Vote & Digg it

  • Digg! PodcastAlley.com Feeds

August 2008

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31            
Blog powered by TypePad

The Blog

  • Movie Blogs - Blog Catalog Blog Directory

August 17, 2008

FBNF Podcast #77: Tropic Thunder & Idiocracy

Fbnflogocrop listen to filmed but not forgotten #78



News:
- Tropic Thunder boycott
- Conan origin film
- Harry Potter 6 delay
- more Inglorious Bastards casting
- studios breaking $1 billion mark again

On This Episode:
- Tropic Thunder & Idiocracy

Plus:
- listener feedback
- trailer trivia
- imdb'ing
- upcoming dvd releases

Music From This Episode:
- chi weapon and ajt(podsafe music network) and emma wallace(podsafe music network)

Email: filmedbutnotforgotten (at) gmail.com

Get The Podcast:

 

August 10, 2008

Step Brothers & Year Of The Dog

Step_brothers listen to the podcast

 

Step Brothers: Year: 2008, Writer: Will Ferrell & Adam McKay & John C. Reilly (story) Will Ferrell & Adam McKay (screenplay), Director: Adam McKay, Budget: $65 million (estimated), Gross: $80 903 000 (as of August 10th, 2008)

Year_of_the_dog Year Of The Dog: Year: 2007, Writer & Director: Mike White, Budget: ?, Gross: $1 540 141

This week i wanted to talk about Step Brothers, but since it is far from a fbnf film i paired it with a film that connects to it in some way and does fall into the fbnf realm, Year Of The Dog.  that connection, in case you were wondering, is john c. reilly being that he is in both movies.  that being the case, that isn't what i want to discuss.  rather i found these two good examples to get a little deeper into something i have been talking about a lot lately on here (but more so on the podcast)... script formula.

these two films fit into a discussion of formula quite well in that one of them, Step Brothers, is a great example of a formula script and Year Of The Dog isn't.

normally the formula that Step Brothers follows is seen in romantic comedies and it goes something like this: two people meet, things happen, they fall for each other, things are good, one of them messes things up (usually the guy), they are apart, the one who messed up makes some grand gesture to fix things (often bringing back some story element that was made reference to early in the film), everything works out, cut to some amount of time in the future and things are all good and everything is wrapped up, end credits...

with some light variations you can see said formula in loads of films.  for example, off the top of my head: When Harry Met Sally, Knocked Up, Austin Powers, etc... even going back to Singin' In The Rain and of course now Step Brothers.

now, i am not saying this is always bad.  in fact i enjoyed Step Brothers and Austin Powers, Singin' In The Rain and When Harry Met Sally are three movies i love (knocked up was good as well). i think the formula is almost comforting for audiences.  writers/studios/film makers have seen it work and it creates a nice story arc while providing room for conflict and humor and a happy ending.  what more could you want?  well, how about something different...... which brings us to Year Of The Dog.

the film, the directorial debut from mike white (the guy who wrote School Of Rock, The Good Girl, was one of the writers on Nacho Libre and played jack black's roommate dating sarah silverman in School Of Rock) feels like a formula romantic comedy and for the first part you will surely think you see where it is going, but it doesn't go there.

Step Brothers is a funny movie.  i am a huge will ferrell fan.  he can make me laugh doing almost anything, and the ferrell/reilly pair are great together again.  the film is a little ruder and more vulgar then one might expect, in case you are sensitive to that sort of thing, which i am fucking certainly not. the movie starts off strong, the middle act is a bit flat, but it comes back with a funny third act and a good time at the theater.

Year Of The Dog isn't hysterically funny, and feels a little slow paced at points, but it is an enjoyable little film that goes against expectations and is worth your time. 

August 09, 2008

FBNF Podcast #77: Step Brothers & Year Of The Dog

Fbnflogocrop listen to filmed but not forgotten #77



News:
- no more thumbs up
- roth joins tarantino's next film
- freeman is a free man
- 2009 summer schedule shuffle
- buscemi's inferno

On This Episode:
- Step Brothers & Year Of The Dog

Plus:
- listener feedback
- trailer trivia
- imdb'ing
- upcoming dvd releases

Music From This Episode:
- chi weapon and ajt(podsafe music network) and psykosoul(podsafe music network)

Email: filmedbutnotforgotten (at) gmail.com

Get The Podcast:

 

July 30, 2008

Savage Grace & Swoon

Savage_grace_2 Savage Grace: Year: 2007, Writer: Howard A. Rodman (screenplay) Natalie Robins & Steve M. L. Aronson, Director: Tom Kalin, Budget: $4.6 million (estimated), Gross: $371 913 (as of July 20th 2008)

Swoon Swoon: Year: 1992, Writer: Tom Kalin & Hilton Als (collaborating writer), Director: Tom Kalin, Budget: $250 000, Gross: $340 147

in 1992 tom kalin directed his first film.  that film was Swoon, about the true crime story of the famous leopold and loeb case.  he then pulled a terrence malick and waited 15 years until 2007 when he released his second feature, Savage Grace about the true crime story of the baekeland murder (he made about six short films in the meantime).

now it doesn't take elvis mitchell to see the connection between kalin's films.  they are of course both based on true crime stories and very famous ones at that.  you might not be as familiar with the baekeland murder case (i know i wasn't), but who hasn't at least heard of leopold and loeb.  however, besides that, these are two quite different films in the way kalin decides to tell the story.

