Every year, people look at billions and billions of celebrity pictures on MSN Entertainment. Billions and billions. It's like Carl Sagan's "billions and billions of stars" thing, only with earthbound... more stars instead of cosmic ones. Not surprisingly, the constellation of popular star images doesn't include the likes of poor Steve Buscemi.
Sure, he's a good actor. But he's missing that certain something that makes our mortal jaws drop. Say it with us: sex appeal.
What's That Noise? Oh Yes ... the Screen Siren
Like the ancient Greeks who put their shapely goddesses on the Parthenon, or the Italians who had their Renaissance nudes, we love our Hollywood women for the way they combine beauty with sex appeal and raise it to the level of the divine.
Hollywood's sexiest women are more than just beautiful. They're also confident, strong and knowing, which is a thousand times more alluring than mere beauty. If the Greeks and Italians could have memorialized their goddesses on film, they would have. Lucky us; ours are already there.
See photos at http://movies.msn.com/sex-symbols-guide/photo-gallery/feature/?photoidx=1
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Why women (secretly) love action flicks - continued
from previous entry
They Provide an Escape
Will the hero make the leap from one building to another? Will the bad guy get away with his devious plan? Can the predator ever really be stopped? While we can probably safely assume the outcome, it's fun to let your mind play along.
Typically, women spend a lot of time thinking. For some mysterious reason, men compartmentalize their thoughts much better than women do, as illustrated by their stress levels.
Action movies give us a sense of escapism from complex thought and from everyday living. Is this a gender-specific sentiment? No. But although men might see action movies as shoot-'em-up fun, for a thought-driven communicative woman, these films are like stepping into another world ... one filled with martinis instead of cosmos, guns instead of gossip, and the best way to communicate is often without words at all. Physical raw aggression or risk-free violence (except for the bad guy) will suffice for words.
For women, actions movies are the rare find that let them put their brains in standby mode. (When in real life, for example, might one discover an interstellar teleportation device that results in a fight against alien beings attempting to take over Earth, as is the case in "Stargate")? You'd think women could decompress with an old-fashioned rom-com, but the truth is, those often make us stress about different things (our romantic status, our looming age, etc.).
Many women fall prey to life's routine, becoming more akin to humdrum Helen (Jamie Lee Curtis) in "True Lies" than her secret superhero husband, Harry (Arnold Schwarzenegger). Thus, action movies might be like Simon (Bill Paxton), the used-car salesman in the film who piques Helen's interest by posing as a spy leading a life of thrills. We know it's not the classiest way to use our time, but it sure is fun to step outside our own life sometimes and shake things up.
Action movies allow for vicarious living through attractive people with exciting lives. Over-the-top attire, exotic locales and exciting adventures are the raison d'etre of an action movie. They give the illusion of ease in doing incredible things .... without having to do much of anything.
Power Is Sexy
In movie math, attractiveness equates power. Let's face it: Villains are usually sexy (Lucy Liu in "Kill Bill" or Robert Patrick in "Terminator 2"). So are the good guys (Casper Van Dien in "Starship Troopers," or the ubiquitous Bond, James Bond). And, usually, they're fighting for the power to shift a situation's outcome in his or her direction.
Whether it is a reanimated supersoldier helping foil a terrorist attack (Jean-Claude Van Damme in "Universal Soldier"), a maniacal anarchist hell-bent on destruction (Heath Ledger in "The Dark Knight"), or an FBI agent taking on the assassin who killed his family (Jason Statham and Jet Li in "War"), recklessness and heroics combined with charming faces and intense butt-kicking make for engaging cinema. Women like bad boys; they also like pretty boys. In an action movie, they get both. The muscles don't hurt, either.
Bonding Over Stallone
Most guys think it's hot when women appreciate an action movie, especially if it's one they also enjoy. That feeling of a shared connection lends itself to an increased sense of intimacy. And that's what women think is hot.
In the end, women like to be a part of the boys' club -- at least, temporarily. We know we like the men in our lives, and we know the men in our lives like action movies. Like any good social anthropologist (which is, by nature, most women), we want to be up-close-and-personal with our subject of interest. Action movies allow us to bond with the male species in their natural environment. It's our way of taking an interest in the men we care about. Plus, it gives us a great bargaining chip to get our man to come along the next time we want to see a chick flick.
They Provide an Escape
Will the hero make the leap from one building to another? Will the bad guy get away with his devious plan? Can the predator ever really be stopped? While we can probably safely assume the outcome, it's fun to let your mind play along.
Typically, women spend a lot of time thinking. For some mysterious reason, men compartmentalize their thoughts much better than women do, as illustrated by their stress levels.
Action movies give us a sense of escapism from complex thought and from everyday living. Is this a gender-specific sentiment? No. But although men might see action movies as shoot-'em-up fun, for a thought-driven communicative woman, these films are like stepping into another world ... one filled with martinis instead of cosmos, guns instead of gossip, and the best way to communicate is often without words at all. Physical raw aggression or risk-free violence (except for the bad guy) will suffice for words.
For women, actions movies are the rare find that let them put their brains in standby mode. (When in real life, for example, might one discover an interstellar teleportation device that results in a fight against alien beings attempting to take over Earth, as is the case in "Stargate")? You'd think women could decompress with an old-fashioned rom-com, but the truth is, those often make us stress about different things (our romantic status, our looming age, etc.).
Many women fall prey to life's routine, becoming more akin to humdrum Helen (Jamie Lee Curtis) in "True Lies" than her secret superhero husband, Harry (Arnold Schwarzenegger). Thus, action movies might be like Simon (Bill Paxton), the used-car salesman in the film who piques Helen's interest by posing as a spy leading a life of thrills. We know it's not the classiest way to use our time, but it sure is fun to step outside our own life sometimes and shake things up.
Action movies allow for vicarious living through attractive people with exciting lives. Over-the-top attire, exotic locales and exciting adventures are the raison d'etre of an action movie. They give the illusion of ease in doing incredible things .... without having to do much of anything.
Power Is Sexy
In movie math, attractiveness equates power. Let's face it: Villains are usually sexy (Lucy Liu in "Kill Bill" or Robert Patrick in "Terminator 2"). So are the good guys (Casper Van Dien in "Starship Troopers," or the ubiquitous Bond, James Bond). And, usually, they're fighting for the power to shift a situation's outcome in his or her direction.
Whether it is a reanimated supersoldier helping foil a terrorist attack (Jean-Claude Van Damme in "Universal Soldier"), a maniacal anarchist hell-bent on destruction (Heath Ledger in "The Dark Knight"), or an FBI agent taking on the assassin who killed his family (Jason Statham and Jet Li in "War"), recklessness and heroics combined with charming faces and intense butt-kicking make for engaging cinema. Women like bad boys; they also like pretty boys. In an action movie, they get both. The muscles don't hurt, either.
Bonding Over Stallone
Most guys think it's hot when women appreciate an action movie, especially if it's one they also enjoy. That feeling of a shared connection lends itself to an increased sense of intimacy. And that's what women think is hot.
In the end, women like to be a part of the boys' club -- at least, temporarily. We know we like the men in our lives, and we know the men in our lives like action movies. Like any good social anthropologist (which is, by nature, most women), we want to be up-close-and-personal with our subject of interest. Action movies allow us to bond with the male species in their natural environment. It's our way of taking an interest in the men we care about. Plus, it gives us a great bargaining chip to get our man to come along the next time we want to see a chick flick.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Why women (secretly) love action flicks
I'll let you in on a secret. I tell people my favorite movie is "When Harry Met Sally." Actually, it's "Cliffhanger." Really. I've seen it countless times, but when it airs on basic cable, I can't do anything but watch. It's the first film that comes to mind for rainy day viewing -- and the last one I'll admit to having in my cinematic collection.
Don't get me wrong -- I adore cinematic masterpieces and I appreciate a chick flick as much as the next gal, but I know I'm not alone in saying that many women love action movies -- and it no longer needs to be a secret.
Ladies and gentlemen, whether you thought you or your partner was alone in this fetish, or if the whole notion is new to you, let me break it down. Here are five reasons why the chicas dig the action.
Yippee-ki-yay indeed!
Action Movies Are Like Exercise ... Without the Sweat
For the most part, men seem to like physical activity. Women, for the most part, don't. What we like are the results. And the adrenaline kick!
However, whereas most men invite moments of sporty testosterone expulsions, only the toned females out there prefer a good heart palpitation over a well-mixed cocktail. Yet, we still crave the endorphin rush (even if our thighs do touch while walking). So, although exercise can be a big pain in the backside -- sometimes, literally -- action movies are our way of getting the same intensely racing pulse, only we can scarf popcorn at the same time.
Action movies get our hearts pumping -- or, at least the good ones do. Much like any physical activity, the commotion in an action sequence keeps us engaged in the present, letting our minds take a much-needed rest. When Sarah Conner fought with the menacing metallic skeleton at the end of "Terminator," my focus was so invested in the moment, I forgot to breathe. Usually, the plot points are relatively simple, the happy ending is guaranteed and the scenes take you from a warm-up to great intensity, giving you an outcome that's a rush of adrenaline. (Much like ... well ... another physical activity that both sexes enjoy).
