In Japan, I realized, the Japanese want to know you. The Koreans act like they want to know you and the Chinese don’t give a f**ck if you exist.

(Of course, this isn’t universal for everyone, I’m making a generalization here, so, please, no hate mail.)

It feels the same for Apple and Dell and the rest.

All the small, self-builders care about how you feel about the computer you’re building.
Dell pretends to care about you and your computer while installing the absolute cheapest hardware they can get away with without you noticing.
And Apple…well, they don’t give a f**ck how you feel about how much they charge for the computer they give you as long as you feel cool about buying an Apple. (Which is why the equivalent 600 dollar Dell costs 1000 with Apple.

I thought the movie was over before the final battle, when Borte was saying goodbye as Temudgin rode off. Seemed like a good place to end, with the reckoning between Temudgin and Jamukha waiting for the sequel. I couldn’t believe when I looked at the clock afterwards and saw the movie was only a little over two hours long. I honestly thought it was near three.

Which leads me to another thing - I’m tired of Braveheart style battle scenes. It’s gotten to the point where they all feel the same. These things were quite the spectacle back in the day but they’re boring now.

The battle scenes did inspire me to wonder why Hollywood movies are so expensive, though. This isn’t something that I’m overly concerned about, but I thought the production value was more or less equal to any movie I’ve seen this summer. The CGI effects weren’t great, but they never are to my eye anyway, and they weren’t any worse than the mega-expensive Spider-Man films.

And I didn’t like the actor that played Jamukha as much as you did. I thought he was a good example of how scenery-chewing transcends nationality and language.

Beautifully shot, however. I’ll give it that.

I suspect Memory, since it seems to be a recurring problem. I also transferred over 100 pics from my camera earlier in the week.

I knew it was bad, but I must not have been watching Very Bad Things that intensely those ten or more years ago I saw it, since I don’t remember it illiciting such harsh feelings in me.

I had actually been looking forward to seeing it, as it had garnered some critical praise on the festival circuit. But it turned out to be one of the most excruciating viewing experiences of my life. It was so unbearably smug, one of those movies that thinks it’s really out there and subversive but in actuality is the kind of gutterball trash that any drunk pledge-week college freshman could put together.

Looking back, it seems to have taken away whatever career momentum Christian Slater had left. His Nicholson impersonation was extremely grating, all the more so for being both very obvious and very pointless, and since then he has only smallish supporting roles, a few indie losers and a Uwe Boll movie to his credit.

I also remember Daniel Stern’s rendering every line of his dialogue as a neurotic screech. Indeed, his death was perhaps the only high point of the film. Haven’t seen much of him since, either.

But knowing all that at the hour mark, I waited for something horrible to happen. And it didn’t. I thought I was going to have egg on my face because I told my friends that the ending ripped the movie apart, but it didn’t for me. However, they knew nothing about the “twist” beforehand and came out going “eh…that’s not really what I expected.” They were completely underwhelmed by it. I expected the reactions to be opposite.

So, I wasn’t underwhelmed like I thought I would be, but this certainly isn’t the blockbuster we’re looking for. Merely a bad appetizer before the thrilling main course of The Dark Knight.

I guess what I’m saying is that it feels like the world is grading on a curve.

I can see where you’re coming from with this, and I’ve certainly felt the same from time to time. But you also have to take into account the factor that time plays in all of this. Some films go on to become “worst ever!” and some grow.

I’m sure that if Iron Man had been released 25 years ago it would have been as lauded as it was now, while I wonder how John Carpenter’s films, for example, would fare today, taking into account that the special effects would be updated.

Besides, you look at the highest grossing films of 1983 in the US and you get this list.

Gross Movie
309,125,409 Star Wars - Return of the Jedi (1983)
94,900,000 Flashdance (1983)
90,400,000 Trading Places (1983)
79,568,000 WarGames (1983)
67,642,693 Sudden Impact (1983)
64,800,000 Mr. Mom (1983)
63,800,000 Staying Alive (1983)
63,541,777 Risky Business (1983)
61,400,000 Vacation (1983)
57,403,139 Octopussy (1983)

Out of those only Trading Places, Risky Business and Return of the Jedi deserve to be called good films.

