Hello, friends!
"Great Ideas" is a (FREE) podcast run by myself (Hi, I'm Daniel. You may know me from some work I do around here including the infamous massive parenthetical.) and Sasha, my sidekick. (And Anthony our mild-mannered, eccentric producer.)
We discuss the issues of the day including: Death, the apocalypse, Madonna, aliens, movies... you know, stuff you find in your uncle's attic.
THIS WEEK: Sasha skips town, so Producer Anthony sits in to discuss drug use, the awkward discovery of "special" files on computers, iced cream and DEATH. Whatta downer, no?
Are you sitting in front of your computer right now saying "Hey, I'm digging what this socially maladjusted chatterbox is saying?"
Then you should do the following:
1. Visit the GREAT IDEAS website
2. Choose an episode. Don't worry. There's plenty to to be had.
3. In the blog post, click the orange link.
4. On the next page, hit the green download button.
5. PLEASE ENJOY!
OR
Use this link to go straight to step 4:
http://www.mediafire.com/?1p9tj1c3jnxtraj
We're growing in fanbase, quality and entertainment, so get in on the ground floor so when we're big news, you can be the snob that hates us for going mainstream!!!
(We also enjoy whale pictures.)
-Daniel
Saturday, February 18, 2012
Thursday, February 16, 2012
A $250 million (or more) mistake?
If you could see a bomb about to go off, would you run away?
Obviously the answer is yes. Other than someone with a death wish, who would want to do something like that?
Disney might have a situation like that coming soon with "John Carter." And if the story on Deadline today is to be believed, it's going to be bad.
As I was reading the article earlier today I kept rolling my eyes, because it's something Stephanie and I have been talking about for months.
At the D23 convention in August, I was treated to a serious hard sell of the film during the movies panel. While every other film had just enough time to bring out a star, answer a question or two and show a clip (some didn't even get that), "John Carter" got the royal treatment of a lot of questions, a lot of background and many, many clips.
Stephanie's blunt reaction to me telling her this at the time was "they have to make that money back!"
And it's a lot of money. The budget is reportedly anywhere from $200-$300, and that's not even including marketing.
That is a massive amount of money for a movie based on source material that is not widely known to the general public. I'm not bashing author Edgar Rice Burroughs, but not a lot of people know about "The Princess of Mars" series. They started getting published almost a 100 years ago.
And nothing against Taylor Kitsch, but it's a lot of money to throw at a basically unknown guy. And yes, I'm aware he was in "Wolverine" and "Friday Night Lights," but does "Wolverine" really count? Just as Dan about Kitsch.
Let me be clear: I personally don't hate this film or anything, I just call it like I see it. The budget is just way too high. Yes, some of the effects look cool, but so do the effects in "Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance."
Could I be wrong? Heck yeah. I didn't think "Avatar" would make any money.
Fun fact: The last version of this film was in 2009 and it starred Antonio Sabado Jr. and Traci Lords... yes, THAT Traci Lords.
Obviously the answer is yes. Other than someone with a death wish, who would want to do something like that?
Disney might have a situation like that coming soon with "John Carter." And if the story on Deadline today is to be believed, it's going to be bad.
As I was reading the article earlier today I kept rolling my eyes, because it's something Stephanie and I have been talking about for months.
At the D23 convention in August, I was treated to a serious hard sell of the film during the movies panel. While every other film had just enough time to bring out a star, answer a question or two and show a clip (some didn't even get that), "John Carter" got the royal treatment of a lot of questions, a lot of background and many, many clips.
Stephanie's blunt reaction to me telling her this at the time was "they have to make that money back!"
And it's a lot of money. The budget is reportedly anywhere from $200-$300, and that's not even including marketing.
That is a massive amount of money for a movie based on source material that is not widely known to the general public. I'm not bashing author Edgar Rice Burroughs, but not a lot of people know about "The Princess of Mars" series. They started getting published almost a 100 years ago.
And nothing against Taylor Kitsch, but it's a lot of money to throw at a basically unknown guy. And yes, I'm aware he was in "Wolverine" and "Friday Night Lights," but does "Wolverine" really count? Just as Dan about Kitsch.
Let me be clear: I personally don't hate this film or anything, I just call it like I see it. The budget is just way too high. Yes, some of the effects look cool, but so do the effects in "Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance."