GI Jane Is a Better Role Model Than Barbie Dolls
As the saying goes, girls are made of sugar and spice and everything nice. Meanwhile, boys are apparently made of some icky random stuff (including puppy dog tails and mollusks). In a fight to the death, who do you think would come out on top? (The tails of puppies, anyone? That's hard core.)
Ever since Ripley took on the out-of-this-world namesake in "Alien," women have been kicking butt in movies. The truth is, women like being thought of as strong and like seeing that represented on the big screen. We know we can't be Arnold, but we take pride that we're not the vexingly sissyish Kate Capshaw character in "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom", either.
Whether playing brawn (Jodie Foster in "The Brave One"), brains (Diane Kruger in the "National Treasure" series) or both (Carrie-Anne Moss in "The Matrix"), in a cinematic world that mostly portrays women as straight love interests and ingénues, action heroines prove that women can be a powerful presence. And as Angelina Jolie so amply demonstrated in "Lara Croft: Tomb Raider," women don't have to deny their feminine virtues to break a sweat. We value our femininity, but we also respect someone who respects herself.
Don't get me wrong -- I adore cinematic masterpieces and I appreciate a chick flick as much as the next gal, but I know I'm not alone in saying that many women love action movies -- and it no longer needs to be a secret.
Ladies and gentlemen, whether you thought you or your partner was alone in this fetish, or if the whole notion is new to you, let me break it down. Here are five reasons why the chicas dig the action.
Yippee-ki-yay indeed!
Action Movies Are Like Exercise ... Without the Sweat
For the most part, men seem to like physical activity. Women, for the most part, don't. What we like are the results. And the adrenaline kick!
However, whereas most men invite moments of sporty testosterone expulsions, only the toned females out there prefer a good heart palpitation over a well-mixed cocktail. Yet, we still crave the endorphin rush (even if our thighs do touch while walking). So, although exercise can be a big pain in the backside -- sometimes, literally -- action movies are our way of getting the same intensely racing pulse, only we can scarf popcorn at the same time.
Action movies get our hearts pumping -- or, at least the good ones do. Much like any physical activity, the commotion in an action sequence keeps us engaged in the present, letting our minds take a much-needed rest. When Sarah Conner fought with the menacing metallic skeleton at the end of "Terminator," my focus was so invested in the moment, I forgot to breathe. Usually, the plot points are relatively simple, the happy ending is guaranteed and the scenes take you from a warm-up to great intensity, giving you an outcome that's a rush of adrenaline. (Much like ... well ... another physical activity that both sexes enjoy).
GI Jane Is a Better Role Model Than Barbie Dolls
As the saying goes, girls are made of sugar and spice and everything nice. Meanwhile, boys are apparently made of some icky random stuff (including puppy dog tails and mollusks). In a fight to the death, who do you think would come out on top? (The tails of puppies, anyone? That's hard core.)
Ever since Ripley took on the out-of-this-world namesake in "Alien," women have been kicking butt in movies. The truth is, women like being thought of as strong and like seeing that represented on the big screen. We know we can't be Arnold, but we take pride that we're not the vexingly sissyish Kate Capshaw character in "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom", either.
Whether playing brawn (Jodie Foster in "The Brave One"), brains (Diane Kruger in the "National Treasure" series) or both (Carrie-Anne Moss in "The Matrix"), in a cinematic world that mostly portrays women as straight love interests and ingénues, action heroines prove that women can be a powerful presence. And as Angelina Jolie so amply demonstrated in "Lara Croft: Tomb Raider," women don't have to deny their feminine virtues to break a sweat. We value our femininity, but we also respect someone who respects herself.
Friday, April 10, 2009
Why 'Star Wars' still fascinates many boys - continued
What I Episode 3 of our family saga: the second view. After three years of lobbying, Paul and I decided that Simon can manage to watch the first movie "Star Wars" again. (My kids say Lucas and call 1977 original fourth in the series.) Simon twice the age he was in this ill-fated first meeting, and he, as he has already stated many times, they are currently the only known children who have not yet seen at least the previous trilogy. We promised we would get from Netflix Simon after 6 th birthday. Last week, the magic disc arrived. Paul and I decided Saturday morning show. Thus, Simon would be a day to unpack.
The boy swallowed their breakfast at the hunks and wrapped in a blanket on the living room orange sofa. Paul popped in the movie. I went ahead. When I returned, Eli friend Dylan arrived. We came only to trash-compactor scene. Eli Max nodded to Dylan. Simon sat rapt, his eyes fixed to the screen. I checked to see if he blinks. Although Luke dove into a basket, a small creature popped periscopelike and looked around.
"Hey, this is the eyes," said Paul commended.
"This is one dianoga", said Dylan.
"What?"
"A dianoga. It turned out that the color of his eats."
Eli, Dylan, and Simon, which must be equitable, as well as concern about the film a deeper theme. Bear with me for some of the review here: At the climax the movie, Obi-Wan duels with Darth Vader, to gain time for Luke to go, and Han Solo that he had to flee their ship. Obi-Wan said Vader, that dear Alec Guinness British accent: "If you strike me down, I became more powerful than you can imagine, is possible." * He sees Luke, read, and Khan apparently, and then holds his light sabers to his forehead, namaste type. Vader strikes. Obi-Wan disappears, leaving his ratty old raincoat. Luke calls in horror as he and his friends make it to the deck of his ship, which is actually very close to the fight.
Simon, in the heat of the moment: "Why does Obi-Wan dies?"
Elijah: "He could be on the battlefield. It could have been over."
Dylan: "He could not have received the death star."
Simon: "But he could have killed Darth Vader!"
Dylan: "Then, Palpatine would have killed him. Palpatine and Vader with a more powerful".
The boys had to explain to me who Palpatine (and ally of Vader). In those days, because we often returned to the issue of Obi-Wan sacrifices. Paul suggested that the meta interpretation: the myths, the old wise to make way for his young protégé. Gandalf leaves Bilbo for a while, I said. Dumbledore leaves Harry. (Bad Simon: He knows the whole story of Harry Potter before he became a one-page or seen in movies. But that is another issue for another day.)
Simon did not totally agree with this explanation. He wanted Obi-Wan is dead because he had no choice. But he definitely got the idea that Luke is training to be an apprentice Jedi Knight: He taught me to Luke in the interim period between the corner: padawan. "As a landlord," Simon put it. I think maybe he is too padawan. He spoke of the "Star Wars" more than ever this week, but he does not lose his sleep. So what do you think, if we are brave Empire strikes back?
The boy swallowed their breakfast at the hunks and wrapped in a blanket on the living room orange sofa. Paul popped in the movie. I went ahead. When I returned, Eli friend Dylan arrived. We came only to trash-compactor scene. Eli Max nodded to Dylan. Simon sat rapt, his eyes fixed to the screen. I checked to see if he blinks. Although Luke dove into a basket, a small creature popped periscopelike and looked around.
"Hey, this is the eyes," said Paul commended.
"This is one dianoga", said Dylan.
"What?"
"A dianoga. It turned out that the color of his eats."
Eli, Dylan, and Simon, which must be equitable, as well as concern about the film a deeper theme. Bear with me for some of the review here: At the climax the movie, Obi-Wan duels with Darth Vader, to gain time for Luke to go, and Han Solo that he had to flee their ship. Obi-Wan said Vader, that dear Alec Guinness British accent: "If you strike me down, I became more powerful than you can imagine, is possible." * He sees Luke, read, and Khan apparently, and then holds his light sabers to his forehead, namaste type. Vader strikes. Obi-Wan disappears, leaving his ratty old raincoat. Luke calls in horror as he and his friends make it to the deck of his ship, which is actually very close to the fight.
Simon, in the heat of the moment: "Why does Obi-Wan dies?"
Elijah: "He could be on the battlefield. It could have been over."
Dylan: "He could not have received the death star."
Simon: "But he could have killed Darth Vader!"
Dylan: "Then, Palpatine would have killed him. Palpatine and Vader with a more powerful".
The boys had to explain to me who Palpatine (and ally of Vader). In those days, because we often returned to the issue of Obi-Wan sacrifices. Paul suggested that the meta interpretation: the myths, the old wise to make way for his young protégé. Gandalf leaves Bilbo for a while, I said. Dumbledore leaves Harry. (Bad Simon: He knows the whole story of Harry Potter before he became a one-page or seen in movies. But that is another issue for another day.)
Simon did not totally agree with this explanation. He wanted Obi-Wan is dead because he had no choice. But he definitely got the idea that Luke is training to be an apprentice Jedi Knight: He taught me to Luke in the interim period between the corner: padawan. "As a landlord," Simon put it. I think maybe he is too padawan. He spoke of the "Star Wars" more than ever this week, but he does not lose his sleep. So what do you think, if we are brave Empire strikes back?
