Burt Gummer’s Rec Room Archive- November 2011
A gathering place for firearms enthusiasts, paranoid survivalists and those who worship at the Church of Chang
November. Cold pissy weather, even in the desert. Not even the gentle strain of country music and disguise this fact. Still, it gives us a chance to re-arm before the next Graboid season.
Disclaimer: This is the part of the Church that is the most no holds barred. None of it is intended with malice, and although it can on occasion seem a little bit fraught, it is banter rather than venom.
Werewolves On The Moon 
That’s some fancy tap dancing R2! Ha! But it does not wash. If you are going to rail against a cliche, then it matters not when the cliche occurs. It only matter if it works or not. It worked damn well in Battle LA and it worked damn well in Fast Five.
As for romantic comedies, well we will have to part ways very distantly on that. You like chick flicks, I don’t. I get dragged by my wife, and most of the time I hate it. I have seen a few that were decent, but none I would go out of my way to revisit. CSL was terrible, I do not care if there is a dearth of romantic comedies to choose from, it sucked and it had no humor. That is what the killer was. It was not funny at all. I will say, I thought Ryan Phillpe was good, but not that good.
I’m lucky in that Mrs. Jarv doesn’t make me watch them.
I actually found it quite funny in places. I like Steve Carell. Romantic comedies are mostly dreadful. I do like the occasional good one though.
I don’t think the cliches are as painfully obvious in Fast Five though. For one thing, the film doesn’t spend 15 minutes ticking boxes. Here’s the disgraced former commander on his last mission. Here’s the Rookie CO. Here’s his pregnant wife. Here’s the kid who lied about his age and has never even been laid. And so on and so forth.
The biggest problem with Fast 5 for me was Walker. Man, he sucks.
Walkers fine. In the F&F films. Sure he’s crap, but he’s like Keanu. You just accept the woodeness. Keanu’s much better than Walker of course, but they aren’t dissimilar.
It doesn’t help that I actively dislike him. Like Scott Speedman.
Speedman is pretty terrible. I think I’ve only seen him in Underworld and Dark Blue.
He was also in XXX2.
And just contributed to the massive pile of suck on display.
He was? I don’t remember him in it. All I remember is Ice Cube doing is “smelling dogshit” expression and some action scene on a train. Still, better than the first one. No one was shaking with rage while looking through a pair of xray binoculars.
He was the CIA guy meant to be tracking Cube and Samuel L. Down.
He looked like as confused as an Orangutan presented with a Suduko puzzle.
And he turned out to be in cahoots with the bad guy or something?
CAn’t remember.
Just been banned from the Guardian again.
What’ve you done now?
Twilight.
They’re putting up loads of hit-bait articles about it.
And being in the F&F films keeps him from stinking it up in other films. It keeps him off the streets, so to speak.
Actually, I liked Walker in Running Scared too. Damn, that was a suprisingly great flick.
Walker was also good in that Into The Blue movie, that was also better than it looked.
Well, we will just have to agree to disagree about cliches that work and do not work! Ha!
I like Steve Carrel, but i am being honest, i found that film painfully unfunny. I might have softly chuckled once. I actually thought smurfs was funnier
I don’t like him particularly. I honestly think he’s hugely overrated.
Hang on, hang on… A very disturbing point has been glossed over here.
You saw The Smurfs?
Yeah the Smurfs was a solid kids movie. A lot more fun than it looked. Its the best of that sort of film out there. Hank nailed Gargamel and the cat was really funny.
I’ll have to take your word for it. Until Jarv watches it of course.
There’s far more chance of you watching that than me.
Nah, you’ll watch it on a weekend when it’s on TV.
Yeah I doubt either of you will enjoy it, unless for some reason you double feature it with an Alvin movie.
Sounds like my idea of hell.
Speaking of which, I sat through the ENTIRE Alvin and the Chipmunks 3: Chipwrecked trailer at Tintin the other week. Sweet jesus. Sweet fucking jesus. I think Conti needs to add that trailer to his challenges list, let alone the film!
Yeah see the Alvin movie has set the bar so low for those films anything mildly fine gets a huge thumbs up.
The weird thing was how well the CGI works. The opening shots in the Smurf forest were awesome, I wish the whole movie had been set there, if it had it would’ve been something special and cool. But making them go into the real world, its fine but it’s more of the same. But on the plus side it made more money than either Alvin film.
It can’t possibly be worse than Garfield 2.
The Alvin movies? Well wait I’ve only seen Garfield 1, and I just remember that movie being there. Alvin I think takes the cake because of the fucking singing. You either find it cute or feel like Micheal Ironside at the end of Scanners.
You have to see Garfield 2.
Hideous, hideous film.
Yeah I bet it’s not very good but does it induce brain exploding?
It’s like Vogon poetry.
That’ll be in about 5 years.
Something to look forward to then.
You know, I’d almost completely forgotten it existed until TKD mentioned it then, and I’ll no doubt forget in about 10 minutes. Then I’ll be parked off with a massive hangover, and it will be on, and I’ll watch the damned thing.
I’ve seen some heinous shit in that condition.
I agree with Droid that Fast Five isn’t totally cliched. It’s odd in that way. Fast Four is much more cliched ridden. I mean there are a few cliched parts but the whole movie isn’t that way like Battle LA.
Wait Droid….you saw Cowboys and Aliens? How was that?
I was pretty decent. Solid 2.5 changs. I wrote a lengthy spiel on the logic problems earlier. It’s worth checking out anyway.
Also most of you guys have Immortals to watch. Which I’m pretty sure is a better movie of that type than Conan, I’ve yet to watch Conan but I doubt it’s violence can match Immortals. Also I doubt it looks half as amazing as Immortals does.
Kman, i may be wrong, and will admit to it if i am, but immortals looks all kinds of stupid to me – in the clash of the titans 300 vein. I hated the look of 300 as much as i hated the flick itself. And immortals looks just like 300 -ay least as far as the SFx
it’s not so similar to 300 Toad. A little maybe, but if it had added stop-motion creatures it would have been more similar to Harryhausen flicks than 300.
I didnt like 300 or Clash of the Titans, and I reasonably enjoyed Immortals.
I’d say it’s a better version of 300. Stylistically it’s very similar…..sooo if that irked you bad there then there’s more of the same here. While I think Immortals is paced a lot better than 300, and the slo mo is handled much better as well. Also I’ve listened to the score now, and it’s pretty epic. It’s not so much catchy like original Conan and mainly filled with Inception blast’s, but it’s fun, much much better than that shitty 300 music.
but the stylistic flourishes that nagged me about 300 didnt bother me here. The slo-mo is there but it’s kept in check, and while the battles are staged simialrly, there’s none of that speed-up, slow-down crap. It’s fluid action shots of carnage until the Titans battle.
The big difference is the sets. They were all digital dreariness in 300 and here, most of them are actual practical sets modified with some CGI.
The last battle between Rourke and Cavill is very gritty and real–like some kind of wrestling match–and more immediate than anything in 300/
It’s not a great movie, but I enjoyed myself. It’s disappointing that Tarsem followed The Fall up with it, but one could do worse for a ‘gotta eat’ movie than Immortals.
I think it’s a good follow up to The Fall. Yeah the slo mo is kept in check because it makes sense, it’s not just used here and there to make shit look cooler, it’s done with reason and repetition. That final battle mash up of the two fights happening at once was awesome. I was impressed with Tarseem’s ability to handle the violence and fighting and Mickey Rourke. He made Mickey fun again, I had a feeling that Mickey would just sort of be there in the movie.
Now I’d need to see The Cell again, but you can see the techniques used in The Fall here in Immortals, like the cool transitions, the use of practical sets, the use of human monsters as apposed to CGI monsters. The integration of the score to the movie (though The Fall does that much better).
The Cell is a fecking awful movie, Koutch.
Absolutely dreadful, although it does look nice.
Yeah I’ve seen it and actually own it. I just haven’t seen it since pre 9/11. I’m gonna go back and rewatch it just to see a cow get split into sections.
You watched it three weeks ago?
Never forget.
Unfortunately I can remember what I was doing earlier this month. Working.
Hehehehehehe.
It is funny how Americans put dates month then day. If you’re talking, most say “5th November” or whatever.
Yeah date jokes, fucking magical.
Funny as in strange not as in comical.
The Cell is complete shit. It’s a terrible cop movie spliced with an overdesigned music video. I’d seriously consider an Angry Ape.
Lopez is actively fucking terrible in it as well.
Lopez was good in Out of Sight. Apart from that, nothing I can think of.
Anaconda!
Hilarious movie. BUt you can’t tell me she was good in it.
I may give is a shot at a matinee, bunny.
