possibly Mr. Cruise's most critically lauded performance, there is a reason for this: his character arc is EXTREME and Tom pulls it off without a hitch. To see him as a fresh-faced high school graduate excited to serve his country, and end up as a paralysed but hopeful anti-war protester, is gut-wrenchingly real. It is real. And Tom's physical and emotional similarity to the real-life Ron Kovic was uncanny. He didn't win the Oscar, and that was a crime (Day-Lewis is brilliant but in hindsight My Left Foot is not quite as classic and iconic performance, plus the dude is an Oscar whore).

#4: Interview With the Vampire (1994) - Lestat de Lioncourt

Evil. Tom Cruise is fucking evil in this film. I mean he is terrifying. And not for one second did he break character into hamminess and overacting, not even towards the end when he's all burnt to a crisp playing that piano being a freaky zombie-vampire thing. Some people accuse Tom Cruise of always being Tom Cruise, but I dare you to watch this film again and come back to me and say you only saw Tom Cruise in his Lestat. Neil Jordan's film has its problems, but none of them are because of Tom. Frankly whenever he isn't on screen the film suffers.

#5: Jerry Maguire (1996) - Jerry Maguire

The next phase of Tom's career. He's getting a little older. He's maturing. He's lost his boyish good looks and is becoming a man, whilst still desperately clinging to his youth. Jerry Maguire is all 90s earnestness wrapped up in a film which is sentimental without being cheesy, truthful without being preachy. Jerry Maguire is a man you will follow with his goldfish. Not because you trust him, but because you BELIEVE in him. Tom's eyes are burning with desperation in this film. The desperation to connect. Some people say they don't like this film. But when Tom goes back to Renee's house begging for her forgiveness and she says "you had me at hello" and you are NOT crying, I worry that perhaps you don't have a soul. Let the tears flow, people. Jerry Maguire earns every drop.

#6: Eyes Wide Shut (1999) - Dr. William 'Bill' Harford

Stanley Kubrick's last film and my personal favourite. Dr. Harford's descent into sexual perversity and darkness ranks up there with Scorsese's After Hours as the greatest tale of the New York of the shadows. Not Woody Allen's majestic Manhattan, but behind that facade. Taking over a year to shoot, Mr. Cruise's performance is undeniably real and in the moment. His journey of sexual awakening is profound and disturbing. What was the lesson he learnt in the end? I am not entirely sure myself after three viewings, but the feeling I get is more than enough. His Everyman is you or I. Tom has no tricks in this film. He is just a real person. Not a Hollywood person, just a real person.

#7: Magnolia (1999) - Frank T. J. Mackey

What a year 1999 was for Mr. Cruise. How he did not win the Oscar is beyond me. This is the film that I think is the most personal for Tom himself. Comparing the interview scene with the African-American woman to any of his real-life interviews, there is the same awkwardness, the same smile hiding a mask of vulnerability - "if you ask the wrong question..." This is not an insult, merely an observation and assumption. I'm not saying he is T.J. Mackey, just that they may have the same fears: of not being liked, not being in control, not maintaining power. When Mackey breaks down next to his father, that is not acting, that is life. That is truth. I just think that kind of truth cannot be made up. I see Tom, but I don't mind. He is being honest with us.

#8: Vanilla Sky (2001) - David Aames

An incredibly underrated film, and one I will defend to the end of the earth. Its message and ultimate impact is overwhelming. When he is on that building at the end deciding between his dream or reality I am a blubbering messy baby, weeping into my pillow. One of Tom Cruise's greatest gifts as an actor is his ability to constantly flip his personal image and play with it in his films. His David Aames is the irresponsible son of a giant media mogul, who has everything we know Tom Cruise to have: charm, arrogance, wealth. But when the 1st act is over and Tom Cruise's face becomes disfigured and his character is forced to deal (or not deal) with this, we see Tom Cruise dealing with this also. I see a piece of him in David just like a saw a piece of him in Mackey. He ISN'T Day-Lewis, method actor unrecognisable from film to film. He is always Tom Cruise, and he knows the baggage we as an audience bring to the table with that, and he uses it to his advantage.

