Archive for ‘Bonus Materials’
112 items.
On Tuesday, the governors of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences voted to change the nomination process for the Best Picture category. For years, the field was limited to 5 nominees but was expanded to 10 a few years ago. For the 2012 Oscars, there will be anywhere from 5 to 10 nominees and we won’t know how many films have been nominated until they are announced in January of next year.
AMPAS claims that Academy members have historically shown passion for more than five movies during the nomination process, but on average, not more than 7 or 8. The no longer feel an obligation to “round up” the number of nominees to 10.
Films that receive at least 5% first place votes among Academy members are eligible for Best Picture nomination. That’s fine, I guess. But does anyone else see this as giving the studios a greater opportunity to jockey for a nomination? Like, if studios get a sense that their critical darling (but financial dud) is hovering around 4%, won’t they push harder for swing votes? I see this as opening the door for more marketing and more campaigning that gets in the way of honestly recognizing films based on merit.
I guess I’m skeptical of it because it feels so shapeless. Almost as if the Academy is indifferent to the number of films that are nominated. “5 films, 6 films, 9 films… Hey! Whatever you want!”
Or worse, it feels like a contrived maneuver that will cause a lot of second guessing among Oscar-watchers. Which will result in more print articles trying to make predictions and more ink spilled covering potential confusion and controversy.
What is your take on this rule change? Leave your comments below!
[ 5 Comments ]
With Cars 2 coming out this weekend, I am reminded of a unique piece of artwork created by Jake Parker a few years ago – a cross-section of Lightning McQueen.
If you’ve never seen this illustration before, I’m happy to bring it to your attention. Because Jake’s illustration addresses something that fundamentally unsettles me about the Cars universe – how does a talking car… y’know… work?
Jake’s drawing is a mesh of organic and mechanical that actually makes a fair bit of sense. Although, when you go back and watch the movie and notice that all of the characters side and back windows are tinted, it makes things kind of creepy to think that their brains are behind that glass.
I know it’s a kids movie and I know you’re not supposed to ask these questions. But the level of detail that Pixar infused into these characters begs the question.
Incidentally, I’d also like to know how these characters built the buildings they inhabit with no opposable thumbs, but maybe that’s an issue for another day.
[ 4 Comments ]
Haphazardly monitoring Twitter last night, I saw my feed lit up from people who were wetting their pants over the new Captain America trailer. Then enthusiasm was so unbridled, it almost made me want to skip watching the trailer myself.
Almost.
I understand the emphasis is on action with this trailer, that’s fine. But the use of Tool’s “Forty Six And 2” feels COMPLETELY out of place. So easily I could have pictured more anthemic orchestration like John Williams’ Indiana Jones score. But that’s a quibble.
Despite a summer plagued by superhero movies that have created anxious doubt(X-Men: First Class), suffered critical misfires (Green Lantern) or were merely serviceable (Thor), I am actually very optimistic about Captain America because it seems like they’ve gotten a lot of the little details right. More importantly, they haven’t given away the store with their previews. They’ve been promoting this movie for almost a year and I still feel like there are plenty of treats waiting for us on the big screen.
The casting is excellent. Can I say pleases me to no end to see Tommy Lee Jones barking orders at people? It goes without saying that Hugo Weaving as The Red Skull is perfect.
I’ll let the trailer speak for itself. What’s your take on Captain America? Leave your comments below!
[ 9 Comments ]
As you probably know, Cars 2 came out this weekend. And, as you probably know, most critics didn’t like it. Cars 2 has the dubious distinction of being the first “rotten” movie in Pixar’s 15-year production history.
Unfortunately, this is probably what Cars 2 will be most readily identified with – a punctuation mark on unsurpassed era of critical praise. This is unfair for a number of reasons.
The peripherals of Pixar’s films include a legacy of quality, critical response to that standard, box office success and merchandising ubiquity. In many ways, this is a Jenga stack that was destined to tumble. As each new film is released, any small imperfection will be magnified and exploited before the tower falls.
In this case, Cars 2 has the unfortunate distinction of being released behind Toy Story 3 which was Pixar’s most profitable, best reviewed film to date. Next to that, nearly anything would have looked like a pale imitator.
But does that mean that Cars 2 is a bad movie? No, it’s not. Is it a great movie? Well, no. Not exactly. Then what is it? Cars 2 is a perfectly serviceable piece of family entertainment that moves briskly, entertains thoroughly and doesn’t insult the audience’s intelligence. That sounds like faint praise. But neither is it condemning damnation.
I guess walking out of the theater, the question that I tried to answer was “Is Cars 2 worse than the original Cars?” My conclusion was, “It isn’t!” So, by that logic, how can it be the worst Pixar movie of all time. Or, at the very least “rotten?”
Well, I would say that there we some opportunities missed. Unlike the original Cars, whose theme was basically “Slow down and enjoy life,” Cars 2 serves up a tepid lesson about letting your friends be who they are. It doesn’t exactly resonate.
Additionally, I find that one’s enjoyment of Cars 2 weighs heavily on their ability to tollerare comedian Larry the Cable Guy as the faithful tow truck, Mater. Make no mistake about it – Cars 2 is his movie. Either you’re okay with that or you’re not.
In the negative reviews I’ve read, most critics aren’t okay with that. It’s understandable why. As a character, Mater is well-meaning, but best in small doses. Regrettably, what Cars 2 does is makes him slightly more insufferable and ignorant so Owen Wilson (as racing superstar Lightning McQueen) has a reason to push him away in the film’s first act.