Yeah, we took the girls (our nieces) to see it, and i thought I would be getting some sleep, but it was engaging enough, nothing too memorable though – and had a few chuckles (more than CSL) and one or two laugh out loud moments. The funniest being when the cat asks gargamel if he is dead – after gargamel gets hit by a bus. Just the way the cat asked had the entire theater in stitches.
And Muppets.
Oh yeah fuck The Descendants
is out.
Lovefilm are sending me Airwolf and Gangster No. 1. Will I be pleased with these selections? Time will tell.
I still need to watch Peeping Tom. I really should’ve slotted in more crap into my list. 3 “quality” films in succession isn’t my style.
Gangster Number 1? I was going to review that and lost interest. 2/3 superb, serious last act problems.
Airwolf!!!!
What did you think of Peeping Tom in the end?
Haven’t watched it yet. Will do soon.
the latter part of the year has taken off in regards to movies. Saw that Cameron Crowe movie about the zoo, and surprisingly it doesn’t suck.
Muppets is awesome. Descendants is very good, Chipwrecked trailer was the work of the dark lord. It represents everything that is wrong with that studio approach to kid’s movies.
Smurfs isn’t good, but it’s not really bad either. I concur with whomever it was that said it should have existed solely in the Smurfs kingdom. Maybe bring in NPH as the human amongst the Smurfs.
At any rate it’s not as evil as the trailers make it look, but it’s not heinously aggravating either.
Cowboys and Aliens is a good matinee afternoon kind of flick. Liked the western elements better than the aliens, but I’ll take it.
Immortals> Conan
oh, it must have been K, as he’s said it above too, regarding the smurf kingdom comment. Could have stood a chance at being a memorable film instead of a mercifully painless and forgettable one.
Yeah you haven’t seen Hell until you’ve seen an Alvin movie. God those things are awful. And Zachary Levi in part 2? That has to be one of the worst performances of all time. Which sucked because I like that guy and if you watch Spiral you can see he has some ability, but jesus IDK what he was channeling in Alvin 2? Maybe Dax Sheppards character from Idiocracy?
Garfield 2 has Billy Connoly in it. Fat sell out unfunny scottish cunt.
Heheheh you can’t call someone a sell out when they gotta eat.
Chuck and Jason Lee in Alvin films, thats them selling out they both at the time had mild hit TV shows in no dire need of food money. David Cross in the Alvin films = Food money and he freely admits thats the only reason he does most movies.
Whatshisname from Clueless and The Craft in Garfield, Jennifer Love Hewitt in G2. Both also fit the model.
Also one thing that made The Smurfs better in the CGI critter film category, was that NPH actually enjoyed The Smurfs. Usually in these films there owners fucking hate their animals, it’s a weird thing to teach kids. Like both Alvin films the owners hate dealing with then and get no joy from having magical singing chipmunks…so why the fuck should the audience? Same for Marmaduke and I think Garfield that movie I don’t recall at all and to a different extent Marley and Me. But at least NPH attempts to befriend the Smurfs he just gets flustered by them.
John likes Garfield. That’s what added to Garfield 2 being awful: he was somewhere with Connoly trying to kill him.
ha! that’s a good point.
I think it proves that the directors didnt think they were making movies about magical singing chipmunks, but instead making movies about little pop-culture spurting CGI poo factories. And who could love that?
Now I try to blank out the Alvin movies, but I’m pretty sure there’s a scene in the first one where Theodore tries to curl up with Jason Lee when he’s going to bed and it’s suppose to be that typical AWWW SHUCKS he’s cute moment in an animal film. And Jason Lee either just looks fucking pissed or throws him off the bed. IDK, for some reason I can’t recall Alvin 2 at fucking all and I reviewed both of them for this site.
but see that’s what’s weird, Jarv….while John likes garfield in the comic strip, he’s constantly endlessly perturbed by him. They didnt capture that in the movie, and John was too pedestrian looking.
Now get a Garfield movie with Michael Shannon as John, trying to kill Garfield because he’s convinced the cat can talk via telepathy and you maybe have a winner.
To be fair, I wasn’t completely put off Garfield 1. It wasn’t a good movie, but I can see how it could harmlessly entertain kids.
Tale of Two Kitties was painful though.
Hehehe yeah I like that idea, Shannon would make a great John (kind of looks like him as well). Brekin was too normal and plain looking/acting, John’s suppose to be this social misfit. I love the Garfield without Garfield clips, they are almost funnier than the actual comic strip.
What sucks is that Bill Murray made a great Garfield voice, just the wrong fucking movie.
A big problem with Garfield 1 is that Odie should’ve been CGI too. Having a CGI cat interacting with a real dog didn’t work. Bill Murray was perfect voice casting though. But the movie was just so bland. It needed some people behind the scenes who though more of it than a marketing opportunity.
Heheh SPEAKING of Bill Murray, that movie The Big Year was written by his former butt buddy Howard Franklin. Who wrote The Man Who Knew Too Little, wrote and directed Quick Change and directed Larger Than Life. NOW I don’t know if that really makes a better case for that movie. But on my trip this weekend I jokingly wished I had scene it then maybe I would’ve known what fucking giant mile long groups of migrating birds where flying over me for some 20 mile stretch of highway this weekend. Give me one second and I’ll post a picture of it.
Can we not talk about these horrible movies? They’re inducing acid flashbacks in me.
I finally saw Ghost Writer. It was a well made movie, but ultimately i thought it was pointless, not much of a thriller, and SPOILER – the CIA did it, so what? Maybe if it had been made in the seventies it might have had more impact, but talk about the cliches. CIA as boogey man. Good gravy.
Yeah my thoughts as well. Also the green screening used in the house was laughable.
Kim Cattral did a good job, I thought Ewan was believable, and i even liked his naivete, but if he is smart enough to knw he must avoid the men on the boat, and figure out that the first ghost writer was killed, why would he think it was ok to then tell the woman he suspects is an agent what he found out without taking any precautions? It was a movie that should have been made 30 years ago, it just was a bit laughable that CIA was the big boogey, and that was it.
Yeah, it all felt a little stale and been there and done that a million times before. The acting was fine, it was just all very ho hum.
I had the joy this weekend of explaining what Kim Cattral was before Sex In the City to a friend of mine this weekend who was just like…why’s this old bag popular and suppose to be sexy all of the sudden at 50?
Dude never heard of porkys?
Big trouble, Split Second.
Fuck, even police academy.
She didn’t always suck.
Hey Jarv does the Guardian not like Hugo? I just saw a guy on my twitter feed who says he works on the guardian knocking it.
Dunno
Jarv, read a few of Chaw’s other reviews. He’s the only pretentious wank and poser there.
I don’t see that they have reviewed it yet, K, but the Guardian is weird in that regard.
They let several of their reviewers cover the same movies so there’s never any single review that represents them. This is fine, but then it’s odd because recently they have had two people raving about Take Shelter and now there’s Bradshaw on there complaining about it, which makes it look like the Guardian is ‘thumbs down’.
Well there’s this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2011/nov/23/hugo-martin-scorsese-film-review?CMP=twt_gu
and there’s an excellent review of it here:
http://filmfreakcentral.net/screenreviews/hugo.htm
Christ on a bike, that review is hopeless. Reads negative, then gives it 4. And I’ve no idea what he’s talking about.
Ouch.
yea, but here are some of his comments from The Aviator:
‘Lost in the clamour to excoriate Scorsese as a sell-out for finally helming a broadly appealing piece is the idea that The Aviator is actually extraordinarily subversive in its success, made as it was in the middle of enemy territory and essaying as it does another of Scorsese’s hopeful loners striving against his own insanity for a place in the madness of the public eye.’
Bradshaw is a dickhead. Seriously, he’s so fucking pretentious now that a positive review from him is almost a negative.
Even when he gives a high rating to something half the time I don’t know what he’s on about.
Yea, neither of those reviews are very good. The Guardian one is, as always, incomprehensible, and tries to make a big deal out of the fact Hugo isn’t a mobster movie, which –hello–Scorsese makes less than more of these days. He’s been going against type, for better or worse, for some years now. I guess he likes it, but I couldn’t tell why.
The Walter Chaw review just sounds purposefully grumpy.
I’ll probably be seeing it again soon. Right there at the top of the year for me.
Tom, Harry’s shenanigans are the usual insulting and embarrasing. I mentioned them here last week when it was just the Hugo review up (and I hadnt seen Hugo yet).
I love both movies and see no need to try and lift up one by putting down the other. It’s not like movies have been so good for the other 10 months that we need to start drawing lots of invisible lines between the good stuff.
Ironically, his splooging of Hugo will probably cause his target audience to reject that film more than ti will make anyone decide not to see Muppets.
That one review it right about the drag time though, for two hours not much happens.