Could I be wrong? Heck yeah. I didn't think "Avatar" would make any money.
Fun fact: The last version of this film was in 2009 and it starred Antonio Sabado Jr. and Traci Lords... yes, THAT Traci Lords.
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
THE GREAT DEBATES: HOW TO FIGHT IN THE NEW 1800s
HATER
"A term used by others, usually being suburban "gangsters", whose lives are absolutely and undeniably defined by what others think. These people "rumble" often and think of themselves as original and/or indestructible. People that use the term "haters" are the lowest stage of the evolutionary scale. They bleed the fastest and have thought processes similar to that of a mentally underdeveloped cat." -Urban Dictionary
Good evening, class. The lesson today will consist of proper composure, maturity and eloquence when facing a debate.
Let me begin with a quick history, if you'll allow me.
In 1804, Vice President Andrew Burr shot and fatally wounded Alexander Hamilton, the first US Secretary of the Treasury. The duel that spurred legend was held in response to years of verbal public jabbing on both sides.
At that time, the Northern United States were outlawing such barbaric practices in hopes that all people could learn to use their words in such a way that they could not only express their feelings, but do so in a respectful way.
208 years later, in the age of the Internet and the Beiber (Beeber? Seeger?Beuber? I don't know...), the collective conversation of ideas can be paraphrased as this:
All of the passion of a political duel, but it lacks humanity, no?
Which brings us to this lesson. In this lesson, we will learn to accept dissent, analyze it, and respond in a way that would be more so what Mrs. Hamilton was probably hoping for.
Our subject this evening will be movies, prominently "Sucker-Punch," the all-sizzle, no-steak mindless film made for the adoration of incessant tweens.
Now I hear the rumblings in the back of the class. When people--in this case critics, which are sometimes barely human-- make statements like the one I just made, they are commonly answered in two ways. If the reply is in agreement, it's a simple matter of praise. However, if the reply is in dissent you will see all manner of juvenile retorts. Such as this:
CRITIC: "The movie spins out of control, until it collapses in a heap, senseless."
READER RESPONSE: "Well apparently you dont get the message of this movie its not just about fighting!!! Maybe somday sense will smack you in the face and you'll kno how much of a amazing movie this is!"
The replier made their point, but at the cost of any possible respect to be earned. If the movie is "not just about fighting," perhaps the reader should volunteer what other elements the critic had missed. Such an answer, if done properly would debase the critic's talent and earn the replier a valid point.
The other comment is rather hostile. To say the critic needs to be physically assaulted by sense itself is not only improbable; it's also being ranted in a statement riddled with misspellings and grammatical errors. Sense seems to have left the debate before it began!
Let's try another:
CRITIC: "I'm glad I saw Twilight for one reason: It made the phrase 'jump the shark' obsolete, to be potentially replaced with 'The vampires are playing baseball.'"
READER: "your an idiot. i can admit that it wasnt an unbelievable film but this film was made for fans of the books (mostly teenage girls) and not old, cranky, male critics! the cast and crew continuously said 'oh, well were doing this for you guys, the fans of the books.'"
A rather creative hit from the critic, leaving the response falling short. Rule of thumb, everyone: to make a valid argument, it's a battle of wits; if you don't stack up, shut up. Write that down, that's on the test.
Also, the reader made two major mistakes. First, they made an excluding statement. Saying things like "X is just not for you!" or "You just don't get Y!" than you are limiting the art in question. Major motion pictures, in this instance, are made for the general public. Corporate studios don't give millions of dollars to only entertain SOME people. So if someone "just doesn't get it," then in a certain way what you're defending has failed.
Second, the reader made it an issue of sex. Suddenly, the debate isn't about the merit of the work, it's a matter of only a certain sex or creed or mindset can enjoy it. Maybe that makes it special, but again, it leaves it open to more scrutiny. By saying something can only be enjoyed by a certain group, you're fortifying the fact that the person you arre debating is correct in not liking it. This is more of a retreating tactic. If you resort to either of these two arguments, you are waving a white flag.
The idea of debate is to respectfully state sides of an argument until you reach an understanding of each other, even if you don't agree. When someone says something that you don't agree with, learn to use the English language to your advantage. It's simple to make a blanket statement and then retreat from the discussion. It's common these days; the Internet is slowly breeding a generation of cowards and cynics who will not be able to argue about something without it leading to divorce, violence or murder.