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Why 'Star Wars' still fascinates many boys
Years ago, in a galaxy far, far away, about 2006, at our old house in DC-my husband and I let our little boy to watch "Star Wars." Eli was almost 6, and only a broken leg. We were at home, antsy, and despair. At the moment of weakness, we turned to the "Star Wars." We understand, like most indulgences, that the film will be feeling, and then pass.
Wrong. Our youngest son, Simon, who was not quite 3, could not sleep that night or for many days during the months that followed. He was obsessed. He talked about the movie on any relative, friend, babysitter or a child who will listen and many shops that will not be. He released trash-compactor scene. It is concerned with Obi-Wan Kenobi Jedi sternness in and Darth Vader in the glittering malevolence. He sniffed out the plot twists in the rest of the endless saga of six films (who knows how), and desperately tried to work, why can Darth Vader Anakin Skywalker and Luke's father and could also cut off the hand of Luke. That little girl is sweet outcome Star Wars plot. Simon was not sweet. He feverishly. It is short-circuiting. Thanks to two hours of silly indulgence, Paul and I came to the conclusion of its neurons were melting.
In the annals of religious mother, the ante is upped ever that a real deviation in the upbringing of children. Perhaps, at nearly 3-year-old single viewing in 1977 fantasy film just came out. But it was a classic fairy tale of our family a second child, committed a sin, has expressed regret, and we hope to recover from. In the first of three episodes (unlike George Lucas, I know, to stop a trilogy), our youngest son falls from grace, then exposed to it should not be seen, since his older brother or sister. Secondly, the brain takes hold poison. And thirdly, the child will grow enough to win the experience, or at least, the meaning of it.
In Episode 1, in the agony of Simon's original fixation, I was interviewing child psychologist Edward Zigler. In mid-conversation on the topic, not really, I veered Off in my family "Star Wars ills. I was recognized as Dr. Zigler, but in that sad way, that is a bet on the remission of sins. Rather, on the other end of the line, I I heard only silence. And then he quietly said that I really made a mistake and that Simon, who probably should not watch more movies with violence or even questionable, because, well, years. That 2007 study conducted by the Seattle Children's Hospital, which binds violence on the screen images of aggressive behavior among boys (not girls) ages 2 to 5.
My husband, Paul, had already settled on Zigler in medicine. We drove Luke and Obi-Wan on Dora and Bob the Builder. But we can not steal Star Wars characters from our children's lives. Even long after the actual memory of the film was lost, and Eli Simon said, and played in George Lucas' world. When we refused to buy them a toy light sabers, their nurse rolled up newspapers in solid cones. Children crayoned them green, purple and yellow and bashed each other over the head, not quite Jedi type. With my friends, they dissected the business in the Hutt and Jabba furriness of the Ewoks, never mind that they appear in the later movies that my children have never seen. Office carpool a couple of months ago I was listening to, and someone else held a 6-year-old says about the details of the prequel films in more detail than he could describe his home. My children keep silent out of awe. Then our current Nanny took pity and gave them their "Star Wars" Fandex. Eli read all of this, card, cards, and Simon is absorbed by osmosis the facts, such as Emperor Palpatine another name (Darth Sidious).
As Lukas world this kind of control? My children and other loyalties. They swear to various superheroes will listen again and again the Greek myths, can tell you the history of David and Goliath, and love the Hobbit. But nothing, nothing, has irresistible pull of the galaxy in Star Wars. " Perhaps a combination of simplicity and multi-layer depth, good versus evil in the world more interdependent creatures opponent. Maybe all this boils down to Darth Vader, with his helmet and the terrible voice of James Earl Jones. Or, maybe, the magical element is a void space in the background.
My theory is composed of two components of a more mundane: the vast length and co-branding. However, hauling, and this is tiring for me, an adult, recently added to the prequels epic in Allure by creating more layers of the permutation. I'm not sure that the internal logic of Lucas' universe is, but he sure has a lot of moving parts. And many of them, for example, is excluded and Anakin turns into Vader, are artfully purpose lodge in the heads of small boys. Simon has recently banned the teacher say "Star Wars", with the exception of holidays, because the debate over the plot points were too loud. Outside of school, children are surrounded by movies' relentless marketing: birthday plates, cups, candles, Lego ships recent cartoon series. Our children of strangers "Related in part because they are friends of flaunting it.
to be continued..
Wrong. Our youngest son, Simon, who was not quite 3, could not sleep that night or for many days during the months that followed. He was obsessed. He talked about the movie on any relative, friend, babysitter or a child who will listen and many shops that will not be. He released trash-compactor scene. It is concerned with Obi-Wan Kenobi Jedi sternness in and Darth Vader in the glittering malevolence. He sniffed out the plot twists in the rest of the endless saga of six films (who knows how), and desperately tried to work, why can Darth Vader Anakin Skywalker and Luke's father and could also cut off the hand of Luke. That little girl is sweet outcome Star Wars plot. Simon was not sweet. He feverishly. It is short-circuiting. Thanks to two hours of silly indulgence, Paul and I came to the conclusion of its neurons were melting.
In the annals of religious mother, the ante is upped ever that a real deviation in the upbringing of children. Perhaps, at nearly 3-year-old single viewing in 1977 fantasy film just came out. But it was a classic fairy tale of our family a second child, committed a sin, has expressed regret, and we hope to recover from. In the first of three episodes (unlike George Lucas, I know, to stop a trilogy), our youngest son falls from grace, then exposed to it should not be seen, since his older brother or sister. Secondly, the brain takes hold poison. And thirdly, the child will grow enough to win the experience, or at least, the meaning of it.
In Episode 1, in the agony of Simon's original fixation, I was interviewing child psychologist Edward Zigler. In mid-conversation on the topic, not really, I veered Off in my family "Star Wars ills. I was recognized as Dr. Zigler, but in that sad way, that is a bet on the remission of sins. Rather, on the other end of the line, I I heard only silence. And then he quietly said that I really made a mistake and that Simon, who probably should not watch more movies with violence or even questionable, because, well, years. That 2007 study conducted by the Seattle Children's Hospital, which binds violence on the screen images of aggressive behavior among boys (not girls) ages 2 to 5.
My husband, Paul, had already settled on Zigler in medicine. We drove Luke and Obi-Wan on Dora and Bob the Builder. But we can not steal Star Wars characters from our children's lives. Even long after the actual memory of the film was lost, and Eli Simon said, and played in George Lucas' world. When we refused to buy them a toy light sabers, their nurse rolled up newspapers in solid cones. Children crayoned them green, purple and yellow and bashed each other over the head, not quite Jedi type. With my friends, they dissected the business in the Hutt and Jabba furriness of the Ewoks, never mind that they appear in the later movies that my children have never seen. Office carpool a couple of months ago I was listening to, and someone else held a 6-year-old says about the details of the prequel films in more detail than he could describe his home. My children keep silent out of awe. Then our current Nanny took pity and gave them their "Star Wars" Fandex. Eli read all of this, card, cards, and Simon is absorbed by osmosis the facts, such as Emperor Palpatine another name (Darth Sidious).
As Lukas world this kind of control? My children and other loyalties. They swear to various superheroes will listen again and again the Greek myths, can tell you the history of David and Goliath, and love the Hobbit. But nothing, nothing, has irresistible pull of the galaxy in Star Wars. " Perhaps a combination of simplicity and multi-layer depth, good versus evil in the world more interdependent creatures opponent. Maybe all this boils down to Darth Vader, with his helmet and the terrible voice of James Earl Jones. Or, maybe, the magical element is a void space in the background.
My theory is composed of two components of a more mundane: the vast length and co-branding. However, hauling, and this is tiring for me, an adult, recently added to the prequels epic in Allure by creating more layers of the permutation. I'm not sure that the internal logic of Lucas' universe is, but he sure has a lot of moving parts. And many of them, for example, is excluded and Anakin turns into Vader, are artfully purpose lodge in the heads of small boys. Simon has recently banned the teacher say "Star Wars", with the exception of holidays, because the debate over the plot points were too loud. Outside of school, children are surrounded by movies' relentless marketing: birthday plates, cups, candles, Lego ships recent cartoon series. Our children of strangers "Related in part because they are friends of flaunting it.
to be continued..
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Horror film draws unwanted visitors to Conn. house
Southington, Conn. - A Hollywood horror film that portrays the alleged haunting funeral of an old hall in the center of Connecticut is turning into a nightmare for the current owners of the house and its neighbors.
The film, "The Haunting in Connecticut," do not open until Friday, but curious fans are already making a beeline for the house that inspired the movie Southington.
"It's just been very, very stressful," said Susan Trotta-Smith, who bought the house 10 years ago with her husband. "It's been a total change of a house in a very quiet neighborhood very peaceful to look out the window and see cars stopping all the time. It has been very, very stressful, and sometimes disturbing."
