My brother and I have this game we have been playing for at least the last 10 years.
We call it "Who is that and what were they in before," basically us showing off our skills in knowing different actors' filmography.
We watch a movie/TV show and if an actor we know comes on screen we have to call their name and name a movie/TV show they've been in before. You get points for every name and movie/TV show you can mention. It really gets funny when you've named every major actor and their movies, because then you get down to the "That Guy" actors, such as Peter Stormare and Clint Howard because then you get to start "bluffing", which means that you just make up movie/TV show titles and see if they stick, however, if you're called on it you lose a point.
I've noticed that this game is not only fun and gives me a little bit of cultural capital, but it actually has helped me in social situations because by training my mind to remember those I only interact with para-socially, I also remember people's faces in other social situations.
Does anyone else play this game? Or are we just the biggest geeks ever?
The Remake Conundrum
So this year a couple of remakes were released. such as A Nightmare on Elm Street, only it's not called a remake anymore but instead they are being promoted as a re-imagining of the story. This seems to be a newly formed pattern when it comes to promoting remakes nowadays, this non-use of the word remake. Instead words like re-imagining, re-starting, tribute, Americanization, and, my own favorite, rebooting is being used whenever Hollywood decides to recycle.
It seems today the word remake has gotten a negative connotation to it, and whenever a remake is in talks, the fans of the original will undoubtedly come out of the woodwork to loudly complain about it, and in almost every case, not one of those fans has seen any of the footage from the remake. It almost seems that the complaints that the fans of the original have are just a knee jerk reaction to the word remake and if you as a fan of the original don't complain about it, well then you are seen as not being a fan at all.
However, I'm going to take the opposing view to this. I say remakes are good. Now I'm not talking story wise because let's face it, remakes almost always get it wrong, but when I say remakes are good, I mean they are good for the original. I say this because if a remake is being done, in most cases there is also a lot of buzz about the original, which in turn will make more people see it, hence, the original, which in almost all cases is seen as the epitome of film making, will get more fans.
This can also be seen when books are adapted for the silver screen. The book being portrayed will either be sold more at bookstore or borrowed more often from the library.
This is because in the end, people want to know the source material, and they want to know why this specific movie is being remade or why that book is being filmed. People are naturally curious and they think knowing trivial things like what and when something is being made into a movie will get them more culture capital and make them cooler.
So the next time one of your friends want to see the newest remake, don't follow your gut reaction, take a breath and ask them if they want to see the original beforehand. Maybe this way one of your favorite films will gain a fan.
It seems today the word remake has gotten a negative connotation to it, and whenever a remake is in talks, the fans of the original will undoubtedly come out of the woodwork to loudly complain about it, and in almost every case, not one of those fans has seen any of the footage from the remake. It almost seems that the complaints that the fans of the original have are just a knee jerk reaction to the word remake and if you as a fan of the original don't complain about it, well then you are seen as not being a fan at all.
However, I'm going to take the opposing view to this. I say remakes are good. Now I'm not talking story wise because let's face it, remakes almost always get it wrong, but when I say remakes are good, I mean they are good for the original. I say this because if a remake is being done, in most cases there is also a lot of buzz about the original, which in turn will make more people see it, hence, the original, which in almost all cases is seen as the epitome of film making, will get more fans.
This can also be seen when books are adapted for the silver screen. The book being portrayed will either be sold more at bookstore or borrowed more often from the library.
This is because in the end, people want to know the source material, and they want to know why this specific movie is being remade or why that book is being filmed. People are naturally curious and they think knowing trivial things like what and when something is being made into a movie will get them more culture capital and make them cooler.
Mel Brooks' Dracula; Dead and Loving It
Last night I re-watched Mel Brooks' Dracula; Dead and Loving It and I was kinda shocked at how un-dated it feels. The movie was made 15 years ago but it still holds up, at least to me, and I can't really say the same for Scary Movie. So why do I still like Mel Brooks' movie but not Scary Movie?
I can't really put my finger on it but it might have something to do with the fact that Brooks stuck to doing a consistent parody of one other movie while Scary movie features small bits of parodies of every scary movie that was hip at the time. It might also have to do with the fact that while Brooks' movie does have a sexual tone to it,it is still subtle but Scary Movie is as unsubtle as can be with its dick-, fart-, and boob jokes.
I mean,take the scene where Mina requests Jonathan to touch her, he says no but she makes him touch her breast and then her father comes in to the room and discovers Jonathan's hand on her breast and gets outraged... at a couple that has been engaged for 5 years! This scene cracks me up even after the 10th time watching it.
In comparison, the sperm fountain scene in Scary Movie. I admit, I laughed the first time I saw it but then the second time I just shrugged my shoulders and every time after that I didn't find it funny because it was so over the top.
