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.

Kevin Smith and Judd Apatow: seperated at birth?

Spot the difference.

Having just finished the entirely interesting and amusing Kevin Smith journal, I found an article in the New York Times pretty interesting, regarding Smith's upcoming film Zack and Miri Make a Porno. Primarily Smith and the journalist discuss the relevance and undeniable comparisons that have been drawn between Mr. Smith and fellow filmmaker (but more financially successful) Judd Apatow.

Mr. Smith is an inspiring fellow, just 24 or so when he made Clerks, which went on to play at Sundance and started off his career which has resulted in many good films. Apatow on the other hand had been around the block a few times, writing for The Larry Sanders Show and a film called Celtic Pride (which I quite like!) before hitting the mainstream in a VERY big way with The 40 Year Old Virgin. Now every comedy that comes out, particularly those with a vulgar but sweet sense of humour, are branded Apatow-ick. But what does this mean for someone like Kevin Smith who has been steadily making films for 14 years?

The article states that "Mr. Smith’s predicament is just one part of a larger problem facing many filmmakers in the field of R-rated comedy: It is nearly impossible for them to make their pot-smoking, breast-baring (but heartfelt!) movies without in some way encroaching on the raunchy (yet tender!) turf that Mr. Apatow already owns." Smith goes on to say he bares no grudges or competitive feelings for Mr. Apatow, but rather “I thank God for Judd, because he shattered what I assumed was a $30 million ceiling.”

Smith's highest grossing films have never even come close to the US box-office take of something like Knocked Up ($148 million!!!), but what is the difference exactly? Watching the trailer for Zack and Miri, which coincidentally (???) stars Apatow protege Seth Rogen, it really seems difficult to distinguish who exactly made this film. Does it matter? Not particularly. I enjoy this brand of homour with heart and will watch it at the cinema. But why Apatow has taken the box office by storm whilst Smith has always remained basically a cult figure is beyond me. Perhaps in the past Mr. Smith's films tended to skew towards a male, predominantly young demographic, while Apatow made sure to include strong female characters and to raise the age-barrier a decade or so higher.

My mum watched Knocked Up and loved it, but could she withstand the vulgarity of Clerks II? Probably not. I doubt Kevin Smith gives a toss however if my mum would like Clerks II. Plus I'm sure she'd give Chasing Amy a go (and Zack and Miri for that matter). Two funny heart-felt filmmakers is better than one, that's what I say.

But the question I am curious about is whether Zack and Miri will emerge as a pure Kevin Smith film, or a hybrid of the Smith and Apatow stylings.

FINAL NOTE: The first poster was banned. So they made the second one. Hilarious.

Films: the food of the soul.

Have you ever read a review or blurb for some pretentious piece of twattle - most probably involving local theatre - that tried to compare its greatness to food? “A delightful truffle of a night”, or “the delectable talents of [insert some hack]”. Frankly it’s lame. And yes I did the very same thing a few posts ago saying Ridley Scott served up tasty dishes of food for us with Body of Lies, but I was being funny, I swear! But in the spirit of conforming to the masses, here’s my attempt at food/film metaphors served up to you dear reader in one scrumptious post.

How many adjectives for “nice to eat” are there? Let’s find out!

THE FEAST:

Watching a film is a lot like digesting a meal. Some movies like Heat and The Godfather are full-bodied, tasty and altogether satisfying. It’s like walking into an all-you-can eat buffet when you only paid half-price. There’s a dish of romance, another of intrigue, and a main course of meaty character development to fill our tummies with happiness. But remember, these films are not meant to be gorged quickly. We sit down, perhaps with our friends, and enjoy an intense conversation about politics, religion, even the Meaning Of Life.

This is a long meal. Casino goes for three hours, but I don’t ever feel bored. Any time my mind decides to wander, I simply head on back to the buffet table and grab another serving of Joe Pesci pasta, and maybe I’ll wash that down with a Sharon Stone cocktail. Delicious.

The best meal in the world.

Please keep in mind, however, that sometimes at a buffet we cannot resist the urge to eat too much. With so many options our mind simply goes insane with desires. Should we eat the chocolate mousse for desert, or just leave it alone so we don’t have to sit on the toilet for an hour post-meal? This is called the Heaven’s Gate meal, or the Dances With Wolves extended four-hour-cut dinner. Hell, I’d chuck James Cameron’s Titanic in there with it.

The solution to this dilemma? After having fed your faces with the main meal/s, go outside, have a smoke, walk around, take a break, and come back to the dessert to finish it off. This is otherwise known as an intermission. I mean, has anyone ever actually watched Once Upon a Time in America in one sitting?



