Wednesday, August 3, 2011

IMPORTANT - Move to New Site!

Hello All!

We've MOVED! Our new site (it's really cool and will only get better!), including blogs, project information, contact info, and everything there is to know about us can now be found HERE!

The new site also includes links to the finished and released "The Death Of" project. The wait of the SUMMER is now over! Yay!!

Check it out! Subscribe! And as always, like us on Facebook!!

Sunday, July 31, 2011

Cowboys and Aliens and Lame Movie Titles

Directed By: Jon Favreau
Produced By: Brian Grazer, Ron Howard, Steven Spielberg
Starring: Daniel Craig, Harrison Ford, Olivia Wilde
Written By: Damon Lindelof, Roberto Orci, Robert Kurtzman
Based On Cowboys & Aliens by Scott Mitchell Rosenberg
Music By: Harry Gregson-Williams
Edited By: Dan Lebental

Distributed By: Dreamworks Pictures and Universal Pictures
Runtime: 118 minutes
Budget: $163 million

So there is this Scottish saying that I have found so much truth in and is basic how I follow everyday of my life. “If you think that you are going to be kicked in the balls but all you get is a slap in the face, then that was a good day.” This was my mind set going into Cowboys and Aliens last Friday night. The trailer looked like crap, the concept is very prole, as is the title, and the only reason that anyone is going to see this lame attempt at an action movie is Daniel Craig's baby blues. Yes, a movie marketed solely on one man's beautiful sky blue eyes. And yes, I too, from time to time, get lost in those windows to crystal clear oceans above his noise. But I don't think that they are worth a ten dollar ticket.

And I am pretty sure that the makers of Cowboys and Aliens thought of that. For if the off chance that some people might not care for those orbs of peaceful bliss, they have Harrison Ford play opposites of an ophthalmologist's wettest dream. I have no problem with Harrison Ford, he was in a couple of good movies, (understatement) but dudes get old. And yea he throws like one good punch and does a lot of talking but that's about it. And as for talking, like they only let Daniel Craig speak in four word increments. And yea it adds a little to the “I can't remember anything, take no crap, bad ass, tough guy” that his character is but if you are going to play an American character you have to learn how to speak like one. But the less he says, the more time I get to do backstrokes in lake of love right below his eyebrows.

As for this being an action movie, yea I guess either I am just getting older and not really caring about the same old fight scenes or they are just not trying anymore. The few action scenes that they did have were the same old boring fight scenes that you can pretty much see in any other movie. Yea things blow up, but what movie doesn't have things blowing up? I have seen cowboys fight, I have seen Aliens fight and I have seen Man vs Alien fight so nothing new in the action department.

As for a story, well there was a beginning, a middle, and a end. But there was no massage, no point. It was just a group of cowboys fighting a group of Aliens. Yea there was a little back story but nothing that you could not see coming. This was a movie, not a film.

The only reason that I guess anyone would see this movie is if they did not want to think to hard for about two hours and had like ten bucks to waste on a crappy summer semi action movie. But hey, Daniel Craig's eyes do look amazing on the big screen.


More To Do About How Much 3D Sucks

The question is, is 3D another form of enhancing the viewers watching pleasure like awesome lighting, or is it just a gimmick to pull more probes to watch their movie than normally would? I, of course, believe that 3D is pure probe, plain and simple, and that all it enhances is the weight of the movie makers', and 3D glasses makers' wallets. 3D in no way has the ability to add anything to the actual story. 3D did nothing to the story for Harry Potter, bad example because there really was no story to add anything anyways. But when I was watching Potter I did not feel like the 3D made the movie or did anything more than the normal movie would. And the biggest example to prove my point that 3D is just a gimmick is when you watch a movie that was made for 3D in 2D and you can tell when things jump out at you. Like in Beowulf with the spear, or any other object coming out at you for no reason what so ever. These moments in the movie are only put in the as 3D gimmicks. To do what 3D does best, make the viewer jump out of her or his seat. It adds nothing and will never add anything to movies. It just makes whatever is there worst.