#9: Collateral (2004) - Vincent

Ditto. Everything you know about Tom Cruise is played and flipped on itself as he portrays the ruthless, cold blooded assassin Vincent. The charm is still there but the killer smile is gone. We still KNOW it's Tom, but we don't trust him this time. We WANT to trust him, but when we do - just like Jamie Foxx does - we pay the price. Furthermore to my previous point, Tom Cruise is the perfect casting choice because he is Tom Cruise. We just don't expect this of him, so it is all the more shocking because of it. He is a great actor because he can pull this off whilst still being Tom Cruise. While other actors would flounder (can you imagine George Clooney being convincing in the role?) Tom has the dedication and acting clout to enthrall us in such a different choice of role.

#10 Tropic Thunder (2008) - Les Grossman

And finally, possibly the most brilliant casting decision of his career, comes Les Grossman. The year is 2008. Everyone hates Tom Cruise. I can't stop hearing the bitching about how people are sick of Tom Cruise, don't want to see a Tom Cruise movie, even going as far as saying they don't LIKE and never had liked Tom Cruise movies. And here he goes putting on a fat suit and swearing his ass off as a manic film executive. Once again, the fact that we know it's Tom Cruise (which IS difficult under all that wonderful makeup) only makes the role sweeter. Is he really doing this? Mr Self Serious actually has a sense of humour? Say it isn't so! It is so. Tom is funny. Tom is The Man.

THE END...

Thank you for reading. Now please go back out into the world with a renewed and proper vision of our beloved Tom Cruise. Spread the word about how great he is, and how wonderful his films have been, nourishing the world with hope, excitement, and the knowledge of how wonderful life truly can be, whether it's doing a doogy in a dogfight, cheering on Cuba at a football game, putting your balls on the line at an anti-war rally, or even biting Kirsten Dunst in the neck and keeping her as your surrogate vampire daughter. These are the experiences Tom has shared with us. If you are still not convinced, please visit his official website here to view a fantastic montage through all his films. You will be convinced.

We must not shit on thou Tom Cruise. We must remember the good times. We must remember that he is only an actor, and we cannot expect mere sanity from any actor. That is simply too much to ask. All we can ask is to be entertained, and Tom has done that for over 20 years and I sincerely thank him. Thank you Tom Cruise. Thank you.

PIXAR ROCKS

They make the best kids films ever. Ratatouille was the bomb. Toy Story was unforgettable. WALL-E groundbreaking and profound. They haven't ever made a bad film. Even Cars was loads of fun and has one of the last Paul Newman performances.

But Up just looks freakin' fuckin' fantastically hilarious.



How could this turn out bad? That is a rhetorical question.

Aintitcoolnews reports that James Cameron wasn't really consulted about Terminator 4, but he would have been happy to.

God among directors.

Lucky for him Titanic made a f-ing bundle so we'll let it slide.

There's been some discussion at AICN and elsewhere of me rescinding my so-called blessing of T4 and that's not the case. The truth is there never was a blessing to rescind, and there's been some kind of misunderstanding between me and McG, perfectly innocent I believe. He asked me in a phone call when I was shooting in New Zealand earlier this year if I would be a supporter and creative participant in the new film. I said sure, send me the script and I'll give you my thoughts. And I warned him that free advice is usually worth what you pay for it. For whatever reason I never got the script and to date I haven't seen a foot of film other than what everybody's seen in the trailer, which is not enough to form an opinion. So I have zero basis for supporting or dissing the film. As I said in an interview, for all I know it could be a masterpiece or it could be a big steaming pile. I think all people heard was the steaming pile part and concluded I was against the film, which I'm not. In fact, it might be very good, an opinion based solely on what Sam Worthington has shared with me. He's nobody's fool when it comes to material, and has absolutely the lowest bullshit quotient of anyone I know, and he has repeatedly told me that he reckons the film is going to be good. I know him to be very critical (in a healthy way) of his own work, and an actor who always aspires to excellence, so I know he wouldn't praise the film if he didn't feel it.

Obviously I can't give my blessing (whatever that means anyway ) to the film completely blind. But I'm predisposed to be supportive based on Sam's involvement and his judgment, because I believe in him. So there you have it. Let's all keep our fingers crossed that it's not a steaming pile.

Jim out

In case you're not in the know that dude called McG is directing it.