It is impossible to distance yourself from the Internet, so the best thing you can do is take part in a discussion. If someone you know makes a statement you disagree with, start here: State your belief, state why you believe it, ask questions about their statement IN ORDER TO GAIN CLARITY. No need for barbed comments, insulting statements or name calling.
One of the greatest gifts is the gift of communication. It's right up there with Lemon Ginger tea and the wheel. And the last thing we need is a generation of people who can't debate things without throwing hot tea at each other and running our pets over.
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Only happy when they make a comeback!
By the time I have written this little blog post I have replayed the one minute snippet of Garbage's new single "I hate love," at least six times.
I regret nothing.
First off, I'm glad they are back. The four piece band that is a collection of seasoned professionals in the music industry. It's always surprising that people want to dismiss that fact as if that makes Garbage less authentic or relevant by some really sheer and logically inconclusive moot point. The fact of the matter is, that garbage is an amazing band that knows how to craft dark pop with little or no room for marginal error.
After the last album, the return to rock, brick-and-mortar "Bleed Like Me," Garbage was doing a more organic type of sound: crunchy guitars, Shirley Manson's seductive yet strong vocals and Butch Vig's signature I-made-the-90s production. Yet, so far the snippet of "I Hate Love" is promising. Dancey and yet mildly morose, "I Hate Love" is picking up where in theory, where the band's second album the aptly named "Version 2.0" left off. Bring on the flaw-free production!
"Not Your Kind of People" is slated for a May release. But everyone is excited to have them back, in under a minute tickets for the band's LA show sold out.
I regret nothing.
First off, I'm glad they are back. The four piece band that is a collection of seasoned professionals in the music industry. It's always surprising that people want to dismiss that fact as if that makes Garbage less authentic or relevant by some really sheer and logically inconclusive moot point. The fact of the matter is, that garbage is an amazing band that knows how to craft dark pop with little or no room for marginal error.
After the last album, the return to rock, brick-and-mortar "Bleed Like Me," Garbage was doing a more organic type of sound: crunchy guitars, Shirley Manson's seductive yet strong vocals and Butch Vig's signature I-made-the-90s production. Yet, so far the snippet of "I Hate Love" is promising. Dancey and yet mildly morose, "I Hate Love" is picking up where in theory, where the band's second album the aptly named "Version 2.0" left off. Bring on the flaw-free production!
"Not Your Kind of People" is slated for a May release. But everyone is excited to have them back, in under a minute tickets for the band's LA show sold out.
Bon Iver's win is the Grammy's big loss
Justin Vernon, frontman for indie folk group "Bon Iver," accepted the Grammy for best new band tonight. Not only was it a big win for the band, it was a big loss for the Grammys themselves.
Bon Iver released their first album in 2007. In case you need a hand with this, the current year is 2012.
That's five years.
Maybe the people who make such decisions define "New Artist" as "the band you heard your grandson talking about." Or maybe you aren't considered new until you are a No. 2 Billboard success. Much like the Academy Awards, this is outing the Grammys as nothing more than a commercial reach-around for the people who keep them rich.
I want to make one thing clear: I enjoy Bon Iver. This isn't a matter of me hating on the band; it's simply an amazing showing of where modern entertainment stands: the best movies, music, etc. doesn't matter to the industry. It all boils down to who does the best job of keeping them in business.
While people are Occupying Wall Street, maybe we should have an Occupy Universal movement and try to give art back to the people who enjoy it more than money.
Bon Iver released their first album in 2007. In case you need a hand with this, the current year is 2012.
That's five years.
Maybe the people who make such decisions define "New Artist" as "the band you heard your grandson talking about." Or maybe you aren't considered new until you are a No. 2 Billboard success. Much like the Academy Awards, this is outing the Grammys as nothing more than a commercial reach-around for the people who keep them rich.
I want to make one thing clear: I enjoy Bon Iver. This isn't a matter of me hating on the band; it's simply an amazing showing of where modern entertainment stands: the best movies, music, etc. doesn't matter to the industry. It all boils down to who does the best job of keeping them in business.
While people are Occupying Wall Street, maybe we should have an Occupy Universal movement and try to give art back to the people who enjoy it more than money.