I would be fine with 3D if it was like ten years ago and 3D was not that big and was just pure gimmick and that was the point. But now we have people making movie just for that 3D and when we make movies just for 3D we lose the most important part of the movie, the story. This is the future of cinema. Give it no less than ten years and we will have a movie named BLOOD in 3D and HOLY SHIT MOMENTS in 3D. There will be no story, no meaning, no point. It will just be an hour and a half of just in your face action screens and sexual intercourse. Don't get me wrong, it will look good, I mean, damn good. I mean, you will feel like you are right there in the car during the race for no reason, or in between the two hot sweaty bodies as they go at it. But whats the point? Why do you want to view any of that if there is no story being told?

I would love to say that this whole 3D thing is a fad. But to say 3D is a fade is like saying that DVDs were a fad or that the iPod was just a fad. Nope this one is here to stay, and unlike DvDs and iPods this is not a step forward in the the art of cinema but a giant leap back. In a few years movies will go back to normal but there are just too many probes with too much money to waste to make that dream come true.

Saturday, July 30, 2011

An Escape from Reality

There is nothing better than sitting down and reading a good book or watching an awesome movie. The environment slips away and no longer are you in your bed room or at a movie theatre, instead you are at Hogwarts with Harry and the gang or on Pandora with Jake Sully and the Navi. Movies provide (in my opinion) the strongest out of body experience you can have without the help of illegal drugs or a near death experience. Books give you a similar out of body experience but it isn’t as strong. I use the phrase out of body because while your body may be reading a book or sitting in a theatre, your mind is off in an adventure; providing an escape from the harshness of reality. You simply drive down to the local cinema, pay your ticket fee, and for the next two hours all your problems are forgotten as you watch whatever ‘cinematic adventure’ (to quote Dane Cook) you've chosen.

Wednesday, July 27, 2011

Review: Captain America - The First Avenger

Directed By: Joe Johnston
Produced By: Kevin Feige
Written By: Christopher Markus, Stephen McFeely
Starring: Chris Evans, Hugo Weaving, Stanley Tucci, Tommy Lee Jones, Hayley Atwell
Edited By: Robert Dalva, Jeffery Ford
Music By: Alan Silvestri

Distributed By: Paramount Pictures and Marvel Studios
Runtime: 124 minutes
Budget: $140 million

The final setup before The Avengers releases next summer, viewers know by now what to expect when they go to the theater. Captain America, like Thor, isn't here to win awards or make a billion dollars. It's here to entertain while introducing us to a character that will feature prominently in a future film that has the potential to be very awesome or very complicated. America succeeds at both, giving us another fun summer blockbuster with plenty of action, comedy, and romance to satisfy. WARNING: MIDLEVEL SPOILERS!

Tuesday, July 26, 2011

Cinema of the Coens: Part II

Welcome to Cinema of the Coens, Part II.

It's not often I get to write a blog with a theme song, but the Coen Bros. bring many surprises. After working ten years, their success was limited but significant. The opportunity for more was there and they kept seeking it, but never at the expense of what they loved. The Coens, in the end, are filmmakers through and through. It's this attitude that's made them respected. Many of the senior crew positions have been filled by the same people for every film they've made (cinematographer, costume, stunts, it continues). They make what they enjoy, regardless of whether it'll make $10 million or $100 million, and people flock to the unity and creativity this inspires. At the same time, we'll see that their second decade in the business will bring many of the films, and songs, that shaped the Coens into what they are today.

Saturday, July 23, 2011

Cinema of the Coens: Part I

Joel and Ethan Coen are two of the most prolific directors working in Hollywood today, known not only for box office success but creating a unique artistic style that makes them stand out. Coen Bros. cinema falls into many categories, but it indisputably makes up its own. In our new multipart feature, I will be running through the history of the Coen Bros. on screen. What factors make a movie a Coen movie? At the same time, how have their films changed in the nearly thirty years and fifteen films they have under their belt?

A few facts to start us off: Joel, the taller one, is also the older one, and until 2004's The Ladykillers is the only one credited as director. This was because the Directors' Guild of America refused to allow two directing credits on a film, and only after the Coens were irrefutably successful was the ruling overturned. Despite this, the two brothers have always written, produced, directed, and often edited their films together, a collaboration well known to those who have worked with them.