The family never saw anything unusual in its five bedrooms, two-family wood frame white house and do not believe that the property was haunted.
"She has beautiful wood, and there is a nice warm feeling to the house," Trotta-Smith said. "Because it was a funeral home, the apartment upstairs is more spacious. It's like two boxes full, and has a beautiful garden, too."
The film, starring Virginia Madsen and Kyle Gallner and released by Lionsgate, is loosely based on stories that revolved around the house in the 1980s.
Residents currently the Snedeker family, claimed that his son would hear strange noises in his basement bedroom, since it displays coffin and was arrested near the former Embalming room. He also claimed to see shadows on the wall of people who were not there. A niece visited the house said she felt hands on her body as she tried to sleep, and she levitated copper.
The family brought in Ed and Lorraine Warren, a self-described paranormal investigators, who became famous for documenting the alleged "Amityville Horror" haunts a house in Long Island.
Lorraine Warren says he felt an evil presence in Southington home and experienced the haunting her, when she spent a night there.
"In the main room, there was a trap where the coffins were brought," she said. "And at night you would hear that chain hoist, as if a coffin were being raised. But when Ed went to check, there was no one down there."
Warren, whose husband died in 2006, has nothing to do with the movie. She said the house was "cleared" of the evil presence after a seance in 1988. A book and a television documentary followed.
The current owners, who rent the house to another family, had removed the street number from the home and posted "no trespassing" signs. Trotta-Smith says they are concerned about the four children who live there.
"Most people are respectful. They are on the road. They could take a picture," Trotta-Smith said. "But we had some problems with those kind of rough next to the door and scare our children, telling them the house is haunted."
Police have added extra patrols to the neighborhood.
"There is looming creatures of the night, but not inside the house," Southington police Sgt. Lowell DePalma said. "They happen to people who are being illegally on the property, looking in windows and that sort of thing. People will be disappointed. There are no ghosts."
Alison Taylor, 37, led from his home in East Hartford with his camera after seeing a show on the Discovery Channel and in the haunts of hearing about the new movie.
"I'm very intrigued," she said. "I thought since it was close, I could enter. Many people are so skeptical, but I am not. I'm sure that some things are done to make the film look better, but I think it's great."
Katherine Altemus, who lives across the street, shoos away curious viewers. She believes the ghost stories were a hoax.
"It's a shame," she said. "None of the haunting occurred, and now it is ruining the lives of young people wonderful family that lives there."
Requests the Snedeker family were returned by the film production, it said it would try to arrange an interview.
Film producer Andrew Trapani said he believed the mother, Carmen Snedeker was very credible, and believes that the film does a good job showing what his family went. The film was shot in Teulon, Manitoba.
He said the names of family and city were fictionalized in the movie, in part, to try to keep unwanted attention away from real home. The Southington Snedekers site and are identified in the movie.
"We certainly did not set out to upset someone or have someone appear on his house," he said. "I think in this case, the haunting supernatural particular had a much larger following than I had even expected."
Trotta-Smith said he is working with the police, but has no plans to put a fence. She said she just wants a normal life at home, but she is not sure it will be possible if the film becomes a success.
"I am a little worried about this Halloween because I imagine that is when they will release the DVD and it all worked again."
The film, "The Haunting in Connecticut," do not open until Friday, but curious fans are already making a beeline for the house that inspired the movie Southington.
"It's just been very, very stressful," said Susan Trotta-Smith, who bought the house 10 years ago with her husband. "It's been a total change of a house in a very quiet neighborhood very peaceful to look out the window and see cars stopping all the time. It has been very, very stressful, and sometimes disturbing."
The family never saw anything unusual in its five bedrooms, two-family wood frame white house and do not believe that the property was haunted.
"She has beautiful wood, and there is a nice warm feeling to the house," Trotta-Smith said. "Because it was a funeral home, the apartment upstairs is more spacious. It's like two boxes full, and has a beautiful garden, too."
The film, starring Virginia Madsen and Kyle Gallner and released by Lionsgate, is loosely based on stories that revolved around the house in the 1980s.
Residents currently the Snedeker family, claimed that his son would hear strange noises in his basement bedroom, since it displays coffin and was arrested near the former Embalming room. He also claimed to see shadows on the wall of people who were not there. A niece visited the house said she felt hands on her body as she tried to sleep, and she levitated copper.
The family brought in Ed and Lorraine Warren, a self-described paranormal investigators, who became famous for documenting the alleged "Amityville Horror" haunts a house in Long Island.
Lorraine Warren says he felt an evil presence in Southington home and experienced the haunting her, when she spent a night there.
"In the main room, there was a trap where the coffins were brought," she said. "And at night you would hear that chain hoist, as if a coffin were being raised. But when Ed went to check, there was no one down there."
Warren, whose husband died in 2006, has nothing to do with the movie. She said the house was "cleared" of the evil presence after a seance in 1988. A book and a television documentary followed.
The current owners, who rent the house to another family, had removed the street number from the home and posted "no trespassing" signs. Trotta-Smith says they are concerned about the four children who live there.
"Most people are respectful. They are on the road. They could take a picture," Trotta-Smith said. "But we had some problems with those kind of rough next to the door and scare our children, telling them the house is haunted."
Police have added extra patrols to the neighborhood.
"There is looming creatures of the night, but not inside the house," Southington police Sgt. Lowell DePalma said. "They happen to people who are being illegally on the property, looking in windows and that sort of thing. People will be disappointed. There are no ghosts."
Alison Taylor, 37, led from his home in East Hartford with his camera after seeing a show on the Discovery Channel and in the haunts of hearing about the new movie.
"I'm very intrigued," she said. "I thought since it was close, I could enter. Many people are so skeptical, but I am not. I'm sure that some things are done to make the film look better, but I think it's great."
Katherine Altemus, who lives across the street, shoos away curious viewers. She believes the ghost stories were a hoax.
"It's a shame," she said. "None of the haunting occurred, and now it is ruining the lives of young people wonderful family that lives there."
Requests the Snedeker family were returned by the film production, it said it would try to arrange an interview.
Film producer Andrew Trapani said he believed the mother, Carmen Snedeker was very credible, and believes that the film does a good job showing what his family went. The film was shot in Teulon, Manitoba.
He said the names of family and city were fictionalized in the movie, in part, to try to keep unwanted attention away from real home. The Southington Snedekers site and are identified in the movie.
"We certainly did not set out to upset someone or have someone appear on his house," he said. "I think in this case, the haunting supernatural particular had a much larger following than I had even expected."
Trotta-Smith said he is working with the police, but has no plans to put a fence. She said she just wants a normal life at home, but she is not sure it will be possible if the film becomes a success.
"I am a little worried about this Halloween because I imagine that is when they will release the DVD and it all worked again."
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Are Paris Hilton and Robert Pattinson hooking up?
Paris Hilton snared Robert Pattinson at a party.
The blonde heiress stunned hotel guests in a luxury Oscar bash by dragging the "Twilight" star out of time alone after asking for her sister Nicky to help him on the track.
Friends of 28 years old Socialite - including her ex-boyfriend Benji Madden and sister Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen - were stunned by her aggressive flirting with the handsome British actor.
After the scan Patrick Whitesell's Hollywood crush on his part, Robert and Paris were seen "laughing and in a deep conversation" for an hour before she reportedly took him to the garden outside the gaze of onlookers.
Paris recently dropped from 22 years of age, after seeing the piece of his latest film, which plays a vampire.
She said: "I saw 'Twilight' and I must say that I think Robert is a beautiful man and an amazing actor. It's fabulous!"
The film caused a sensation among teenage girls, but last year, Paris admits that took a while to appreciate the film.
He added: "Now I understand all the hype. I just did not get before, but now it all makes sense. I liked the movie and loved seeing Robert in it."
The blonde heiress stunned hotel guests in a luxury Oscar bash by dragging the "Twilight" star out of time alone after asking for her sister Nicky to help him on the track.
Friends of 28 years old Socialite - including her ex-boyfriend Benji Madden and sister Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen - were stunned by her aggressive flirting with the handsome British actor.
After the scan Patrick Whitesell's Hollywood crush on his part, Robert and Paris were seen "laughing and in a deep conversation" for an hour before she reportedly took him to the garden outside the gaze of onlookers.
Paris recently dropped from 22 years of age, after seeing the piece of his latest film, which plays a vampire.
She said: "I saw 'Twilight' and I must say that I think Robert is a beautiful man and an amazing actor. It's fabulous!"
The film caused a sensation among teenage girls, but last year, Paris admits that took a while to appreciate the film.
He added: "Now I understand all the hype. I just did not get before, but now it all makes sense. I liked the movie and loved seeing Robert in it."
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
The Biggest upsets in Oscar history
Set to write the Academy Award in breach and immediately begins to shift the ground under your feet. Yes, some neck-snappers we all remember - such as Jack Nicholson is to present the prize for Best Picture in 2005, opened an envelope and said: "Wow" - a time when the name of the movie knew all to win all of a sudden no one reading aloud.