In the end, I figured that both movies reflect two different eras, two different types of writers and two different types of style. Mel Brooks is an old-school writer that sticks to the classic slapstick comedy while the Wayans brothers are younger and cruder that appeals to the 12 year old in all of us.
I can't really put my finger on it but it might have something to do with the fact that Brooks stuck to doing a consistent parody of one other movie while Scary movie features small bits of parodies of every scary movie that was hip at the time. It might also have to do with the fact that while Brooks' movie does have a sexual tone to it,it is still subtle but Scary Movie is as unsubtle as can be with its dick-, fart-, and boob jokes.
I mean,take the scene where Mina requests Jonathan to touch her, he says no but she makes him touch her breast and then her father comes in to the room and discovers Jonathan's hand on her breast and gets outraged... at a couple that has been engaged for 5 years! This scene cracks me up even after the 10th time watching it.
In comparison, the sperm fountain scene in Scary Movie. I admit, I laughed the first time I saw it but then the second time I just shrugged my shoulders and every time after that I didn't find it funny because it was so over the top.
In the end, I figured that both movies reflect two different eras, two different types of writers and two different types of style. Mel Brooks is an old-school writer that sticks to the classic slapstick comedy while the Wayans brothers are younger and cruder that appeals to the 12 year old in all of us.
Superman versus Batman
This week I was discussing Superman versus Batman with a group of friends when, imagine my surprise, I realized I was the only one out of about ten people who actually liked Superman more. I also found it amusing how in a group of people were everyone was American preferred the "vigilante" while me, the Swede, is all about the "Truth, Justice and the American Way" superhero.
I didn't really get to explain all the reasons for why I liked Superman more before I was booed but I guess I'll talk about the key reasons for liking the blue guy here instead.
Reason number one; I find the fact that Superman has all of these powers; invincibility, heat vision, freeze breath, flying, Super strength and more, and doesn't use them to take over the world a very admirable trait. He could literally destroy Earth but instead he rather help the people.
Reason number two; He doesn't kill, ever. Aside for the 60's TV show, Batman was and is quite vicious and seems to have no patience for "rehabilitating" the criminals. Superman, on the other hand, believes that no matter how many times Lex Luthor, or any other criminal, breaks out of jail, the justice system is something to believe in.
Reason number three; There is a lot of debate about this but I actually think Superman is Clark Kent at heart. I think he was raised by good people who taught him right from wrong so strongly that it translates into everything Superman does. I then think that the AI, built upon the image of his biological father Jor-El, just added to what the Kents had already taught his Kal-El. Bruce Wayne, however, is really Batman at heart. Even though Bruce Wayne grew up with a wonderful caretaker in Alfred and big shoes to fill when it comes to his philanthropist father Thomas Wayne, I believe the death of his parents cloud that so much that the only thing left is a shell of a man and Batman.
Reason number four; Someone once said that Metropolis is New York by day and Gotham is New York by night. I think this starkly shows the difference between Superman and Batman. One brings light and hope while the other one brings vengeance and operates in the shadow.
Reason number five; Despite being an alien, Superman is the epitome of humanity.
And that's why I like Superman more.
I didn't really get to explain all the reasons for why I liked Superman more before I was booed but I guess I'll talk about the key reasons for liking the blue guy here instead.
Reason number one; I find the fact that Superman has all of these powers; invincibility, heat vision, freeze breath, flying, Super strength and more, and doesn't use them to take over the world a very admirable trait. He could literally destroy Earth but instead he rather help the people.
Reason number two; He doesn't kill, ever. Aside for the 60's TV show, Batman was and is quite vicious and seems to have no patience for "rehabilitating" the criminals. Superman, on the other hand, believes that no matter how many times Lex Luthor, or any other criminal, breaks out of jail, the justice system is something to believe in.
Reason number three; There is a lot of debate about this but I actually think Superman is Clark Kent at heart. I think he was raised by good people who taught him right from wrong so strongly that it translates into everything Superman does. I then think that the AI, built upon the image of his biological father Jor-El, just added to what the Kents had already taught his Kal-El. Bruce Wayne, however, is really Batman at heart. Even though Bruce Wayne grew up with a wonderful caretaker in Alfred and big shoes to fill when it comes to his philanthropist father Thomas Wayne, I believe the death of his parents cloud that so much that the only thing left is a shell of a man and Batman.
Reason number four; Someone once said that Metropolis is New York by day and Gotham is New York by night. I think this starkly shows the difference between Superman and Batman. One brings light and hope while the other one brings vengeance and operates in the shadow.
Reason number five; Despite being an alien, Superman is the epitome of humanity.
And that's why I like Superman more.
The Human Centipede (First Sequence) (2009)
According to imdb.com "In Germany, two American women and a Japanese man fall victim to a demented surgeon who plans to recreate a horrific operation with humans that he performed on his three beloved dogs: reverse-engineering Siamese triplets by attaching their digestive systems." By doing so he is making a centipede-like creature for his own enjoyment.