Anyone watch the shitty Promethius trailer leaks? I hope it’s good. It looks interesting.
Yea, I saw it. It does look interesting. Has the feel of Alien (the original) but the content looks like it isnt just a rehash of creature chases people on a ship.
Jonah Bart, that’s just too true. I think what really bothered me here is that Harold’s target deserves better than this. And as we have seen Harold do this crap before, maybe this overgrown 14 yr old would stop it and semi realize he is not fooling anyone now.
No such luck.
So I see there’s another patented ‘Harry Hit Job’ over at Harold’s, this time his time honored practice of slagging a competing film of that of a pet flick on opening weekend is directed at the Muppets, of all things. Didja see that? Apparently because Hugo is now his spooge-du-jour, the Muppets gets a half-assed garbage ‘review’, lord knows the same audience is meant for both flicks (in his mind)–so must, MUST make sure he does his little bit to poison the well for Kermit and co. as best he can.
You this worked out about as well this time out as it did the last time I noticed it-Hellboy Too vs. Journey to the Center of the Earth. Which one did better? Journey. Outdid Hellboy Too by 2oM or so domestically. That STILL makes me snicker just because.
Harold, you suck.
PS Hugo may very well be lotsa fun. But Harold is SOOOO fucking transparent it makes me sick.
FUCK YEAH! The star of the artist and the director of the artist are the team behind the OSS series. Bad fucking ass.
I see that on Sunday morning oddly. Hoping it’s gonna be good. I’ve been pleasantly surprised with the last few months of movies so here’s hoping there’s one more.
Also have Shame, Tyrannosaur, and your favorite all time director’s new movie, Young Adult, coming up. Those three look like waltzes in the sunshine. I hope we are spared the sight of Fassbender’s wang in Shame.
I’m looking forward to Shame, T-Rex and Young Adult. Really looking forward to The Artist, it looks like the right kind of ode to silent film, also it’s got Goodman so it’ll be good.
WHEW! Young Adult is on the 30th, I thought for a second it was tonight and I was like…ehhh fuck that.
Hehe I was just thinking Conti, if you end up loving Hugo will you buy the toys that come out for it? Just for the novelty of having straight up toys for a Scorsese film, not statues made after the fact but tie in toys.
Last Night’s viewing:
Up to date with Supernatural.
The wedding one was shit. One of the worst ever. The one after was OK.
After a strong start, this series is kind of flatlining.
Man, I’ve been whittling away at season 7. Just not feeling it. Seriously underwhelmed. The last episode I watched was the one where Bobby had the Sheriff over and was also testing different methods of killing the leviathon. There’s something missing. It’s either I’ve lost some of my interest in the show, or it’s just not working as well as it used to.
It’s anticlimactic and not working as well. They’ve reverted to monster of the week, and it’s dragging.
I’m about 5 pages from the end of this and I can tell you right now that it can’t be filmed in any satisfying cinematic form. You’d need a 6 part miniseries to even attempt it.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/shekhar-kapur-london-fields-martin-amis-266616
And I doubt it could work even then, to be honest.
I foresee a Bonfire of the Vanities-esque disaster, where the novel (which is friggin dense) gets diluted into a point missing bore-a-thon.
Er? What?
Unfilmable. The central conceit of the narrative won’t work on screen. Bad idea.
If you want to film Amis, then pick the Rachel Papers or Dead Babies.
Not a good sign when the director calls it a “murder mystery”.
Both Dead Babies and Rachel Papers have been filmed.
I was going to comment I find it hard to believe they’d release a film called Dead Babies, when looking at IMDB, the dvd cover calls it “Mood Swingers”. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0218138/
The Rachel Papers http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0098160/
Didn’t know they’d filmed Dead Babies.
Brave.
What the fuck is a CG/hybrid Iraqi War movie? And how does this idiot keep getting work? He’s made one reasonably good movie and a series of dreck.
What’s the reasonably good movie? Con Air?
Because I can see a whole lot of Orangutan of Doom films on his list (When a Stranger Calls)
He’s a hack.
C’mon. Con Air sucks. The Generals Daughter is the reasonably good movie. I know you have a problem with the end.
General’s daughter sucks.
Still, that’s not one movie that has a consensus.
Nah, GD is a pretty good movie. Con Air, however, is an embarrassment. Even Cage’s hairpiece is ashamed of that one.
This is what you said. So pretty much the whole film doesn’t “suck”. Just the end.
No, you’re misinterpreting me there.
It’s a meh film up until the end (2 Changs), but because of the end, it drops from “meh” to “sucks”, because sadly, they don’t stop.
This isn’t that uncommon. Take the Village, for example. It’s a thoroughly meh film until the “twist” is revealed, whereupon it plummets the whole film into suckitude territory.
Con Air is much better.
Sorry, but you said solid 2 chang film. Not meh 2 chang film. That’s not misinterpreting anything. There’s a huge difference between solid and meh. If you meant meh you would’ve said it.
The Village is friggin awful from start to finish. Con Air gets an Orang of Doom. I honestly felt bad for the actors. In both movies.
2 Changs is meh for me. It can be solidly meh.
And even then- we’re talking about a film that only gets 2 changs at best from me without the ending. It’s hardly a ringing endorsement.
The point is, though, that the dude unequivocally sucks, and how the fuck does he still get work?
It’s a rock solid 2.5 changs for me. It’s the only film of his above 1.
I’d give it 1. Being kind.
I’d give Con Air 2.5 though, because it’s hilarious.
PUT THE BUNNY BACK IN THE BOX
Generosity bordering on insanity.
It makes me laugh.
It makes me sad.
That’s because you didn’t PUT THE BUNNY BACK IN THE BOX.
It’s funny. According to the Don Simpson bio I read, he didn’t want to do Con Air because it was “shit”. The fat coke fiend had a point.
That’s because he didn’t…
You get the idea.
I wonder if the last things Don Simpson saw… were the flies buzzing over his rotting corpse.
Christ, Malkovich, you poor bastard.
Or the last thing he smelled was Malkovich’s stinking breath.
Hehehehehe
PS- while I admit to laughing at Con Air, I wouldn’t exactly call it a career high. It’s bleeding awful on most levels, but downright hilarious- Meany’s car flying for example. It’s not a film that screams “I’m a quality director, give me more work”, and the bits of it that are good are down to the cast more than anything else.
It’s preposterously stupid, to begin with, Cusack has ridiculous sandals, it’s overly macho, the acting is waaaaaay OTT for the most part and so forth. And Buscemi once drove through 5 states wearing a girl’s head as a hat.
Which goes to show how bad his career is.
And it’s not any FUN. It’s crass, obnoxious, mean spirited and ill advised. What is the point of the Buscemi character? He does nothing during the film except make the audience feel threatened by his association with a little girl, who he doesn’t kill for absolutely no reason. He just goes against every fibre of the character the film has established because they were too gutless to follow through and wanted to trick the audience. And to provide a heee-larious shot of him playing craps in Vegas.
Awful, awful shite.
Ah well, makes me laugh.
The Buscemi character is astonishingly ill advised. I think he’s just in it to be “intellectual” and talk about Irony.
I like Con air. Disliked Gd. Never saw the Village. Id4 is better than these.
Not a big fan of ID4. According to Roland, he’s trying to get Big Willie (isn’t he just) interested in two sequels. I can’t see it happening. Unless Smiths next 7 films bomb. Which isn’t likely.
Yuck.
I hate ID4. I’d actually Orangutan of Doom it, I hate it that much.
I nothing ID4. It’s too stupid to offend me, and not fun enough to entertain me. It has (had? Haven’t seen it in ages.) some nice effects shots. Mac compatible alien computers. In 1996 NOTHING was Mac compatible. It’s a stupid, stupid film.
I really, really detest it. It bores me in the first half and then pisses me off in the second. It’s a terrible film, and that Mac Compatability thing is just one of many problems with it
I react to it the way you react to Con Air, and feel embarrassed for the actors.
Credit where credit is due though. Best marketing for a film. Ever.
The most memorable line of dialogue in the film for me is…
“You will never get to fly the space shuttle if you marry a stripper.”
hehehe I barely remember any other dialogue (“Welcome to Erf”), but Harry Connick Jr’s earnest delivery of that line makes me laugh.
And HCjr can actually act. He’s surprisingly effective in Copycat. And I’m sure I’ve seen him in a few other things where he was pretty good. ID4 just gave him nothing to work with.
Brilliant.
I still think the best ever was for Blair Witch, or whoever cut the Rise of the Planet of the Apes trailer did a stupendous job.
I don’t remember the BW marketing. But the Rise one’s were excellent. I remember getting more and more interested with each trailer. From absolute zero to very in three or four trailers. That’s some good work.
