Archive for avatar

MONSTROUS QUESTION – CGI WORLDS (Answer # 3)

Posted in 2011, CGI, LL Soares Reviews, Monstrous Question with tags , , , , on June 3, 2011 by knifefighter

MONSTROUS QUESTION
(Monstrous Questions provided by Michael Arruda unless otherwise noted)

 In this edition of MONSTROUS QUESTION, we asked, what’s the best CGI created world(s) you’ve seen in a movie(s) since 2000?

*****

L.L. SOARES answers:

If I had to say what the most impressive use of CGI was to create an entirely new world, it would probably have to be AVATAR (2009). James Cameron had the money and resources to go all out and create an entire world from top to bottom using computer graphics. But AVATAR would not be my favorite movie to use CGI this way.

My favorite use of CGI would have to be SIN CITY(2005). Not only is the world in SIN CITY unique and completely created using CGI, it also looks a helluva lot like the Frank Miller comic books it was adapted from, doing a fine job of bringing Miller’s artwork to life. I loved Miller’s comics, and I thought SIN CITY was a very innovative use of computer effects. It was also a very fun movie.

 

Leave A Comment »

Friday Night Knife Fights – 2D Vs. 3D – Conclusion

Posted in 2011, 3-D, Deformed Freaks!, Gimmicks with tags , , , , on April 8, 2011 by knifefighter

FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS:  3D MOVIES VS. 2D MOVIES – Part 3 (Conclusion)
With Michael Arruda, L.L. Soares, and Dan Keohane

MA:  Welcome back to the third and final segment  of our Great 3D Debate. Once again L.L. and I are joined by Dan Keohane.

(Dan is seen making a cigarette disappear up his nose.)

LS:  I love that trick!

(Dan pulls it out of his ear.)

MA:  We’re discussing 3D movies vs. 2D movies, and so far, 2D movies have had the upper hand in this duel.  We all love 3D effects, but we seem to be in agreement that on their own, they don’t make a movie better, and nowadays with all these new 3D movies, it costs more to buy a ticket.

LS: Scam!

MA:  And that’s exactly the topic we’re leading off with tonight:  the extra cost of the 3D ticket, which begs the question, are these new 3D movies worth the extra ticket prices the theaters charge?  Or is it a scam by the film companies and theaters?

LS:  I sound like a broken record, but except for AVATAR, 3D movies are not worth the extra ticket price at all. It really does feel like a scam. Plus you still have to wear annoying glasses – they’re just sturdier now. I find it ludicrous, by the way, that you have to pay extra for those glasses and then afterwards the theaters ask you to donate them back so they can be recycled. How about refunding my $5 surcharge if I return the glasses?

MA:  Good point.

I don’t think the new 3D movies are worth the extra ticket prices either.

Is it a scam?  I don’t know.  I’d like to think it’s not a scam, but the more I think about it, the more upset I become.  Why?  I can understand a film like AVATAR which spent so much money on top-of-the-line best-of-the-best 3D effects, but the rest of these movies?  The effects aren’t as good, supposedly because they weren’t as expensive, yet they charge the same extra fee.  What’s up with that?  I smell a rat, and it doesn’t smell good!

If 3D movies cost the same as 2D movies, I’d be all for them because the effects are fun and sometimes they do add something to the movie, but factor in the extra cost, and that takes the fun away.  In other words, if you’re going to charge me extra because of 3D effects, then those effects had better be damn good and the main reason I’m seeing this movie!

What’s next?  Pay more for certain directors?  Actors?  Steven Spielberg directed this movie, so it costs $3.00 more.  What’s that?  This movie stars BOTH Robert DeNiro and Al Pacino?  $3.00 co-actor fee.

I don’t like the 3D fee.  Sure, the argument is that the equipment needed at the theater to show these films in 3D costs more, but that argument only goes so far.  Gas prices keep going up, so it costs me more each week to drive to the theater, so we’re in the same boat.  I don’t get to request lower ticket prices because it costs more to drive there.  I just suck it up.  The theaters should too.

LS:  Michael —since you and I rarely have access to preview screenings for films—we just about always have to pay for movie tickets out of our own pockets. Sometimes, I bitch about this. But truth is, it keeps us honest. If I go see a movie for free and it has gimmicky 3D effects, I’ll be more forgiving. But if I just paid $15 for a movie where the 3D effects add nothing, I am going to be pissed off. Just like our readers.

DK:  Now here’s an idea—.

MA:  Are you through doing magic tricks?

DK:  Maybe.  Actually, it’s the only one I know, so I have no choice (laughs).  What was I saying?

LS (to MA):  Stop interrupting our guest!  You’re the host.  You’re not supposed to be rude.  This isn’t Fox News!

MA:  I wasn’t being rude.  I just wanted to find out if he was going to do something else, like pull a rabbit out of his jacket.

DK:  No, no rabbits.

MA:  You were saying something about an idea.