This summer we’ll at least have The Dark Knight and WALL-E. Would those have garnered less praise ten, twenty years ago?

Also, looking the Best Picture nominees for 1983, we have

Terms of Endearment (1983) - James L. Brooks
Big Chill, The (1983) - Michael Shamberg (I)
Dresser, The (1983) - Peter Yates (I)
Right Stuff, The (1983) - Irwin Winkler; Robert Chartoff
Tender Mercies (1983) - Philip Hobel

And Terms of Endearment was the winner. I can’t bother looking it up, but I’m pretty sure Terms of Endearment had some great reviews at the time. Who the hell even thinks about that film anymore?

Maybe critics are letting some films slide, but I don’t feel like the climate for films is any worse than it was 25 years ago. In fact, looking at that year, it’s much, much better.

Matthew Broderick is an awful bore. He does the stiff, closet pervert nicely, but not better than ten other less well known actors could have done.

I knew it was bad, but I must not have been watching Very Bad Things that intensely those ten or more years ago I saw it, since I don’t remember it illiciting such harsh feelings in me.

The Gonzo documentary looks like much of the same but has a great poster. Besides, it might end up as the defining document of Thompson along with the Gilliam film, considering how many watch films and how few read books.

Hancock, might watch it in cinemas. Not sure yet.

I am afraid that this laptop is nearing the end. So far so good, though, since last night.

Have you tried System Restore? Start–>All PRograms–>Accessories–>System
Go back to the day or two before you started getting the STOP error. This has worked for me a few times and it’s worth a shot for you (if the problem returns, that is)

This will check your registry and see if you have a trojan or worm.
If you got the blue screen of death and the computer still works, I’m pretty sure it wasn’t really the blue screen of death and some errant program is fucking with your drivers.

Try that website and program and let me know if it still happens.

I swear, tech support blows these days.

Speaking of studios, a trend I’ve noticed this year is that the big summer releases are being drastically overrated. ‘Good’ is being turned into ‘great,’ and completely average films are being enthusiastically greeted…

….But I can’t help but believe that if these had been released several years ago, before terrible summer movies became a given, those ratings would be lower than they are now. I guess what I’m saying is that it feels like the world is grading on a curve.

I’ve been thinking the same thing for some time now and I think the reason why is in part answered by the second part of the section quoted above. It does feel like critics are adapating to the increasingly low level of summer mainstream blockbusters (perhaps in fear of being overtly sour and out-of-step) and are adapting themselves and ‘going with the flow’. And it should be said, that the same thing occurs with audiences; as a critic one wrote moviegoers ask for far too little from films.

As to the films that I’ve seen this year, none that I’ve seen have been particularly impressive but they’ve generally been adequate. My ratings out of 5:

Cloverfield - 3
Be Kind Rewind - 3.5
Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day - 2.5
Get Smart - 3
The Happening - 1.5
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade - 3

DRIVER_IRQL_NOT_LESS_OR_EQUAL

Available online tech support indicates that this is likely a driver issue due to recently installed hardware or software. Problem is, haven’t installed new hardware or software for some time.

Ran a full virus scan in safe mode, nothing came up. Still, seems to have solved the problem for now.

I actually suspect the virus scan somewhat. It had some problems performing an update this morning, although it finally worked. I’m not certain - I don’t usually watch these things very closely - but I think it was doing a software update in addition to the usual library update. Perhaps it made a driver change that didn’t take.

This bears a close watch over the next few days. I hate computer problems.

I’m torn because if I don’t go, I’m missing out on “hangin’ wit da boyz”, but if I go, I’m giving $7 to the Hancock fund this weekend. Thankfully it’s a noontime matinee. It will probably be worth it to spend time with friends and enjoy the first hour. At least they cut cut cut it down to 92 minutes, so it won’t be excruciating for long….