Blair Witch was they had people genuinely believing it was real. It shattered records and all sorts. Which was surprising, considering what a hoary load of toss the actual film was.
I haven’t seen it since the cinema, when we got our tickets comp’d because the sound system make an annoying clicking sound for the first half of the movie. It didn’t do very much for me that film. I always wondered if it didn’t work because of the distraction of the sound. But it’s a one shot deal for me. I can’t give it another go, because it all hinges on not knowing anything about it.
No, it won’t have been. It was that it’s kind of boring.
Huzzah!
Great news:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2011/nov/29/michael-jackson-tribute-concert-company-bust
I saw it on DVD and enjoyed it, it spooked me. And I knew everything about it. At the time it was still unique.
No. It wasn’t. To start with the conceit has been around since at least Cannibal Holocaust, for a second The Last Broadcast, which is basically the same film, was about the same time. I seem to remember that the makers of TLB tried to sue.
Heheheh ok Blair Which when it came out wasn’t unique for that time. Because Cannibal Holocaust was up there with ET in terms of amount of people having scene it. Hehehehehe.
Don’t be a dick- it’s not original
Heheheh yeah it had totally been done to death by then. I mean I’m amazed it even made a dime, fucking sheeple man you can just force feed them the same shit OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER again and they’ll still eat it up.
Right, you’re clearly in one of these moods again.
The point, Koutch, was that it wasn’t unique at the time. That’s all. If you want to extrapolate on then that’s up to you.
Heheh I’m in a mood? OK. Your the one acting like Blair Which didn’t get by because at the time it was something a little different and unique. Who gives a shit about Cannibal Holocaust or some super indy film no one saw? Blair Which’s whole niche thing was it’s marketing scheme at the time, which was very unique when it came out. It was something different. This is just typical Jarv hates.
To weigh in briefly, I’m actually with Koutch on this one. At the time, Blair Witch did seem unique. It was an ultra low budget found footage horror movie getting a major release at Village cinemas (Australian version of Odeon or whatever the US equivalent is). It wasn’t something we had to go looking for at some trendy art house theatre (which was the norm). That is unique. At the time I’d never heard of Cannibal Holocaust, and until you just mentioned it, I hadn’t heard of the other one.
Unique doesn’t mean it hadn’t been done before.
Er? Yes it does. It means unique as in “one of a kind”.
Blair Witch was not unique. Not in subject matter, or in style.
What was unusual was that a film with that budget received that release, and that’s down to the marketing for it, which was fucking brilliant. In fact, now I think about it, the way that film was sold WAS unique for the time. As I recall, it was one of the first clever uses of the internets as well.
Well marketing and how it’s released is part of the package. I mean you couldn’t have done that sort of release and hype around just any movie, you think Elmo in Grouchland would’ve been AS big as Blair Which if they released it that way?
The way it was marketed- which is the original point of the conversation- was unique for the time. The film itself, not so much. What was true though, and remained true until Paranormal Activity, was a little horror film made for feck all went on to break the $100m barrier, which was meant to be impossible.
All in all, Blair Witch in terms of Sales was totally unique, and I don’t think has ever been done again. It was almost guerilla the way it kind of stole up. I don’t think you could do that again.
You just said it with PA? And they’ve done it 3 times now. Granted 2-3 not the same, but PA 1 was pretty much the Blair Which all over again.
And PA cost 1/4 of Blair Witch to make.
I think when you’re getting down to the difference between 15 and 60 grand then it’s pointless. Bay spends that on loo roll.
Yeah but you said it hadn’t been done since and PA did pretty much the exact same thing. Now if I had said PA was unique…then no not really, it’s just repeating what Blair Witch did.
And also there is a pretty big difference between 15-60 grand in terms of no budget film making these days. I mean I could go out right now and get a 15 grand loan no problem….don’t think I could get a 60 grand loan. But maybe back in 1999 I could’ve gotten a 60 grand loan? Different times…9/11 bro.
Hrm reading about it, it says they used Peli’s own home for the movie, I thought they had rented some place.
I dunno. How much do flying lessons cost?
Aye, but it was also a lot harder to get past the 100 million barrier. That’s why it was a big deal at the time.
Your date of reference here, by the way is 2008- when the banks crashed.
Part of the reason why PA didn’t totally repeat the Blair Witch marketing is because you can’t repeat it as effectively. People actually thought Blair Witch was real. I tend to think of these people as morons. If PA tried that, then it would have died and been laughed at. Not that they didn’t use some of the same beats, but not wholly.
Interestingly, there’s a little BBC special called Ghostwatch, that pulled this exact trick in the late 80’s pretending to be real. They filmed it with newsreaders and journalists in most of the acting parts, and built it up as a Halloween special. Half the country fell for it, and inundated the BBC with complaints about exploiting the murder of this family.
The BBC could never hope to repeat that again, and I think the same is true for Blair Witch. Whoever came up with the strategy was a fucking genius, but I don’t think you can redo it for a very, very long time.
PA totally pulled the ITS REAL angle to get initial buzz. It was the exact same shit. PA 1 in theaters ends with just some thank you line, no credits.
And for both films the IT’s real angle was broken when the Actors of both movies showed up on Jay Leno or did an EW photo shoot, right around the time of the films major release.
You’re missing my point. When Blair Witch pulled it, it was done in an extremely odd way. It almost built virally.
They broke almost all the rules for advertising and marketing at the time. I don’t remember PA attempting the “it’s real” thing for a bit, but if they did then it clearly didn’t work, so they went for the event thing.
Blair Witch is in marketing textbooks now as one of the defining campaigns ever.
Yeah PA studied the Blair Witch marketing and did something very similar. Hehe in the end they ended up more successful because they were able to make a franchise out of it unlike Blair Witch.
Heheh also I love how now YOU are defending the originality and uniqueness of Blair Witch. It’s all gone higgilty piggilty.
Now I know we’re talking about the sales of it, which was my original point, and not the actual film, then I’m fine. There was fuck all unique about the film itself.
Also, by the same score, PA did things that Blair Witch couldn’t do.
1) Social Media Marketing. Didn’t exist back then.
2) The group invite and event thing. Blair Witch didn’t attempt this, and I don’t know why. They probably didn’t think of it.
Times have changed, and you genuinely couldn’t sell Blair Witch in the same way now. It wouldn’t work.
Ok well your getting way to deep into the actual mechanism’s that drove the marketing. The same basic rules applied to both films, as to what programs they used to achieve their results may have differed but they were essentially the same.
The one big difference between PA and Blair Witch was the folk lore of the WOODS. PA didn’t have that.
In this case, though, Koutch, the technology and the mechanisms drive what you can and can’t do in the way of marketing.
Evolution and shit.
Yeah but the basic thing of it was the same for the general masses. I actually doubt either film really got it’s major buzz from it’s internet use. Both films where no budget films that got picked up, got a lot of good early press buzz, Blair Which had a fake website while PA used Eventful to get demanded. But to the general populace it was the same thing, some weird movie that could be real that has major internet buzz.
I mean do you think the people behind PA, didn’t look at Blair Which and go…ok lets replicate that. I think you are taking this idea of uniqueness to an extreme. I don’t even know what your trying to argue behind just trying to be more right.
I’m not arguing, this is turning into a bit of a lecture.
What I mean is that the people marketing PA will have looked at Blair Witch, and said “right, we can do this, but can’t do this. We can pull this one, but the life expectancy on it is very short”. PA relied far more on “scariest film EVAH” than Blair Witch did. PA had the ability to go beyond what BW did, however, they couldn’t rely on the same central sales message. So what they did, in another masterclass, by the way, was cull the bits they wanted and ditch those that they physically couldn’t do and included them as part of the wider mix.
That’s why I’ll be surprised to see something like the Blair Witch phenomenon happen again.
Yeah you keep saying that….and how is the PA phenomenon so different than the Blair Which phenomenon? That’s what I’m saying is the same thing. Both are no budget movies that used the internet to gain buzz to become major successes? It’s the exact same phenomenon.
Because PA had support outside of just the internets. It was part of a mix.
Not to mention that on a technical level the way it was done was almost totally different. I’m not criticising, by the way, because I think they did a brilliant job. Just you can’t do the same stuff that Blair Witch did.
If you reduce all films to things like that then yes, you can say that. For example, Avatar and Titanic were both huge budget CGI fests that were supported by everything that went on to make billions. But that doesn’t look at what they actually did.
???? Artisian picked up Blair Which and created the internet hype after seeing Blair Witch at Sundance. Paramount Pictures picked up PA sometime after seeing at some film festival (PA wasn’t picked up right away like Blair Which). Blair Witch had major critic reviews, posters in every magazine, trailers? You are acting like Blair Which was just done out of some house in Maryland, it had the backing of a major studio and did the typical stuff, it just had a web site as well.