But this I-hadda-be-there moments. Looking Oscar history, you find that we could call violates the opposite - cases in which a film or play that has long been a part of racial unconscious is not a day, won due recognition. Then you get into a kind of "What do they know, and when they know?" situation. How would they have been so blind? We have collected some of this kind, and upset.
Violate come in all valences, triumphant and horrifying. Truly the way Oscar passes understanding. But this does not spoil the party.
1939
It was Hollywood's golden year. "Stagecoach" ... "Mr. Smith Goes Washington" ... "Ninotchka" ... "The Wizard of Oz" ... "Is it the wings of angels ... "Mr. Young Lincoln" ... "Wuthering Heights" ... "Of mice and men ... "Gunga Din" ... "Drums Along Mohawk" ... "Roman" ... "Four Feathers" (OK, made in England, but still). Nevertheless, it was producing a film that obsessed fans throughout the year, and when it was at that time record 13 Oscar nominations, no one doubts that David O. Selznick 'S almost four-hour Technicolor megaproduction "gone with the wind will take the brass ring. Lots of bronze rings, including for best director Victor Fleming, despite the fact that some half-dozen directors (George Cukor and Sam Wood) worked on the film. Most major players have been appointed (including Thomas Mitchell, although to "Stagecoach", not "GWTW"): a newcomer in Hollywood Vivien Li won Best Actress, as Scarlett O'Hara, and Hattie McDaniel edged out Olivia de Havilland for Best Supporting Actress. However, what was wrong with this picture? While writer Margaret Mitchell had written a book of visualization Clark gable as Rhett Butler, the fronton had to settle for a nomination (best actor went to Robert Donat for "Goodbye, Mr. Chips" -- but in reality, we would give it to Frank Capra in Mr. Smith, Jimmy Stewart). The king took him as a man, of course. But the clock "GWTW" today, and try telling us all that nonsense will be tolerated without Selznickean gable movie stars standing in the middle of it.
But this I-hadda-be-there moments. Looking Oscar history, you find that we could call violates the opposite - cases in which a film or play that has long been a part of racial unconscious is not a day, won due recognition. Then you get into a kind of "What do they know, and when they know?" situation. How would they have been so blind? We have collected some of this kind, and upset.
Violate come in all valences, triumphant and horrifying. Truly the way Oscar passes understanding. But this does not spoil the party.
1939
It was Hollywood's golden year. "Stagecoach" ... "Mr. Smith Goes Washington" ... "Ninotchka" ... "The Wizard of Oz" ... "Is it the wings of angels ... "Mr. Young Lincoln" ... "Wuthering Heights" ... "Of mice and men ... "Gunga Din" ... "Drums Along Mohawk" ... "Roman" ... "Four Feathers" (OK, made in England, but still). Nevertheless, it was producing a film that obsessed fans throughout the year, and when it was at that time record 13 Oscar nominations, no one doubts that David O. Selznick 'S almost four-hour Technicolor megaproduction "gone with the wind will take the brass ring. Lots of bronze rings, including for best director Victor Fleming, despite the fact that some half-dozen directors (George Cukor and Sam Wood) worked on the film. Most major players have been appointed (including Thomas Mitchell, although to "Stagecoach", not "GWTW"): a newcomer in Hollywood Vivien Li won Best Actress, as Scarlett O'Hara, and Hattie McDaniel edged out Olivia de Havilland for Best Supporting Actress. However, what was wrong with this picture? While writer Margaret Mitchell had written a book of visualization Clark gable as Rhett Butler, the fronton had to settle for a nomination (best actor went to Robert Donat for "Goodbye, Mr. Chips" -- but in reality, we would give it to Frank Capra in Mr. Smith, Jimmy Stewart). The king took him as a man, of course. But the clock "GWTW" today, and try telling us all that nonsense will be tolerated without Selznickean gable movie stars standing in the middle of it.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
highlight 2009 Academy Award winners
Below, we highlight 2009 Academy Award winners in the top categories.
Best Picture
'The Curious Case of Benjamin ...'
'Frost/Nixon'
'Milk'
'The Reader'
'Slumdog Millionaire'
Best Actor
Richard Jenkins
'The Visitor'
Frank Langella
'Frost/Nixon'
Sean Penn
'Milk'
Brad Pitt
'The Curious Case of Benjamin Button'
Mickey Rourke
'The Wrestler'
Best Actress
Anne Hathaway
'Rachel Getting Married'
Angelina Jolie
'Changeling'
Melissa Leo
'Frozen River'
Meryl Streep
'Doubt'
Kate Winslet
'The Reader'
Best Supporting Actor
Josh Brolin
'Milk'
Robert Downey Jr.
'Tropic Thunder'
Heath Ledger
'The Dark Knight'
Philip Seymour Hoffman
'Doubt'
Michael Shannon
'Revolutionary Road'
Best Supporting Actress
Amy Adams
'Doubt'
Penélope Cruz
'Vicky Cristina Barcelona'
Viola Davis
'Doubt'
Taraji P. Henson
'The Curious Case of Benjamin Button'
Marisa Tomei
'The Wrestler'
Best Director
Danny Boyle
'Slumdog Millionaire'
Stephen Daldry
'The Reader'
David Fincher
'The Curious Case of Benjamin Button'
Ron Howard
'Frost/Nixon'
Gus Van Sant
'Milk'
Best Picture
'The Curious Case of Benjamin ...'
'Frost/Nixon'
'Milk'
'The Reader'
'Slumdog Millionaire'
Best Actor
Richard Jenkins
'The Visitor'
Frank Langella
'Frost/Nixon'
Sean Penn
'Milk'
Brad Pitt
'The Curious Case of Benjamin Button'
Mickey Rourke
'The Wrestler'
Best Actress
Anne Hathaway
'Rachel Getting Married'
Angelina Jolie
'Changeling'
Melissa Leo
'Frozen River'
Meryl Streep
'Doubt'
Kate Winslet
'The Reader'
Best Supporting Actor
Josh Brolin
'Milk'
Robert Downey Jr.
'Tropic Thunder'
Heath Ledger
'The Dark Knight'
Philip Seymour Hoffman
'Doubt'
Michael Shannon
'Revolutionary Road'
Best Supporting Actress
Amy Adams
'Doubt'
Penélope Cruz
'Vicky Cristina Barcelona'
Viola Davis
'Doubt'
Taraji P. Henson
'The Curious Case of Benjamin Button'
Marisa Tomei
'The Wrestler'
Best Director
Danny Boyle
'Slumdog Millionaire'
Stephen Daldry
'The Reader'
David Fincher
'The Curious Case of Benjamin Button'
Ron Howard
'Frost/Nixon'
Gus Van Sant
'Milk'
Monday, February 23, 2009
Result of 81th Oscar acadeny award
You can see here...
Picture: "Slumdog Millionaire"
Actor: Sean Penn, "Milk"
Actress: Kate Winslet, "The Reader"
Director: Danny Boyle, "Slumdog Millionaire"
Foreign-Language Film: "Departures," Japan
Original Song: "Slumdog Millionaire"
Original Score: "Slumdog Millionaire"
Jean Hersholt Humanitarian Award: Jerry Lewis
Film Editing: "Slumdog Millionaire"
Sound Mixing: "Slumdog Millionaire"
Sound Editing: "The Dark Knight"
Visual Effects: "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button"
Documentary, Short Subject: "Smile Pinki"
Documentary Feature: "Man on Wire"
Supporting Actor: Heath Ledger, "The Dark Knight"
Short Film: "Spielzeugland"
Makeup: "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button"
Costume: "The Duchess"
Art Direction: "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button"
Animated Short Film: "La Maison en Petits Cubes"
Animated Feature: "WALL-E"
Adapted Screenplay: Simon Beaufoy, "Slumdog Millionaire"
Original Screenplay: Dustin Lance Black, "Milk"
Supporting Actress: Penélope Cruz, "Vicky Cristina Barcelona"
Scientific & Technical Awards presented Feb. 7, 2009, at the Beverly Wilshire Hotel in Beverly Hills, Calif.:
Gordon E. Sawyer Award: Ed Catmull
John A. Bonner Medal of Commendation: Mark Kimball
Picture: "Slumdog Millionaire"
Actor: Sean Penn, "Milk"
Actress: Kate Winslet, "The Reader"
Director: Danny Boyle, "Slumdog Millionaire"
Foreign-Language Film: "Departures," Japan
Original Song: "Slumdog Millionaire"
Original Score: "Slumdog Millionaire"
Jean Hersholt Humanitarian Award: Jerry Lewis
Film Editing: "Slumdog Millionaire"
Sound Mixing: "Slumdog Millionaire"
Sound Editing: "The Dark Knight"
Visual Effects: "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button"
Documentary, Short Subject: "Smile Pinki"
Documentary Feature: "Man on Wire"
Supporting Actor: Heath Ledger, "The Dark Knight"
Short Film: "Spielzeugland"
Makeup: "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button"
Costume: "The Duchess"
Art Direction: "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button"
Animated Short Film: "La Maison en Petits Cubes"
Animated Feature: "WALL-E"
Adapted Screenplay: Simon Beaufoy, "Slumdog Millionaire"
Original Screenplay: Dustin Lance Black, "Milk"
Supporting Actress: Penélope Cruz, "Vicky Cristina Barcelona"
Scientific & Technical Awards presented Feb. 7, 2009, at the Beverly Wilshire Hotel in Beverly Hills, Calif.:
Gordon E. Sawyer Award: Ed Catmull
John A. Bonner Medal of Commendation: Mark Kimball
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Top 10 Worst Movie Sequels - continued
"Clerks II" (2006)
Why a sequel? After the critical and commercial drubbing of his laboured labour of love "Jersey Girl," Kevin Smith needed a hit, and figured that going back to the low-rent, minimum-wage workers of his breakout hit "Clerks" would be a good place to return to his roots.