He did Charlie's Angel: Full Throttle.

WTF????????????

He even looks like a douche.

Maybe McG has untapped talent. Maybe. But if anyone has seen Terminator 2: Judgment Day they know how unecessary a sequel becomes the more you think about it. The whole idea of playing out the war against the machines is entirely redundant. All themes were dealt with in the first 2 films. The longer I dwell on part 3 the more pointless it becomes. It repeated all the same shit as part 2.

But why is Christian Bale in it? A huge fat shut-the-fuck-up-and-eat-our-shit paycheck? Say it isn't so. I know he didn't do Batman because of that. Read on imdb.com that he was all suited up to play George W. in Oliver Stone's film but backed out because he didn't have faith in himself to fulfill the project requirements, so the guy's obviously got standards. Plus Sam Worthington is ALSO in James Cameron's new film Avatar and is a promising Australian actor so there MUST be something here.

There must be. There must be. There MUST be.

If I say this enough times maybe it will come true.

Why the Dark Horse wins the race

The Dark Horse doesn't scream for attention. They chip away slowly at life until finally they have built their castle. Whilst most of humanity has been lying on their ass talking shit, the Dark Horse has been creeping up from behind to win the race.

People respect Dark Horses, but only after-the-fact. Before they officially become a Dark Horse they are Nobodies, and NOBODY will notice them.

That is fine.

They are the the Dark Horse and don't do it for the immediate recognition. They look to the future but enjoy the journey - [wo]men for the moment who always maintain a keen eye on the finish line.

The Dark Horse is stupendously beautiful, but most people cannot see this straight away. You have to look twice, a third, a FOURTH time, and only then will you see something of tangible substance and value. Not only that, but the Dark Horses have long-term sustainability. Through living in the shadows they have acquired unseen but vital skills that make them utterly irresistible to us mere mortals. You can stare into their eyes every day for the REST OF YOUR LIFE and always see something new, unique and surprising.

The Dark Horse is the greatest living specimen, and will never be forgotten. They are the winners, and not just because of who they are, but what they did to earn it.

One more thing: you'll never see them coming, but that's okay with them.

They never saw you either.

Who would play Barack Obama in a movie?

Denzel. Too obvious?

Don Cheadle. This one has indie cred.

Terence Howard. Would charge too much.

Samuel L. Jackson? Probably too old.

[Insert all other 3 top-tier black actors].

A reminder

Tom Cruise rocks.

We must all not forget this.

Further information coming soon.

Joaquin Phoenix to quit acting. WTF?????

This dude is apparently is going around saying that he's quitting acting. Why Joaquin? I mean, why?

Just use the old "taking a break" bullshit. We all know you'll be back when your music career crashes and burns and you're unzipping James Gray's pants to be in his next movie.

Listen, Joaquin: I have some hefty man-love for you, I really do. You kicked ass in Gladiator, Walk the Line and even We Own the Night. You're a Man with a capital M. You're obviously a pretentious twat in real life, but I don't care, you're a cool actor and I respect that.

I'm not saying this because I'm gonna miss you, Joaquin. I know I won't, because you WILL be back. It's just a fact. So don't lie to us, cause when you come crawling back you'll look like a douche.

BREAKING NEWS: Someone Actually Likes The Psycho Remake

I joke not. In a bizarre coincidence of timing (momentarily neglecting the fact that it was Halloween 3 days ago) Cinematical has released an article defending Gus Van Sant's Psycho remake. The dude calls it "a great experiemental film" and "fascinating".

I'm all for freedom of expression, but this is my blog so here's my freedom of expression:

Whatever. Just plain WHATEVER. Not even Van Sant's mother would be saying this. The remake of Psycho was a collossal waste of millions of dollars. If you're going to experiment, at least do so on a small-scale budget like David Lynch did on Inland Empire. Plus Lynch's film was original (to say the least).

But this dude reckons that Van Sant's remake was "fascinating" and "experiemental" because it was UNORIGINAL??? Give me a break. Go back to film school and your chai latte, buddy.

Batman 3?