THE JUNK FOOD:

Life is hectic. We don’t usually have all the time in the world to enjoy buffets every day and night. Most weeks we’re in a rush to get to our next appointment and just need a quick bite to eat to fill us up. So here we come to the junk food alternatives: the burgers, the fries, the shakes of filmmaking. Movies like Billy Madison, The Notebook, and Speed are junk food dollops of grease and fat that we’ll shit out after 10 minutes but will return to time and time again when we’re feeling a little naughty. They don’t satisfy us in the long-term, but in that moment we’re a happy little bee digging into our Beverly Hills Chihuahua Happy Meal.

Here are some cooks that are consistently delivering us such scrumptious new junk food dinners:
- Brett Ratner
- Ashton Kutcher
- Jackie Chan
- Sandra Bullock
- The Rock
- Drew Barrymore
- Arnold Schwarzenegger

Please note the absence of Kate Hudson, to whom we shall return to later.

THE JUNK FOOD MEAL DISGUISED AS GOURMET:

Sometimes the junk food stores get tired of being shitted on all the time. I mean, it hurts their feelings when they hear pretentious twats walk past uttering insults like "oh, I'd never eat that", or "I need a real meal, not that plastic nonsense!"

Soooo to quench the junk food store's thirst for credibility, it begins to offer up a new variety of dishes with a few fancier ingredients and more flashier packaging, and puts a sign up saying "Freshly Made" or "$10.99". Adam Sandler loves doing this, a recent example being Reign Over Me. And I'll be honest, I enjoyed the temporary change of direction. Punch Drunk Love also was an interesting addition to his menu. Another good example is Will Ferrell in Stranger Than Fiction.

Some others actors, however, are absolutely shocking when it comes to serving up gourmet meals in a fast food joint. Please see exhibit A: Nicole Kidman. "Shock! Horror!" you say. Sure, she had a few mature, palatable critical hits like The Hours. But did ANYONE watch Birth? Or The Interpreter? What about The Human Stain? Nope, me neither. And don't try and tell me Cold Mountain was good, because you'd be lying to yourself buddy...

The fact is Nicole actually closed up her junk food store a while back and all she serves now are Caesar Salads and Chicken Wraps made with moldy fetta cheese and rotten tomatoes.




THE GOURMET DISH SPIKED WITH POISON:

This is laced with arcenic.

These films usually get released around Oscar time and promise exciting new flavours and ingredients. The best newspaper critics in town often recommend them and expectations are astronomically high, but once you come to sit down to eat these meals, something hits us: not only have we eaten this before, but it's tiny, unfulfilling and ridiculously overpriced.

We've been had.

These films piss me off. How dare they claim to be meaningful works of art when all I want to do after watching them is stab myself with a pen knife? Films like Babel, pretty much anything served up by Lars Von Trier, Shortbus, most dishes containing Madonna, and Irreversible look on the outside like fancy dishes but are in reality secretly spiked with poison and we’ll need a shot up the ass that night just to recover from the foul taste they left in our mouths.

I must return to Nicole again, because I cannot escape the feeling that she is incapable of not making these films (apart from her junk food shit like Bewitched). The Others was a completely overrated ripoff of The Sixth Sense. The Hours was mainstream feminist crap, and feminist films can rock don't get me wrong (I love Buffy, and hell, I didn't even mind In the Cut).

No, The Stepford Wives was not a good movie.

And I hate to say this because Richard Kelly obviously has talent, but his Donnie Darko follow-up Southland Tales reeked of pretentiousness. After it was over I felt like he'd stuffed me with hot air and pushed me outside the restaurant with my tummy still grumbling.



THE HEALTHY ALTERNATIVE:

This is essentially a gourmet dish that actually tastes nice, fulfills your appetite, AND is good for you. Examples are 21 Grams (from the same director whom later poisoned us with Babel), Brokeback Mountain, There Will Be Blood and No Country For Old Men. Not exactly feasts, a Healthy Alternative is instead an all-natural meal with the fat shaved off.

These films don't always have that sugary sweet addictive quality, but their long-term effects are extraordinary. We don't walk away with a bloated belly or indigestion, and scientists have proven that they actually improve your health. On the nutrition pyramid these are right at the top, so please ensure you digest the necessary amount for a healthy lifestyle.

...END OF MENU....

And that concludes our menu for this evening. Please, ladies and gentlemen, choose wisely in the future and think about your general well-being or you may be left with a bout of food poisoning following gorging on your unwisely selected dish of Saw V or The Matrix Revolutions. And remember: you're allowed a treat every now and again, so don't feel too bad that you actually enjoyed Little Nicky. I did too.

Oh wait, silly me, I forgot the bottom of the food chain.