Plot: Following up "Clerks," "Clerks II" brings back motor-mouthed Randal (Jeff Anderson) and sad sack Dante (Brian O'Halloran) after a 12-year hiatus. Now working at a fast-food place, Randal and Dante try to find real work and true love.
Why it sucks: Smith should have known that the potty-mouthed bravado of his debut was the kind of lightning in a bottle that can't be reproduced, and that making a career out of screeching, swearing sex talk isn't the wisest choice. Also, taking Dante and Randal out of their grubby, real convenience store and video shop and plopping them into a gleaming, overdesigned fast-food place just highlighted O'Halloran and Anderson's limited acting skills. "Clerks II" was about people on dead-end, humiliating career paths; it might be one of the most autobiographical things Smith has ever done.
"Caddyshack II" (1988)
Why a sequel? With a startling profit-to-cost ratio, 1980's "Caddyshack" was an instant cult classic. Eight years later, star Chevy Chase returned alongside a group of B-list replacement players to try to make a box office hole-in-one again.
Plot: Once again, a blue-collar snob (Jackie Mason, subbing in for Rodney Dangerfield) tries to get into Bushwood country club, with a snooty club leader (Robert Stack, subbing in for Ted Knight) blocking the attempt while a demented goon (Dan Aykroyd, subbing in for Bill Murray) tries to stop a gopher and Chase makes bad jokes in the background.
Why it sucks: Because Mason is no Dangerfield, Stack is no Knight, and Aykroyd is no Murray. And Chase wasn't Chase. Director Allan Arkush sucks the life from every laugh, and the eight-year wait between instalments only made the original grow all the more beloved in hindsight.
"Weekend at Bernie's II" (1993)
Why a sequel? Because America had already laughed at the sight of two underachieving leading men (Jonathan Silverman and Andrew McCarthy) contorting a corpse into various positions and dragging a dead man from Point A to Point B in 1989's "Weekend at Bernie's." Add in surprising profitability on home video, and a sequel became a -- ahem -- dead certainty.
Plot: Silverman and McCarthy, just as in the first film, have to drag their dead boss (played, surprisingly well, by Terry Kiser) around in the pursuit of safety and riches.
Why it sucks: The first film kind-of-sort-of got every possible joke out of the dead-man bit, while the second film adds a vaguely insulting voodoo subplot. Add in the fact that "Weekend at Bernie's II" picks up the action the day after the first film while McCarthy and Silverman both look four years older and terribly, terribly tired, and the entire movie feels like, uh, beating a dead horse.
"Grease 2" (1982)
Why a sequel? "Grease" turned a little-known musical into a cult-favourite sing-along smash; why wouldn't you want to try to recapture that? Add in a $394 million take at the box office, and going back to Rydell High is a no-brainer.
Plot: "No-brainer" might, in fact, describe the plot, as "Grease 2" simply inverts the first film's romance between bad boy John Travolta and virtuous transfer student Olivia Newton-John, as English exchange student Maxwell Caulfield embarks on a risky romance with bad girl Michelle Pfeiffer. This isn't a sequel; it's the same movie in drag.
Why it sucks: Directed by "Grease" choreographer Patricia Birch, "Grease 2" even has lame songs, like a rousing anthem to the pleasure of bowling ("Let's Score") and another number set in a sex-ed class ("Reproduction"). Pfeiffer has a certain scrappy appeal, but Caulfield might as well not even be there; he's blond, bland and disposable. Plus, "Grease" was an exercise in nostalgia; "Grease 2" feels like it's asking us to get nostalgic over nostalgia, and that's the most depressing thing imaginable.
"Speed 2: Cruise Control" (1997)
Why a sequel? "Speed," with Keanu Reeves and Sandra Bullock, became the little action movie that could, with a bus rigged to blow if it dipped below 55 mph thanks to mad bomber Dennis Hopper. Who wouldn't want to bring that team back?
Plot: Apparently not Fox, who subbed Jason Patric when Reeves refused to come aboard, and plopped Patric and Bullock into a danger-at-sea plot as Willem Dafoe hijacks a cruise ship. (Rumour has it that the original script was intended as a possible "Die Hard" installment.)
Why it sucks: Patric isn't Reeves, and the decision to move ahead with a sequel without Reeves made the film feel like even more of an empty exercise in money-mad marketing over storytelling. The plot also lacked the original's pure pitch -- if the bus slows down, the bus goes BOOM! -- offering fairly generic action stunts instead.
Why a sequel? After the critical and commercial drubbing of his laboured labour of love "Jersey Girl," Kevin Smith needed a hit, and figured that going back to the low-rent, minimum-wage workers of his breakout hit "Clerks" would be a good place to return to his roots.
Plot: Following up "Clerks," "Clerks II" brings back motor-mouthed Randal (Jeff Anderson) and sad sack Dante (Brian O'Halloran) after a 12-year hiatus. Now working at a fast-food place, Randal and Dante try to find real work and true love.
Why it sucks: Smith should have known that the potty-mouthed bravado of his debut was the kind of lightning in a bottle that can't be reproduced, and that making a career out of screeching, swearing sex talk isn't the wisest choice. Also, taking Dante and Randal out of their grubby, real convenience store and video shop and plopping them into a gleaming, overdesigned fast-food place just highlighted O'Halloran and Anderson's limited acting skills. "Clerks II" was about people on dead-end, humiliating career paths; it might be one of the most autobiographical things Smith has ever done.
"Caddyshack II" (1988)
Why a sequel? With a startling profit-to-cost ratio, 1980's "Caddyshack" was an instant cult classic. Eight years later, star Chevy Chase returned alongside a group of B-list replacement players to try to make a box office hole-in-one again.
Plot: Once again, a blue-collar snob (Jackie Mason, subbing in for Rodney Dangerfield) tries to get into Bushwood country club, with a snooty club leader (Robert Stack, subbing in for Ted Knight) blocking the attempt while a demented goon (Dan Aykroyd, subbing in for Bill Murray) tries to stop a gopher and Chase makes bad jokes in the background.
Why it sucks: Because Mason is no Dangerfield, Stack is no Knight, and Aykroyd is no Murray. And Chase wasn't Chase. Director Allan Arkush sucks the life from every laugh, and the eight-year wait between instalments only made the original grow all the more beloved in hindsight.
"Weekend at Bernie's II" (1993)
Why a sequel? Because America had already laughed at the sight of two underachieving leading men (Jonathan Silverman and Andrew McCarthy) contorting a corpse into various positions and dragging a dead man from Point A to Point B in 1989's "Weekend at Bernie's." Add in surprising profitability on home video, and a sequel became a -- ahem -- dead certainty.
Plot: Silverman and McCarthy, just as in the first film, have to drag their dead boss (played, surprisingly well, by Terry Kiser) around in the pursuit of safety and riches.
Why it sucks: The first film kind-of-sort-of got every possible joke out of the dead-man bit, while the second film adds a vaguely insulting voodoo subplot. Add in the fact that "Weekend at Bernie's II" picks up the action the day after the first film while McCarthy and Silverman both look four years older and terribly, terribly tired, and the entire movie feels like, uh, beating a dead horse.
"Grease 2" (1982)
Why a sequel? "Grease" turned a little-known musical into a cult-favourite sing-along smash; why wouldn't you want to try to recapture that? Add in a $394 million take at the box office, and going back to Rydell High is a no-brainer.
Plot: "No-brainer" might, in fact, describe the plot, as "Grease 2" simply inverts the first film's romance between bad boy John Travolta and virtuous transfer student Olivia Newton-John, as English exchange student Maxwell Caulfield embarks on a risky romance with bad girl Michelle Pfeiffer. This isn't a sequel; it's the same movie in drag.