This feels a little disingenuous to the character. Despite Mater’s country-bumpkin exterior, in the original Cars, he at least seemed to have some awareness of how others perceived him. I’m thinking specifically when Lightning McQueen is brought in front of a Paul Newman’s Doc Hudson to answer for tearing up the main drag in Radiator Springs. When Bonnie Hunt as Sally shows up, Lightning McQueen is awestruck. Even moreso when Mater says Sally is his financée. “What?!” Lighning says, incredulously. “I’m just kiddin’,” Mater responds. “She jus’ likes me for my body.”
None of that self-awareness is on display in Cars 2 and Mater feels like he’s taken a step backwards as a result.
The resulting lack of message or character progression can make Cars 2 feel somewhat shallow if you listen to your inner cynic. “This is just a money grab!” “They want to sell more toys!” You’re inner cynic is right, by the way. I’m just saying that doesn’t mean Cars 2 is a bad film.
In terms of scope, creativity, design and attention to detail, Cars 2 delivers exactly the way you expect a Pixar movie to. In fact, once the dust settles and people seriously sit down and consider Cars and Cars 2 side-by-side, I think they will agree with that assessment. From a technical perspective, Cars 2 is every way superior to its predecessor. Animation buffs will be dissecting it for years.
Considering that Pixar has always been a studio that trumpted the value of “Story First,” Cars 2 failings in this area makes the rest of the film seem like a sell-out. I don’t feel that way because I never felt like the film was wasting my time.
The more I think about it, the more I acknowledge that maybe I have my “fanboy blinders” on. But I guess I feel like I see both sides of the equation. I know where Cars 2 doesn’t work but I don’t feel like that diminishes the accomplishments of what DOES work about the film. Therefore, I don’t feel like critics are necessarily justified in punishing the movie with abysmal reviews for an otherwise inoffensive and acceptable film.
If it was a Dreamworks movie on the other hand, maybe we could talk. 
[ 9 Comments ]
Check out this piece of original artwork by Casey Weldon. It’s a poster for the fictional movie at the end of Pee Wee’s Big Adventure and it immediately brought a smile to my face.
The artwork is acrylic on wood and Mr. Weldon is selling it for $900. That’s a little rich for my blood, but it has inspired me to re-watch Pee Wee’s Big Adventure immediately and without delay.
[ 1 Comment ]
Remember last year when MTV Geek asked the cast of Harry Potter to do and say things “the right way – the American way?” It was pretty effin’ hilarious.
The shine is a little bit off the apple the second go around. But still, it’s nice they did a follow up.
Get More: Movie Trailers, Movies Blog
[ 1 Comment ]
Originally the word on the street was that the trailer for The Amazing Spider-Man wasn’t supposed to hit the web (ha!) until Thursday. Conventional wisdom placed it ahead of Captain America: The First Avengers when it launches in theaters on Friday.
But lo-and-behold! It’s here a day early! Enjoy!
I’ll say that the trailer hits a couple of different notes with me. Some work, some don’t.
Meeting the young Peter Parker at the beginning plays a little too much like Harry Potter to me. Then, fast forwarding a few years to the present day, we’re confronted by Andrew Garfield’s wild haystack of hair and I get a distinct Twilight vibe.
But after that, I think the trailer shapes up very nicely. Right away, you can tell that Marc Webb’s version is grounded a little more in reality. At least in terms of casting Peter as the outsider. Garfield barely even utters a line of dialogue. Mostly he keeps his head down like a beat dog. I find that kind of endearing. It’s certainly a stark contrast from widdle Tobey Maguire’s wounded puppy-dog routine in Sam Raimi’s original.
I’ll also give credit to Webb’s use of the first-person in Spider-Man’s sprint across the city rooftops.
The cynic in me could honestly have done without everything leading up to that moment in the trailer. I think if we were only give the first person shot, it would have taken the audience to catch on that we were actually seeing the city through the eyes of Spider-Man. Then, when his reflection is revealed, I think people would have gone through the roof. But maybe that’s just me.
What’s your take on this trailer?
[ 7 Comments ]
To be clear, I have no interest in seeing this movie. That a trailer even exists for it 6 months out seems… ambitious at best, delusional at worst. This film is sitcom-level piffle that will be immediately forgotten two weeks after release. But humor me. Watch the trailer anyway…
These stunt-casting movies like New Year’s Eve, Valentine’s Day and Love, Actually that feature a cavalcade of celebrity cameos are almost becoming a genre unto themselves. They’re like the Laff-A-Lympics of cinema.
…and they must be stopped.
“Coming Spring of 2012… ARBOR DAY!“
[ 7 Comments ]
I’m not particularly a fan of horror movies, but I do love a good ghost story. Daniel Radcliffe’s first post-Harry Potter role appears to deliver in this adaptation of Susan Hill’s The Woman in Black. Take a look at the trailer below.
Sure, creepy dolls and photos with crossed out eyes are cheap horror movie tropes. The child’s narration is a little overdone, too. But I like the creeping menace in this film. That last shot in the trailer seals the deal.
Also, I never noticed until now how much Daniel Radcliffe without glasses looks like Patrick Dempsey. Is it me?
What do you think of this BONE CHILLING trailer? Leave your comments below. The Woman in Black hits theaters on February 13, 2012.
[ 4 Comments ]