DK:  Yes— if Hollywood is going to insist on using this new toy of theirs… how about trying out this conversion (from 2D to 3D) trick on some classic sci-fi movies, or classic movies which have enough effects that would lend themselves to the effect. 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY (1968) in 3D? That would be very cool. STAR WARS (been redone so often no year fits anymore, lol) in 3D? Oh yea. BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY’S (1961)? Probably not.

MA:  I’d like to see the 1953 version of WAR OF THE WORLDS in 3D.  That’d be cool.

Well, gentlemen,—.

LS:  Who walked in?

MA: Ha, ha!  We’ve reached the moment our readers have been waiting for.  It’s time to make our decision, to declare a winner of this bout.  3D vs. 2D.  Are 3D movies the future of motion pictures, and do we want to see more of them?

Or, have we had enough of 3D already and want to go back to just 2D movies, saving 3D for once in a blue moon?

So, what will it be?  3D, or 2D?  Dan?

DK:  When the 3D floodwaters have settled, we’ll be left with a select few movies in 3D which should be in 3D, and the rest will come back to roost in 2D, simply because people will stop paying for it, and the extra cost to produce/convert these movies will become unprofitable. Hopefully more theaters will convert to digital “projection”, and when that happens, 2D will be even more brilliant to watch. That is, if the movie itself is brilliant. Don’t forget, you still need to make a good movie. That’s what will bring people in to the theaters. If they want 3D, they’ll have plenty of it when they walk outside into the real world.  So, it’s 2D for me.

LS:  A 3D movie once in a while would be just fine. Something like the next PIRAHNA movie.

MA:  Or better yet, something else.  The world doesn’t need another PIRANHA 3D movie.

LS:  Well, it’s going to get it because they’re already working on the sequel!

MA:  I know, I know.  You don’t have to remind me.

LS:  A horror flick once in a while, and some cartoons, but not all of them. Once in a blue moon is perfect. But this push to try to make every single movie that comes out a 3D extravaganza is just a con game to separate us from our money for shoddy merchandise.

Part of the problem is, too, that they’re coming out with 3D televisions now, and they have to create content to make the more expensive TVs worth buying. This is probably a big part of the push to make more movies in 3D. But once again, it’s just another way to take our hard-earned money. I don’t care about 3D movies, and I don’t care about 3D TV. I refuse to get sucked in by these things. I wish they would just go away. Once in a while is fine. But 3D 24/7—every time we go to the movies or turn on a television set—is overkill.

Look, what makes for a great movie is the story, the acting, the direction. Without these things, no gimmick in the world is going to improve your work. Unless you wield billions of dollars l don’t think it’s worth it.  2D, damn it!

MA:  Since I loved AVATAR so much, I really wanted 3D to be the future of motion pictures, but as long as they’re charging extra for it, I’m not into it.  Get rid of the extra charge, and I’m all in.

As is stands now, we have to pay extra for 3D, so as long as this stands, I’m against it.  It’s 2D movies for me!

Well, there you have it!  It’s unanimous!  2D movies win out.  I mean, we all love 3D, but it costs more to see them, and really doesn’t add a whole lot to the quality of the movie.  Thanks, guys for chiming in on this.

DK:  No problem.  I just remembered another trick I know how to do.  Do you guys mind if I try something new?

LS:  Go for it.  We’ve seen your other trick so many times, it’d be good to see something new.

MA:  Go right ahead.

DK:  I’m not sure if this will work.  It’s been a while.   I’ll say the magic words and snap my fingers— (utters what seems to be a foreign language and snaps his fingers— in a poof of smoke, MA & LS suddenly disappear.)  Hmm.  That wasn’t supposed to happen.    Guys?  You still here somewhere?  This has never happened before.  I’m sure they’ll be back in time for their next column— won’ t they?

This has been FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS—-good night everybody!

—-END—

Leave A Comment »

Friday Night Knife Fights – Round 2 – 2D VS. 3D MOVIES

Posted in 2011, 3-D, Friday Night Knife Fights with tags , , , , on April 1, 2011 by knifefighter

FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS:  3D MOVIES VS. 2D MOVIES – Part 2
With Michael Arruda, L.L. Soares, and Dan Keohane

MA:  Welcome to Part 2 of FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS.  Tonight, L.L. and I are once again joined by Dan Keohane, and we’re continuing our discussion of 3D MOVIES vs. 2D MOVIES, or as we’ve been calling it, the great 3D debate.

Dan, thanks again for joining us.

DK:  No problem.

LS:  It took you long enough.  I was wondering when you were going to show up for one of these panels.

DK:  I was waiting for the right topic to come along.

MA:  So, last time, we were talking about AVATAR (2009) and we all agreed that of the recent 3D movies, AVATAR had the best 3D effects.

The 3D in AVATAR was so good, as I watched the movie, I definitely thought “This is how I want to see all movies, in 3D.”  Which brings me to my next question, and the answer is probably AVATAR, but I’ll ask the question anyway:  does anyone have a favorite recent 3D movie?  And was it your favorite because of the 3D effects?

I’ll start us off by answering my own question.