Why it sucks: Directed by "Grease" choreographer Patricia Birch, "Grease 2" even has lame songs, like a rousing anthem to the pleasure of bowling ("Let's Score") and another number set in a sex-ed class ("Reproduction"). Pfeiffer has a certain scrappy appeal, but Caulfield might as well not even be there; he's blond, bland and disposable. Plus, "Grease" was an exercise in nostalgia; "Grease 2" feels like it's asking us to get nostalgic over nostalgia, and that's the most depressing thing imaginable.
"Speed 2: Cruise Control" (1997)
Why a sequel? "Speed," with Keanu Reeves and Sandra Bullock, became the little action movie that could, with a bus rigged to blow if it dipped below 55 mph thanks to mad bomber Dennis Hopper. Who wouldn't want to bring that team back?
Plot: Apparently not Fox, who subbed Jason Patric when Reeves refused to come aboard, and plopped Patric and Bullock into a danger-at-sea plot as Willem Dafoe hijacks a cruise ship. (Rumour has it that the original script was intended as a possible "Die Hard" installment.)
Why it sucks: Patric isn't Reeves, and the decision to move ahead with a sequel without Reeves made the film feel like even more of an empty exercise in money-mad marketing over storytelling. The plot also lacked the original's pure pitch -- if the bus slows down, the bus goes BOOM! -- offering fairly generic action stunts instead.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Top 10 Worst Movie Sequels
"Staying Alive" (1983)
Why a sequel? "Saturday Night Fever" made $237 million worldwide at the box office, never mind the multiplatinum soundtrack album (to this date, the "Saturday Night Fever" album has sold 15 million copies). Travolta was still a young star, and hot talent Sylvester Stallone was attached to direct. What could go wrong?
Plot: Travolta's Tony Manero has left Brooklyn for Manhattan and left the nightclub world of disco for Broadway's modern dance productions. As Tony tries to make it on Broadway in a show called -- and I wish I was kidding -- "Satan's Alley," can he keep his love of dance alive?
Why it sucks: Because you don't have to be a genius to observe that the gritty, glam world of 1970s disco is very, very different than the gleaming, phony Broadway that Tony is plunged into. "Saturday Night Fever" had a dark, urban moodiness to it; "Staying Alive" gleams and glimmers like the oil smeared on Travolta's conspicuously displayed six-pack. "Staying Alive" made money; it just didn't make any sense.
"Blues Brothers 2000" (1998)
Why a sequel? "The Blues Brothers," released in 1980, was a transcendent comedy hit, fusing great musical numbers with crazed slapstick as Jake (John Belushi) and Elwood (Dan Aykroyd) Blues reunited their band to save the orphanage where they grew up. Eighteen years later, Belushi was dead, but director John Landis and Aykroyd needed a hit.
Plot: Elwood gets the band back together. And mentors an orphan boy. And hires a new singer (John Goodman). And ropes an Illinois cop (Joe Morton) into the group for a "Battle of the Bands." And there's a lot of singing and some great musical performances surrounded by a few jokes and some overdone crashes.
Why it sucks: Never mind the fact that, technically, with Belushi dead, any follow-up film is by definition "Blues Brother"; "Blues Brothers 2000" is an overstuffed cash grab full of extraneous characters (like the plucky orphan and Morton's cop) that bloat the movie until it bursts in a great demonstration that more isn't always better. Also, with an 18-year gap between original and sequel, the audience that roared for "Blues Brothers" had grown up and moved on, while their kids had no idea what the fuss was about.
"The Sting II" (1983)
Why a sequel? "The Sting" earned 10 Oscar nominations in 1973, won seven Academy Awards (including Best Picture), gave Robert Redford and Paul Newman terrific roles, and featured Robert Shaw as a classic bad guy. Ten years later, "The Sting II" gives us the substitute con team of Mac Davis and Jackie Gleason against Oliver Reed. Uh, what?
Plot: Gleason and Davis try to take down nightclub owner Karl Malden for murdering a friend, without knowing that the first film's nemesis, Doyle Lonnegan (Reed), is behind the dastardly doings. With Davis posing as an up-and-coming boxer and Gleason pulling the strings, the con is on.
Why it sucks: You can find reviews of "The Sting II" claiming it's not that bad, or, rather, it wouldn't feel so shabby if it weren't following in the footsteps of Redford and Newman. But it did follow in those big footsteps, and followed along 10 years after the first film's success. It stumbled: "The Sting" made $156 million at the box office, while "The Sting II" made $6 million. Ouch.
"Legally Blonde 2: Red, White & Blonde" (2003)
Why a sequel? After "Legally Blonde" made $141 million at the box office, a sequel seemed inevitable. Reese Witherspoon's transformation into a Hollywood star also meant the actress was looking for a cash cow.
Plot: Witherspoon, as the freshly graduated lawyer Elle Woods, goes to Washington, where she learns about democracy, makes jokes about consumerism, and sponsors a "Million Dog March" to stop animal testing, demonstrating once again her brilliant instincts under her glossy exterior.
Why it sucks: Not only is "Legally Blonde 2: Red, White & Blonde" impossibly lazy -- yes, Witherspoon's Elle is smarter than she looks, we get it -- but it also offered the weird sight of millions of fictional people marching against animal testing, and succeeding, at a moment in American history when, on the news, millions of real people were marching against the just-begun invasion of Iraq, and being ignored. It's hard to imagine worse timing for a fluffy, funny political comedy than the ain't-politics-funny, mistimed, misshapen "Legally Blonde 2: Red, White & Blonde."
"Highlander II: The Quickening" (1991)
Why a sequel? Look, regardless of merit, "Highlander" has a certain style, a certain charm, and a certain dimwit joie de vivre as immortals clash with broadswords in modern Manhattan, Queen roars on the soundtrack, and Sean Connery plays a Spaniard. Did it make sense? No. Was it fun? Yes.
Plot: In "Highlander II: The Quickening," we learn that Christopher Lambert and Connery's mystical immortals are actually space aliens. And that Connery, who died -- not-coming-back-even-though-he's-a-mystic-immortal, we-mean-it-for-keeps, he's snuffed it -- in the first film, apparently got better. Connery and Lambert then run around the future trying to stop the bad corporation that controls the big, man-made shield that replaces the ozone layer.
Why it sucks: Plenty of sequels forget what made their predecessor good. "Highlander II: The Quickening" actively reverses and refutes almost everything in the first film while larding on unnecessary backstory and completely changing the tone of the saga. The DVD "Renegade Version" (wisely) excises all the space alien stuff. But listen to the commentary track; it's a celebration of rationalization as the producers defensively apologize for goofing up the franchise.
Why a sequel? "Saturday Night Fever" made $237 million worldwide at the box office, never mind the multiplatinum soundtrack album (to this date, the "Saturday Night Fever" album has sold 15 million copies). Travolta was still a young star, and hot talent Sylvester Stallone was attached to direct. What could go wrong?
Plot: Travolta's Tony Manero has left Brooklyn for Manhattan and left the nightclub world of disco for Broadway's modern dance productions. As Tony tries to make it on Broadway in a show called -- and I wish I was kidding -- "Satan's Alley," can he keep his love of dance alive?
Why it sucks: Because you don't have to be a genius to observe that the gritty, glam world of 1970s disco is very, very different than the gleaming, phony Broadway that Tony is plunged into. "Saturday Night Fever" had a dark, urban moodiness to it; "Staying Alive" gleams and glimmers like the oil smeared on Travolta's conspicuously displayed six-pack. "Staying Alive" made money; it just didn't make any sense.
"Blues Brothers 2000" (1998)
Why a sequel? "The Blues Brothers," released in 1980, was a transcendent comedy hit, fusing great musical numbers with crazed slapstick as Jake (John Belushi) and Elwood (Dan Aykroyd) Blues reunited their band to save the orphanage where they grew up. Eighteen years later, Belushi was dead, but director John Landis and Aykroyd needed a hit.
Plot: Elwood gets the band back together. And mentors an orphan boy. And hires a new singer (John Goodman). And ropes an Illinois cop (Joe Morton) into the group for a "Battle of the Bands." And there's a lot of singing and some great musical performances surrounded by a few jokes and some overdone crashes.
Why it sucks: Never mind the fact that, technically, with Belushi dead, any follow-up film is by definition "Blues Brother"; "Blues Brothers 2000" is an overstuffed cash grab full of extraneous characters (like the plucky orphan and Morton's cop) that bloat the movie until it bursts in a great demonstration that more isn't always better. Also, with an 18-year gap between original and sequel, the audience that roared for "Blues Brothers" had grown up and moved on, while their kids had no idea what the fuss was about.
"The Sting II" (1983)
Why a sequel? "The Sting" earned 10 Oscar nominations in 1973, won seven Academy Awards (including Best Picture), gave Robert Redford and Paul Newman terrific roles, and featured Robert Shaw as a classic bad guy. Ten years later, "The Sting II" gives us the substitute con team of Mac Davis and Jackie Gleason against Oliver Reed. Uh, what?