Tossed Shotgun Stories on my Netflix que after Brian’s review, just bumped it near the top after reading the above.
Watching In Bruges this weekend, my expectations are high.

Wells posted up the original screenplay yesterday. I found it to be weird, meandering, almost pointless. From the trailers I can see how they tried to improve it, but…I still don’t think that the new 3rd act development is what people are asking for.

I think Monroe was underrated as an actress, her performance in Some Like it Hot was critical to the success of the film.

Finally, and this probably interests only me, I picked up a copy of the magazine in question and here is the note by the editor, Mary Gannon:

“I can’t remember when or where I first saw the image of Marilyn Monroe that grace’s this issue’s cover, but I’ve carried it in my memory for a long time now. Monroe was a complicated figure: A woman who survived–and was probably destroyed–by the public persona she’d created (all body, no brains), privately she strove for more. And, by all accounts, she recognized the importanceof reading good books.

“The photograph was taken in 1955 by Eve Arnold. In Joyce and Popular Culture, R.B. Kershner quotes a letter from Arnold about the day she took the shot: ‘We worked on a beach on Long Island…I asked her what she was reading when I went to pick her up (I was trying to get an idea of how she spent her time). She she kept Ulysses in her car and had been reading it for a long time. She said she loved the sound of it and would read it aloud to herself to try to make sense of it–but she found it hard going. She couldn’t read it consecutively. When we stopped at a local playground to photograph she got out the book and started to read while I loaded the film. So, of course, I photographed her.’

“Along with a certain irony (blonde bombshell tackles her century’s most baffling book), the photo–everything about it–has a nostalgic appeal. For those, like me, with a fetishistic attachment to books, there’s the well-worn hardback, the title and author’s name rendered elegantly on its cover. The merry-go-round Monroe sits on elicits memories of days filled with unstructured play. And behind her, the grassy clearing under the shade of the trees offers just the right place to get lost in a book.”

But, wait, Brian….no love for “The Edge of Heaven”?

Didn’t see it, as it turns out. Long story.

Would be interesting to see if this is what they said in the eighties with the mindless action films after the revolution of cinema that occurred in the seventies.

Can’t wait to see “Reprise”.

I believe history will vindicate you for no-longer-a-childhood-killer-just-a-really-bad-filmmaker George Lucas and Steven Spielberg’s Indiana Jones-yeah, and the rest.

But, wait, Brian….no love for “The Edge of Heaven”?

Alright, I know this is really weird, but…she’s got really strange toes…it’s freakin’ me out…

That’s funny, I had a similar reaction when I first saw that picture. I had to count to make sure there were only five toes.

Wasn’t she like the original…you know…more well-known for her life outside of movies than anything else…
There were always tabloid stars, but…I don’t know much about her, but my understanding was that, you know, yeah, okay, Hollywood destroyed her…it’s seems much more sad a story than something like Lindsay Lohan…but I have seen parts of Seven Year Itch, and I may be going out on a limb, but I think Lohan was a good actress…and had it in her to be good…am i way off base here?

EDIT: Plenty of cameras, slick editing and too-clear sound give me pause. Was there a soundtrack in the mall? Did they really hijack the sound system? Were people really wearing microphones? Or was it all dubbed after the fact? I wonder how much “without a hitch” it went off? Still pretty amazing nonetheless. And FINALLY something not it New York!
EDIT #2: Ahh…it’s all explained in their behind the scenes…they worked with the mall and got great access.

Typically Improv Everywhere does not ask for permission from the location where we are staging our mission. This was a rare exception. By working with the mall we would gain incredible access and be able to make the experience for the food court patrons all the more awesome. The mall let us rehearse the song the night before after they had closed.

- large chunk of film set in country formerly under the “Iron Curtain”

- central character is a spy (Carell/Wilson) who doesn’t get much respect from his organisation especially in comparison with a charismatic star spy colleague (Gary Cole/Dwayne Johnson)

(spoiler warning)

- bad guys are looking to obtain nuclear weapons with the aim of setting off one of the bombs on a major US city

- prominently billed ‘good guy’ turns out to be a ‘bad guy’ in the latter stages of the film

It’s almost pronounced enough that it’s worth sending something to Wells (who I recall was quite favourable towards ‘I Spy’ ) mentioning this similarity.