While watching the movie it felt like there was no point to the movie because it is not really explained why the surgeon suddenly decided to make the creature, although it should be said that Director Tom Six does put in flimsy hints about the surgeon and that he used to separate conjoined twins, or what the point of the creature even was, it has no application at all in the real world.
The biggest problem, however, is that is neither shocking nor horrifying as Director Tom Six probably wanted it to be, it wasn't even that gross. And this is a movie that deals with people getting sown mouth to ass and has a scene were in the front person takes a crap that the second person has to digest!
According to Wikipedia.org "The concept of the film arose from a joke Tom Six made with friends about punishing child molesters by stitching their mouth to the anus of a fat truck driver." I kind of wish he would've stuck with that idea because by using two good looking, innocent girls instead the movie really doesn't make any sense and it makes it look like Six only did so to appeal to an audience whose favorite fetish is girls eating feces, basically the "2 girls-1 cup" audience.
The only good thing that this movie has going for it is its mise-en-scène. Visually, this movie has many stunning scenes but the most beautifully done is the last scene. The camera work, the lightning, the setting and the actors all come together for this one scene. It's a shame it's only for that scene.
In the end, Human Centipede is not a movie I would ever recommend to anyone to watch or watch myself again.
While watching the movie it felt like there was no point to the movie because it is not really explained why the surgeon suddenly decided to make the creature, although it should be said that Director Tom Six does put in flimsy hints about the surgeon and that he used to separate conjoined twins, or what the point of the creature even was, it has no application at all in the real world.
The biggest problem, however, is that is neither shocking nor horrifying as Director Tom Six probably wanted it to be, it wasn't even that gross. And this is a movie that deals with people getting sown mouth to ass and has a scene were in the front person takes a crap that the second person has to digest!
According to Wikipedia.org "The concept of the film arose from a joke Tom Six made with friends about punishing child molesters by stitching their mouth to the anus of a fat truck driver." I kind of wish he would've stuck with that idea because by using two good looking, innocent girls instead the movie really doesn't make any sense and it makes it look like Six only did so to appeal to an audience whose favorite fetish is girls eating feces, basically the "2 girls-1 cup" audience.
The only good thing that this movie has going for it is its mise-en-scène. Visually, this movie has many stunning scenes but the most beautifully done is the last scene. The camera work, the lightning, the setting and the actors all come together for this one scene. It's a shame it's only for that scene.
In the end, Human Centipede is not a movie I would ever recommend to anyone to watch or watch myself again.
Jennifer's Body (2009)
This week I watched Jennifer's Body. According to IMDb.com the movie plot is; A newly possessed cheerleader turns into a killer who specializes in offing her male classmates. Can her best friend put an end to the horror?
It stars Megan Fox and Amanda Seyfried. It was written by Diablo Cody, who also wrote Juno. When the movie came out it got a lot of mixed reviews, most of them bad. Probably because critics and viewers were expecting Juno with a horror twist.Maybe baby drama were the baby turns out to be a demonic entity instead?
However, I found the movie to be satisfying, not the best horror I've seen but neither the worst. How much I enjoyed it really surprised me since normally I can't really stand Megan Fox, her "acting" in Transformers and her comments in real life makes me cringe each and every time, but in this movie I didn't mind her at all. This might have to do with the fact that Fox's portrayal of Jennifer seems to be Fox playing herself but with wittier lines, courtesy of Cody.
However, I think it was Amanda Seyfried's portrayal of Needy that really pulled together the movie. Seyfried's Needy is never weak, stupid or a stereotypical horror blond bombshell, instead Diablo Cody and Seyfried give us a character that is very much an average teenage girl that is put in a very extreme situation by her "sand box" best friend Jennifer. They also lets us know not only how these experiences changed her but also how much. Seyfried's transformation from sidekick to slayer doesn't seem to far fetched.
Both Jennifer and Needy divergent journeys and turbulent friendship can be seen as a very plausible metaphor for the trials and tribulations teenage girls go thorough every day, both individually and together. The plot of the movie can be seen as a extreme example of what can happen when two people, who have been best friends since forever, grow apart. In real life, this would probably end with talking behind each others backs, fights and facebook de-friending, but in Cody's world we get demon possession and murder.
Another aspect of the movie is that it can be seen as an extreme example of what can happen after a female, in this instance Jennifer, is sexually brutalized and victimized, as Jennifer was by the band.
It also has not so subtle overtones as being a metaphor for both female sexual liberation, such as Needy losing her virginity and Jennifer luring the boys (a.k.a. her food) by using sex as power.
All in all, it was a good movie.