Swoon feels like it is a crime drama/experimental film.  they obviously didn't have much of a budget and the film seems as though it has decided to make that a part of how it feels.  the film takes place in the 1920s and they obviously didn't have the money to afford large sets or lots of period-appropriate costumes and cars, etc... so the film is shot very close to the vest so-to-speak.  if the characters are in a room you just see as much of the room as you have to.  if they are driving in town then you will see their car and maybe a building, but don't expect lots of wide establishing shots of the city and other vehicles.

what this does is focus all our attention on leopold and loeb and their relationship and how it leads to the crime and what happens afterward.  while this all sounds good in principle, it didn't fully work for me in that, after watching the film i couldn't really decide why it was such a famous case.  i mean, toy guys decide to kidnap and murder a boy.... it is horrible, but i don't think they were the first two guys to ever do that, so why did this case take on such huge proportions and become so famous that even today people know the names leopold and loeb?

i have some ideas, but not because the film gave them to me.  more so, because i created my own ideas from the facts that the film gave me, plus what i know of the era, etc...  now, maybe that is what kalin was going for.  more concerned with the relationship between the two, and not so much the case itself.  i liked the film, but it felt a little empty when it was over.

with Savage Grace, kalin goes a little more traditional root in his story telling.  the film is shot in a much more classic way and with the bigger budget comes more locations and period settings.  the film also felt more complete to me... the characters and the development of their emotional attachments and eventual undoing took their time and developed over the course of the film (i don't want to say too much in case some of you don't know the story and what takes place).

the performances in both films are great.  the two guys playing leopold and loeb are good and then in Savage Grace you have the always good julianne moore and the guy who plays her son is great.  his name is eddie redmayne, which i thought was a joke since he actually has red hair.  i have never seen this kid before, but he was just superb.  he has this presence on screen that will be something to watch in the future.

i'm not sure why they would release Savage Grace right in the middle of summer since it is definitely good enough and has much more of an end of year awards season vibe to it.  but, this is what they did, so while i'm sure the academy will forget about it in january, you shouldn't forget about it now and go check it out.

July 26, 2008

The Wackness

The_wackness listen to the podcast

 

Year: 2008

Writer & Director: Jonathan Levine

Budget: 20 million (estimated)

Gross: $742 785 (as of july 20th 2008)

The Wackness: the year is 1994 and our hero, luke shapiro, has just graduated from high school.  he isn't one of the cool kids (he might be the most popular of the unpopular kids or the least popular of the popular ones), but they all know him because he is their pot dealer.  he also deals to this psychiatrist who happens to be the step dad of this chick he has a huge crush on... 

this is a summer coming of age story and i have to admit i am a total sucker for coming of age movies.  however, that can also work against it in that i expect to like it which means i can be easily disappointed (kind of like with another genre that does end up disappointing me more often then not: 'bank heist' films).  when it comes to The Wackness however, i was not disappointed at all.  i really enjoyed this film...

you might be thinking, why 1994?  sure it gives the film a nice soundtrack with the likes of de la soul, tribe called quest and the then new biggie smalls.  and it allows for characters to talk abotu Beverly Hills 90210 and carry beepers.  however, i think the reason levine chose it was for the transition that was taking place in new york city at the time.

this was the first year of giuliani's reign and the beginning of the crack down on the 'bad and dirty' new york, the homeless problem and the now famous broken window theory of policing. all this plays a central role in the film as the characters relate to each other.  it is even referenced quite a bit directly in the dialogue.

with all that as the backdrop, the film is actually a coming of age story for two characters:  the young shapiro and the old phsychiatrist dr, squires, played by the great ben kingsley.  they become good friends and their relationship is really the centerpiece of the film.

to go a little corny film critic blurp on you: the film is funny and touching and it will make you laugh and cry.  although it takes place over the course of two months back in the summer of 1994 in new york city, anyone who has ever been young, confused and in love will be able to relate to at least parts of it.  those older and confused will be able to relate as well.