The Dark Knight director Christopher Nolan disappeared on July 18 for an extended vacation while his wallet back in L.A. steadily filled up with millions of dollar bills. Now he has returned to civilization coated in solid gold and is most probably receiving fellatio from the entire Warner Bros. exec team (and all other studios too, I'm sure) but had enough time to answer some questions to the L.A. Times.

On the potential third Batman movie:

Well ... let me think how to put this. There are two things to be said. One is the emphasis on story. What’s the story? Is there a story that’s going to keep me emotionally invested for the couple of years that it will take to make another one? That’s the overriding question. On a more superficial level, I have to ask the question: How many good third movies in a franchise can people name? [Laughs.] At the same time, in taking on the second one, we had the challenge of trying to make a great second movie, and there haven't been too many of those either. It’s all about the story really. If the story is there, everything is possible. I hope that was a suitably slippery answer.

In other words, pay me enough and I'm there. And Warner Bros. - PAY HIM ENOUGH! We don't need an X3 on our hands here. I didn't mind that film, but the batman series is so inexorably linked to Nolan's intense vision, it would be a crime to chuck Brett Ratner in the mix. The X Men were a little lighter. We don't need another Batman & Robin. Really.

On some kind of Justice League film:

I don’t think our Batman, our Gotham, lends itself to that kind of cross-fertilization. It goes back to one of the first things we wrangled with when we first started putting the story together: Is this a world in which comic books already exist? Is this a world in which superheroes already exist? If you think of "Batman Begins" and you think of the philosophy of this character trying to reinvent himself as a symbol, we took the position -- we didn’t address it directly in the film, but we did take the position philosophically -- that superheroes simply don’t exist. If they did, if Bruce knew of Superman or even of comic books, then that’s a completely different decision that he’s making when he puts on a costume in an attempt to become a symbol. It’s a paradox and a conundrum, but what we did is go back to the very original concept and idea of the character. In his first appearances, he invents himself as a totally original creation.

Here here. But I've always felt that Batman and Superman never really mixed in well together. I love the bad ass bat dude, but let's be honest: Supes is a fucking alien who can fly, Bats is just a super ninja. Bruce Wayne would feel like the poor kid who can't afford the latest Superman Xbox and would go mad with envy and start spraying Supes with krypton bat poo.

Cool, or totally lame?

Frankly, I was just confused.

Boondocks sequel is a go go. Oh no no.

Did anyone actually watch The Boondock Saints? Personally, I've read more about the shit storm that went around it than the actual film itself. The writer/director Troy Duffy was allegedly some major asshole who pissed on anyone who tried to help him make the film. As an aspiring writer/director myself I know how much cock I will suck for any money that isn't coming out of my own pocket. Hell, if Harvey Weinstein told me to cast Daniel Radcliffe as a mob boss I'd probably comply.

My friend kept crapping on about how awesome it was, but he's Irish so I should have known better. I watched it: a lame-ass Tarantino hodge podge, it made another Pulp Fiction knockoff from the nineties 2 Days in the Valley seem positively inspired. All I can really remember is Willem Dafoe being gay. Like offensively gay. Man did he suck. And I love Willem Dafoe.

Anyways, apparently there's a sequel in the works, because, hey, what movie doesn't deserve a sequel these days? That's a good question. Better than any question about Boondock Saints.

Whatevs.

Tom Cruise & Saw. WTF???

The new Valkyrie trailer is out and about. This Tom Cruise-starrer has been long delayed but actually looks oodles of fun.

But seriously, what the flying fuck are they doing using the Saw music? Don't they know that [1] the fifth film of that shit came out last weekend, and [2] it sucked??? Sure it's a good tune, but it's so linked to the films it's like using Star Wars music to market the new Star Trek. The lid just don't fit the bottle.

While I'm at it, why the hell does everyone hate Tom Cruise so much? Don't they know that 95% of those rich Hollywood types are loonies? At least Tom's honest about it. I feel so enraged sometimes when people try and say he's a bad actor. It is utterly and completely untrue. The guy makes kickass movies.

Matter of fact I will write an entire post about him. I love you Tom, even if you did take Joey Potter away from me...

Gus Van Sant however, can make great films

Generally he does, actually. Pretentious maybe, but pretty great director.

Milk looks like a nice balance between indie and mainstream sensibilities, another Good Will Hunting (NOT Finding Forrester) if you will...