THE BILE:

The most decidedly SEVEN things Miley Cyrus hates about you!

This has nothing to do with films or myself, (except that the song should be in a film and I have a huge non-sexually-perverse crush on Miley Cyrus) but former friend Yasmin Cameron just accused the poor lass of not being able to count, so I felt the dire need to post a dissection of her song on this blog. The song in question is Miley's "7 Things". Here it is for your listening pleasure.

Okay, and now here are the lyrics to the chorus of "7 Things".

You're vain, your games, you're insecure, you love me, you like her,

you made me laugh, you made me cry, I don't know which side to buy

Your friends, they're jerks when you act like them, just know it hurts;

I wanna be with the one I know.

And the seventh thing I hate the most that you do you make me love you.

Okay so on first glance I count TEN things she hates about this dude. But Yasmin, poor Yasmin, please think before you speak next time, because on closer inspection here are the [mere] seven reasons she hates the dude:

1) You're vain

2) Your games

3) You're insecure

4) You love me, you like her - THIS IS ONE THING, NOT TWO YASMIN! Dear Miley is cut up because this jackass dude has a hussy on the side.

5) You made me laugh, you made me cry, I don't know which side to buy - MOST CERTAINLY ONE THING HERE YASMIN! He's pulling the oldest trick in the book Miley: bringing you in for a cuddle then pushing you into the curb leaving you wanting more. And it worked, cause you wrote a song about it!

6) Your friends, they're jerks when you act like them, just know it hurts - ONE THING. And yeah I know how ya feel Miley, I've been there.

7) And the seventh thing I hate the most that you do you make me love you. After all is said and done Miley can't help but love the doosch. Me thinks this is because this guy is using every trick in the book to keep her interested, but that's just my opinion.

So yes, Yasmin, as I have most decidedly proven, Miley CAN count and it is YOU who needs to go back to play school. Over and out.

But seriously Miley, WHAT WERE YOU THINKING?????????????

But wait...

Yesterday I viewed Burn After Reading, the Coen Bros latest film. It was filled with despicable, selfish, loathsome, vain, sex-hungry characters who I generally detested. They killed off the two characters I found the most appealing. KILLED THEM OFF!

But I thought the film was oodles of fun.

My friend Irakli inisisted that Brad Pitt was miscast as the gay fitness instructor. Shame on you Irakli, Brad's my man and he was awesomely funny. BTW did anyone notice that they didn't mention Brad's gayness once in the film?

But wait, that's a bit of a pot calling a kettle black says my Just Friends-loving housemate / former friend Jacques [see previous post].

Nay, I say, nay. For whilst that hackfest Just Friends expected me to invest emotion and empathy for its dernaged and vile characters, Burn After Reading activally encouraged me to laugh at their foolish antics. There was no happy ending, pat meet cutes, or even a pop song telling me to feel all tingly inside. If Burn After Reading had no soul, it was very much aware of this and found great pleasure at poking fun of itself. The final scene even has two people questioning the relevance of the film's message, and the other guy just kind of shrugs.

Awesome.

The [he]art of slapstick

Viewing a film called Just Friends on the weekend I was reminded me why I loath some films: They simply have no soul. They exist simply to hate on people and make money. Just Friends was a good example. It had a funny premise - a loser returns to his home town 10 years later, now rich and handsome, to win back the girl who would only ever be his friend - and turned the entire affair into 90 minutes of despicable punching kicking and falling of buildings.

I saw a similar film called There's Something About Mary. Did they? That film was a huge hit. Just Friends was not. Do you know why that is? The former was hilariously stupid and goofy, but beneath all the ridiculous and often mean actions of its characters were beating hearts and open wounds dying to be healed. Beneath the latter was a heart of stone and hate.

I loved him not too.

Ryan Reynolds was terrible, and I generally like the guy. He's charismatic, charming, funny and handsome. Hell, he'd turn me gay. But not here, were he consistently acted like the sickest most horrible fuck this side of Satan and Saddam Hussein. When the inevitable reunion takes place and Amy Smart falls in love with him, I was left shaking my head saying out loud "WHY???". I didn't realize that the best way to earn a girl's affections was to treat her like absolute dirt and be an utterly pretentious wanker. I better change my tactics.

Soulless films are evil.

I blame 7.9% of the world's needless violence on Just Friends

If when making a film there is no point to the proceedings then why did you persist making the film in the first place? Was it purely for a buck? Why couldn't the characters have just been nice to one another? Or learned a lesson? Or at least gotten their just desserts? We could've all walked out of the theatre or home happier. All that film made me want to do was slap my housemate in the face (and not simply because he liked this piece of shit).