Plot: Gleason and Davis try to take down nightclub owner Karl Malden for murdering a friend, without knowing that the first film's nemesis, Doyle Lonnegan (Reed), is behind the dastardly doings. With Davis posing as an up-and-coming boxer and Gleason pulling the strings, the con is on.
Why it sucks: You can find reviews of "The Sting II" claiming it's not that bad, or, rather, it wouldn't feel so shabby if it weren't following in the footsteps of Redford and Newman. But it did follow in those big footsteps, and followed along 10 years after the first film's success. It stumbled: "The Sting" made $156 million at the box office, while "The Sting II" made $6 million. Ouch.
"Legally Blonde 2: Red, White & Blonde" (2003)
Why a sequel? After "Legally Blonde" made $141 million at the box office, a sequel seemed inevitable. Reese Witherspoon's transformation into a Hollywood star also meant the actress was looking for a cash cow.
Plot: Witherspoon, as the freshly graduated lawyer Elle Woods, goes to Washington, where she learns about democracy, makes jokes about consumerism, and sponsors a "Million Dog March" to stop animal testing, demonstrating once again her brilliant instincts under her glossy exterior.
Why it sucks: Not only is "Legally Blonde 2: Red, White & Blonde" impossibly lazy -- yes, Witherspoon's Elle is smarter than she looks, we get it -- but it also offered the weird sight of millions of fictional people marching against animal testing, and succeeding, at a moment in American history when, on the news, millions of real people were marching against the just-begun invasion of Iraq, and being ignored. It's hard to imagine worse timing for a fluffy, funny political comedy than the ain't-politics-funny, mistimed, misshapen "Legally Blonde 2: Red, White & Blonde."
"Highlander II: The Quickening" (1991)
Why a sequel? Look, regardless of merit, "Highlander" has a certain style, a certain charm, and a certain dimwit joie de vivre as immortals clash with broadswords in modern Manhattan, Queen roars on the soundtrack, and Sean Connery plays a Spaniard. Did it make sense? No. Was it fun? Yes.
Plot: In "Highlander II: The Quickening," we learn that Christopher Lambert and Connery's mystical immortals are actually space aliens. And that Connery, who died -- not-coming-back-even-though-he's-a-mystic-immortal, we-mean-it-for-keeps, he's snuffed it -- in the first film, apparently got better. Connery and Lambert then run around the future trying to stop the bad corporation that controls the big, man-made shield that replaces the ozone layer.
Why it sucks: Plenty of sequels forget what made their predecessor good. "Highlander II: The Quickening" actively reverses and refutes almost everything in the first film while larding on unnecessary backstory and completely changing the tone of the saga. The DVD "Renegade Version" (wisely) excises all the space alien stuff. But listen to the commentary track; it's a celebration of rationalization as the producers defensively apologize for goofing up the franchise.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Movie Release Date in February 2009
February 6
Chocolate
Coraline
Fanboys
He's Just Not That Into You
The Pink Panther 2
Push
THIS WEEK
February 13
Confessions of a Shopaholic
Friday the 13th
The International
Two Lovers
Under the Sea 3D
February 20
Fired Up
Tyler Perry's Madea Goes to Jail
February 27
Crossing Over
Jonas Brothers: The 3D Concert Experience
Street Fighter: Legend of Chun-Li
Chocolate
Coraline
Fanboys
He's Just Not That Into You
The Pink Panther 2
Push
THIS WEEK
February 13
Confessions of a Shopaholic
Friday the 13th
The International
Two Lovers
Under the Sea 3D
February 20
Fired Up
Tyler Perry's Madea Goes to Jail
February 27
Crossing Over
Jonas Brothers: The 3D Concert Experience
Street Fighter: Legend of Chun-Li
Saturday, January 17, 2009
weekend box office income - january 2009
Final Numbers for the Weekend of Jan. 9th - Jan. 11th
1. Gran Torino ($29.4 million)
2. Bride Wars ($21.0 million)
3. The Unborn ($19.8 million)
4. Marley and Me ($11.3 million)
5. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button ($9.2 million)
6. Bedtime Stories ($8.8 million)
7. Valkyrie ($6.6 million)
8. Yes Man ($6.0 million)
9. Not Easily Broken ($5.3 million)
10. Seven Pounds ($3.8 million)
1. Gran Torino ($29.4 million)
2. Bride Wars ($21.0 million)
3. The Unborn ($19.8 million)
4. Marley and Me ($11.3 million)
5. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button ($9.2 million)
6. Bedtime Stories ($8.8 million)
7. Valkyrie ($6.6 million)
8. Yes Man ($6.0 million)
9. Not Easily Broken ($5.3 million)
10. Seven Pounds ($3.8 million)
Box-Office Prediction: January 16-18, 2009
1. Paul Blart: Mall Cop
For the record these are three day projections. It’s a very tough call at the top spot with three potential winners. I’m taking Blart because it’s rated PG and looks dumb. That should be enough to get it the top slot.
Estimate: $19.5 million
2. Notorious
Here’s the movie I hope wins as I’ve seen it and liked it. They aren’t screening My Bloody Valentine so I have no clue there. I put Notorious down for a number in between Get Rich or Die Tryin’ and 8 Mile. My only concern is that it doesn’t have enough awareness to hit this amount.
Estimate: $18.4 million
3. Gran Torino
It will regress 44.5%. But I still give everyone involved credit for taking even one weekend at the box office.
Estimate: $16.4 million
4. My Bloody Valentine 3-D
It could very well win the weekend, but I think Unborn might have stole a little steam. I’ve got it making $6200 per theater, if it had 3,000 theaters it would definitely trouble me more.
Estimate: $14.3 million
5. Hotel for Dogs
I put this at half of Chihuahua because it doesn’t have enough marketing dollars. That and Blart’s PG rating make it less likely to open large.
Estimate: $11.4 million
6. Bride Wars
I’m only dinging it 51.5%, mostly because the new releases are all in different genres. Unless you count My Bloody Valentine 3-D as competition… which isn’t completely crazy I guess.
Estimate: $10.2 million
7. The Unborn
The first rule of box office they teach you is that horror opens strong and fades swiftly. Thus, The Unborn will drop 54% at the very least this weekend.
Estimate: $9.1 million
8. Defiance
What an odd release schedule this one has had. They opened early in NYC/LA to try and get awards buzz. Then, whiffing on that, they are expanding to 1500 theaters this weekend. Clever!
Estimate: $5.7 million
9. Marley and Me
Two dog movies in the the top ten. That really sums up the movie-going experience these days, doesn’t it?
Estimate: $5.5 million
10. Slumdog Millionaire
The million dollar question is this: Will Last Chance Harvey’s new theaters help it grab this spot? Or will Slumdog’s Globes carry the day? My only concern is that the people who watch The Golden Globes have already seen Slumdog Millionaire. So it’s quite the social experiment at the bottom of the top ten this weekend.
Estimate: $5.1 million
For the record these are three day projections. It’s a very tough call at the top spot with three potential winners. I’m taking Blart because it’s rated PG and looks dumb. That should be enough to get it the top slot.
Estimate: $19.5 million
2. Notorious
Here’s the movie I hope wins as I’ve seen it and liked it. They aren’t screening My Bloody Valentine so I have no clue there. I put Notorious down for a number in between Get Rich or Die Tryin’ and 8 Mile. My only concern is that it doesn’t have enough awareness to hit this amount.
Estimate: $18.4 million
3. Gran Torino
It will regress 44.5%. But I still give everyone involved credit for taking even one weekend at the box office.
Estimate: $16.4 million
4. My Bloody Valentine 3-D
It could very well win the weekend, but I think Unborn might have stole a little steam. I’ve got it making $6200 per theater, if it had 3,000 theaters it would definitely trouble me more.
Estimate: $14.3 million
5. Hotel for Dogs
I put this at half of Chihuahua because it doesn’t have enough marketing dollars. That and Blart’s PG rating make it less likely to open large.
Estimate: $11.4 million
6. Bride Wars
I’m only dinging it 51.5%, mostly because the new releases are all in different genres. Unless you count My Bloody Valentine 3-D as competition… which isn’t completely crazy I guess.
Estimate: $10.2 million
7. The Unborn
The first rule of box office they teach you is that horror opens strong and fades swiftly. Thus, The Unborn will drop 54% at the very least this weekend.
Estimate: $9.1 million
8. Defiance
What an odd release schedule this one has had. They opened early in NYC/LA to try and get awards buzz. Then, whiffing on that, they are expanding to 1500 theaters this weekend. Clever!
Estimate: $5.7 million
9. Marley and Me
Two dog movies in the the top ten. That really sums up the movie-going experience these days, doesn’t it?
Estimate: $5.5 million
10. Slumdog Millionaire
The million dollar question is this: Will Last Chance Harvey’s new theaters help it grab this spot? Or will Slumdog’s Globes carry the day? My only concern is that the people who watch The Golden Globes have already seen Slumdog Millionaire. So it’s quite the social experiment at the bottom of the top ten this weekend.
Estimate: $5.1 million
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)