Underrated movies: Southland Tales

I didn't like Donnie Darko but I loved this one (except the title font which is way too much Buffy like and annoying). Critics were infatuated with the former but hated latter. Did the movie hit the American nerve too pointedly? Or was it the pimp thing?

The style of the movie is Twin Peaks-esque without the ominous atmosphere of Lynch. I was impressed about the movie's floating-like story, good plot, main actors (I think we have finally proved for any last line doubters that Dwayne Johnson can act and that Justin Timberlake isn't bad either) and the unbelievably good supporting surprises. I never believed, for instance, that Christopher Lambert could make a role. It happened. Maybe it is the apocalypse coming after all. If it is, then, indeed

- Have a Nice Apocalypse!

Underrated movies: Zodiac

The same caliber with Se7en and Fight Club. Intense. Thriller. Pace is slower than normal and maybe that is partly why the movie went unnoticed. I hope that this movie will be discovered later.

Reality Check (part 1): trucks

This is a short one. I think everybody knows that a real truck does not slide that way when it emergency-brakes. You know, it would be a real hazard in traffic if it did.

Update: Of course, if slippery it might happen. But still, enough is enough...

I will Summon Joe the Ordinary Guy!

To fight off annoying people away that are standing in shopping malls in everybody's way or those who are hindering and cannot understand to give way!

And.. it's done.

A Quick review of Saw movies (so far)

All in all, I'm surprised how qualified the whole "series" is. Usually sequels in any movie are total crap but some of the Saw sequels are actually quite a match for the first installment. I also highly like the fact that when Jigsaw dies he stays dead. That's the way it ought to be and this has kept the level up partly.


Saw
The first one, got an earned cult status on its arrival.


Saw II
Total crap but the necessary evil to get to the third part..


Saw III
... Which is a really good cap for the series.
It started from the first one and finishes here.



Saw IV
What could have been total crap turned out to be an excellent sequel. Jigsaw's story keeps unfolding. The atmosphere is intense and should keep you hauled to your seat.


Saw V
But here we go again, as with the second, it's crap again. I detest most the final killing because it did not have any basis on the Saw-universe.
However, when they make yet another version, I do hope that
1) the plot is well thought of
2) they end the series there.
3) they don't make Jigsaw's former wife the new Jigsaw because that would be the ultimate lame thing to do (unless its extra-super-hyper-extremely-well scripted which I'd doubt)

It would be a good idea not to continue this series on and on and on.. It already has the status it might have sought to have. We don't need another Freddy vs. Jason vs. Predator vs Jigsaw vs Pinhead vs -insert a character here-.

Joe the Ordinary Guy

From now on, Every time I have an oridinary problem (to prove that I am a nerd who is extremely nerdish at everything I do) I shall summon Joe the Ordinary Guy and all my problems will vanish when I send him to fight them!

This week's problem:

I summon Joe: To fight off bottom-of-the-bottle flatness from the choice of this week's drink, Cola! Done!

If you want to loan Joe, be my guest. Know what to do, right-click and Save as Image.. then he will be at your disposal to fight stuff away!

Stop MAKING REMAKES of (cult/) CLASSICS!!

At least leave Carpenter ALONE! The Thing, They Live, Assault on Precinct 13 are timeless. We need not new ones. And then (apart from Carpenter), who wants a Karate Kid remake? The original (well, I never liked it, but..) has that something. They have the original feeling; you can't replicate that! The Hitcher? Why don't you watch the original one or republish it. Only thing positive about this crapmakes business is that after remakes the originals are usually more easily obtainable. STILL. Now, just wait and they'll be remaking Gremlins. I'm not saying all of the remakes are bad but there are some cult pieces you shouldn't touch and have respect.

Update, 2009: They are now thinking about making Gremlins, gesh..

Yes, Carpenter's The Thing was a re-make But: with a major difference -it never pretended to be anything like the original (the plot of the original script is not the same) and it was Carpenter's own interpretation of The Thing -> Hence, Carpenter's The Thing instead of just 'The Thing'.

Movies you ought to see #3

The Pledge (2001)

Deeply agonizing with intense atmosphere. Not to
mention the quality that Nicholson brings to the movie.

Found it from B3TA and...

.. absolutely _had_ to share this!

Hilarious!