FBNF Podcast #76: The Wackness

Fbnflogocrop listen to filmed but not forgotten #76



News:
- more singer superhero stuff
- more Harold And Kumar
- robocop reboot
- burton casts his alice

On This Episode:

- The Wackness

Plus:

- listener feedback
- trailer trivia
- imdb'ing
- upcoming dvd releases

Music From This Episode:
- chi weapon and ajt(podsafe music network) and the seperates(podsafe music network)

Email: filmedbutnotforgotten (at) gmail.com

Get The Podcast:

 

The Dark Knight & Following

The_dark_knight listen to the podcast

 

The Dark Knight: Year: 2008, Writers: Jonathan Nolan & Christopher Nolan (screenplay) Christopher Nolan & David S. Goyer (story) Bob Kane (characters), Director: Christopher Nolan, Budget: 180 million (estimated), Domestic Gross: $158 411 483 (opening weekend)

Following Following: Year: 1998, Writer and Director: Christopher Nolan, Budget: $6 000, Gross: $43 188

christopher nolan made a big splash back in 2000 with his film Memento.  that is one really great film and one of my all-time favorites.  since then he has proven that Memento was no fluke with solid films like Insomnia and Batman Begins and the really good and under appreciated The Prestige (a film that i had at #4 on my list of best films of 2006).  however, what i want to talk about here are mister nolan's first film and his most recent one.

in case you have just gotten back from spending the last two years of your life in a sealed living facility at the bottom of the ocean, nolan's most recent film is the already a huge success, The Dark Knight (you'll notice that it isn't Batman: the dark knight, but rather just The Dark Knight.  i found that interesting). 

as for his first film, most people would probably answer Memento if asked that question, but in fact it is a film he made two years earlier called, Following about an unemployed wanna-be-writer who starts following strangers which leads to him meeting a thief and things go from there. the film is shot in black and white and definitely has some film noire characteristics with its characters and some twists and turns.

let me start by saying, i am a huge fan of tim burton's first batman movie and nicholson's joker.  also, while i thought Batman Begins was okay, i didn't love it the way many critics seemed to at the time.  with those two factors in mind i can tell you that The Dark Knight is my second favorite batman movie ever, and will probably be number one for many out there.  this thing is great. 

it's interesting for those of you who remember when burton's film came out how everyone was talking about how 'dark' it was.  and you might notice how they have been saying the same thing about nolan's two goes at the caped crusader.  in fact they are both dark takes on the story, but whereas burton's films felt more like comic book movies, nolan has gone for this realism in his approach to the material from how it is shot to the way the people behave to the characters themselves who are all based in some reality, rather then fantasy (they aren't bitten by a radioactive spider, they didn't fall in a vat of acid, etc...).

i complain often about films that are too short.  movies that needed to add another 10 or 20 or 30 minutes of actual story and character rather then relying on effects and action (because without the other stuff cool action isn't going to make me forget that i don't care about the movie or that the story feels incomplete).  The Dark Knight at about 2 hours and 30 minutes is as long as it should be.  there was even a point in the film where i thought it might be over and was thinking that it just didn't feel right, but it wasn't over, there was plenty of movie left to go and it was all really good.

personally, there were a couple things i was curious about, and one would be scarecrow.  we saw this character/villain at the end of Batman Begins and i thought he would have a bigger role in this film.  Instead he is literally on screen for about 20 seconds and then never seen again.  this is less a complaint and more just a curious question about why they did that.  maybe they are keeping him around and building up the idea that gotham isn't made up of one villain at a time, which i can buy and have no problem with.

one other thing was that we don't get any origin story for the joker.  there are a couple things thrown out there, but nothing concrete.  now, does this hurt the film?  not at all, but i personally have this desire to know how these super heroes and villains became who they are and so for me i was just quite curious...  also, given that these nolan films are very set on making this world as real-life as possible (rather then comic book-real) i was curious about what they were going to do with the joker.

both Following and The Dark Knight are films about lone men.  men that watch the world from the shadows.  men that at first seem to be on the outskirts of society.  however, both men also have alternate personas.  for batman it is bruce wayne and for the guy in Following it is a cleaned up version of himself that he creates in order to get close to a woman.

two very different films, but with some similar themes, The Dark Knight is the best super hero movie i have seen in a long time and Following is a good film that many will appreciate as the beginnings of this great directors career.

July 20, 2008

FBNF Podcast #75: The Dark Knight/Following

Fbnflogocrop listen to filmed but not forgotten #75



News:
- The Dark Knight sets first day records
- ferrell 2-face
- a writer for Iron Man 2
- possible Inglorious Bastards casting

On This Episode:

- The Dark Knight & Following

Plus:

- listener feedback
- trailer trivia
- imdb'ing
- upcoming dvd releases

Music From This Episode:
- chi weapon and ajt(podsafe music network) and chantele dibrava(podsafe music network)

Email: filmedbutnotforgotten (at) gmail.com

Get The Podcast:

 

July 12, 2008

Four Minutes (Vier Minuten)

Four_minutes listen to the podcast

 

Year: 2006

Writer & Director: Chris Kraus

Budget: 1,400,000 euros (estimated)

Gross: ?