Slapstick is funny. I enjoyed Sandler's You Don't Mess With the Zohan because it was harmless and sweet, even when he was kicking a cat around like a hacky sack. His character was so nice to people I couldn't help but go with the film. But when people running into walls and punching one another in the face becomes the defining moments for a film, you know we're in trouble.

Let's make love not war people.

Remakes: let the horror end!!!

It wasn’t always so ghastly. The Fly was a remake. So was Scarface. Both those films took their respective originals and rejigged them for a modern-day audience whilst adding their own inique subtext and directorial vision. In doing so, the intelligent folks making the films realised that this meant not regurgitating the same shit over and over again.

So what the FUCK is wrong with those bastards making the remakes now? One or two a year is fine. I enjoyed the Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake, despite Margaret Pomeranz proclaiming it the worst film she has ever seen. Perhaps it was because I was not used to the concept of remakes, perhaps it was because the filmmakers themselves weren’t used to the concept of remakes.

Whatever the case, things have changed.

This is a terrible film. Never watch it. Do not take this as a dare.

Halloween (2007) was one of the worst films I have ever seen. Not only was it boring, repulsive, poorly shot and acted (Malcolm McDowell bow your head in shame), but also it had simply no reason for existing. And that is the thing - there has to be a REASON to remake a bloody film.

Here are some, for better or worse:

1) The times have changed

Jonathon Demme’s The Manchurian Candidate took the political suspense thriller as the backbone and crafted a modern-day film set during the Iraq War. The template was there, but the characters were fresh and insights satisfying. When does this theory not apply? Most horror film remakes. All that’s changed for those pieces of shit is their reliance on blood and guts.

Good remake.

2) It is a remake of a really old film that no one remembers

Before Jonathon Demme made The Manchurian Candidate there was The Truth About Charlie with Mark Whalberg. It was a remake of Charade, which no one my age has seen. The film was terriblke, obviously aping the original while utilising pretentious French New Wave stylistics that ultimately frustrated then bored me to death. The film was lame. Maybe I should blame Mark Whalberg (see previous post regarding inconsistent actors).

Tim Burton remade Planet of the Apes. It is his worst, most un-realized film. Why? Because its screenwriters took no time to consider the ramifications of a mordern-day interpretation of the story. The ending was surprising, but it made no sense and informed us of nothing. It was shocking for the sake of being shocking. I hate to bring this up, but perhaps I should be blaming Mark Whalberg again. What the fuck is with that guy? Next he'll be remaking his own shit films.

Lame remake.

Why not remake Casablanca while we're at it? With George Clooney and Cate Blanchett. Oh no, they made that, it was called The Good German. But whilst it derived elements and essentially stole/ copied its style, Soderbergh's film was aware of its technique and merely used it to craft a new tale from the template. It was okay.

3) It is a remake of a foreign film

Some would say that if it was made in another language that was reason enough. Fair call, but simply translating a film from one country to another does not make a good film. One has to TRANSLATE the film, which means changing its meaning and execution to fit the requirements and suitability of a westerner audience. All that most foreign remakes do is take the central premise and copy it in their film.

The Departed was a remake. It was entirely different to the original. Why? Because the original was set in another continent. They had to be different. In a way William Moynahan simply used the premise and crafted his own cops and criminals saga from the template. It won the Best Picture Oscar.

Awesome remake.

4) Studios have run out of ideas and want an established audience

This is pathetic. Those film exectutives just have no clue! NONE! They assume that if a film was popular 20 years ago, it's bound to work again. Sometimes the original filmmakers support the remake, like Wes Craven in The Hills Have Eyes. Craven in fact wrote the sequel to the remake. Did anyone see it? I saw half of it, but couldn't finish it. Maybe Craven's previous bomb Cursed really was Cursed.

Please penguin, go forth and kill remakes.

Remakes exist because the Hollywood establishment is scared, dumb, and just plain unwilling to try anything new. Sometimes they work and deep down I wish they didn't, because it encourages the bad ones to keep getting made. Even worse, sometimes people go out in flocks to see these films. Why do you like these films, people? The securtity of knowing you are about to watch a really lame predictable film? Take a chance on something new and original.

She's all not that

In relation to my previous post, I just viewed the trailer for Bride Wars and am certain that Kate Hudson is the worst actress in Hollywood. Almost Famous was a fluke, or extraordinarily close to her personality, or Cameron Crowe is a legend and can get a great performance out of a retarded parrikeet. Or all of thos reasons.

She is all bad. BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD.


BAD.

Actors who have no consistency

Mark Whalberg's new film Max Payne is getting horrid reviews. It is rating 8% at Rotten Tomatoes, possibly the second lowest score after Disaster Movie's much deserved 2% rating (who the hell gave it a positive review. I must find this for another post!)

