Highbrow flix, low brow ramblin’s
Look, I’m no one special. I just read the same movie shit everyone else does. So when I say I’ve got “news” I mean “here’s something I read from wickedawesomemovies.blogspot.com last week”. Alright, it’s shit that’s out and about there. So I’m under no allusions that I’m telling anyone something they don’t know.
But seriously, RAPE BEAR. Lets just all agree that it’s awesome.
Also, this guy likes Pirates 3. Let me second his motion that y’all go fuck yourselves.
Popularity: 76% [?]
Popularity: 78% [?]
[UPDATE: I decided to give ratings to the episodes.]
Hey there Internetica, it’s a good week for a comeback. The Oscar Nominations are out (too late!) Heath Ledger’s dead (too soon!) and holy cow, there’s a new episode of Lost tonight.
Seriously? Lost! I’d begun to think I’d imagined that show all along.
Well, that’s not exactly true. Because in the 9 month abyss that seperated the season 3 finale from the season 4 premiere the Lost producers took it upon themselves to produce 13 two minute episodes of something called Lost: Missing Pieces. A small attempt to remind the viewers that Lost still exists and may be back one day.
I figured in honor of tonight’s episode I’d write a little review up for Lost Missing Pieces.
The Watch: Missing Pieces got off to a slow I think it would be fair to say with this Jack flashback. It’s about him, and his dad (the great John Terry who was also in Zodiac) and a watch.
What’s interesting is that this scene shows a rare moment of amicability between two usually antagonistic characters. 6/10
Hurley And Frogurt: Frogurt, you’ve heard the name, now the meet the frozen desert himself. Frogurt is kind of a dick but I enjoyed this humrous, character developing Hurley centric escapade. 7/10
King Of The Castle: Jack and Ben. Playing chess. It’s a metaphore for all kinds of… stuff. I wouldn’t exactly say that this Piece was Missed. 6/10
The Deal: Michael’s back! Set durnig Michael’s captivity with The Others this is a scene with Juliet and Michael. It’s a simple but deep conversation where Juliet confesses how afraid she is of Walt. I love the way a little bit of information can so subtly change the story. Apparently Michael and Juiliet have met, and Michael knew Ben’s real name! Not the revelations of the millenium but strange little bits of information that provide an new layer of meaning to certain scenes. One of my favorite episodes. 8/10
Operation Sleeper: Juliet wakes up Jack in the middle of the night and confessess everything. Jack emotes.
It’s actually marks a pretty significant scene for Juliet. The moment where she finally picks a side. Also, of note Juliet has a quick line about Ben and the submarine. It ties back to King of the Castle and actually makes that episode better for me. 7/10
Room 23: one of the biggest “missing pieces” of the series, as far as what i’m curius about, is Walt’s time with The Others. This episode with Ben and Juliet fills it in a little bit. The title eludes to the room that Beatric threaten Walt with and it turns out we’ve seen it before. Although we don’t see Walt make an appearence we feel his presence via a brilliantly used gimmick which ties back to an earlier episode. 9/10
Arzt & Crafts: Beloved casualty Dr. Arnzt returns to wine and bitch. But this one is really about the language disconect between the Kwon’s and the rest of the islanders. Boone and Shannon make a conspicuously off screen appearance. 7/10
Buried Secrets: One of the great delights of these tiny snipets is the way they force us to orient ourselves in the timeline. And in typical Cuseloff-esque (That’s Carlton Cuse + Damon Lindeloff with a suffix attached for good measure) style they delight in psyching us out.
Oh, what a buried secret it is to which the title refers. 8/10
Tropical Depression: This Arnzt sequel is definitly the superior of the two. One of the things the writers get to do with these episode is explain away some of the (many) plot incosistencies the fans love to obsess over. What’s that? I’m eating peanut butter but in previous episodes I said I was allergic to peanuts? Oh look I found my allergy medication.