Moderate CGI in fight scenes (part 1), my weekly rant

Why to put CGI where you don't need it? Why to go over-the-top when something less suffices? My heart cries for so many spoiled fighting scenes with pointless CGI addition. Who self-aware movie maker allows this to happen.. Yes, yes easy & cheap but once again, if you make a megabudget movie then why cut here?

I guess it started with Matrix Reloaded. Yes, this is an actual
footage from the movie and very realistic indeed. Perfect example.


Even Quantum of Solace did it while flying with ropes.
Why? Why? Why? Now the scene, that would've been okey, the movie can be remembered for its Tarzan-tricks (except, Tarzan did it better). Besides, if James Bond wants to be more down-to-earth and believable than, let's say Die Another Day (gee, wonder why it wasn't such a big hit), why to add something that isn't needed?


Same with Hellboy II. What is very disappointing is that the whole fighting scene could've been quite awesome had not excess CGI spoiled it.

Bottom line: Viewers are not stupid and are not fooled, yet there is still somebody making it hard for viewers such as me to enjoy a good fighting scene. And I don't think I'm the only one out there wanting more hard-core action.

Let me introduce you to Bond, James Bond

The classical Bond ... and the new sexy, charming and lethal James Bond.

Transition well done!

What can I say, Hail to the king!!

My Name Is Bruce (2008)

It's a movie you have to see. If only for the superb scene of the town population accountant!!
And yes, I am biased. I am a nerd. A movie nerd.

* My Name Is Bruce - Official site *

If you use CGI, make it fit... -my weekly rant

What bothers me the most about the usage of CGI is that it is usually done on big budget movies without any discretion whatsoever. If it does not fit, it irritates. Bad usage of CGI is cheap, granted, but there are plenty of examples of good special effects done on small budgets. Even if we are talking about plastic, clay etc. Golden rule is, the effects must fit the mood and world of the movie. Then nobody gives a toss how they are made.


Darkman - the low budget effects that Sam Raimi used
always hit the mark


Sky Captain.. wasn't even trying to imitate concretely
the real world. Everything was blended into something more
beautiful "comics-esque" world.


Last, Raising the bar for future productions.

Chuck Norris fact of the week

When Steven Seagal kills a ninja, he only
takes its hide. When Chuck Norris kills a ninja,
he uses every part.

Extraordinary people #4

I propably have to help with a name: Ricky Jay.

Movies you ought to see #2

Dead Man (1995)
by Jim Jarmusch

Stylish, a cult classic. That's enough said.

Movies you ought to see #1

Multi-Facial (1991)

There's truly a unique talent behind this film. It's a short
film with mindful content. The beginning may drive few
people off but I urge you to watch it 'til the end.

For such a high quality film it's surprising they haven't
published this in dvd already. It's a rare find (if you will
find it) but well worth it.

MacGyver in a Suit

Looking for a date? Can't find an escort? Here here,
True gentleman, also a considerate escort. A damsel in
distress, here's the best! Book today!

Call 555-122-5568-Now! MacGyver Dating Services.


For those more degraded there's always Joe the action guy.

Product Placement in Movies, the ultimate evil?

Product Placement

Product placement, by default, appears to have a negative connection with movie buffs or most of the articles found from the Internet. On the other hand, it is seen positively by advertisers. To avoid a narrow perspective I decided to find out more about this phenomenon. Here are some conclusions observed.

A blatant example of product placement by me

1. What is product placement?
It is a placement of an advertisement for a product or brand into a movie (etc.). There are different ways how to do it: quoting Jean Mark Lehu (Branded Entertainment) "classic placement, institutional placement, evocative placement and stealth placement". In the first one you simply show a product. In institutional/corporate you show a brand. In evocative placement "operation is more discreet, in the sense that the brand does not appear, nor is clearly cited onscreen" - Its packaging or its shape is sufficient to be identified. In stealth placement, placement is almost unidentifiable, for instance, a wardrobe of the main character. In this case, the recognition is usually given after or prior to the movie (e.g. in the credits or Internet advertising). There is fictional placement -fictional names are used as brands but they often bare resemblance to actual brand names. There is also contextual product placement which means that a brand acts as a hero (example of such can be found here). The placement is not exclusively a visual phenomenon but it can also be audible one (like the sound of Zippo).

2. The 'evil' side?
Now, there is a huge discontent about the whole business of placing advertisements in films. The most avid opposers can be heard criticizing ruthlessly that film makers are surrendering their visual freedom to big corporations -i.e. "whoring for the corporations". There is also a huge fear that in the future placements will be ever omnipresent to con the viewers to consume in most elaborate ways. An image materializes of evil advertisers who will use any means necessary with no moral to reach their goals.