I was just thinking that this film reminded me quite a bit of the ‘I Spy’ movie starring Eddie Murphy and Owen Wilson from a few years back. That was also based on a 1960s TV series, had some amusing moments and good banter between the two stars but was badly let down by a boring plot, boring villain (McDowell naturally) and a mediocre director. And it also had a mechanical feel to it which was totally out of whack with the original TV series (which I haven’t seen in this case). GS was slightly better overall of the two.

But I’m troubled about how many young women I’ve come across (including a lot of nude models and the like) who idolize her. The woman came to a very sad end, I would think she should be a cautionary tale, not someone to look up to.

But it wasn’t just a sad end, though. There was sadness from the start and all the way through. Or, at least, that’s the conventional wisdom on her life. At any rate, I think a lot of young women (especially nude models and the like) recognize this in her and can easily relate.

Ferrell as Watson I don’t get. Simon Pegg, or even Jack Black, I can see. But Baron Cohen is a pretty inspired choice. At least for a comedic take.

It was absolutely dreadful. An hour into the 1.5 hour movie I couldn’t WAIT for it to be over. Inane dialog. Flimsy plot. Dismal attempt at character development. And oh, that ending between Wahlberg & Deschanel…my eyes almost rolled out of my head. The only decent character was Legizamo and he killed him off waaaay too early.

Because of this absolute garbage of a movie, I probably won’t see another movie in the theaters unless it has an A rating. Everything else is going to be DVD rentals. My time/money is too precious.

Ferrell on the other hand…

The Friends movie concept seems to come up every six months or so (usually by a british tabloid) and then fades away. I’m not sure if there’s any truth to the rumor, I hope to God not.

Hathaway somehow emerges from this looking like she’ll be the biggest movie star of her generation, if she’s not already.

Folks like Portman and ScarJo get the press, but Hathaway probably has the best track record of any actress (under 30) since Julia Roberts.

Nick and I are jointly working on something that could bring about a traffic boom in the weeks to come. Easily the biggest “scoop” we’ve ever had.

I haven’t tried X-Box’s service (mainly because I do not own one) but Sony obviously has a leg up because they’re the actual content owners.

Wicked technology? As I’ve stated before…that’s all cable is now, anyhow, a streaming internet signal…(which is why it looks so crappy) and which is why not every studio has signed on for the technology. Sony has simply placed little cable boxes within their tv’s. It really plays to the idea that Sony has NO IDEA how to exist in a world where their grasp of digital dissemination avenues is declining RAPIDLY, in the face of Netflix and Sling box and X-Box and Playstation 3 and…my head hurts.
What stinks is if entertainment becomes this fragmented, where you need all of those distribution avenues to see everything you would want to see.
It’s disastrous, frankly.
Remember those days of all the remotes? And then one all-in-one?
That’s what the living room will look like with all these streaming boxes, until someone decides to create a standard box.

I believe they’re also going to make the film available via the PS3’s new video on demand service (launching next month).

Did anyone else hear about this:

Sony’s “experiment,” in which it plans to stream Hancock, starring Will Smith, to Internet-connected Bravia TV-set owners immediately after its theatrical run (and before it is released on DVD), may set the stage for companies to bypass traditional content distributors like networks, cable TV, and satellite companies, the New York Times indicated today (Monday).

Sony is streaming Hancock to its own TVs? That seems like some wicked technology there

I’d say ‘ditto’ to Lawrence, incidentally. I Am Legend was moderately better than expected but hardly something that would get me excited about the next Francis Lawrence movie (Supes or otherwise).

Again, it’s pure speculation that Peterson is involved. Another name that’s surfaced is Francis Lawrence (I am Legend). If he wants the job, he will probably get it. The studio is very high on him.

But I don’t have any better ideas, either. I thought Singer was a good choice but that didn’t turn out to my liking at all. If it turns out that he was the last best chance to avoid the dumb-ification of the Superman franchise then I’m sad.