Sorry, I’m not being clear.
I’m not saying the support wasn’t there, because it was. However, what wasn’t was that they not only ran the idea that it was real, but continued on with it, and everything else came in as almost top-up at the very, very end. I don’t mean to imply that it was done by a one-man band, because the scale they did it on was huge. Once it was released, PA had the audience screaming ads. There wasn’t anything like this for Blair Witch, and that’s because essentially PA was run on “it’s real” then “GOTCHA” then “IT’S THE SCARIEST EVER- DON’T MISS THIS”. It was more elaborate, and more complex than Blair Witch’s essential single key message.
Once Blair Witch was out, then the focus shifted slightly to “Look at this teensy-tiny little film and look how successful it is” (the sheep factor). PA also did this, but it ran very much below the other key messaging.
PA’s marketing and advertising, actually, was vastly more sophisticated than Blair Witch’s. Mostly because things have changed.
You’ve lost me. I think your looking way more technical at it and I’m talking broad overall stuff. In the end PA is considered a Blair Which type success story.
Yes, it is considered that, which I think does both a disservice.
Blair Witch was a lot more targeted and focused than PA’s. PA had multiple phases and messages, whereas Blair Witch was driven essentially by one/ two facets.
Also, that’s part of a key message in itself. It’s associative and whatnot. As I said, PA was more sophisticated and had different methodology.
So in your head, the way PA and Blair Witch came about are nothing alike?
I wish I had the numbers on PA:
What’s that? Blair Witch?
The irony of that is that the Website Artisan did, and the e-comms would cost fucking next to nothing now, but were hugely expensive at the time.
Yeah that was for Blair Which, and their 25 million dollar internet website only marketing campaign.
I’d like to see the actual breakdown of it. Because they did pay for TV and shit once it was out. How much was done at what time, for example.
Because it did have posters and shit as well- obviously, it’s still a movie, just the revolutionary bit was the focus was internets first and for the majority.
IDK……I think this may have been the first true viral success story:
Heh.
Certainly proved to be terminal for Warner’s bank balance.
It’s not in my head, and you’re not listening.
Blair Witch’s technique is but one of many used by PA- PA was a masterclass in multi-marketing mixing different messages, and different media to maximum effect.
Partially because of the passage of time, and partially because of how good PA’s lot were.
Digitally, Blair Witch were better, but that’s partially because they COULD get away with things that PA couldn’t, but in terms of the evolution of the campaign, PA was superb. The timing of the screaming audience ads in particular was spot fucking on, swept up all those people that just ignored it on release for one reason or another, but would have been interested naturally.
Rise of the Planet of the Apes was also superb. Spectacular use of viral marketing amongst other things.
The thing is, we’re talking about some of the best ever done here. The bad examples outnumber it 3 to 1- because most marketing people think it’s enough to stick a fucking poster on a bus and an ad on late night tv. Provided the budget is spent.
Blair Witch, PA, and Rise of the Planet of the Apes were all creative, innovative (Blair Witch’s use of the internet and PA’s use of multiple key messages and in particular the timing of them was astonishing), and exceptionally well done.
Apes had viral marketing?
Yeah, loads of it, and it was really good- it got a lot of people.
I remember being shown apes stuff in the pub that people thought was genuine, like this:
Genuine, my arse, but it spread out, and did catch attention. Which is the purpose.
Hehehe well I’m glad those got like 20 extra people in the theaters.
Don’t sneer at it. It was effective. Did one person see it solely because of shit like this? No. Did it add to the mix and help to persuade? Yes.
It’s about creating word of mouth.
Don’t forget that good news gets spread to 3 people by each person that’s seen it. So, if 1000 people saw it, then that’s 3000 that went to see it.
It is nigh on impossible to measure the actual effect of stuff.
Rise started out with almost everyone being negative, and made good cash. It built interest and this is just part of that.
Anyway, the conversation is about “good” campaigns. Rise had an outstanding campaign.
IDK I only heard people excited about Apes after the first trailer. This is the first I’ve heard about those viral ads, so I’m willing to bet the trailer did 100% more than those ads. I mean I’m not saying that I KNOW EVERYTHING, but seeing as that this is the first time I’m hearing about/seeing those ads probably means they were negligible overall.
I am too. I’ll bet that the trailer and how good it was was by far the driving focus. However, as a little something extra to slide through and attract a few more punters?
This shit is called viral for a reason. It gets out there and spreads. However, it’s very much what you do in support, and it was to support a show-stopper of a trailer.
And as for effectiveness, god bless Youtube- 17,796,831 views.
That’s a shit load for a support gig. Especially to just generate interest.
Weird there are no statistics available for it, but it shows some link to Fox News? Hehehe maybe fox news picked it up thinking it was real.
It links to 20th Century Fox, not Fox news. Fuck knows though, I’ll bet that it’s out of date now, and doesn’t work any more.
Not the video under it, it says:
As Seen On: nation.foxnews.com
Yeah, I realised what you meant afterwards. I was being dense.
nation.foxnews.com confuses me. I wouldn’t be surprised if it hadn’t been the “April fool” that news channels always used to do.
Well that’s pretty crazy that I never heard of those videos before. Did you guys talk about them on here and I just missed it? It is getting crazy the amount of viral ad’s/marketing that comes out these days. I mostly think they are more dumb an annoying.
Have you ever checked out the Donnie Darko website?
We never did for some reason. However, lots and lots of people certainly did see them.
No, I’ve never seen that. I shall do.
Also, look below:
In theaters now! Purchase tickets online @ http://www.fandango.com/riseoftheplanetoftheapes_135719/movieoverview
—————-
http://www.facebook.com/apeswillrise – For the latest ‘Rise of the Planet of the Apes’ news & updates
——
http://itun.es/igb4Ky – Are you smarter than an ape? Challenge yourself with this memory test/iPhone app designed by scientists and tested on apes
—–
That’s almost textbook SMM in action. Facebook, the blogosphere and an iphone ap. I’m willing to bet this was quite successful.
Ah- that’s what was so new about Blair Witch. The buzz for it was almost entirely internets driven. There was not a lot in the way of other marketing done.
This wasn’t the case for PA. The internets were just part of the “mix”.
The general populace should have been wise to the “it’s real” ruse because Blair Witch pulled it so successfully. However, that in itself isn’t what’s interesting about the way they did it. I’m sure other films have done that BC (before computers).
Blair Which had tons of general publicity you couldn’t turn a page in a magazine without seeing that poster, that’s how I heard about it.
Peter Jackson did a doc that fooled much of NZ and Australia. That was a good one too. I’d like to see that again. Should track it down. No doubt I can acquire it.
I’ve never seen that. I always like it when people get mugged by this.
The BBC one was hilarious. I’d have been about 10. We all watched it, because it wasn’t on late at night. Fucking traumatised loads of kids.
Yeah I need to see Forgotten Silver. It’s easy to find. I do miss old Peter Jackson, fuck LOTR, just imagine what sort of film he’d still be making if he never made those films.
No- that was Box Office.
PA had a far more traditional advertising/ marketing method. Once they had distribution, they did TV spots and shit as per normal. With Blair Witch, they gathered momentum, and used the internet to flog it as “real”. I think it had multiple releases as well to try to build up a mystique around the film.
When it came over this side of the pond, we were inundated with articles about people literally puking out of terror in the cinema (although I think that was more likely to be motion sickness) as the word about this little film had built and journalists were falling over themselves to write hysterical crap on it.
That didn’t happen with PA.
Yeah it did. PA had been around for 2 years before it finally got a release. And in between the festival circuit and wide release it got a marginal small release. Also they did online stuff where people tried to get the movie in their town before it came out.
If anything the buzz on Blair Which was a lot greater because it only did 2 weeks of limited play and PA did 4.
Hmmm, well, I don’t know about that. What I do know is that nobody tried to pretend that PA was real. What they did do, that was clever, was build an audience on-line the same way, in this case by making it an event and effectively throwing a party for the film pre-release.
The actual on-line build up by Artisan for Blair Witch started months and months in advance of the film in a very specific way, hence why it made more money when it did hit the limited release than PA, and at the time there was almost a hysteria about it. It was weird, and shouldn’t have worked at all.
I mean I walked into the PA 1 screening and heard everyone talking about how they heard the movie was real. It was just an updated version of marketing that Blair Witch did.
Maybe over seas it was much different because it looks like everyone else got PA about a month after America.
It wasn’t. It was different methodology. For reasons outside of PA’s control.
1) The growth of the internet meant you physically cannot pull the same stunt that they pulled and allow it to leak and slow burn. Also, it means that the market wasn’t as in built towards geeks as it was then.