For me, my favorite is AVATAR, and it’s my favorite by far.  I’d never seen anything like it on the big screen before.  Depth, clarity, it was the next best thing to virtual reality.  I felt in such close proximity with the characters that I felt I could reach out and touch them.

But, as much as I liked it, without the 3D effects, it wouldn’t have been as good a movie.  I mean, the story it tells is average at best, and it certainly isn’t original.  So, yeah, without the 3D effects, it wouldn’t have been anywhere near as good.

LS:  Yeah, AVATAR is obviously the best of the bunch.

DK:  Great movie.

LS:  It succeeded beyond its wildest dreams. Usually, 3D effects are just tacked on, and the story is the main thing (you hope). In AVATAR’s case, the story was kind of weak and I think that without its visual splendor, AVATAR would have actually been a worse movie. It’s one of the rare cases of a gimmick IMPROVING  a movie.

MA:  I agree.

LS:  It’s the benchmark against which all future 3D movies will be compared. But it’s not a fair playing field. Few filmmakers will get the budget and the technical experts James Cameron has access to. So it’s a waste of time in most cases.

DK:  AVATAR is a clear case where the 3D is so integral to the film that watching it in that way is a must. Not too many films have been this way.  In fact, AVATAR is the only example I can think of right now—that was truly filmed in 3D and was a great movie.

LS:  As for other 3D movies I liked, the best ones have been those that don’t take themselves too seriously and use 3D in fun ways. Like PIRANHA 3D (2010), which I thought was a boatload of fun, using 3D for both the monster fish and nude women swimming underwater. The 3D remake of MY BLOODY VALENTINE (2009) wasn’t too bad, either. Then you have something like RESIDENT EVIL: AFTERLIFE (2010), which is such a simplistic plot – the plot was never the point anyway – that 3D just helps a movie like that become more like the live-action video game it wants to be.

DK:  The recent SANCTUM (2011) was also filmed in 3D, but the story itself, though not bad, wasn’t worth the premium we paid for the tickets.

I was happy that the producers of the final HARRY POTTER film, Part 1 at least, decided going 3D was just dumb. The plot, the story, was too important to somehow work in a yo-yo flying towards the screen to justify viewers hacking up a few extra bucks. Besides, everyone was going to pay to see the film, why make it any more expensive? Of course, PART 2 is going to be in 3D supposedly. That’s too bad.

MA:  Speaking of bad, how about the worst 3D movie you’ve seen recently?

DK:  If you remember my THE LAST AIRBENDER (2010) review, the 3D looked good in parts, but overall it didn’t help the movie, and I’d heard that the 2D version had much clearer, brighter imaging. The 3D seemed to actually darken the movie.

LS:  The worst examples of 3D movies are the ones where the technology has been added after the fact. Movies like CLASH OF THE TITANS (2010). It results in a muddy, crappy looking 3D that doesn’t really work (except for one or two scenes then made specifically for 3D).

Another example of this is maybe the worst of the bunch, Wes Craven’s MY SOUL TO TAKE (2010). Which I didn’t realize was in 3D until AFTER I LEFT THE THEATER. It added absolutely nothing to the movie. And it just pissed me off to know I’d just spent $15 on a complete turd of a film.

MA:  MY SOUL TO TAKE was so bad I’d forgotten it was in 3D!

For me, CLASH OF THE TITANS (2010) probably had the worst 3D effects.  They were the most underwhelming, that’s for sure.  Truth is, as most of the world knows by now, it was shot as a 2D movie, and the 3D effects were added later, and it shows.

So, would any of these 3D movies have been just as good in 2D?  Would any have been better in 2D?

LS:  Just about every 3D movie would be just as good – if not better – in 2D, except for AVATAR. Unless 3D is part of the movie’s DNA from beginning to end, it’s just a dumb gimmick. And a way to rob us out of more money for ticket prices!

As far back as HOUSE OF WAX (1953), if you cut out the scenes that were specifically made for 3D, it would not affect the movie at all.

DK:  2D movies are just as good. Like I said, unless the effects are so integral to the film that it would be less without it, almost every case I’ve seen could have stayed 2D with no issues. I mean, making THE KING’S SPEECH (2010) as 3D wouldn’t have made it any more brilliant. In fact it would have been stupid.

One exception, on a purely marketing basis: kids movies, especially CG-animated films, would do well as 3D for some time, mostly BECAUSE it’s a gimmicky fad, and children love gimmicky fads. Besides, CG-animated films look GREAT in 3D by virtue of how they’re “filmed.” it

MA:  I would agree.  I thought TOY STORY 3D (2010) looked terrific.

DK:  The question is, which force is stronger, children’s insistence on seeing the next great 3D animated film, or parents’ reluctance to pay the price for tickets? I’m a parent, so I can tell you the answer. I’m not paying.

MA:  I agree with both you guys, that these movies would have been just as good in 2D as they were in 3D, with the exception of AVATAR.  In the case of CLASH OF THE TITANS, which was not that good of a movie to begin with, the lack of unimpressive 3D effects would actually have made the film better, so there’s a movie that probably would have been better in 2D.