Four Minutes is about: an elderly piano teacher trains a young convict at a women's penitentiary.  wait, don't go!!! i know what you are thinking... its Dangerous Minds meets Freedom Writers meets (insert names of any of the dozen other movies where troubled youth are helped by a teach/mentor and everything turns out good in the end).  this isn't that though...

this german film that played at the toronto film festival back in 2006 and just finally got its north amercian release within the last few months doesn't play into all those over-used and predictable hollywood conventions for films like this.  sure, there are some moments that you might see coming, and certain conventions are followed, but, things don't have to be completely different from everything you have ever seen before in order to be original and interesting. therefor when they do it feels completely justified and something to celebrate rather then complain about.

the lead actors are great and their relationship and its development feels genuine and doesn't follow the exact path one might assume.  that is because there is some actual dimension to them.  the old women isn't just a sweet old lady trying to help.  she has a past that has shaped her and effects her to this day.  as for the young girl, she too is more then just an angry convict.  the secondary characters are also interesting and one of them especially is important to the story and is much more then just a plot device or such.

in a summer of hit and miss blockbuster take a break and treat yourself to a film like Four Minutes or Young People Fucking which i talked about a few weeks back. don't let these films be forgotten amid the summer blockbuster hype.

FBNF Podcast #74: Four Minutes

Fbnflogocrop listen to filmed but not forgotten #74



News:
- Red Dawn remake
- other Sherlock Holmes casting
- whedon Cabin
- some toronto film fest films

On This Episode:

- Four Minutes

Plus:

- a quick look at Hancock & The Kingdom
- listener feedback
- trailer trivia
- imdb'ing
- upcoming dvd releases

Music From This Episode:
- chi weapon and ajt(podsafe music network) and kelly zullo(podsafe music network)

Email: filmedbutnotforgotten (at) gmail.com

Get The Podcast:

 

July 06, 2008

FBNF Podcast #73: Wanted

Fbnflogocrop listen to filmed but not forgotten #73



News:
- borat Sherlock Holmes
- Bad Lieutenant casting
- 300 2
- Terminator casting
- Wanted overseas haul

On This Episode:

- Wanted (not good)

Plus:
- listener feedback
- trailer trivia
- imdb'ing
- upcoming dvd releases

Music From This Episode:
- chi weapon and ajt(podsafe music network) and alex whitmore(podsafe music network)

Email: filmedbutnotforgotten (at) gmail.com

Get The Podcast:

 

June 29, 2008

Young People Fucking

Young_people_fucking listen to the podcast

 

Year: 2007

Writer: Aaron Abrams & Martin Gero

Director: Martin Gero

Budget: $1.5 million Canadian dollars (estimated)

Gross: ?

Young People Fucking is a film that takes five various sexual encounters and takes us through them all in order through the six stages of sex: prelude, foreplay, sex, interlude, orgasm, and afterglow.  its a cute gimmick and one that could have been just that, but instead, helped by a really strong script, is an interesting and engaging device (that stages device reminded me of another small canadian film i saw a few years back called Elephant Shoes in which a complete relationship cycle is played out over the course of 12 hours - that one wasn't as good as this thing is).

the six stages are played out via five various 'couples': friends, couple, exes, roommates, and first date.  and what really struck me about how strong the script was, was how these five couples were more then just their distinction.  while the obvious idea was to have each of these relationship/encounters fall into different archetypal situations, the actual depth of character involved was surprising and wonderful.

i'm not saying there is any crazy depth to the characters, and of course they, and each situation, do fit their type well, but i also found that everything wasn't typical or predictable of each situation - which it could have been given we have seen many of these relationships before (the couple that doesn't have sex anymore, the best friends hooking up, the exes getting together again, yada yada yada). there were stereotypical elements to the stories, but most, if not all of them, also had some real funny and/or interesting surprises thrown in as well. 

it is because of that, that i found myself relating to multiple parts of multiple stories.  i couldn't just say i was the 'exes' story or the first date' story, etc... i've been in long term couple relationships, and i've had the whole want-the-ex back thing, and i've had plenty of first dates.  i can assume most people out there have as well, which makes each person able - based on their own experiences with the opposite sex (or the same sex whatever your preference) to laugh and understand and question the various stories at various moments.

and the characters were also very engaging.  i found myself interested in each story line and when they would jump from one to another, there would be a second where i would miss, and want to continue, with the story i was just watching, but i would quickly reconnect with the story we were on and fall right into it. and it is also really funny.

sure the shocking title might get it some attention, but, besides that, it is a really good movie that you shouldn't lose sight of in this huge blockbuster season.  take one night off from the huge films and go see Young People Fucking.

FBNF Podcast #72: Young People Fucking

Fbnflogocrop listen to filmed but not forgotten #72



News:
- Fencewalkers
- polanski and cage
- simon cowell producing a movie
- new academy invites
- the greek mythology film race

On This Episode:
Young People Fucking

Plus:
- listener feedback
- trailer trivia
- imdb'ing
- upcoming dvd releases

Music From This Episode:
- chi weapon and ajt(podsafe music network) and great big sea(podsafe music network)

Email: filmedbutnotforgotten (at) gmail.com

Get The Podcast:

 

June 21, 2008

The Happening & Unbreakable

The_happening_2 listen to the podcast

 

The Happening:                                                                                                                                   Year: 2008, Writer & Director: M. Night Shayamalan, Budget: $57 million (estimated), Gross: $30 517 109 (as of June 15th, 1008)