Monday, February 13, 2012
'Walking Dead' episode 2.8 'Nebraska' recap
What a great way to start the second half of Season 2! A pick axe to a zombie head that looks like it was made for 3-D.
"Nebraska" was a tense goodbye to the possibility of hope for the characters on the show. While the obvious metaphor for the pursuit of hope was the search for Sophia, there was a lot of deeper soul searching in this episode: Dale and Shane continued their moral standoff, Shane showed some guilt (or at least some compassion) to Carol and Rick begins to realize the person he must become in order to protect his family.
Speaking of the Grimes family, they've emerged as the First Family of the apocalypse. Which is amusingly accurate at times: Rick the President, trying to keep peace when war is on their porch; Lori the First Lady, doing everything she can to heal people after "Barnegeddon" and their son Carl, who has one of the most interesting developments in the show so far.
Carl has been through a lot. He accepted his father's death. He attached to Shane, who is slowly turning into the Mad Max of murder. Carl's father then miraculously reappeared. Then Carl was shot while enjoying a deer encounter. Then he had to see his father shoot his girlfriend (or friend that is a girl). Sounds like a pretty nasty coming-of-age, no?
But in this episode, it's more about the repercussions of taking actions to survive. Whether it's moral or not, everyone would have to side with Shane in his death romp, shooting a barn full of undead former family members. But it then becomes Rick's duty to clean up his mess, leading to the most intense Mexican standoff in TV history: The Rick/Hershel/Mystery Guest showdown.
It starts off as two fathers deciding which is more important: a harsh, desolate reality? Or suffering for their family? They overall consensus of the moment seems to be that they need to take charge to salvage what they can from two emotionally wrecked families.
But it's not "Walking Dead" without a heavy dose of "Oh S#*%!" and "Oh no!"
Before the group can get back to their farmhouse, two unfamiliar faces stumble into the bar. In the zombie apocalypse, this can only mean bad things. After a simple talk and a quick urination on the floor (Philly people! geez...), it becomes apparent things have gone from bad to worse when the new faces want in on the farmhouse. So Rick makes the decision that needs to be made: a headshot on the leader and a few well placed shots on the urinator.
This move was interesting simply because it takes away Shane's main bargaining piece. Since day one, Shane has been "The Man of Action," the one who will make hard decisions. But now Rick has put down a young girl who has turned and now he has killed two men who tried to push in on his land. Moving forward, it will be interesting to see what happens when Shane is no longer the only badass.
Now for comic book fans, we know what this could mean...
POSSIBLE SPOILERS AHEAD!!!!!
SERIOUSLY!!!!!
So this is eerily similar to the beginning of the Governor storyline. Which, if true, means there is some HEINOUS material on the way. So much so that all of us who read ahead into the darker parts of the story have to wonder: How the hell will they pull this off? 80% of the series coming up will be unairable! Will they stay remotely true and be the first show to have straight up torture on television? Will they ease the brakes on it and give us a watered down version? Or will they skip the storyline altogether?
Give me your thoughts below!!!
PS: Dave Navarro was on TheTalking Dead. Note to prospective stars: If you're into a show and get a chance to discuss it on TV with a producer from the show, try not to complain like a jerk the whole time.
"Nebraska" was a tense goodbye to the possibility of hope for the characters on the show. While the obvious metaphor for the pursuit of hope was the search for Sophia, there was a lot of deeper soul searching in this episode: Dale and Shane continued their moral standoff, Shane showed some guilt (or at least some compassion) to Carol and Rick begins to realize the person he must become in order to protect his family.
Speaking of the Grimes family, they've emerged as the First Family of the apocalypse. Which is amusingly accurate at times: Rick the President, trying to keep peace when war is on their porch; Lori the First Lady, doing everything she can to heal people after "Barnegeddon" and their son Carl, who has one of the most interesting developments in the show so far.
Carl has been through a lot. He accepted his father's death. He attached to Shane, who is slowly turning into the Mad Max of murder. Carl's father then miraculously reappeared. Then Carl was shot while enjoying a deer encounter. Then he had to see his father shoot his girlfriend (or friend that is a girl). Sounds like a pretty nasty coming-of-age, no?