All right, that about wraps things up for Part 2.  Once more, it looks like 2D is faring better than 3D.  We’ll conclude this debate next Friday, and see if perhaps 3D can make a comeback, but the way things are going, I wouldn’t hold my breath.

DK:  3D is just too expensive, and it doesn’t make a movie better.

LS:  It’s a scam and a rip-off!

MA:  Like I said, it’s not looking too good for 3D.  That’s it for this week’s FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS.  See you next Friday.  Good night everybody!

—END PART 2

Leave A Comment »

FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS – Round 1 – 3D vs. 2D Movies

Posted in 2011, 3-D, Friday Night Knife Fights, Gimmicks with tags , , , , , , on March 25, 2011 by knifefighter

FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS:  3D MOVIES VS. 2D MOVIES – Round 1
Featuring: Michael Arruda, L.L. Soares, and Dan Keohane

Filmmakers have been experimenting with 3D for decades.

MICHAEL ARRUDA: Welcome everyone to FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS. Tonight, L.L. Soares and I are joined by Dan Keohane.  Dan, thanks for coming.

DAN KEOHANE: Wanna watch me make a cigarette disappear up my nose?

MA:  Er—maybe after the show.  For those of you out there who don’t know, that’s one of Dan’s talents.  He’s a pro when it comes to sleight of hand.

L.L. SOARES: I want to see Dan’s cigarette trick!

MA:  We will, after the show, but right now we’ve got a fight to get to.

LS:  You’re no fun.

MA:  And proud of it!

Anyway, tonight on FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS, we’ll be having the great 3D debate.  That’s right, it’s 3D MOVIES  vs. 2D MOVIES.  Where do you weigh in on the recent onslaught of 3D movies?  Do you love ‘em, or do you hate ‘em?

Dan, we’ll start with you.  Are these new 3D movies the best things you’ve ever seen?  Are they the future of motion pictures?

DK:  The future?

No, not really, not if we still have to wear glasses and pay extra money to see the films, because if this were the case, then I wouldn’t want every movie to be filmed in 3-D. We’re only beginning to see digital movies shown in theaters anyway, and once they’re all digital then the picture quality on the big screen will be so much clearer.

Besides, I seriously don’t want to be putting on those clunky glasses every time I sit down in the movie theater. They make my eyes water.

MA:  I don’t like the glasses either.

If these movies all looked like AVATAR (2009), then I’d actually argue that they would  be the future of motion pictures, but they don’t all look like AVATAR.  I’m assuming it’s too expensive for these other 3D movies to have the kind of effects that AVATAR sported.

The 3D effects in AVATAR were the best I’d ever seen.   They totally blew me away!  Problem is, no movie after AVATAR has even come close. TOY STORY 3D came closest, but that one was all animated.

LS:  Throughout its history, beginning in the 1950s with movies like HOUSE OF WAX (1953), up until now, 3D has been a gimmick to bring audiences into the theaters. With the advent of television, the movies lost a chunk of their audience and had to find a way to get people paying for movie tickets again. 3D was one of the biggest gimmicks, created just for this reason.

MA:  Thanks for the history lesson!  Should we take notes?

LS:  I’ll give you notes!  (Throws a notebook at him, and it flies past MA towards audience in perfect 3D fashion.)

DK:  Anyone want to see me jam a Q-tip into one ear and pull it out the other?

MA:  I haven’t seen you do that one.  Is it in 3D?

LS:  Pay attention you two!

While 3D could be fun, most filmmakers who used it had little imagination and the majority of films just had objects coming at you, like the paddleball in HOUSE OF WAX. It really added nothing to the story, and you had to wear annoying glasses. Once in a while it was fun to don the red and green lenses to see a 3D movie, but it was nothing anyone wanted to do on a regular basis. This, combined with the fact that nobody really knew what to do with the technology, led to its demise. 3D has resurfaced several times since; it seems to return every other decade or so.

Don your glasses. It's the notorious "paddle ball" sequence from HOUSE OF WAX (1953)

MA:  I remember a few 3D films popping up in the early 1980s, and at the same time several UHF stations— remember those?—- started the gimmick of showing 3D movies on TV, and you had to get your glasses at your local supermarket or convenience store, or something or other, but neither of these 3D experiences caught on.  It was nothing like it is now.  Of course, the technology and quality are better today.

LS:  With AVATAR (2009), James Cameron proved he was one of the few filmmakers who had enough imagination (and money) to use 3D to its fullest potential, creating a whole 3D world to play around in. And that movie’s success has led to the latest round of 3D movies.

MA:  Would you like to see all movies eventually shot in 3D?

LS:  Nah!

Aside from a rare instance, like AVATAR, I don’t see any reason for movies to be continued to be made in 3D. Occasionally, a movie uses it in an interesting way, like CORALINE (2009), where the 3D was very subtle and just added great depth to everything – throughout the movie. But in most cases it just comes to the forefront for a few “gotcha” scenes and then fades back into the background. And don’t even get me started on movies that were not meant to be 3D, which have the effect added afterwards, and which look just plain awful.

MA:  We’ll talk about that in a little bit.