Max Payne's shitness really shouldn't be a surprise because it is based on a video game (although I'm willing to give Super Mario Bros. another watch!), but Mark Whalberg really should have known better.

What the heck is with this guy? He rips through films like The Departed, Three Kings, and I Heart Huckabees, but bores us to tears in The Happening, Four Brothers and The Truth About Charlie. The fact is he mustn't be attuned to his own talents or strengths. He needs a strong director to guide his way...

I was discussing him with a friend who commented that bad Mark Whalberg is oddly asexual, while good Mark is a firecracker. He must need the right material to ignite his balls.

Who else has no idea what the heck they're doing?

2) Halle Berry.

I only have a few performances as proof that she's good, such as Monster's Ball, Jungle Fever, Bulworth, and Things We Lost in the Fire, but they are proof enough. Oh yeah, plus her tits did a great performance in Swordfish.

But did anyone see Catwoman? I did, and man was that a roarer of a film. I missed Perfect Stranger but for good reason I believe. She just does not know the difference between shit and roses. They both smell the same to her. "Puuuurfect" indeed.

The epitome of so bad it's good. "Cat got your tongue???"

Special mention must go to her Catwoman costar Sharon Stone, whose performances in Basic Instinct and Casino showed immense talent and then she tumbled into supposed "films" like Cold Creek Manor and Basic Instinct 2.

3) Nicolas Cage.

Please make better movies Nic!

How about Leaving Las vegas 2: Redemption???

This has been previously discussed, but this guy just boggles my mind. I'm assuming his reasons behind accepting certain films span beyond the actual film himself. Maybe he wanted a holiday in Bangkok? Maybe National Treasure was a huge hit and he was signed up for a sequel? Maybe he likes comic books? Maybe he...nope I've got nothing for Wicker Man, that was just a BAD MOVE!!! (seriously, Neil Labute has made some awesome films so a lot of the blame falls on his shoulders).

When a Nic Cage film is bad, Nic Cage is BAAAAD!!! Maybe the word is bored. NEXT!

4) Charlize Theron.

Has anyone seen Aeon Flux? Nope. Good, you've saved yourself 90 minutes of torture. But then we have such prestige pics like In the Valley of Elah to bring us hope. These days Charlize likes to take turns, one for them, one for her. Unfortunately unlike more picky actors like Matt Damon, her "thems" are studio-infected trash like Hancock. She's no Cage, but at least his pieces of poos are huge hits.

Unlike Catwoman, is not so bad it's good. It's just plain bad.

5) Owen Wilson.

His pal Ben Stiller has made a dud here and there, but nothing compared to Mr. Wilson's track record. You Me and Dupree, Drillbit Taylor, I Spy, The Big Bounce. These are just lame. My personal thoughts are that Owen is not suited to leading-man status. He is better in ensemble pieces like the Wes Anderson films, or as a quirky supporting character in things like Zoolander.

And did anyone even bother with Behind Enemy Lines, his one attempt at action-man status? Obviously that career direction didn't pan out...

ps. Check out his The Minus Man from 9 years back, a dark unsettling film where he plays a serial killer. This is his best leading man performance. SO creepy. I wish he had pursued similar roles, but alas...

Trust me bud, that hack will do no favours for your career or sanity.

6) Ben Affleck.

I have a soft spot for this guy. His directorial debut Gone Baby Gone was all class. Chasing Amy is utterly brilliant. And I will defend Gigli to the end of the earth (okay it's no classic, but it's perfectly watchable, funny, and well acted).

But why couldn't he have followed the career of his bud Matt Damon? Armaggedon AND Pearl Harbour??? Man About Town might have seemed a good prospect - Mike Bander's previous film The Upside of Anger was great - but did he read the script? And Paycheck. Oh, poor Paycheck. You were such a miscarriage. The whole film was spent focussed on Ben's gigantic chin.

It is an alluring chin.

But there are many Ben Affleck films which were critically derided but worthwhile: Bounce, Reindeer Games, Daredevil, and Smokin' Aces. Hell, maybe I take it back. Maybe I think he's awesome, it's all you other people who have the problem!

7) Angelina Jolie.

I think she should have been at the top of the list, but actually she's at the bottom. Unlike her dear husband Brad, Angie has no idea if a film is going to be good. Wanted (I'm not linking to it) was terrible, and despite the fact that she dies in it (I'm SPOILING this so less people will see this shockingly inept film) I'm sure she's already signed up for the next two sequels.

She can be good. Changeling looks fantastic. But it often seems to be at no credit of Mrs. Pitt, who in every bad film she does, including Mr. and Mrs. Smith (Brad Pitt's only recent truly bad movie), Taking Lives, and Tomb Raider insists on pouting her weathered anorexia lips whenever her character is being "dramatic".