But in this episode, it's more about the repercussions of taking actions to survive. Whether it's moral or not, everyone would have to side with Shane in his death romp, shooting a barn full of undead former family members. But it then becomes Rick's duty to clean up his mess, leading to the most intense Mexican standoff in TV history: The Rick/Hershel/Mystery Guest showdown.
It starts off as two fathers deciding which is more important: a harsh, desolate reality? Or suffering for their family? They overall consensus of the moment seems to be that they need to take charge to salvage what they can from two emotionally wrecked families.
But it's not "Walking Dead" without a heavy dose of "Oh S#*%!" and "Oh no!"
Before the group can get back to their farmhouse, two unfamiliar faces stumble into the bar. In the zombie apocalypse, this can only mean bad things. After a simple talk and a quick urination on the floor (Philly people! geez...), it becomes apparent things have gone from bad to worse when the new faces want in on the farmhouse. So Rick makes the decision that needs to be made: a headshot on the leader and a few well placed shots on the urinator.
This move was interesting simply because it takes away Shane's main bargaining piece. Since day one, Shane has been "The Man of Action," the one who will make hard decisions. But now Rick has put down a young girl who has turned and now he has killed two men who tried to push in on his land. Moving forward, it will be interesting to see what happens when Shane is no longer the only badass.
Now for comic book fans, we know what this could mean...
POSSIBLE SPOILERS AHEAD!!!!!
SERIOUSLY!!!!!
So this is eerily similar to the beginning of the Governor storyline. Which, if true, means there is some HEINOUS material on the way. So much so that all of us who read ahead into the darker parts of the story have to wonder: How the hell will they pull this off? 80% of the series coming up will be unairable! Will they stay remotely true and be the first show to have straight up torture on television? Will they ease the brakes on it and give us a watered down version? Or will they skip the storyline altogether?
Give me your thoughts below!!!
PS: Dave Navarro was on TheTalking Dead. Note to prospective stars: If you're into a show and get a chance to discuss it on TV with a producer from the show, try not to complain like a jerk the whole time.
Grammys crown new stars and salute lost ones
There was no getting around it, last night's 54th Annual Grammys Awards would be held with a heavy heart. Host LL Cool J set the tone beautifully when he opened the show with a prayer declaring "we've had a death in the family."
However, it was when he said that music would help everyone through the tragedy of Whitney Houston's passing and decided we should all celebrate music, that he made it ok to relax and enjoy the rest of the show.
While it was no secret that Adele would win everything, it was still great to see it happen. It's rare that the best album of the year actually wins album of the year.
What everyone was waiting for was her return to the stage following career threatening vocal surgery. However, she stole the show with a spectacular rendition of her still awesome hit "Rolling in the Deep."
Adele ended up going six for six, including album, song and record of the year. As popular as she was before, last night's triumph has launched her into superstar status.
The night's other big winners were the Foo Fighters, who walked away with five of the six awards they were nominated for. Their only loss came in the album of the year category.
Other highlights included a fun, gold lame and pompadoured Bruno Mars trying to get the audience off their "rich asses," a very classy and understated Tony Bennett/Carrie Underwood duet and an extremely moving tribute to Etta James by Alicia Keys and Bonnie Raitt.
However, the only moment that mattered was Jennifer Hudson's emotional rendition of "I Will Always Love You" to celebrate and remember Whitney Houston.
Hudson delivered a perfect simple version of the Whitney classic, allowing fans and friends alike to engage in a cathartic relief of their grief.
It was a moment that won't soon be forgotten as Whitney took over the Grammy stage one final time.
However, it was when he said that music would help everyone through the tragedy of Whitney Houston's passing and decided we should all celebrate music, that he made it ok to relax and enjoy the rest of the show.
While it was no secret that Adele would win everything, it was still great to see it happen. It's rare that the best album of the year actually wins album of the year.
What everyone was waiting for was her return to the stage following career threatening vocal surgery. However, she stole the show with a spectacular rendition of her still awesome hit "Rolling in the Deep."
Adele ended up going six for six, including album, song and record of the year. As popular as she was before, last night's triumph has launched her into superstar status.
The night's other big winners were the Foo Fighters, who walked away with five of the six awards they were nominated for. Their only loss came in the album of the year category.