2) Everyone knows.
3) The rise of Google. Google is now all-powerful and SEO for google is paramount in the trade. It’s also far more sophisticated, but paradoxically, far harder to do. You can’t appeal to certain groups and key words the way Blair Witch could because there are fucking millions of sites out there with this crap. Blair Witch was set up as a conspiracy site, and then linked to Artisan, PA couldn’t pull this.
4) Bounty Data, and e-mail homepages. Think what a hotmail account looks like compared to 1999. It’s a completely different concept. Ditto G-mail (which didn’t even exist). Nowadays, you just want to get placed on those.
This is just the start of it, but you can try to pull the same beats (real/ found footage etc), but you’re credibility is nigh on 0 because of the nature of the internets.
I spend half my life trying to stay on top of new developments, and it’s a totally different animal now to what it was even 2 years ago.
Hehehe ok? So computers are more sophisticated now? Doesn’t mean human’s are? PA pulled the same shit as Blair Witch did, they maybe didn’t get as much mileage out of the IT’S REAL aspect like Blair Which did, but it was the same shit. No one was going into Blair Which after opening weekend thinking it was real, and if they had they weren’t paying attention. Both the hype and limited releases of both films were all internet marketing hype and presented to make you think it may be real.
No, that’s not what I’m saying.
The very nature of the internet has changed from the 90’s- you can’t just start a site and then expect people to find it and the potential audience to grow organically the same way. This is what I’m referring to with that.
They tried the “it’s real” aspect, but I suspect it didn’t have the legs and so forth, because the internet is now stuffed to the gills with little wankers that know everything about everything, and would destroy it in a snap.
However, there were other things that PA did that BW couldn’t do.
SEO? Search Engine Overlord?
Search Engine Optimisation.
It’s a pain in the hole nowadays. The level of stuff you have to adjust to try to generate traffic is off the fucking scale, and really annoying and boring to do. And it’s because Google change the way they look for things on a fucking weekly basis.
In fact, it was one of the last true Phenomenon films. After it was, what? Avatar?
Er? Did you read what I read? I just talked about the fact that the release was “unique”. But you continue being argumentative.
I was replying to this:
And kind of linking it in with what Koutch had said. There was nothing unique about the actual film, but the way it was sold was unique and is why I mentioned it to begin with.
It was also, interestingly, a success despite being mediocre.
You’re being far too literal with the term. Sure, you can head to dictionary.com and prove that the film wasn’t unique, but that’s not how it’s used in normal conversation. It’s used by most people (excluding dictionarybots) as a general term to describe something unusual or rare. I reckon you know this, but you’re being a stickler to win the argument.
Moving on from pedantry, I took it that Koutch meant the content of the film.
If you have a problem with the end of the General’s daughter the problem lies with the author of the book. As I remember it the book and movie ending were nearly identical.
The film is basically a whodunnit. Then it’s revealed, and before the credits start rolling there’s a bit of utterly extraneous text about the treatment of women in the services that is both distracting from the story and actively insulting to actual victims to be associated with what is essentially a potboiler murder mystery. If the same bit of text is as a prologue to the book, or after the final page, then that’s as bad. Not to mention that it tries to apply a feminist connotation that the film doesn’t warrant. This is not an issue film.
The other reason I resent it, is that it tries to lend some credence to an utterly ludicrous OTT mystery by associating it with “real” statistics. And I doubt the veracity of the text as well, because as I recall it implies that women in the services are going to get raped.
And I can’t fucking find it now.
How’d the wifes turkey day cooking go? How much of it did you end up doing?
The vast majority of it. I did all the prep for the main, the stuffing, roasted them, and made gravy.
She complained a lot, then mashed some spuds and did whatever it was to the sweet potatoes. She did the pumpkin pie though.
I honestly can’t read anything the guardian writes. They have an interview with JGL, which I gave up reading in the middle of the first paragraph. Christ, who the fuck thinks this is an interesting opening to an article?
Quasi-intellectual, wannabe pretentious horseshit. Just introduce the actor and ask your fucking questions, dickhead.
They’re scrambling hard today, because of the Sports Personality of the Year Award shortlist that has no women on it.
And weirdly Andrew Strauss, who averaged 25 in England this summer.
I’d give it to Cook, but that cyclist cunt that I’ve no interest in will probably win.
It isn’t the Sports No Personality of the Year Award
Well, have you seen the shortlist?
Clarke is the only worthy one that isn’t either a cunt or has a personality. However, he’s a golfer, so I don’t care.
Andy Murray? Is it the Perpetual Semi Finalist of the Year award? The Always the Bridesmaid, Never the Bride of the Year award? The Whinging Hateful Cunt of the Year award?
That’s what I thought.
Well I finally saw Henry’s Crime and is wasn’t AS good as I was hoping it would be, I was thinking it would be under rated gem, but it was a lot of fun. It’s 100% better than 44 Inch Chest, though nothing in it is as funny as Ray Winstone running in that film. It’s a low-fi Ocean’s Eleven (god I hate how every fucking heist movie now gets compared to that) and I tend to like those much better than Ocean’s (don’t really care for Ocean’s). It’s similar to The Good Thief in it’s heist, but that is a much better movie. It was fun, if you are interested I suggest you check it out. It was fun and jaunty and the music was good. It reminds me of The Merry Gentlemen, but again I liked that movie more.
44 Inch Chest is being totally missold. It’s essentially a Pinter film in the vein of things like The Dumb Waiter. If you go into it expecting this, then it makes a huge difference to the film.
It’s not really a gangster film, although it is about gangsters.
Winstone needing a shit face is quite funny though.
44 Inch Chest would’ve made a nice stage play, it’s a boring ass movie.
Agree with that. Although I really like Pinter so I really liked it as well.
44 Inch Chest was a great little movie. It’s more effective than a stageplay because of some of the cinematic touches it has, particularly when you can really move characters around and display previous events with a greater, more fluid ease, thus establishing the hallucinatory nature of Winstone’s headspace better.
I can see how some might find it boring, but it has all the elements there to be engrossing, and for me it was.
The hallucinatory stuff was pretty weak, it could’ve easily been done on stage as well. I don’t hate the movie it was just way too much talk not enough walk (yes I read and stole that from someone else’s review of it, but it’s true). Just you put all those heavies together and that was the best you came up with? Also the cussing was lame and over the top, like someone learned a cuss word for the first time and over used it like a child. Also Ray having to run for the first time in his life pretty much made it worthwhile you couldn’t have gotten that on a stage I’ll give you that.
I know exactly what you’re talking about here.
Dig up The Dumb Waiter, K. You should be able to get a copy of the script really easily. It’s two hitmen sitting in a room talking, and the style, especially the short dialogue fired back and forth is the obvious precursor to 44Inch.
It would work equally well on stage, all Pinter-style stuff does. However, it would take a bit of clever staging.
‘Just you put all those heavies together and that was the best you came up with?’
Sounds like my Expendables review.
The Simpson’s Book Heist episode was damn good. Really struck a nerve about writer’s block.
Ocean’s Eleven = 2 Changs.
Ocean’s Twelve = Orang of Doom
Ocean’s Thirteen = 1.5 Changs
Original Ocean’s Eleven = 1 Chang. It’s really not a very good movie. Just an excuse for those guys to hang out together.
Simpsons finally did a Ocean’s 11 parody the other day, and it was actually pretty good. One of the better episodes in a while. They weren’t robbing anything, they were coming together to group write a book in order to make money…and in turn they learned that writing a novel together is a rewarding experience and more beneficial than writing one solo. So it was a love song to the “writer’s room”. Because at the same time Homer/Bart and CO are writing a book, Lisa is trying to prove them wrong by writing a book by herself and she keeps fucking off and procrastinating while the group keeps everyone focused and working. And Neil Gayman was in it.
I haven’t watched any new Simpsons in a while. I’ve caught a fair bit of the previous 3 or 4 seasons, maybe half of them. But I haven’t watched any this season.
The Simpson’s Book Heist episode was damn good. Really struck a nerve about writer’s block.
Yeah the montage with Lisa was very good.
Henry’s Crime I didnt much get into. I thought no one had a clear idea of what they were doing with it, and it felt like it was supposed to be some screwball coedy, and the pacing was just off. I found HC 100% more boring than 44 Inch Chest.
Dunno, Echo.
Pinter has been filmed before, notably the Birthday Party, and 44 Inch Chest is the most pinter-esque thing I’ve seen for a long time
dunno what?
Im not disagreeing. I like Pinter and agree with your comparison.
I was just saying the director’s follow-up, Henry’s Crime, to me, was a bit of a letdown. It isn’t Pinter-esque.