LS:  I am not a fan of 3D and I am looking forward to its next demise.

MA:  I’m not a fan either, although if they all looked like AVATAR, then I might feel differently.  Moving right along, is this just a fad?  Will 3D movies disappear again, or are they here to stay this time?

DK:  It’s definitely a fad.  Companies are filming, or converting, movies in 3D because people are willing still to pay the extra money for them, but 3D is not making the movies better. That’s still a requirement, regardless of how it’s shown on the screen. Thing is, people are going to stop paying the premium for this.

LS:  We’ve been watching 2D movies for almost a century now. It’s been just fine. 3D is just a distraction. Unless every single movie that comes out has the budget and technical know-how to use to it well, like AVATAR, then its’ a waste of time, and a useless fad.

MA:  I agree.

Okay, folks, we’re out of time.  Looks like Round 1 goes to 2D movies.  Tune in next Friday night to see if 3D movies fare any better, as we continue the great 3D debate with Round 2 of FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS!

See you then!  Good night, everybody!

—END—

Leave A Comment »

BEST MOVIES OF 2009

Posted in 2010, Best Of Lists, Cinema Knife Fights, Special Columns with tags , , , , , , , , on January 1, 2010 by knifefighter

CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT: THE BEST OF 2009
by Michael Arruda and L. L. Soares

(MICHAEL ARRUDA and L.L. SOARES are dressed as astronauts and stand before a huge rocket ship. They wave to cameras and friends as they embark on a trip into outer space)

MA: Goodbye everyone! Don’t forget to write.

LS:  They have mailmen in outer space?

MA: It’s the wireless age, my friend.

LS:  I didn’t bring my laptop.

MA:  Just use the ship’s computers.  This is 2010. We don’t need no stinkin’ envelopes!  But before we go, we have to give the readers a rundown of our favorite movies of 2009.

GIRL in an evening gown steps forward and hands them a bunch of envelopes)

LS: You were saying about envelopes?

MA (Impersonating Groucho Marx, with a mustache and a cigar): You take the envelopes, I’ll take the girl! (Flirts with her.  She smiles and walks away).

LS: Well one movie I really loved this year wasn’t horror or science-fiction. It was Quentin Tarantino’s INGLORIOUS BASTERDS. And while I can’t list it here, I thought I’d mention it anyway, because it was so damn good.

MA: You raise an interesting point. We review a lot of movies during the year, and although most are horror movies, some are not. For example, we also review science- fiction and fantasy films for CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT, and so I’m not against including movies that aren’t strictly horror on our list.

LS: Okay, okay. Stop being so understanding. Moving right along— we’ll do the same thing we did last year. Michael and I will each come up with our top 5 films of the year, and then we’ll comment on each other’s selections.

This was actually a hard one, choosing just five.

MA: Not so hard for me. The majority of movies we reviewed this year I didn’t recommend, so there weren’t that many I wanted to include on this list

LS: Well, my #5 pick for best movie of the year (rips open an envelope with a big “5” on it) was ZOMBIELAND, starring Woody Harrelson and Jesse Eisenberg. This is a big surprise for me, because I thought I was sick of zombie movies. I guess I wasn’t. ZOMBIELAND puts a fresh spin on the apocalyptic zombie plotline. The movie has great characters (especially Harrelson and Eisenberg as “Columbus” and “Tallahassee”), lots of sly humor, and moves at a really good pace. It even has a terrific guest appearance by Bill Murray (a spoiler we didn’t reveal in our original review). I just had a lot of fun with this one.

(LS opens the glass visor of his helmet to eat a Twinkie)

MA: I liked ZOMBIELAND a lot too, even more than you, I think. It made my list as well, so I’ll reserve comment on this one until later.

(WOODY HARRELSON pops up as “Tallahassee”)

WOODY: Well, HOT DOG!

LS: I thought you’d like that.

MA: Okay, now it’s my turn!

(Rips open an envelope) Coming in at #5 on my list is WATCHMEN. This is one of those movies that falls into the category of not being a horror movie. It’s an action movie about superheroes, but I feel comfortable including it on this list because it’s dark, and hands down, it’s simply better than a lot of the horror movies I saw this year.

LS: We reviewed it for Cinema Knife Fight, so of course it counts.

MA: In our original review, I called it a movie about masked heroes rather than a superhero movie, a comment you scoffed at…

LS: Because you’re an idiot!

MA:  Okay, well then, let’s just call every movie about people fighting crime a superhero movie.  They didn’t have any superpowers!  What superpowers did they have?  Except for Doctor Manhattan they didn’t have any!  They just wore masks.

LS:  Batman didn’t have any superpowers.

MA:  Batman was a friggin genius detective.  Look, I made a statement and I’m sticking by it.  (Looks out at crowd.  They’re all wearing masks and waving).  Don’t rub it in.

Anyway, my point was it was different than your traditional superhero movie. It was a drama about people wearing masks who fight crime, and it reminded me more of a movie like THE SEVEN SAMURAI (1954) than say IRON MAN. This observation isn’t a knock on the film. In fact, it was one of the reasons I liked it so much.