I hate this film so much.

All I want is for Angie to eat a burger. It really might help her career, at least increasing the amount of blood vessels floating to her brain.

So that's my opinion. Did I miss anyone?

The Cinematic Marketplace or the Cinematic Wasteland?

Best Movie ff the Week [according to the general consensus]

What is wrong with the current state of the cinematic marketplace? imdb.com reports that Beverly Hills Chihuahua beat out Body of Lies in its second week, the latter finishing up in third behind some lame-ass next horror movie Quarantine which looks like a cheap-skate rehash of The Blair Witch Project.

The fact is, audiences simply have no taste.

Best Movie of the Week [according to me]

Ridley Scott has served us up a yummy, exciting, thought-provoking dish with two of Hollywood's biggest stars, Russel Crowe and Leonardo Di Caprio, and all we can do is go "ho hum". Is it the subject matter (The Iraq War). Is it the lack of cute talking pooches? Is it the fact 75% of the world's (well, North America's) population has been partially lobotomized? As Homer Simpson would say: "a little from column A, a little from column B"...

Smiley Face

Smiley Face received no Australian theatrical distribution. Here's why it rocked:

[1] Unlike other stoner movies, Anna Faris's characters actually remains stoned throughout the entire film.

[2] Unlike other stoner movies, Anna Faris acts like a complete tool and gets into heaps of trouble which she will NOT get out of.

[3] Unlike other stoner movies, pot is not the key to all greatness. Sure, it's a hell of a trip, but one we must come down from. Anna Faris in Smiley Face does not.

Smiley Face is the best stoner movie I've ever seen. Greg Araki (Mysterious Skin) directs what initially seems like a featherweight girls' version of Harold and Kumar, but really it's the arthouse alternative. Anna Faris cannot be underestimated. Remaining stoned and acting like a tool for 88 minutes straight and STILL being likeable is pretty commendable. She's just so goddamn funny. The performance is undoubtedly a tour de force of comedic showmanship. She is in every scene and never once breaks character to wink at us. She's in it for the long haul.

Seth Cohen as the drug dealer. Brilliant.

Smiley Face is no pro-pot farce. Anna Faris gets her just desserts. Pot certainly does NOT make her cool. One of the funniest scenes involves her sneaking into a meat packing plant and spouting off the validity of union memberships and fair workers' rights. The film then directly cuts to what Anna Faris ACTUALLY says while stoned (ie. not what she thinks she said) and it makes no sense and yes, she's a tool. Because let's face it people, pot may be fun but it makes you a tool. Here endeth the lesson.

And the award for the most worthless film genre known to man? THE SPOOF MOVIE. Stand up and take your applause.

People say they used to be good. Airplane! is touted as a comedic classic. I should watch it for that reason alone, as the dregs of modern cinema that insist on shitting on our screenings every few months these days are anything but.

There have been 3 sequels.

Thanks a lot Scary Movie. You were pretty funny, but the babies you gave birth to are so deformed, butt-ugly and utterly retarded you really should have crawled back to the rock you came from and died a quick death. Date Movie. Epic Movie. Meet the Spartans. Superhero Movie. Scary Movie part 12 (at least you still have the presence of cutie-pie Anna Faris, so you can’t be all that bad).

Never forget: these are HORRIBLE films. Matter of fact, I doubt you can call them films. If a dog puts on a hat, a sweater and some Converse sneakers and walks around pretending to be your milkman, but keeps barking and shitting on trees and eating Schmakkos, are we supposed to accept that he’s a human being? No, he’s a dog. These “spoof” movies hang around pretending to be films when in reality they are a bunch of lame-ass skits stuck together approximating about 85 minutes of your wasted life.

Take Disaster Movie as a reference point. No, I have not seen this film. I will not see this film. But I did watch the trailer, which “spoofed” such films as Sex and the City, The Incredible Hulk, Hancock, Indiana Jones, and Juno. Listen to me here you hacks: NONE of those films are disaster movies. MAYBE Hancock, Indiana Jones and Hulk are, based on the fact that they contain action and hence disasters, but a disaster movie is very clearly something such as Twister, The Day After Tomorrow, Independence Day and Godzilla. That is, a film revolving around a huge either natural or monster-like disaster which proceeds to destroy a chosen U.S. city. And no, Hulk is not a disaster movie, it is still a SUPERHERO movie with disaster elements. And yes, there already has been a Superhero Movie, so why not put Hulk in that? It boggles the mind.

At least Kim K's in this. But seriously, what the heck is with that midget?

I shall continue.