Heheheh seeing as that you were in the epicenter of Blair Whichdom care to give your thoughts on the Blair Witch/Paranormal Activity phenomenon’s?
About 44 inch chest on the stage. I think Koutch is right, if creatively staged, it could work well.
well, no, Im not saying it couldnt work as a stageplay. Koutch’s statement was ‘should have been a stageplay because it made a boring movie’. I’m saying that analysis is wrong. I’m saying that some of what worked in the film wouldnt be made ‘better’ in a stageplay. Could they make it work? Yes. But, honestly, how would a stageplay version improve the things he didnt like, other than it would have given him different expectations going in?
Because then the lack of plot/movement in the film would make sense. A bunch of dudes chilling in a room talking can be an amazing movie (see that new Russian movie about a jury of 12 men in a room), but they didn’t do enough with 44 inch chest to get past the tedium of it. I mean as a stage play it still may have been a little tedious, but it would’ve been more expected sure, also I suspect the acting would’ve been stronger.
Heheh in rereading my review 44 inch chest also had that viral fake website for the movie.
And in re reading my review I think they overdid it, trying to make more out of the movie then playing it more straight. They were trying too hard to make it odd, where with a stage play you wouldn’t be allowed that and it would play out more naturally if he was crazy or not.
which is what I meant K, about your expectations of it being different or tempered or whatever in play format. I know what you are saying. I don’t think it’s an absurd supposition. I just don’t agree.
again, agreed, but that fluidity and ambiguity regarding his craziness or lack thereof is part of what I assume makes it Pinter-esque according to Jarv.
Is Pinter annoying and grating? I think In Bruges is a closer Pinter like movie than 44 inch chest.
It isn’t.
Pinter has a way with dialogue that is bang on 44 inch chest.
I don’t find it grating.
So you’ve seen and liked 44 Inch Chest and it reminds you of Pinter?
Me?
Yes.
Ok I thought you hadn’t seen it.
HC was fun. Caan was good, I liked that it wasn’t straight up screw ball. Could’ve used a little more depth to Neo’s character, but it works for Keanu. There were some pacing issues, but I think that mainly came down to lack of Chemistry between Vera and Reeves more than the movie.
Not a big fan of 44 inch chest, it was okay, nothing more. The Winstone running is funny, I do have to agree with that.
“ORT–!!”
“Hulk hate Ort-beast-!!”
Sadly only Conti-Pops will even have a clue as to what I’m talking about.
http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix3/ortbeastdef.htm
What the fuck?
what is that?
The new Vinnie D’off joint.
I think most of you need this:
“One never knows when a homosexual is about”
*Waves* Coo-eeee!
PS. Im sick! But its not visable…
I find it hard to believe a man dressed as badly as Ralph could be a homosexual.
So the Homosexual is like the Spanish inquisition nobody expects them?
I saw Rampart last night. First of all, hands down the best performance of 2011 (that I’ve seen) goes to the Woodster. In a pretty barren year of really good performances, this is a cracker. The Year of the Woody!!! 2.0!!!
Now, the film… I haven’t settled on if it gets a stamp of approval or not. I admittedly was expecting something a little bit more traditionally structured. The film opens in the middle and we catch up to speed on his life, we see events occur that finally unravel his tenuous grip on the lives of those close to him, his systematic breakdown as he loses control and it closes openended. The film is full of good performances. Robin Wright. Sigourney Weaver. Ned Beatty. Even whatsername redhead from SATC. And there’s a club scene that nails what it’s like to be off your head in a loud, dark nightclub. It’s got some terrific writing, by Moverman and Ellroy. But… it’s didn’t connect with me. It may be a film that will grow on me over time. I think if I watched it again in a year I’d like it more. Because I’d know what to expect.
HC2 has been banned in Australia.
http://www.theage.com.au/entertainment/movies/censor-bans-centipede-sequel-20111129-1o57s.html
Wooo!
Well done Aussies. I’m still cross the BBFC relented and it’s getting a release (albeit cut).
We do like to ban stuff. We’re old school like that.
Well I found out that the copy I saw was a bit edited, the rape via barb wire was not in it. Which I think if it had been you wouldn’t see the lead character as such an innocent.
Koutch, how, and I’m genuinely wondering about this, is a character that sews together however many women ass-to-mouth an innocent?
You gotta watch the movie brah. I’m thinking the cuts made to the version I saw make him more that way. He’s like a retard, it’s a odd fucking movie. It’s ever bit as unpleasant as they say, but in the end I kind of liked it.
He’s misunderstood. Such a nice man. Quiet, polite, always paid his rent on time.
Nice to animals…
I mean you see it and you realize that the internet blogger types are real people as well with real problems.
I’m still waiting for the news report of the arrest of a hideously deformed mongoloid in the hills of Portugal who has sewn 7 goats together from head to anus.
The Cervine Centipede.
Horrible prospect.
I’m pretty sure that’s just a local tradition there. It’s called the Shem De Gres, it takes place mid March, it’s sort of a sacrificial ritual to the goat gods in hopes of plentiful goat’s milk harvest for the rest of the year.
What’s particlarly disturbing is they only milk the males.
And nobody’s told them that you don’t need to add your own contribution.
So I’ve finished London Fields. Pretty good book that was better for me in sections than as a whole. Some of the Marmaduke stuff is simultaneously hilarious and disturbing. And the Kim story was effective. I found the narrator sections of each chapter much more satisfying than the story. I put my money on the ending early on, around chapter 3 or 4. Fairly obvious even to a dullard like me. A dense read. Decent book. Can’t be filmed.
Yup, you can spot it early on.
I can’t remember the Marmaduke Stuff. And I used to have a mild crush on whatshername from it. Nikki Six?
The Marmaduke stuff is basically a parents worst nightmare. The child from hell. Some of the descriptions of his actions are hilarious.
Nicola Six. The crush was obviously based on her sexual prowess. It can’t be anything else. She’s a horrible person.
I’ve always had a blind spot for filth. And she’s very filthy if I recall correctly.
That horrible little shit. Thanks for reminding me. No wonder he went out to hide in the Black Cross.
You had a crush on Poison’s guitarist?
The beginning of the end, Jarv?
http://www.theage.com.au/sport/cricket/johnson-set-to-miss-summer-of-cricket-20111130-1o5xv.html
Bollocks.
I hope his surgery is successful, and he recovers in record time to take his place as “attack leader” again. For the next few years.
I was reading yesterday about the new kids coming through and vying for a test spot against the kiwis, and also Watsons comments on how he might have to drop down the order if Clarke continues to bowl him as much as he has. Now, if we can establish a new opening partnership, and drop Watson down the order, we’d have something like this…
Opener (Possibly Warner)
Hughes
Ponting/Khawaja/Marsh
Clarke
Khawaja/Marsh
Hussey
Watson
Haddin/Other Keeper
Siddle/Harris
Cummins/Pattinson/Copeland
Lyon/Spinner
That bats all the way down to 8. Two pace bowlers. Watson. And a spinner. Not perfect but not too bad. Hussey will need to be replaced in the next year or two.
Watson’s right. He’s been a revelation since he came back, but he’s a natural number 5 or 6.
Going to persist in Hughes? If you put him in with Warner, that’s a frighteningly fragile top order, and a bit weak in the bowling for me. That’s a side picked to avoid defeat rather than to win, and Siddle is too high in the order.
You need something like this:
Opener
Warner/ Hughes
Khawaja/ Marsh (Time to retire, Ricky)
Clarke
Hussey for the next year then the other of Khawaja/ Marsh
Watson
Keeper (Paine?)
JOHNSON (hehehehe)
Siddle/ Harris (Harris first, depending on fitness)
One of the three likely lads bowling, I’d go Cummins
Spinner (doesn’t matter which, they’re all fairly mediocre)
Alright, in reality you have to drop Mitch. Sadly. Which means that you pick Cummins and A.N.Other. Or Harris and Siddle.
Bit stronger bowling, few less liabilities and walking wickets.
Yeah, that’s what I was weighing up, bowling wise. You’re right, there does need to be another bowler in there, but that makes the tail mighty long. The ONE good thing about Johnson in that he can bat a bit. I was looking to Watson bolstering up the bowling.
Unless someone comes out of nowhere and Hughes doesn’t make runs, he’ll be a mainstay for a while. Particularly if Watson moves down the order. Really, Katich should’ve stayed opener for two years following the Ashes. Allowing Hughes time in state cricket, time to identify another opener and eventually Watson to move down the order.
Agree 100%. Katich can feel very hard done by. However, considering he once tried to kick Clarke’s head in, it’s not surprising that he was dropepd.
Was Jacques an Aussie? Because he’d do the job for a while.