I also liked its offbeat narrative style, where it jumped back and forth through time to tell its story, and while I didn’t like all the hero characters, my two favorite by far were Rorschach (Jackie Earle Haley) and the Comedian (Jeffrey Dean Morgan). Though at times I felt the film suffered from poor pacing and dragged somewhat, I really enjoyed this movie and thought it was fun to watch a very adult take on the superhero— er, masked hero— genre.

(RORSCACH pops up behind them)

RORSCACH: I’m not trapped in this column with you. You’re trapped in this column with ME!

LS: Yeah, yeah. Hey, I liked it a lot, too, which is no surprise considering I am a big fan of the original graphic novel by writer Alan Moore and artist Dave Gibbons. The movie stays pretty faithful to the source material. Just like when I read the comics, Rorschach is my favorite character, too, and I loved every scene he was in. I’m also a big fan of Doctor Manhattan – the only character with actual super powers in the movie. Everyone else is a costumed crime fighter, but only Doc is the one with the real “abilities beyond those of mortal men.”

MA (Rips open envelope): My pick for #4 was the remake of THE LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT. This one really surprised me, because I fully expected to hate it. I did not like the original Wes Craven version back in 1972, so why would I like this one?  Well, I liked this one because it wasn’t as raw and raunchy as the original.

I found myself really caring for the characters, and I felt genuine suspense during the second half of this movie, worrying about what would happen to the girl’s parents if they were found out by the criminals. Sure, some of the scenes went over the top in this one (microwave, anyone?), but for the most part THE LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT was a hard-hitting adult tale of terror that really delivered the goods in terms of scaring its audience. I saw it in a packed theater, and it had been a long time since I had experienced an audience this frightened by a movie. There were some genuine group screams and gasps, and for a movie to do that to an audience, that’s saying something.

This was a film that really could have been exploitative, but an intelligent screenplay and smart direction kept it from going that route.  Rather than being a simple tale of vicious revenge, THE LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT evolves into a story of horrifying survival.

LS:  While the remake of LAST HOUSE didn’t make my Top 5 list, it would be my choice for the Best Remake of the Year. Unlike you, I’m a big fan of the gritty original and didn’t think they could pull it off, but the remake is more like a crime thriller than an over-the-top revenge film, and it works really well as a completely separate movie, rather than a by-the-numbers remake. But I still say the original film is a genuine classic.

For my next choice (rips open an envelope with a “4” on it), my #4 movie of the year is a tie between DISTRICT 9 and WATCHMEN.

MA: A tie? Gotta pick one.

LS:  Okay, how about this one? (holds out one finger and tries to poke MA in the eye, but he pulls down the visor on his helmet just in time)

MA: Nyah, nyah!

LS: Oh, a wise guy! Well, I told you it was tough to just choose five movies.

DISTRICT 9 was my favorite science-fiction movie of the year. The story of aliens who are stranded in a shantytown in South Africa works on a lot of levels, from social commentary to a just plain fun alien creatures movie. I thought the way the aliens looked was really inspired (they certainly weren’t cute) and I found the storyline to be exciting and, overall, pretty intelligent (although there are some holes in logic).

(An ALIEN from DISTRICT 9 stumbles past them, chugging a can of cat food)

MA:  I liked DISTRICT 9 a lot too, and it came in at #6 on my list, just missing the Top 5. I think you liked it more than I did. I found it a bit too depressing for my taste. Now, it’s not that I can’t enjoy a depressing movie, because I certainly can, but as DISTRICT 9 turned to melodrama during its second half, I thought it would have worked better had it not been so grim early on.

LS:  I liked it just fine.

The other half of my choice for #4 is WATCHMEN, easily one of my all-time favorite superhero films. The original graphic novel by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons is a monumental classic in mainstream comics, and the movie doesn’t screw around with it too much. Moore’s storyline tried to consider what it would really be like if costumed heroes were part of our everyday lives, and the movie is often pretty dark. I really enjoyed this one.

MA:  And since I picked it as my #5, I enjoyed it as well.

LS: Is it my turn again?

MA: Yep.

LS: (Rips open another envelope with a big “3” on it) My # 3 movie of the year would be the roller-coaster ride which is TOKYO GORE POLICE

MA (Barfs into his astronaut helmet):  Excuse me. I’ll be right back. Just the mere mention of that movie (Barfs again).

LS: While you had a problem with the gore, I thought it was a completely over-the-top cartoon come to life. It’s so bizarre and so frenetic that I don’t know how anyone could take it seriously or be offended by it. The story of a special ops team that fights creatures that have mutated in extreme ways (we’re talking severe body modification here) is a lot of fun and features a terrific performance by Eihi Shiina as the main policewoman, Ruka. I wanted to see this movie since I first heard the title months before, and it totally lived up to my expectations.

MA (Returns with a new helmet):  It’s not so much that I took it seriously or was offended by it, but I didn’t get it. Why do I want to spend 90 minutes of my time watching silly senseless gore?  I didn’t find it exciting, and I didn’t find it funny. Compared to the humor in ZOMBIELAND, for example, a movie that was gory and funny, it didn’t come close.  So, I didn’t like it at all.