It stars Megan Fox and Amanda Seyfried. It was written by Diablo Cody, who also wrote Juno. When the movie came out it got a lot of mixed reviews, most of them bad. Probably because critics and viewers were expecting Juno with a horror twist.Maybe baby drama were the baby turns out to be a demonic entity instead?
However, I found the movie to be satisfying, not the best horror I've seen but neither the worst. How much I enjoyed it really surprised me since normally I can't really stand Megan Fox, her "acting" in Transformers and her comments in real life makes me cringe each and every time, but in this movie I didn't mind her at all. This might have to do with the fact that Fox's portrayal of Jennifer seems to be Fox playing herself but with wittier lines, courtesy of Cody.
However, I think it was Amanda Seyfried's portrayal of Needy that really pulled together the movie. Seyfried's Needy is never weak, stupid or a stereotypical horror blond bombshell, instead Diablo Cody and Seyfried give us a character that is very much an average teenage girl that is put in a very extreme situation by her "sand box" best friend Jennifer. They also lets us know not only how these experiences changed her but also how much. Seyfried's transformation from sidekick to slayer doesn't seem to far fetched.
Both Jennifer and Needy divergent journeys and turbulent friendship can be seen as a very plausible metaphor for the trials and tribulations teenage girls go thorough every day, both individually and together. The plot of the movie can be seen as a extreme example of what can happen when two people, who have been best friends since forever, grow apart. In real life, this would probably end with talking behind each others backs, fights and facebook de-friending, but in Cody's world we get demon possession and murder.
Another aspect of the movie is that it can be seen as an extreme example of what can happen after a female, in this instance Jennifer, is sexually brutalized and victimized, as Jennifer was by the band.
It also has not so subtle overtones as being a metaphor for both female sexual liberation, such as Needy losing her virginity and Jennifer luring the boys (a.k.a. her food) by using sex as power.
All in all, it was a good movie.
Legion (2010)
This weekend I went to see Legion. According to IMDb.com the plot is "An out-of-the-way diner becomes the unlikely battleground for the survival of the human race. When God loses faith in humankind, he sends his legion of angels to bring on the Apocalypse. Humanity's only hope lies in a group of strangers trapped in a desert diner with the Archangel Michael"
I loved the trailer and the idea of this movie. I mean in a world that seems to be getting more and more violent and twisted every day the whole idea of God losing faith isn't so far fetched. I also thought that it would be interesting to see what that would entail, for example; demon possession, crazy old ladies climbing the walls while cursing and gore, lots of gore. I have to admit that some parts of the movie was funny, gory and a little bit creepy. However, the two biggest problems of the movie was;
In the end I wish they would've gone more in depth on some of the more crucial subjects of the movie, such as why God lost faith, why this particular baby is important and what happens in the world after the apocalypse comes along.
What we get, however, is kind of a shallow movie that only scratches the surface, cool fighting between the two angels Michael (Paul Bettany) and Gabriel (Kevin Durand), and some pretty awesome acting by Dennis Quaid and Charles S. Dutton.
I guess I have to stick to my weekly episodes of Supernatural to get my fix on in-depth analysis of urban legends, myths, beliefs, pop culture and religion.
I loved the trailer and the idea of this movie. I mean in a world that seems to be getting more and more violent and twisted every day the whole idea of God losing faith isn't so far fetched. I also thought that it would be interesting to see what that would entail, for example; demon possession, crazy old ladies climbing the walls while cursing and gore, lots of gore. I have to admit that some parts of the movie was funny, gory and a little bit creepy. However, the two biggest problems of the movie was;
- I didn't really care for the main characters. They felt two dimensional, shallowly written and extremely stupid. I mean the one character that was suppose to be the hope of humanity is a girl who got pregnant by one guy, strings another guy along for the ride and smokes while pregnant, it is like the writers couldn't decide which character flaw to give her so they gave her all of them. They also named one of the characters Jeep, which just sounds like a product placement to me because who really names their kids Jeep? At least name him Bentley, Royce or Ford!
- It felt like I was watching a movie trying to hard to be Terminator with the whole "your baby has a destiny". Seriously, I was just waiting for them to name the kid John Connor. Maybe the makers of the movie thought that, like fashion, every 20 years we need to recycle, readjust and remake the movies of our earlier years to fit how they view the world now.
In the end I wish they would've gone more in depth on some of the more crucial subjects of the movie, such as why God lost faith, why this particular baby is important and what happens in the world after the apocalypse comes along.
What we get, however, is kind of a shallow movie that only scratches the surface, cool fighting between the two angels Michael (Paul Bettany) and Gabriel (Kevin Durand), and some pretty awesome acting by Dennis Quaid and Charles S. Dutton.
I guess I have to stick to my weekly episodes of Supernatural to get my fix on in-depth analysis of urban legends, myths, beliefs, pop culture and religion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)