This episode serves as a clever way for the writers to explain why the monsoon, predicted by Arnzt in the series 1 finale never showed up. The explaination steps on the toes of the Arnzt mythos but it ad ds way more than it takes away. I like to think of this episode as Arnzt’s long awaited flashback episode. Hillarious, heartbreaking, illuminating and exactly right. This is the best of the series. 10/10
Jack, Meet Ethan. Ethan? Jack: And this one’s a close second. Everyone’s favorite Tom Cruise relative is back to reprise his role as everyones favorite cant-put-my-finger-on-it but-this-guys-not-quite-right villain Ethan Rom. Ethan drops a doozy that changes the way I’ll look at him forever. But my favorite part is the ret-conning job. Fans have always thought it was a little too convientient how well stocked the survivors have been. When ever anyone needs something it seems to conviently turn up in peice of luggage. Well this episode suggests that The Others may play a hand in that. Which means their presence has been benevolent as well as mallicious. 10/10
Jin Has A Temper: Fuck it. This is my favorite episode. Remember when the losties used to play golf? Why don’t they play golf anymore? Maybe this episode will shed some light on the subject. Watch it, memorize it, love it. 10/10
The Envelope: What I loved bout the Missing Pieces Series (eventually. At first I thought it was gay) is the expendability of it all. None of these stories need to be told particularly. It’s a chance to revisit the quiet moments, the stuff that gets cut out for Jiffy Lube commercials. Here’s a quiet little moment of little consequence. It’s about somehting that almost happens but doesn’t. 8/10
So It Begins: The big shabang moment of the series. A satisfying episode that brings things full circle. 8/10
Popularity: 87% [?]
“Literally, the balls are metaphorically out.” - Vern, December 2007
The best film critic on the webs has reviewed Lindsay Lohan’s opus I Know Who Killed me; and even more than usual he’s penned (or more likely typed) a masterpiece of modern film criticism.
Reading the work of Vern makes the traditional print media and Film Comment type intellectuals seem hopelessly dated. Obviously his shtick is part put-on but what’s authentic is his man on the street take on film criticism absent even the pretense of pretense; and an unorthodox but encyclopedic knowledge of film history, as told from the vantage point of the direct video racks and discount bins. Navigating by the landmarks of our cultural landscape, his humor and Hollywood outsider status is a scalpel with which to vivisects cinema. He’s the Columbo of film reviewing, in that you know when he’s on the case the bottom of it will be gotten to; bumbling his way into uncanny insight and awesome truths, inditing the guilty while exonerating the victims.
Vern makes the case that this troubled but fascinating film has been misunderstood by the superficial intelligentsia via their poor knowledge of Brian DePalma thrillers and Giallo detective stories. In typical vernesque style he manages to drift off onto a tangent eviscerating the entertainment / gossip media for all the normal shit they get get shit for but he does it with the humor, eloquence and style you wished you possessed the last time you told someone to fuck off.
“And yet year after year those fuckin morons put her on their covers, write about her on a first name basis, complain about her instead of just ignoring her, giving her more attention, more money, pretending to hate her and be sick of her. Britney, your 15 minutes is up, would you PLEASE stop being written about by me right now in this very magazine?”
Well said sir, well said. I ‘d link to his review but his web sight is located in the year 1997 back when people still used frames. So the best I can do is link to his sight and let you dig around for it (hint: it’s the first link on the page).
Popularity: 85% [?]
Sometimes when I make a reference to literature I cross out the actual reference and write Dostoevsky.
example:
Much like batman comics Dostoevsky this film is about the moral burden of free will.
Popularity: 85% [?]
JT is looking pretty resigned and unenthusiastic in his big song and dance number. Notice that his laconic attitude is not shared by his back up dancers.
I’ve seen the film and I have no clue what’s on his shirt.
I love at 1:41 how he’s about to go into his signature JT brand of Michael Jackson moves but then just says fuck it.
A great bit in an ungreat film. see my Southland Tales review.
Popularity: 86% [?]
Dan Rockwood here with another report on cinema available now at the cinema getting place. You will be interested to learn I just saw a major motion picture titled I’m Not There.
The titular absence refers to one Robert “Bob Dylan” Zimmerman a popular entertainer of some note. In his place is not one but five or six (depending on how you count) actors all playing different aspects (or something artsy like that) of the same dylanesque character. Here’s the run down of how that worked out: Cate Blanchet does the impersonation part the best which is weird cause she’s a woman; Ben Whishaw was my favorite but gets the least amount of screen time; Marcus “The Black Kid” Carl Franklin has three first names and was great; I don’t know what to think about Richard Gere unless his footage was part of a different movie that got edited in on accident; Heath Ledger is in the movie but I regrettably don’t have an accolade for him; and Christian Bale does the best musical numbers.
Continue reading ‘Review of I’m Not There’
Popularity: 86% [?]