Milk Trailer

And to be honest I'm all for the gay-love movies. Sure the guy gets assasinated by Josh Brolin (this is not a spoiler), but I'm sure the movie loves the gays. And why shouldn't it?

Films - especially Hollywood - for too long have dismissed the gays. And don't try and tell me that Shortbus was some kind of gay-power film, because all it was was a lame-power movie with a dude shooting a load in his own mouth. WHY DID I HAVE TO SEE THAT???

Anywho, I'm sure Milk won't have that.

One last thing: I hope people don't call it that "gay politician movie" like they called Brokeback Mountain that "gay cowboy" movie. It's just dumb.

Worst remake ever

I can't believe I neglected to mention the worst remake ever.

Psycho!!!

When I mistakenly stumbled into this as a young teen, I knew even then how entirely shit the film was, despite not having seen or heard too much about the original. I don't understand this film. It's one of those unfathomable "what were they thinking?" films like Hudson Hawk, Swept Away, and Battlefield Earth.

What drew such fine actors as Vince Vaughn and William H. Macy to this?

Why make a shot-for-shot reproduction and ALL YOU CAN BOTHER TO ADD IS NORMAN BATES HAVING A TOSS??? Wow. So clever. So nineties.

Watch here some nerdy dude compare the original and the remake. Not only is he right, he has a funny voice!

Gus Van Sant has made some good film but this was horrendous. Actually, I think this belongs in the same sack as Catwoman and I Know Who Killed Me as films which need to be seen (perhaps multiple times) to be believed.

Roger Ebert: food connoisseur

A double-post-relevance hit in Ebert's review for Kevin Smith's Zack and Miri Make a Porno contains an extended food metaphor.

Does it work? You be the judge:

Since he likes to eat, I will describe him in food terms. He isn't a gourmet chef, supplying little nuggets of armadillo surrounded by microscopic carrots and curlicues of raspberry-avocado-mint juice. He's the kind of chef I've valued for a lifetime, the kind you see behind the ledge in a Formica diner, pulling down new orders from revolving clips. The kind of diner where the waitresses wear paper Legionnaire hats, pop their gum, and say, "What ya havin' today, hon?"In Kevin Smith's fantasy diner, the waitresses at this joint strip naked and have noisy lesbian sex, and then Jose the busboy joins in the fun. They all scream loudly: "Bleep, you bleeping bleep! I bleep your bleep! Bleep! Bleep! I'm bleeping bleeping!"

Please Roger, keep it to a minimum.

Saw Part CXII: Jigsaw's Redemption Apocalypse Takes Manhattan.

I'm sorry, but who the FUCK watches the Saw movies these days???

Saw V over the weekend made $30.5 million in the states. So that, divided by say 10 bucks a ticket, is A FUCKLOAD OF STUPID MORONIC RETARDED LOBOTOMIZED PEOPLE!!!

Don't you dumbasses know that only the first one was good? Didn't you learn your lesson with the first 3 sequels? Or did you think it was cool that the bimbo chick from Becker was the bad guy? No, people, that was lame.

The only consistently interesting horror franchise is the Nightmare on Elm Streets. I use the word "interesting" because not all of them were "good" per say, but they at least invoked new ideas and styles, and didn't regurgitate the same "DO YOU WANT TO PLAY A GAAAAAAAAAAAAME?" bullshit that the Saw movies are doing. Jigsaw has become the lamest villain ever. Not to mention he's DEAD people! So what the fuck do they do? Flashbacks. Lame. So f-ing lame.

Anything for a buck.

And these people (you people???) are falling for it hook line and sinker.

You and that FUCKING bike.

Listen, if your rotten bile-ingested heart so desires to fill itself with black burning tar, please do so via illegal torrent download so the filmmakers don't get your money. Watch the cam. Matter of fact, here's the link. It can't be any worse than the awful experience you'll have in the cinema realizing 15 minutes in that you wasted your money to find out that Jigsaw's step-brother's niece's piano teacher is cutting off bad men's balls.

Only the first one was good, and frankly the shitness of the sequels is making it less good by the year. Eventually it will suck just as much as the Part XII, if only by association.

This is the kind of person that goes to watch Saw V.