You’re definitely right about Segal. If you’ve ever watched Tommy Boy and thought to yourself, “You know, I’d really like to see what this director could do with big action sequences,” then this is the movie for you. Ebert’s review talks about how well put-together the movie is in technical terms - just as good as a new Bond film - and I have to wonder how he arrived at that conclusion. Unless he’s limiting his comparison exclusively to the last couple Brosnan Bonds, which would not be a favorable comparison in any case.

I’m a fan of Carell, but found him somewhat wrong for this part. I think he needs to play a character with a bit more grounding than this to be successful. And so some of his scenes were very good, but some are not so successful, like the endless scene in the plane lavatory with the spear gun, or pretty much any scene that required buffoonery from him (e.g., “I cramped up!”). He just doesn’t do these things very well. In fairness to him, these were the weaker parts of the script.

Overall, I thought it had its moments here and there, and Hathaway somehow emerges from this looking like she’ll be the biggest movie star of her generation, if she’s not already. But it’s at the very bottom of the “Just OK” spectrum.

This, from a Times Online article about how NO movies make money on their own anymore:

“A report, Do Movies Make Money?, predicts that the 132 films distributed by the six leading Hollywood studios in 2006 will make a pretax loss of $1.9 billion”

The entire article can be found here:
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/article2866158.ece

I find Millar’s writing very good. I like it very much. He is one of the elite comic book writers. (Soooooo far above Brian Michael Bendis, but a notch below Vaughan.)
So why does he have to use unnecessary hyperbole to sell his idea or make people think his idea is great or to tell them something that isn’t true only of Superman Returns….

But alas, my philistine palate deprives me of these earthly wonders.

filmman: Hancock - 75 million

Brian: Hancock - 62 million

James: Hancock - 72 million

Jeanine: Hancock - 85 million

Nick: Hancock - 68 million

Joe Webb: Hancock - 64.567 million

Jackrabbit Slim: Hancock - 67 million

Final tally: Currently unknown

At this point, I don’t think it’s likely we’ll see a Gladiator sequel at all, much less with Crowe.

Pics here.

I’d say the site went bad somewhere along the nude pictures thing. It was also around that time the non-stop Obama postings began. I get his passion for the politics, but there have been long stretches of time where there were like two or three posts about Obama a day.

It’s when he practically stopped doing the longer articles on films, and only linking to comments made by others on film-related matters, that the site became uninteresting to me. I do a quick check two or three times a week to see what I missed, but that’s about it. It’s just not that incisive anymore.

The whole enterprise went to hell once we left.

“You drove here in a Hyundai, I drove here in an 80,000 dollar BMW. THAT’S my name!”

Although Alec didn’t live up to his promise when Bush won in 2004.

Wall-E cost over 180 million pre-marketing. That’s 60 million more than Cars and 30 million more than Ratatouille…yet it did not significantly outperform either

I’m convinced that the nature of computer animation is going to cause each film to cost more than the last. Plus I’m sure there’s a little bit of Disney overhead involved.

But the pre-marketing cost does not pan out in opening weekend b.o. Usually opening weekend numbers can be tied to marketing costs, name recognition, sequel goodwill, etc…. It’s never a direct correlation to ads, but spending $200m to make a movie means nothing if no one knows it’s coming out. By the same token, the 5th weekend box office tally is not tied in with a poster or trailer seen 6 months ago. It’s WOM which is directly tied to the content of the movie (in this case the $180m spent).

So, in my theory, the “proof” will be in the final box office tally. If it outgrosses cars it will have outgrossed Rat by more than $40mil, so the difference in production cost will have been erased. However it will have to run to $300m to see similar returns as Cars which, as we have said, seems unlikely after weekend #1. Strong showings throughout July will tell the tale

I remember this mostly because of one girl’s inability to spell a certain American river; she first spelled it as Mr Zipi, but after being sternly told that was wrong, hearing it again, she corrected it to Mrs Zippy. I think I was around eight at the time.