Hey Internetica, I’m working on some new reviews but until then enjoy this.
Popularity: 98% [?]
It’s a scientific fact that people love lists of stuff. I love reading best / worst lists but I think the most revealing kind of list a movie critic can write is the “movies that other people like but I don’t” list. Nothing describes an individual’s personal taste like a list of idiosyncrasies.
Continue reading ‘A List of Popular Films That I Do Not Like’
Popularity: 100% [?]
He IS branching out, he’s doing Red State. Look it up.
Also, his movies don’t NEED to have great direction, all they are is TALKING. You don’t need great directors for scenes of people sitting at tables talking.
He’s actually becoming more popular, what with all the TV gigs he’s been getting. Also, if you don’t like him “on the stage” then why don’t you just ignore it. The reason he’s “on the stage” is because people apparently LIKE him and want more of him.
When you actually know what you’re talking about, then come back and debate whether Kevin deserves what he has or doesn’t.
@nbakid2000
“Also, his movies don’t NEED to have great direction, all they are is TALKING. You don’t need great directors for scenes of people sitting at tables talking.”
You’re way way off dude. Check out Richard Linklater’s work, especially Tape. Check out any Tarrantino flick for that matter. Or Sydney Lumet’s 12 Angry Men. A great director is someone with a sense for great cinema, and they bring it to whatever they shoot.
Smith is a filmmaker of modest talents.
No one is debating whether or not Smith is a great director - he’s even said himself he’s not a good one, he just does whatever. But he doesn’t NEED to be. There is nothing wrong with taking a camera and fixing it on two people talking (which is what he does). That is the point this whole thing is about, is whether or not it matters. It doesn’t. What matters in the scene is the dialogue.
Oh and I love how you brought up Tarantino *cough* Death Proof *cough* Sure it looked nice but did it hold my attention? No. In his other films, sure they looked great, and yes they had great dialogue. But the looking great wasn’t what made the scene good.
It’s nice to have a visual enhancer to the dialogue, I’m not debating that. I totally agree. But in Smith’s movies it’s people sitting around discussing sex. Do we NEED revolving camera shots and what have you? No.
BTW, he did have that that very nice shot in Clerks II with Dante and Randall arguing (the revolving shot, which VERY MUCH enhanced the scene). But that wasn’t a typical scene either. But no one’s mentioned that yet, have they?
When I’m watching a scene of two people talking I’m more focusing on the dialogue than whether or not the shot looks pretty and exciting.
It’s not about looking pretty or exciting, it’s about knowing how suck your audience into your scene.
Tarrantino *cough* Resevior Dogs, opening scene *cough*, people sitting around tables talking about sex. That scene is classic for reasons that go way beyond a circling camera. Tarrantino knows how to block his shots and give his actors elbow room. Check out the films of Howard Hawks.
There’s a cinematic punch to anything Tarantino shoots, yup Death Proof too.
So in review; flashy michael bay style camera work in every scene? unnecessary.
the touch of a great director? always necessary.
@nbakid2000
“there is nothing wrong with taking a camera and fixing it on two people talking”
there is if you’re a shite filmmaker. I’m not saying KSmith is a shite filmmaker, just that he doesn’t know how to shoot a scene. David Gordon Green nailed it when he called Smith the special olympics of film making. He finishes the race slower but for some reason you clap harder.
I love An Evening With Kevin Smith part I and really enjoyed Clerks Animated.
That would ACTUALLY be: “there is if you’re a good/great filmmaker”. Expecting anything more from someone who’s shit would be expecting unrealistic things.
I happen to be sucked into every scene Kevin Smith does, so I don’t consider him what you do - I happen to LOVE his stuff.
I’m not sure what else you could do with the “37″ scene in Clerks besides have a camera filming two people behind a counter.
If you are debating Kevin Smith’s camera usage skills, perhaps you are missing the point in his movies…
He makes enjoyable Dick and Fart Joke Comedies, usually with some heart. If you are looking for films with deeper meaning, more power to you, but I (like many people) go to the movies to shut off my brain and be entertained. I get enough reading between the lines following the daily news…
Even Freud realized that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
EXACTLY but some people apparently need Tarantino style movies every time they view a movie. Every director has his own style - Kevin’s style (as he’s stated) is that he has no style.
The people love their kevin smith and who am I too disagree. I guess you’re right, his films don’t need to be good.
Some of us appreciate them more than others are capable of.