LS: I thought it was a lot of fun.

MA: And, right on cue (Rips open another envelope), my #3 pick was in fact ZOMBIELAND. Like you, I was surprised I liked this one, because I’ve had it up to here with zombie movies as well, but it was a good movie.

(WOODY HARRELSON pops up again)

WOODY: Well, HOT DOG!

MA: I thought the humor in this one really worked, and I laughed an awful lot. The main reason this one worked so well was that the humor wasn’t relegated to the zombies. There was more to the humor here than shooting zombies in the head. The characters in this film were well-defined and purdy darn funny.

I thought this movie had a sense of playfulness about it that kept the humor fresh and the story lively. If you see one zombie movie this year, make it ZOMBIELAND.

LS:  Well, we agree on this one.

MA  (Rips  open another envelope):  My # 2 movie of the year would be ORPHAN, and since my #1 pick technically isn’t a horror film, ORPHAN even though it comes in at #2, is probably my pick for the best horror film of the year.

I really liked this one. I thought it had an outstanding cast, which included Vera Farmiga, Peter Sarsgaard, CCH Pounder, Aryana Engineer, Jimmy Bennett, and in the lead, as the little devil child herself, Isabelle Fuhrman. But what I liked best about ORPHAN was the screenplay by David Johnson. Johnson wrote an intelligent tale in which people act the way they’re supposed to act. As a result, in spite of being a horror movie, ORPHAN is a pretty realistic tale, even with its twist ending.

I found this one strong throughout. It tells a gripping story, and it’s frightening to boot. Definitely a must-see horror movie.

LS:  I liked ORPHAN, and I thought Isabelle Fuhrman was amazing as the devil child, but I didn’t like it enough to put it on my Top 5 list.

(The kid from ORPHAN throws at tomato at LS, splattering his helmet. MA gives her a thumbs up. She then fires a tomato at MA’s helmet as well, spattering him, too. LS gives her the finger).

LS (Rips open an envelope with a “2” on it): My #2  movie of the year is one we didn’t review together for Cinema Knife Fight, but which I was pretty much blown away by, Lars von Trier’s transgressive masterpiece, ANTICHRIST.

What I loved about this movie was that it was the exact opposite of an accessible, fun, mainstream film. It was extremely dark and depressing, it was disturbing, it was gory. It had terrific but terrifying performances by Willem DaFoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg as a couple grieving over the death of their young son. DaFoe’s character is a psychiatrist trying to heal his wife’s pain, and Gainsbourg plays a woman who is descending into complete madness. A lot of the imagery is quite extreme, and it’s not for the squeamish. But for me, this is exactly what a horror movie should be. It should get a visceral reaction out of you. It should haunt you long after the final credits have come onscreen.

MA:  Really?  I thought that’s what the Nightly News was for?  Seriously, that’s why I don’t like the same movies as you, because I get my visceral reactions from the sick stuff that really happens in the world. I don’t want to get it from the movies as well, but I understand your point. That being said, I didn’t see ANTICHRIST (what a surprise!) so I can’t comment on it.

LS: Yeah, we have very different philosophies as far as what horror movies should do. You think they should be entertaining, and offer some scares. I think the best ones are the movies that really leave a mark on us, long after we’ve left the movie theater. What’s the difference between that and the Nightly News? Well, for one thing, movies aren’t real, so no matter how rough they get, they’re really works of imagination. So nobody really gets hurt.

But I’ll admit, my choices for the top 2 movies (hell, my top 3!), are not for the squeamish and will certainly not appeal to everyone. In fact, it’s guaranteed that a lot of people will hate them. But I like movies that take risks.

But that’s what makes Cinema Knife Fight so interesting, isn’t it? That we have such different viewpoints?

Which brings me to my #1 pick for the best movie of 2009.

(LS rips open the final envelope in his hands. This one has a giant “1” on it)

It’s another one I saw without you, and it’s called MARTYRS.

Originally released in France in 2008, this movie didn’t get a proper theatrical release here and went straight to DVD (it was released here in April of 2009). But it is easily the most powerful movie I’ve seen this year. And, somehow, it’s even a lot more extreme than ANTICHRIST.

Another very disturbing film, MARTYRS begins with a girl who has been kidnapped and held captive in a warehouse. The girl, Lucie, escapes and ends up in an orphanage (which also seems to be a psychiatric center), where she rarely speaks and doesn’t trust anyone. She bonds with another girl at the facility, Anna, and the two become inseparable. When they come of age when they can leave the facility, Lucie (Mylene Jampanoi) and Anna (Morjana Alaoui) stick together. Lucie is obsessed with finding the people who abducted her as a child and exacting her revenge. Anna struggles to protect Lucie from herself.

When Lucie thinks she has found the people responsible, they look like just a normal family. Lucie starts doing awful things to them, and Anna finds herself caught in the middle. Are these people really to blame for what happened, or is Lucie now completely insane?