Unbreakable_2Unbreakable:                                                                                                                                    Year: 2000, Writer & Director: M. Night Shayamalan, Budget: $75 million (estimated), Gross: $94 999 143

it's happening!!! it started with a few critics and then as more and more people saw the film, the negative comments and reviews continued, and continue, to grow.  it is becoming an epidemic of mass proportions and i, along with ebert, roeper and about %18 of the rotten tomatoes critics are the only ones left to fight it...

ya, i liked The Happening.  no, i didn't love it, and it is m. night's worst film (although i haven't seen Wide Awake), but ya, i liked it.  that does, however, work out well, because this week i want to talk about The Happening, his worst film, in conjunction with my favorite of his movies, Unbreakable.

m. night is such an interesting and dichotomous film maker to me.  on one end he is brilliant:  he creates some very interesting and thrilling stories and is pretty masterful at creating a mood and getting the audience to feel and react as he wants them to, without us feeling manipulated. 

then on the other hand his dialogue can be stilted and feel forced and he can really ruin great ideas by taking them too far and not trusting himself (like in The Lady In The Water when he shows us the creatures at the end and they look like dudes in bad costumes, rather then keeping them in the shadows and keeping the fear psychological and partially unknown for example).

and yet, problems and all, i really do enjoy his films.  there is just something about his stories and the way he tells them that engages me and overrides problems that in other films would be the reason i didn't like the movie.  i can't always fully explain it, but there it is.  for all the intellectual discussions we have about films and our judgments of them, much of it in the end comes down to, at least for me, how i 'feel' about it.  and from that comes the critiques and discussion points and ideas...

so lets get to the movies: we got our 70s sci-fi movie, The Happening and our superhero movie, Unbreakable.

in The Happening, some event/happening is taking place across the northeastern united states that is causing masses of people to start killing themselves.  as it spreads out of the cities, people flee.  but what is it? what is happening?

in Unbreakable, a man is in a massive train accident and, not only is he the only survivor, but he is completely unharmed in any way.  what does this mean?  who is this man?  who is he supposed to be?

m. night loves films with questions.  he wants you to ask them and think about them and then he gives us the answers and sometimes they aren't the ones we expected.  but, either way, the discovery, for me, in his films is always interesting.

i mentioned how both these films were archetypes of different genres (the sci-fi movie and the superhero film) and that they are.  from how they are shot, to the score they use, to the mythology behind the stories, especially with Unbreakable which does it so damn well. 

watching The Happening i couldn't help thinking about films like 28 days later and the 70s version of Invasion Of The Body Snatchers.  the unknown threat, the population being killed, the few remaining people trying to survive and figure out the rules to what it is so that they can protect themselves.  with the use of the landscape as a character and the sometimes over-the-top score, the film recognizes what it is doing. 

in Unbreakable we have a wonderful superhero mythology created.  not that i have time to get into a whole joseph campbell 'hero's journey' here, but anyone who reads comic books, or has seen superhero movies will recognize this story.  what the film is really, is the origin story. 

in the special features on the dvd m. night talks about how the film was initially three parts with the hero discovering who he is being just the first part like it is in most superhero movies, followed by the hero using his powers part and the conclusion.... (think Spider-man, Ironman, Batman, etc.....).  however, that wasn't working for him and so he instead decided to turn the origin story into the whole film, and that worked brilliantly. 

this is also his best filmed film.  a comic book is really a movie told in still images and m. night and his cinematographer eduardo serra use that idea to create wonderful still images within the context of moving ones, with the use of long takes and interesting framing and angles and lighting and colors . 

i have no problem with mark wahlberg.  in fact, his performance in Boogie Nights is one of the best and most underrated performances of the last decade (ok 11 years).  however, in this thing he just isn't that good.  this probably isn't helped by a script that is at times good and at others really not.  m. night's writing, like i mentioned before, is often on the verge of stilted and in this film it falls over into it often.  as for Unbreakable, it is the opposite.  the performances by bruce willis and samuel l. jackson are very good and the script is wonderful.

since The Sixth Sense you can't talk about an m. night movie without talking about the ending.  he unfortunately worked himself into a niche corner with that film and for many films after that one people were expecting a surprise ending (many probably still do when they go see his films).  the point is that the ending of both The Happening and Unbreakable are important to any discussion of the films and for different reasons.

with Unbreakable the ending is wonderful.  it provides a nice little surprise that makes you think back over the film and provides a different perspective upon a second viewing, but it doesn't feel so out of left field that the previous 90 minutes you spent watching the movie feel wasted.

as for The Happening, the ending, not giving anything away, is very anti-climactic.  it just kind of ends and for an audience having taken the ride it is natural to want something with more ooumph!! i also kind of felt that way at the end, but it was in thinking about the film afterward that i appreciated it more.  i am often the first to complain about a film that builds slowly only to fall into the trap of feeling the need to give us action or effects or something big, killing what they had spent the majority of the movie building up and creating (I Am Legend is a great example of this).  with The Happening however, that isn't the case.  the film and, especially the ending, just happen.

and yet, like i said in the beginning.  i liked it.  i didn't think the acting was very good and some of the dialogue doesn't work and there are probably a few holes in the story, but i liked it.  i was involved and in the end i appreciated the simplicity of it.  there is even a great coda at the end of the film that, of course, you see coming, but smile in appreciation of it none the less as it fits perfectly into the genre.