Jacques was. And he was a decent batsmen. He hit his peak at the tail end of the Langer/Hayden era though.
I thought he may still be going. Loved him playing for Yorkshire.
PS- next year’s county fixtures announced. Season now starting early April to accommodate more 20fucking20.
It’s not even in doubt, He’s only 32. Fucking pick him.
Should go to some cricket next year. On the right day this time.
Aye.
Middlesex:
http://www.middlesexccc.com/1st-team-fixtures.asp
Surrey:
Click to access 2012.pdf
Dropping Katich was a panic move. Obviously, under the previous regime, they made a lot of horrendous decisions. Ousting Katich and Hauritz are just two of them.
Hauritz would shore up the batting as well, and allow the likes of Lyon and Beer to learn their trade without getting slaughtered like Krezja.
P. Jacques. Born 1979. 11 Tests. Average just under 48!
Why is this even in question?
P. Hughes
15 tests. Average 38 and falling.
This allows you to pick this line up:
Jacques,
Warner/ Hughes
Khawaja
Clarke
Hussey
Watson
Haddin
Hauritz
Harris
Siddle
Cummins.
That’s actually a good side. Luckily Australia’s selectors have caught rampant cretinism from England’s (takes years to get over) so there’s no danger.
I bet it’s a youth policy. They don’t have the luxury of giving 30 year old batsmen test debuts anymore (like Mr Cricket. Maybe not his test debut, but he wasn’t part of the team until 30). I’m sure they’re striving to identify early to mid 20 year olds.
I always think you should play the best player regardless of age. If you haven’t got a 20 something Opener like Cook or you wish Hughes was, then pick the best available. You can get a good couple of years out of Jacques which will buy time to get someone in.
Here you go…
http://www.theage.com.au/sport/cricket/selectors-make-youth-the-priority-20111126-1o0jb.html
Mickey Arthur.
Dickhead.
Who’s that? Australia don’t have a coach. Nope, no person named Mickey Arthur associated with Australian cricket. Certainly no Saffa’s. I don’t know what you’re talking about.
Hehehehehe.
You’d probably be better without one. Still, agent whatshisname, undercover English Mole planted at the top of Aussie cricket with mission to wreck it has been discovered and booted out. Looks like the Saffa double agent, codenamed “fuckstick” will have to take over.
Latest Marvel review(s) sent…
Daredevil and Elektra?
Yup and yup.
Oh good. I’ll put them up.
Man I got two screens at work and sometimes it gets wonky and now my main screen has that retard font looking going and I can’t fix it without rebooting but I can’t be assed to.
If anyone is in need of a Christmas/Ramadanda gift for their better half this year may I suggest:
http://www.trenddelacreme.com/2010/08/scrotal-sack-new-it-bag.html
or
http://www.facebook.com/littleroosterstore?sk=info
Watched Fright Night 2011 (again), and The Thing 2011. You know what, I enjoyed both!
Both a solid 2.5/3 from me.
The Thing is actually a good cast, and although does seem to follow the original beat for beat, I did like the rising tension. The transformation was in keeping with the original too, and pretty fucked up too. Not upto the original, but few films are. But a worthy second place. And probably a very good double bill with the original too.
Fright Night was just fun. Another great cast, with Farrell absolutely being the shark from Jaws. Dr Who was great fun too.
A good nights watching!
Yeah I really dug The Thing, it was a lot of fun. Good double feature with the original, they match up nicely.
The Thing bored me a bit, because it was a bit too beat for beat, but it’s not a bad movie. A fun monster flick, but ultimately meh. The special effects are superb.
I did quite enjoy the Fright Night remake though. Good times. Farrell was enjoyable as the vampire and I liked the Sarandon cameo.
Droid, I got your review, will put it up this afternoon.
Also saw Rampart. I’m sort of with you on it, though I think I’m gonna like it more on a rewatch. I’m gonna watch it again at the close of the week. Feels like something really good is in there, but it might just be the strength of Woody’s performance.
Watched it withTyrannosaur. Cheerful evening.
I’ve been avoiding that. It’s extreme misery porn and I don’t think I can take much more this year.
oh come on, you know it’s your bread and butter. Harsh as hell though.
Makes Nil by Mouth look like the flippin Muppets.
Now Nil By Mouth and Kevin and Perry Go Large…thats a fucking double feature.
I had a feeling.
That’s a really good film. Did you ever see Tim Roth’s directorial debut The War Zone. Fuck me.
Oh, so Tyrannosaur is a film for misery guts. Enjoy it, Jarv.
Tyrannosaur is about a widower with rage issues who can’t seem to get out of his own rut, and then he meets a christian charity worker who has her own berserker lurking at home. Eddie Marsan being his usual brutish creep. I mean the movie opens with Mullan kicking his dog to death, and spirals out from there. It’s tough as hell to watch, but I grudgingly have to admit, it’s damn good. Better than nil by mouth and war zone if you ask me, but that’s because there’s some semblance of hope to it. I didn’t get much from those other two in regards to hope.
And Mullan is a beast in this–superb performance. Must have been damn exhausting to come to work everyday and have to be this guy though.
I heard an interview with Paddy the other day, I think it only took 10 days to film.
Are Roth/Paddy/Oldman all from the same high street?
Dulwich, England/Burton upon Trent, East Staffordshire, England, UK/New Cross, London, England, UK
Eh close? The first two at least come from super british sounding places.
And god damn Gary Oldman is only 53? Dude looks like he’s nearing 70, maybe he’s got cancer.
London doesn’t sound “super british”?
Naw it’s just London, it’s too big. It’s not some niche sounding british place, that only a proper brit would know where it is.
I’m still debating whether or not to watch that Langham film.
Nowhere near each other.
good thing then. Not the kind of thing you want to be working on for months and months.
Considine seems like he could really make a noteworthy director if he decides to try his hand again.
Yeah I just read he directed some short that won some Sundance thing, I’d like to see that.
Yeah, no worries.
Woody’s performance is exceptional, and he’s surrounded by good performances too. The film just didn’t mesh with me. I’ll give it another look. Not this week though!
I know nothing about Tyrannosaur.
Outrageous.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2011/nov/30/twilight-sues-jacket-kristen-stewart
Then pay to fucking use the clothing. Cocksuckers.
And how out of touch is this old cunt:
This is absolutely disgraceful. They’ve been making it for fucking years before shitlight.
Oh, and in shit news everywhere:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog/2011/nov/29/oldboy-remake-darker-ending
OK this is awesome:
http://www.comixology.com/sku/OCT111792/Leon-the-Professional-Real-Masterpiece-AF
So in researching the good Olsen sibling, I came across this thing slated for 2012: Silent House.
The plot: Trapped inside her family’s lakeside retreat, a young woman descends into madness. Starring Elizabeth Olsen.
Guess no one is worried about typecasting just yet.
I’m waiting for this Olsen twin to finally get cast in something:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/lapd-discovers-hidden-deformed-olsen-triplet,576/
geez, I forgot that back in the early 00s, The Onion still had bite.
Damn, that was harsh.
Conti, hows it going? Did you get my message before about MM? You can put up whatever you like, regardless of whenit was written.
Been busy so i might have missed it. I’ll start posting old reviews shortly. I better get back to work on my stupid The Lady review.
This is why Siddle is so important…
The two kids took a few wickets, but Siddle was bowling at half the economy rate.
The problem is that he rarely bags big hauls himself. Harris can also keep it tight, but is a lot more threatening as well.
You do need him until someone comes through.
Watched 50/50 last night. It was actually very good. Good performances, solid writing and direction. The only downside was the chick out of Up In The Air, who grates on me. Solid film and JGL was very good. And Rogen too actually. He was the “comedy” friend, but wasn’t OTT. Good film.
And Anjelica Huston was excellent as well.
Jarv, remind me to double bill the Elite Squads this weekend FFS. I keep forgetting to watch them.
That may be a bit of a depressing double bill. Watch the first, see how you’re getting on, and if too bleak then DON’T watch the second.
Annoyingly, I tried to watch Conquest of the Planet of the Apes last night, only for my procured copy to be in French.
Will do. If my Fast and Furious box set arrives by saturday I’ll use Fast Five FTW as an antidote for the misery.
You can get Apes 1-5 box set on bluray for £13-14. Then just get Rise when it goes cheap. Usually about a month after it’s released. Why anyone bothers buying blurays on day one is beyond me.
I’m waiting for the Evolution box set. Which also includes Burton’s sadly.
*hangs head in shame*
My way, you avoid having the constant stench of Burtons filth on your dvd shelf.
It’ll fit right in with Le Divorce, Beaches, and the other unconscionable shite the wife already has polluted it with.
I’d best do the new Rec Room.
And Resident Evil. That one’s not the wifes.