What is spoofing? I will look this up. Dictionary.com states that it is "to satirize in a playful amiable manner". Okay, so what does satirize mean? "To attack, ridicule, or criticize with satire". Okay, so what is satire? "A literary work in which vices, follies, stupidities, abuses etc. are held up to ridicule or contempt". Right, so what these films are supposedly doing is showing how lame genre films can be, by exposing the generic cliches and holding them up for ridicule?

As if.

Disaster Movie's trailer has a spoof of Hancock, where some black dude who looks just like Will Smith is sitting on a park bench just like Will Smith in Hancock, drunk just like Will Smith in Hancock, and flies up hitting a light pole, just like Will Smith in Hancock. Newsflash: that was the joke guys - a superhero who is a miserable and inept drunk. You did not ridicule anything, you simply reproduced the joke.

Lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame.

Another joke involves Hulk going around being the Hulk. Wow. How funny. Not.

Another joke has Indiana Jones as a black midget. That REALLY proves to me how bad and unoriginal Indiana Jones 4 was. Keep in mind, it would not be difficult to prove how lame Indiana Jones was. But you had to pull the black midget card. Awesome.

The spoof film usually spoofs comedies. Now, wait, how do you spoof a comedy? It was already funny. Take Juno for instance. I was not a huge fan, but you made no effort to display Juno’s pretentious foibles, but rather just have a character who looks and acts like Juno. WTF???

And do you know why Juno was in Disaster Movie? Because it won an Oscar. It made no sense and never will. It was there just because the filmmakers decided it was a popular movie.

Spoof movies are what people watch when they cannot be bothered watching the other movies it spoofs. So for the highlights (or more aptly, lowlights) of the Hollywood cinematic season, go check out the latest spoof movie and get the rundown. It’s like watching a really bad and boring trailer of 200 films at exactly the same time.

Please spoof films – go away. Or more importantly please, people, STOP FEEDING THESE EVIL MAKERS-OF-SPOOF-FILMS YOUR MONEY! Give the seventeen bucks to charity. Or a bum who will use it for smokes. Or better yet, go out and watch one of the films it “spoofs”. Just don’t watch Indiana Jones 4, cause it’s half as lame as Disaster Movie, and that’s very lame.

Goodbye.

W.

Oliver Stone is my man. This guy pulls no punches and has made some outstanding films. JFK is one of the 10 best films of all time in my humble opinion. So W. comes with great anticipation.

And now the first reviews are slewing in through the press.

Jeff Wells reports that:

The damn movie leaves you feeling sorry for this fucker at the finale, and that ain't hay. Compassion for a fiendish klutz? For one of the worst guys on the planet right now? For the chief enabler and architect of this country's massive financial ruin? For the man who tarnished and shamed his country and took it on a moral and ethical downslide that will take years if not decades to turn around, if it's not too late? Yes.

Which, being a Bush hater second to none, I didn't think was possible. But that's what it does, and you have to give Stone credit for an amazing sleight of hand. I came out saying to myself, as Bush himself says to himself at the finale, "What just happened?" By the last shot you are sold because the anger is gone and you're left with this stunned and oddly tragic figure saying to himself, "This is how my life turned out?"


Ohhh yeah. Can't wait! Watch the trailer here...

ONE LAST NOTE:

I'm just gonna say it. Alexander was AWESOME.

I don't care what you think.

I may be taking this one to my grave.

Film Review: Eagle Eye

D.J. Caruso's Eagle Eye has received a little flack for its dependancy on slam-bang action set pieces to join together its various plot threads, but that really was the fun of this film. The central premise is nothing original, and I'll be honest and say that the places it goes are also nothing original, but its execution is suspenseful, well-paced, and entertaining, which is good enough for me.

Current "it" boy Shia Labeouf stars as our hero Jerry Shaw, whose identical twin has just died under mysterious circumstances. Jerry is inexplicably placed under the control of a mysterious voice (well, actually, Julianne Moore) on his cell phone - matter of fact EVERY cell phone - who can somehow control pretty much every technological piece of equipment known to man.

In his journey he is joined by a reluctant Michellle Monaghan whose son may be indirectly involved in the assassination of the president. Confused yet? So was I, but really all we need to know is that technology will destroy us all. Wait, haven't I already heard that before in The Terminator, Enemy of the State, even Producer Steven Spielberg's own Jurassic Park? Yes, we certainly have. But no matter, still a fun, pulsating adventure with car chases (sometimes too quickly edited but still worthwhile) and gun fights.

Overall, a solid effort that will not linger in the memory, but will provide you with a good time. 3.5/5.

Seriously. WTF???

I just don't see how this is necessary.

Well, for some people this may be preferrable.

Roger Ebert on Martin Scorsese - match made in heaven?