The Happening is far from a great film.  but, even with the problems i was engaged till the end and thinking about it afterward i appreciated some of the things even more: like how it plays the 70s sci-fi genre and how the ending just ends, etc...

as for Unbreakable, this is a great movie, and although it did make money at the box office it is one that is, for some reason, often forgotten when people talk about m. night shamaylan.  if you notice the trailers for his most recent films they always say 'from the director who brought you The Sixth Sense and Signs', they just leave Unbreakable off the list.  well, i am here to put it back on that list, and not only on the list, but at the top of it.

FBNF Podcast #71: The Happening & Unbreakable

Fbnflogocrop listen to filmed but not forgotten #71



News:
- stan winston dies
- the Bruno movie
- afi 10 top 10s
- some new oscar rules
- j.j. abrams' Mystery On Fifth Avenue

On This Episode:
The Happening and Unbreakable

Plus:
- listener feedback
- trailer trivia
- imdb'ing
- upcoming dvd releases

Music From This Episode:
- chi weapon and ajt(podsafe music network) and abra moore(podsafe music network)

Email: filmedbutnotforgotten (at) gmail.com

Get The Podcast:

 

June 16, 2008

The Hulk & The Incredible Hulk

The_hulk_2listen to the podcast

 

The Hulk:
Year: 2003, Writer: Stan Lee & Jack Kirby(Marvel comic book character), James Schamus(story), John Turman & Michael France & James Schamus(screenplay), Director: Ang Lee, Budget: $137 million (estimated), Gross: $132 122 995

The_incredible_hulk The Incredible Hulk:
Year: 2008, Writer: Zak Penn (screen story & screenplay), Director: Louis Leterrier, Budget: $125 million (estimated), Gross: Just opened

besides the fact that both films have a large, green, cgi hulk in them, these are pretty much two completely different films.  this makes sense in a way.  i mean if you are going to try and reboot a series and feel like the last attempt got it wrong, then it makes sense to go in a very different direction.  the problem is that neither one of these movies got it all right.

it surprises me that i am saying that for two reasons.  first off, i had always remembered liking the 2003 version of the film and, for some reason, the trailer for this new version had me pretty excited to see it.  but oh how things change.

i should say at this point that i know nothing about the actual hulk comic books, so i don't know which film is more faithful to the real hulk story and the characters or anything like that.  therefor, my discussion of the films is based solely on the films.

i sat down earlier this week to re-watch The Hulk, since i hadn't seen it since 2003 in the theater, and it just wasn't as good as i remembered it.  and then, on friday i went to see The Incredible Hulk and it just wasn't that good to begin with.  but, like i said before, they are two very different films.

i had a sense they would be quite different even before i saw The Incredible Hulk.  first off, louis leterrier is quite a different director then ang lee: lee has made films like Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, Brokeback Mountian and The Ice Storm, where as leterrier's three other films are Unleashed and The Transporter 1 and 2.  also, given the general negative response to lee's film, i was pretty sure the studio would want to do it differently this time around.

i knew things were different about 30 seconds into The Incredible Hulk.  the film opens with writing on the screen that says, 'days without incident - 157'.  bam!! he is already the hulk and he is trying to control it.  it took lee's film 45 minutes till we got our first glimpse of the green guy, but in this new film we are told right off the bat he is already the hulk and within 10 minutes or so we see our cgi friend big, green and very angry.  while that is only one point, it is a perfect example of how these two films differ. 

lee's film is all about the psychology of the character and his inner struggle with what is going on inside him, with his father who made him this way and the girl he loves.  leterrier's film is all about the action.  ya, sure norton has demons inside and is focused on controlling his anger and does have a love interest, but it all feels very secondary to ' hulk smash!!'

not that i was disappointed from the start though.  in fact, when The Incredible Hulk starts off and throws us right into the story in progress so-to-speak, i was thinking, ok this could be fun.  they are assuming we know the basic story (scientist, gamma rays, things go wrong, yada yada yada) and they just want to throw us right in.  the problem is that they threw us right into a pretty typical action movie.  you know the kind that love special effect and big action sequences, but don't really care about the characters on anything more then a superficial level.  and it was because of this that as the film went on i found myself losing interest.

the special effects are great and the big action set pieces are involved and quite impressive.  but, besides that i was only mildly interested in the rest of it.  watching it, you really get the feeling that the studio was all over this from the beginning and really focused on getting a lot more bang for their buck then they did in the 2003 version.

speaking of the 2003 version, there was a fair amount about it that i did like.  i liked that we got an origin story.  the way he became the hulk was a major part of the film, whereas in The Incredible Hulk we only get it mentioned quickly in passing and a few flashback images.

i also liked the depth of character that lee brought to the film and the editing style with all the comic book framing and multiple angles on the screen at the same time was a fun touch that i found viscerally appealing. 