Other highlights included a fun, gold lame and pompadoured Bruno Mars trying to get the audience off their "rich asses," a very classy and understated Tony Bennett/Carrie Underwood duet and an extremely moving tribute to Etta James by Alicia Keys and Bonnie Raitt.
However, the only moment that mattered was Jennifer Hudson's emotional rendition of "I Will Always Love You" to celebrate and remember Whitney Houston.
Hudson delivered a perfect simple version of the Whitney classic, allowing fans and friends alike to engage in a cathartic relief of their grief.
It was a moment that won't soon be forgotten as Whitney took over the Grammy stage one final time.
Saturday, February 11, 2012
Whitney Houston dead at age 48
On the eve of music's biggest night the industry has suffered one of it's biggest losses with the death of Whitney Houston at just 48 years old.
Houston became an international superstar in the 1980s following hits like "The Greatest Love of All," "How Will I Know" and "Saving All My Love For You." Her powerhouse vocals and girl next door appeal made her an instant success.
From the mid 80s to the late 90s Houston was the queen of R&B and pop radio with hits like "I Wanna Dance With Somebody," "Didn't We Almost Have It All," "Where Do Broken Hearts Go," "He's All the Man I Need" and "I'm Your Baby Tonight."
However, it was the film "The Bodyguard" and its accompanying soundtrack that made her a legend. The opening 45 seconds of "I Will Always Love You" display a level of tone and control that no singer can match. Couple that with the breathtaking belt of "I Have Nothing" and the album was destined to be huge.
Perhaps her greatest moment came in 1991 at Super Bowl 25 when she performed what is widely considered as the best version of "The Star Spangled Banner" just when the US had entered into the first Gulf War. The rendition was so beloved that it was released as a single and became a No. 1 hit and is still talked about to this day.
In recent years Houston became more well known for her personal struggles with drugs and alcohol, and her tumultuous marriage with Bobby Brown, but she was attempting a comeback that will sadly never come to fruition
In the coming days there will be a lot of discussion about Houston's legacy, however, those answers can be found in the voices of Mariah Carey, Christina Aguilera, Kelly Clarkson, Jennifer Hudson, Beyonce, Charice, Celine Dion and every "American Idol" or "The Voice" contestant who tries to conquer a Whitney song.
"I Will Always Love You" indeed.
Houston became an international superstar in the 1980s following hits like "The Greatest Love of All," "How Will I Know" and "Saving All My Love For You." Her powerhouse vocals and girl next door appeal made her an instant success.
From the mid 80s to the late 90s Houston was the queen of R&B and pop radio with hits like "I Wanna Dance With Somebody," "Didn't We Almost Have It All," "Where Do Broken Hearts Go," "He's All the Man I Need" and "I'm Your Baby Tonight."
However, it was the film "The Bodyguard" and its accompanying soundtrack that made her a legend. The opening 45 seconds of "I Will Always Love You" display a level of tone and control that no singer can match. Couple that with the breathtaking belt of "I Have Nothing" and the album was destined to be huge.
Perhaps her greatest moment came in 1991 at Super Bowl 25 when she performed what is widely considered as the best version of "The Star Spangled Banner" just when the US had entered into the first Gulf War. The rendition was so beloved that it was released as a single and became a No. 1 hit and is still talked about to this day.
In recent years Houston became more well known for her personal struggles with drugs and alcohol, and her tumultuous marriage with Bobby Brown, but she was attempting a comeback that will sadly never come to fruition
In the coming days there will be a lot of discussion about Houston's legacy, however, those answers can be found in the voices of Mariah Carey, Christina Aguilera, Kelly Clarkson, Jennifer Hudson, Beyonce, Charice, Celine Dion and every "American Idol" or "The Voice" contestant who tries to conquer a Whitney song.
"I Will Always Love You" indeed.
'Attack The Block' hits every target (with a Super Soaker)
"Attack The Block" may not have been widely released in the United States, but it easily deserved it. In a day when people complain over refried movies more than their iPhones, (Rich People Problems!) a movie like this is an amazing cold shower of freshness.
Written and directed by Joe Cornish ("The Adventures of Tintin"), Attack The Block follows a gang of teen punks as they face an alien invasion in South London. While the concept may seem simple, the art direction and brilliant young actors make it a film you haven't seen before. Period.