Why, it's a mac, thank you for asking

This is definitely an attractive idea but it's far too simplistic. At the same time, I do admit that there can be these extreme cases, but on the other hand majority of advertisers are bound to planet Earth and will have to deal with multiple issues, such as the amount of money used, the image desired ... etc.

3. About advertising
Advertising is done on different reasons. It's a wholehearted process where every detail is important and must support the brand image. Advertising is not free -it costs money- and usually it's one of the biggest parts of the company's expenses. There are huge risks taken at each choice because if the advertisement is a failure it may have huge impact on future sales or the brand image. If a certain brand image has received bad publicity, this will stick in the minds of consumers for a long time. Also, a person is more likely to report the bad experiences to a wider sample of people than the good ones. When smaller businesses are in question the impact is lot bigger. And also, the amount of money invested means more. Objectives of marketing are not always to increase the sales, company may want to e.g. increase or maintain market share, eliminate competition, raise awareness for the brand or enhance the brand image.


Pepsi does a plug in Max Payne
(I find it fare to mention both brands)

Advertising is an investment, and the product placement very profitable one if everything goes okey. However, I want you to bear in mind, that advertising decisions consists of different elements and are bound by risk. Even though advertising may seem a device to fool potential consumers it also depends on normal business practices and profitability calculations; just like your ordinary neighborhood flower shop. And this leads us to..



4. Planet Earth Calling
What is often forgotten, is that we live in a world where consumerism is the culture. When you wake up and look around the contents of your apartment do you not see a single product? Also, when you walk out your house, aren't you met with various brands? Now, a film without brands (set in a real world) would be quite funny without any. Of course, one can always use fake advertisements but this may not always be the best choice.

5. Benefits (on both sides)
Product placement being always the bad guy, let's consider for a change the good sides of placement. Sometimes a movie may actually benefit from placements:

Benefits for the movie:

• it brings credibility to the movie if set in real world (look part 4)

• it brings credibility for the character (if a character is, for instance, a professional photographer, why wouldn't he use the best equipment there is?)

• it brings visibility to the actor/movie (contracts with companies -> "free" advertising prior/during/after the movie)

The Money side:

• Money for props
  - freebies (e.g. you get free technology)
  - exchange of equipment (e.g. you can use certain cars for the movie on 'loan' basis)
  - ...
  

• Money for advertising the movie (advertiser can, for example, do the whole advertising part or use the movie to advertise its product if agreed -> more visibility)

The Company side:

• More consumers, sales -> more money
  
  
• Improvement of brand image & favourable connections (e.g. if a certain product is used by the main character it will benefit the product)
  
  
• More visibility for the brand/company/product
  
  
• The image of continuity (futuristic/old era movies)
  

6. Good usage of product placement?
As mentioned in the part 1, there are different ways how to do product placement. At least product placement should be done so that it does not underestimate the viewer. The most horrible example of a bad placement is pausing the movie for few seconds to show some cell phone brand. This is downright stupid and arrogant (whether the director of the movie has done this on purpose to underline it's awkwardness is another matter). This is most clear with music videos (I deviate from films for a minute here) -why don't they rather put 'sponsored by'/'this music video was brought to you by'.. before the video and let the viewers enjoy it without irritating observations. The product placement should at no time interfere with the movie so that the viewing process is interrupted! The best placement are the logical product placements where it is natural for the movie/characters to use them without that they are being blantly referred to.

7. Children and product placement
What comes to movies directed at teens and younger audiences the general guidelines for advertising should be followed. Studies have shown that children are more susceptible to the influences of ads. Luckily many countries either ban or limit advertising toward young audiences. In Hollywood I'd hope studios to use their heads when deciding on the advertising contracts. Unfortunately it is almost impossible to have movies directed at children without plugs. It goes without saying that in this case product placement should not be encouraged and can be considered to be a bad thing.



8. Make your own conclusions
I would go for the opinion that as long as the placement does not interfere with the movie (not directed at children) and the movie uses the product to its own benefit (not vice versa -that the corporation dictates the storyline), it is okey. However, it is up for the viewer to decide. For some, even the idea is abomination. For others, seeing a plug will cause bitterness. Then again if the plug is not seen clearly a consumer may blame a company in question for an attempt to use subliminal witchcraft at fooling oneself.