i also prefered jennifer connoly to liv tyler.  i like liv, but the script she was working with didn't help her any by relegating her to the damsel in distress, the ann darrow in this green king kong story.

however, lee's film is a bit slow and long.  although, that isn't the real issue.  rather i think that is just made more evident because the film itself is so overbearing and heavy.  it really isn't that much fun

in the end the better of the two films is the 2003 version. however, both of them are flawed, but this new version should do much better at the box office given its more action pact and general audience friendly.  it seems like the studio feels the same way because the appearance of another recently launched franchise character at the end of the movie suggests there are a few more films planned.

p.s. i have heard that leterrier's original cut of the film was a good 30-45 minutes longer then what the studios made him stream line it down to.  this gives me hope that the directors cut of the film will be a much fuller and more interesting film.... guess its wait for the special edition dvd time.

FBNF Podcast #70: The Hulk (both movies)

Fbnflogocrop listen to filmed but not forgotten #70



News:
- there will be a Smurf movie
- rogan and baruchel are busy guys
- 2012
- ian fleming exhibit
- studios, stars, money and deals

On This Episode:
- The Hulk & The Incredible Hulk

Plus:
- listener feedback
- trailer trivia
- imdb'ing
- upcoming dvd releases

Music From This Episode:
- chi weapon and ajt(podsafe music network) and 100 year picnic(podsafe music network)

Email: filmedbutnotforgotten (at) gmail.com

Get The Podcast:

 

June 07, 2008

Punch-Drunk Love & You Don't Mess With The Zohan

You_dont_mess_with_the_zohanlisten to the podcast

 

You Don't Mess With The Zohan:
Year: 2008 Writer: Adam Sandler, Robert Smigel and Judd Apatow Director: Dennis Duggan Budget: $75 million(estimated) Gross: just opened

Punch_drunk_love Punch-Drunk Love:
Year:
2002 Writer and Director: Paul Thomas Anderson Budget: $25 million (estimated) Gross: $17 791 031

i know You Don't Mess With The Zohan doesn't fit the Filmed But Not Forgotten framework (i am assuming it is going to make a lot of money), but we are starting a new feature at the podcast this summer called "1 and 1" - wherein i see and discuss a big summer movie and at the same time also an FBNF worthy film that relates to it in some way, which in this case is adam sandler....

Punch-Drunk Love. wow! i had forgotten how great this film was.  i remember seeing it in theater and liking it, but i hadn't seen it since and had always remembered it as p.t. anderson's third best film after Boogie Nights and Magnolia (and now we have There Will Be Blood to add to that list).  but, whereas that makes it sound good but lesser, that couldn't be further from the truth.  this is a great film.

i honestly don't know where to begin with the movie.  p.t. is just incredible.  no one uses the camera and creates a feel for a film like he does.  on one end he uses lots of natural light, isn't worried about back lighting or lens flare, and on the other hand the staging and framing of the scenes and shots is spectacular.

there are so many examples of how he frames the commotion and stages some of the frantic scenes with characters coming on and out of frame and the camera motion and the frantic music building it up perfectly, but the one shot i want to mention is the opposite of that: 

there is a scene that takes place in barry egan's (adam sandler) apartment where he is calling a phone sex line just looking for someone to talk to.  the scene is probably a good 5-10 minutes long and it is all, unless i missed a cut or two, one long shot.  but that's not all.  there is one beautiful moment when barry has just given the service all his info and his number so that a girl can call him back and has hung up the phone and is waiting. he is sitting with the phone next to him on the table and he is framed on the left-hand side of the frame.  the camera sits like that for a few seconds longer then one would expect (making us think that the shot is to stay that way until he gets called back).  however, after the delay the camera pans left now framing him on the right-hand side of the shot.  we stay like this for a few seconds and then the phone rings.  it was simple and beautiful.

of course his cinematographer robert elswit deserves a mention when talking about the way the film was shot.  they have worked together on every film p.t. has made going back to his first, Hard Eight, and man do they work well together to create some of the most cinematically impressive films ever.

besides getting greatness from his director of photography, p.t. also seems to know how to get the best from his actors as well.  how many directors would have trusted mark whalberg to carry a film like Boogie Nights or adam sandler to do the same with Punch-Drunk Love?  not many, but p.t. did and it payed off, because sandler is perfect in the role.  sure he is playing a bit of his characters from his more over the top comedies, but i think that was the point.  anderson knew what sandler would bring to the film based on what people knew of him and his general roles and he used that to his advantage.

the only problem with that is that people who came to the movie expecting an adam sandler movie didn't get one, or at least not one like they might have been expecting, which could be the reason the film didn't do much box office business.

it won anderson the best director prize at cannes, got a palm d'or nomination and got sandler a golden globe nod as well.  however, it never really made any kind of buss at the box office, but, maybe with the huge critical success of There Will Be Blood, some people will go back and check out this film.

as for You Don't Mess With The Zohan... this is actually a funny movie.  i went in assuming i had seen all the funny parts in the preview, but i had a really good time at this one. 