One of the greatest elements in the story is the fact that their are no real heroes. John Boyega, our lead character and the one person you'd assume to be your hero alien hunter, starts the movie in a very criminal way that doesn't get very apolgetic. Which is a great thing! The story continues to build a tense relationship between Boyega and one of his potential victims, with very little common ground to be found.
I imagine this film to be "Super 8" meets "Die Hard" with some cool aliens. The "Super 8" part being all of the great actors ranging from 8 to 16 year olds. Movies with young actors have the unique ability of taking what would otherwise be a rather mature movie and adding fresh elements and sentimental feel.
While it may be too late to see "Attack The Block" on the big screen, it's an A+ that's definately worth seeing.
Friday, February 10, 2012
'The River' puts it all out there... unfortunately
......sigh....
Yeah, I'm one of those people who is kind of obsessed with the "found footage" craze. And yes, I'm quite comfortable admitting it. It's done wonders resurrecting the horror genre, and it's teaching our cynical generation to just enjoy something for an hour and a half before hating it. (see www.greatideaspodcast.com, Episode 2) Shameless plug. Did you think I'm above it? Well, I'm not.
And all of the progress that "found footage" has made recently- the "Paranormal Activity" franchise, "Quarantine" (a remake of a foreign film, "REC." The sequel to that, "REC 2," is one of my top five horror movies of all time), etc.- is dashed and reduced by ABC's "The River."
For starters, taking the found footage and applying it to the long term potential of a television program is like giving a toddler the New York Times and asking them to summarize the business section for you. It's just not the place for such a request. Audiences will lose faith in a novel idea faster than the toddler will use the newspaper for confetti.
The duality of this two-hour train wreck will be it's undoing. The acting pulled you in, in a "maybe it'll be like Lost and spawn a couple of careers" sort of way. But the moment you're in, you start absorbing elements: a lost father, a misguided son, a guilt-filled wife, a dedicated film crew of friends.
Sounds like a solid start? Well then let's flip the coin and check this plot unfold. We've got a scary bat-creature, possession, ghosts, a mysterious tribe of locals, magic, dolls in the trees (WTF???), dolls in trees watching people, so on and so forth to the point where you'll ask yourself aloud "What the hell is all of this?"
It seems that the writers of the show have a ton of ideas, but they decided to take the un-"Lost" route and throw them all at you at once, as if they know time's not on their side.
By the end of the two hour debut, I had only one question: why would I want to watch this again? Week to week, do I want to put so much effort into deciphering what is and isn't important in all of the plot points being hurled at me?
At least MY side of the issue is simple: NO.
Yeah, I'm one of those people who is kind of obsessed with the "found footage" craze. And yes, I'm quite comfortable admitting it. It's done wonders resurrecting the horror genre, and it's teaching our cynical generation to just enjoy something for an hour and a half before hating it. (see www.greatideaspodcast.com, Episode 2) Shameless plug. Did you think I'm above it? Well, I'm not.
And all of the progress that "found footage" has made recently- the "Paranormal Activity" franchise, "Quarantine" (a remake of a foreign film, "REC." The sequel to that, "REC 2," is one of my top five horror movies of all time), etc.- is dashed and reduced by ABC's "The River."
For starters, taking the found footage and applying it to the long term potential of a television program is like giving a toddler the New York Times and asking them to summarize the business section for you. It's just not the place for such a request. Audiences will lose faith in a novel idea faster than the toddler will use the newspaper for confetti.
The duality of this two-hour train wreck will be it's undoing. The acting pulled you in, in a "maybe it'll be like Lost and spawn a couple of careers" sort of way. But the moment you're in, you start absorbing elements: a lost father, a misguided son, a guilt-filled wife, a dedicated film crew of friends.
Sounds like a solid start? Well then let's flip the coin and check this plot unfold. We've got a scary bat-creature, possession, ghosts, a mysterious tribe of locals, magic, dolls in the trees (WTF???), dolls in trees watching people, so on and so forth to the point where you'll ask yourself aloud "What the hell is all of this?"
It seems that the writers of the show have a ton of ideas, but they decided to take the un-"Lost" route and throw them all at you at once, as if they know time's not on their side.
By the end of the two hour debut, I had only one question: why would I want to watch this again? Week to week, do I want to put so much effort into deciphering what is and isn't important in all of the plot points being hurled at me?
At least MY side of the issue is simple: NO.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)