I encourage you to investigate the matter yourself and take a look at the both sides of the story. Go to your library and take a look at few marketing books. This may broaden your perspective more than few Internet sources will.

That said, here are few interesting links:
Brandchannel -list of plugs by different brands
Product Placement News -no idea if its any good but looks nice

A primary source for this blog entry is Branded Entertainment by Jean Mark Lehu.

Extraordinary people #3

CGI vs 'Analog' recycling, my weekly rant

There has always been image-recycling in Hollywood.
Especially when it comes to special effects. I guess we
just have to accept it in some level. Still, I hate the usage
of same things over and over and over again. And what is
more cgi does nothing to improve the situation.

CGI RECYCLING

The creature from the Descent (=not scary):

Jaw-opening, I give you that, but not scary (I Legend):

ANALOG RECYCLING

Looks what it is intended to look (Lotr):

Touchable, I'd say (Blade II):

So, If you are going to do it, please don't or
be more creative than the first two.

Lin/Win/Mac explained

Mac
Expensive, flashy and therefore supposedly "superior".
Overrated but working capacity is fine.
+ working capacity
- mouse from hell
* state of shortcuts: irritating

Win
Easy and effortless until something goes wrong, then
its downhill then on.
+ effortless, support for everything
- evil windows corporation
* state of shortcuts: decent

Linux
When you have fought the whole day you come to realize
the satisfaction it gives you being able to correct stuff
yourself.
+ modification, customization, variety
- fighting to get things set
* state of shortcuts: nice

Extraordinary people #2

If you recognise this guy congratulate yourself ..

*Puff* -it's the sound Chuck Norris makes..

.. when he has conquered the universe.


Google out: Google Chuck Norris
and click "I'm Feeling Lucky"
(you are quite brave kemosabe)

Somebody made it before I had my chance to
Chuck my blog: Check Roodie Doodie (I hate
when this happens.)

The correct usage of the word 'beam'

Background:
It was not long ago that CNN made a bold leap forward and displayed a real hologram image in tv! If you have not heard about this new thing, check it e.g. here. Whether or not the technology works in real world is yet to be seen but we'll wait patiently for more.


Help us, Oba rack Man! You are our only hope!

Issue:
Now, the predicament of this post is that CNN used the word 'beam' in context with hologram image and this has caused a really huge uproar of the right usage of the word beam.
Read it here: CNN uses the word 'beam' wrong! (from Look Elsewhere's blog)
To sum it up I quote:

"Beaming is a word for transporting physical mass from one location to another. So if you beam my dog from the couch next to me to where ever you are right now, you could actually touch her. This is not possible with a hologram where you get only a 3D image of the dog."

Now, my opposing view:
With transporting physical mass from one location to another we are dealing with quantum mechanics. The correct word in quantum mechanics that describes this phenomenon is to teleport. (Teleportation is a process where entanglement is used to store quantum information which is then send to location B. In the receiving end a quantum repeater will read the information in the entanglement and decode it. Thus, we have moved one item/thing etc. from place A to place B. -I hope I got this correctly.)



The Resolution:
With this established 'beaming' can then quite correctly used with hologram images since the actual term with physical transportation is teleportation. And, with the lack of better expression or verb beaming holograms seems to be the only plausible way to express the process.

However:
I do partially agree with Lookelsewhere on the issue that Trek fans should have ranted about this matter, since in Star Trek beaming has been exclusively used in context with physical transportation. Therefore, it is quite rude that this concept has been stolen to all-around-usage.
All fault goes to silent Trek & SWars fans!

Extraordinary people #1

If you know this guy consider yourself a movie aficionado ..

A Geek would do...

what would MacGyver do. Did I really have to ask?

CGI evolution, my geekly rant

This is the current evolution of CGI effects.
It's a bad evolution.

Dino 1: It started with an obvious toy
(- Arrgh!! - Gulp gulp gulp!)

The 1900s dinos did not fool anyone but let's face
it: special effects were not that sophisticated then.
And they had the feeling.

Dino 2: The Jurassic Park Monster
(- MRrr ... )

the Real thing. No biggie. It was *hit scary.
(ps. this is a pic of T-Rex toy and even
this is scary)

Dino 3: - Groan! Slurps! Squeak!


Computer, ugly, unrealistic, fake. What just happened?
R.I.P. realistic monsters.