I think so. If anyone does not know either of those men I feel your life is missing some vital components. This book sounds awesome. I have already ordered it on Amazon.com.

Martin is one of the greatest filmmakers of all time, Roger THE greatest film critic of all time.

Don't feel bad Martin, you're up the top, but there are a lot more great filmmakers than there are great film critics.

Check out the first chapter HERE ON rogerebert.com.

New KELY Facebook Group

I have created a new facebook KELY group.

Please visit it HERE to join.

Attention wankers: are books REALLY better than movies?

I'm consumed with the thought of books lately. Mainly I'm consumed by the fact that I don't read many books. It makes me feel guilty, because it is a widely held belief, or fact, that books increase intelligence, cultural awareness, and are generally more sensorally stimulating than films. The consensus is that whilst in a film you can lay back on your couch and let the entire charade wash over you, in a book you need to actively participate in the story, using your imagination to create the characters in your mind.

The problem with this belief I feel is that film is assumed to be less stimulating, and that viewers are hand-fed the easy answers.

I disagree.

When I am viewing a film I am an active participant. If it is a sports movie my heart is racing in anticipation at every blow or goal made. If it is a [good] romantic comedy I am fully involved in their journey to each other. Whilst the director, writer, and all cast and crew have basically made all the decisions for me, I still am able to be moved and aroused by the experience.

What use does art have? In my opinion it is merely as a way of expressing one's self, and hopefully translating that into a medium which can be interpreted by others. What matters is not the medium however, but how it effects other people, and yourself.

Can a book instigate change more so than a film? Some would say neither can. But in their own tiny way all persuasive art can make a dent on our lives. If a book is translated into a film and the film is bad, people will invaribly say "oh well, the book was bound to be better" because apparently the movie never stood a chance! But the only problem I see here is that the filmmakers were discouraged to use their creativity and innovation in the planning and writing stages because half the work had already been done for them. It's like remakes: if all they need to do is suitably replicate a previous art, where is the challenge? It is no doubt that it will turn out sloppy.

A great example of how the two mediums are entirely different but both useful, is Into the Wild, both the original non-fiction book written by Jon Krakauer, and the filmic adaptation directed by Sean Penn. The book is an after-the-fact rumination on the life of Chris McCandless, reflecting on his choices and what this says of modern America, told from the point of view of the writer. The film, on the other hand, is an in-the-moment narrative tale told directly from Chris McCandless's point of view, and therefore more subjective and emotional. Both the book and film are effective works of art, and serve to convey an interesting, thought-provoking message, in very seperate ways.

Great TRUE story. Check them out

Books and films have the right to coexist, not in competition with each other, but rather complimenting each other. Maybe some lazt shlubbs out there don't use an iota of the brain molecules when viewing film, but my brain is constantly stewing over mise-en-scene, characterization, editing, the performances, the plot and structure, production design, the music, and all other elements which go into the formation of a film.

This is just as how when I am reading a novel I am directly involved with the prose, descriptions, use of metaphors, and other literary devices which go into the formation of a book.

Both are manipulative forms of art which serve to convey the writer's and director's essential "maning of life", whether that be "be kind to others", or "the world is doomed". If a book or film is any good, and useful, I will go away with something to think about. I don't necessarily have to agree with its message, but I will have a reaction to it. And that, to me, is how art creates meaning in our lives. Through this sharing of knowledge.

Now, the fact remains that I don't read that many books, and this is something I plan on attending to in the coming years, but give me a break you wankers, I'm still a fairly intelligent, self-aware guy even though I haven't read all of Dostoyevsky's greatest hits. Have you seen all of Scorsese's? Even After Hours?

Peace out.

Recommended reading: Kevin Smith and his sex life

Yes, believe it or not, occasionally I read. Well, mostly books about movies.

I’m half-way through Clerks director Kevin Smith’s new book My Boring Ass Life: The Uncomfortably Candid Diary of Kevin Smith. Takes place predominantly in 2005. Great read, but why the heck does he need to go into so much details about his sex-life with his wife? We get it Kev, you bone a hot chick every day. Congrats. Now can't we just ASSUME that part of your life and focus on the other stuff?

Also, we know you shit. All humans do, you don't need to inform us of that. Oh well, otherwise, yep, good stuff. He lives "the life" really, signing merch and arranging deals, movies, Q&As. One other thing: he's a chronic gambler. Like he gambles ALL THE TIME. I don't really gettit. If you're semi-rich and well-off, where's the fun in gambling, especially online gambling?

Each to their own, though, and I highly respect the dude for being open and honest and his career, fears, foibles, and daily escapades. Too many filmmakers keep their noses buried in their chins like they're magicians or something.