i was also a little worried because my favorite adam sandler is when he is being himself rather then a character with some voice and mannerisms.  for example:  i liked Happy Gilmore, really like The Wedding Singer and Big Daddy, but didn't like The Waterboy or Little Nicky.  and in Zohan he is doing a character.  this one works, however.

ya, ya, the story is predictable and you have all the points of the comedy/romantic comedy hit, but i didn't mind because i was laughing and having a good time.  overall, the script from sandler, smigel and apatow is good, although a couple times it gets really awkward and a little embarrassing.  in one scene in the park, sandler and the hot girl, who is from palestine, talk about how the violence in the middle east is bad and both sides are right and wrong and that the fighting needs to stop.  i did cringe here at how corny the dialogue was.  it felt like some bad high school paper.  but, besides that i was quite happy.

you have loads of cameos (basically everyone who has ever been in an adam sandler comedy before shows up in this one: rob shneider should be kissing the ground sandler walks on) the supporting cast is funny - which isn't always the case - and if you like sandler then you get what you expect and you get it done well.  as opposed to Punch-Drunk Love where you don't get what you expect but you get it done brilliantly.

FBNF Podcast #69: 1 and 1: Punch-Drunk Love & The Zohan

Fbnflogocrop listen to filmed but not forgotten #69



News:
-dino risi dies at 91
-mpaa doesn't like Make A Porno teaser
-herzog v. ferrara
-raimi and mcguire back for Spider-Man 4?
-Prince Of Persia casts the bad guy

On This Episode:
- 1 and 1: You Don't Mess With The Zohan & Punch-Drunk Love

Plus:
- listener feedback
- six-degrees game
- upcoming dvd releases

Music From This Episode:
- chi weapon and aerosol halo(podsafe music network)

Email: filmedbutnotforgotten (at) gmail.com

Get The Podcast:

 

May 31, 2008

After The Wedding

After_the_weddinglisten to the podcast

 

Year: 2006

Writer: Anders Thomas Jensen (screenplay) & Susanne Bier (story)

Director: Susanne Bier

Budget: ?

Gross: $8 866 905 (worldwide)

After The Wedding wastes no time getting you emotionally involved.  the movie begins with images of india and slums and children gathering around a truck as a man (who we come to know as jacob) hands out bowls of food to all the outstretched hands.  then he drives back to the small orphanage/school with one of the kids that had been helping him feed.  this is followed by jacob being told by the head of the school that he is to go to copenhagen to shake hands and finalize the deal with some wealthy business man who is going to give the school the money without which they would have to shut their doors causing the kids to end up on the street. 

the music is orchestric and somber and it almost feels like the end of a movie.  like we have spent the film watching this man build this school and fallen in love with the kids and now he must go ask for help to save his dream.  you almost want to break out the kleenex and you aren't even 15 minutes into the film.

although that is how it begins, the movie is about much more then jacobs quest to get the money to save the school when he runs into someone from his past and things change (wow, that sounds like a bad voice-over to a trailer doesn't it?). 

while there is much about the general story, or at least the way it begins, that seems tried and true, the film really impresses with how it develops.  not all the characters are easy to pin down right away, especially jorgen(the wealthy man who jacob has gone to meet in copenhagen).  the characters and performances have some actual depth to them.  even jacob, who i did find a little stiff, has emotions going on beneath that placid facade.

the tagline to the film is: champagne is poured.... secrets are spilled, and while it is catchy it is also a little misleading.  or at least to me it would have been had i read that before watching the movie.  yes, the wedding is where the secret is revealed, but it isn't as huge a secret as one might expect with a tagline like that, ya know?  i mean, with a tagline like that you would think that the bride would reveal that she killed her last husband or the father would admit to having sired both the bride and the groom.

maybe i have just watched to many movies, but the secret here is much tamer then that, and that is what i found so interesting about the film.  because it isn't some big oh my god secret, it allows us to really put ourselves in the shoes of the characters.  to think about how we would react if we were on any given side of the secret.  and again, the film shows us those sides with real human emotion which is only helped by the great acting, writing, directing and cinematography: the hand held camera work, lots of natural light (bier had been a part of the dogme 95 movement and had done one dogme film which is evident in this one) and the use of close-ups of faces, lips, eyes, hands, etc.... 

After The Wedding was nominated for a best foreign language film oscar two years ago but lost to The Lives Of Others.  given that The Lives Of Others was an incredible film now you have two movies you should see, if you haven't already.

FBNF Podcast #68: After The Wedding

Fbnflogocrop listen to filmed but not forgotten #68



News:
- sidney pollack gone
- Donnie Darko 2
- Beverly Hills Cop 4
- cannes

On This Episode:
- After The Wedding

Plus:
- listener feedback
- trailer trivia
- upcoming dvd releases

Music From This Episode:
- chi weapon and a al lewis(podsafe music network)

Email: filmedbutnotforgotten (at) gmail.com

Get The Podcast:

 

May 25, 2008