And this all happens in just the first 30 minutes of the film. As it continues, it goes off in wildly unexpected territory you’d never expect.

At times very difficult to watch, MARTYRS is once again the kind of visceral, squirm-inducing horror movie that I think defines the best of the genre.  And, just to note again, this movie is clearly not going to appeal to everyone. So check it out at your own risk.

MA (Rips open his last envelope): My #1 pick of the year is AVATAR. Now, I know AVATAR is NOT a horror movie, so what’s it doing at the top of my list?  Well, simply put, I view this list as the top genre films of the year, and this includes, in addition to horror, those science fiction/fantasy movies that horror audiences also flock to see.

LS: You don’t need to keep explaining that. People get it.

MA:  They do?

CROWD (shouting):  YES, WE GET IT!

MA: Okay, moving right along then.

First off, technically, with its impressive 3D effects, AVATAR is a marvel to behold. After seeing this movie, I wish every film were shot in 3D. It was such a pleasurable experience to see this 3D world unfold onscreen the way it does. It’s a visually stunning film, with amazing colors and bizarre, wild creatures running around. It definitely rises above movie status and becomes more of an experience.

The story of mankind exploiting the natives of a beautiful world is not original, but it still makes for compelling cinema, and director James Cameron seems to push all the right buttons with this one.

With its amazing, ferocious creatures and animals, it has more in common with KING KONG than say STAR WARS, even in its plot structure. In KING KONG, we exploit Skull Island and rip Kong away from his home, while here we’re exploiting the world of Pandora and trying to force the native peoples off their lands. I thought it was the best of the bunch in 2009.

LS: I liked AVATAR a lot, and it’s certainly one of my favorite movies we saw this year, but I had a hard time figuring out where it fits on my list. In a way, AVATAR is kind of in a category of its own. Sure, it was a spectacle of amazing visuals, due to top-notch CGI and top-of-the-line 3D effects, but I would put this in an Honorable Mention category, mainly because I’m not too sure what my reaction would have been if I hadn’t seen it in 3D, as it was meant to be seen. The story wasn’t all that original, and while the acting was mostly good, I think it would have lost a lot if it didn’t have all the added bells and whistles. I’m really not sure if it could stand up on its own without the technology. I’m sure I still would have enjoyed it, but it would have been very different than having the full experience.

Other movies I probably would have mentioned, if we went beyond a Top Five, include: WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE, Park Chan-wook’s THIRST, PARANORMAL ACTIVITY, and Sam Raimi’s DRAG ME TO HELL. And probably CORALINE -  my favorite kids’ movie of the year –which was another interesting use of 3D effects to add depth and “dimension” to a story, rather than throwing things out at us. I thought CORALINE had a good story overall, too, which is no surprise, since it was based on a book by Neil Gaiman.

MA:  My honorable mentions would include DISTRICT 9, CORALINE, and a low budget film I reviewed for its DVD release, RED SANDS. While not a great movie, RED SANDS was lifted by its setting, the deserts of Afghanistan. It tells a rather compelling story of a group of American soldiers haunted by a mythological creature that hates humans. It has its share of flaws, but it’s better than a lot of the other low-budget features I watched this year.

And I can’t believe I’m going to mention another zombie movie, but the movie DANCE OF THE DEAD, a horror comedy about high school students and zombies, though nowhere near as good as ZOMBIELAND, was actually pretty funny.

LS; And just for the hell of it, for my choice of  “Character with Most Potential” – I’d have to go with Olas Wormius (Jeffrey Alan Pilars) from the otherwise awful remake of THE DUNWICH HORROR. I admit, this was a bad movie, but Pilars as Wormius was a real highlight. Wormius is supposed to be a three-thousand-year old wise man who the protagonist goes to for advice, but he looks like a 40-year old fat man who levitates off the floor and is surrounded by a naked harem. His scenes in DUNWICH are the only real highlights, and really left me wishing that the movie had been about him instead. I wanted to know more about this strange character, and I fear that is one mystery that will never be explored further.

(An OBESE MAN moves past them, levitating in the air)

OBESE MAN: Why thank you, kind sir. I am so glad you saw my jewel glistening in the heap of manure that was the new version of THE DUNWICH HORROR.

MA: If I had to pick a favorite character of the year, it would be young Esther (Isabelle Fuhrman) from ORPHAN. She’s the most frightening kid I’ve seen in a movie in quite a long time. Come to think of it, she was scarier than most of the adult characters I saw in the movies this past year.\

And of course, from WATCHMEN, there’s Rorschach (Jackie Earle Haley) and the Comedian (Jeffrey Dean Morgan). I would pay to see another movie about just these two guys in a heartbeat.

LS: I didn’t say what was your favorite character. I asked what was the Character With Most Potential – one that didn’t get enough screen time and deserved a movie of their own.

MA: Look, you chose two movies for your #4 pick. I can do what I want.

LS: Fair enough.

And, real quick, before we go, what would be your pick of the worst film of the year? For me it was a very easy decision. Based on the awful storyline, and the obscene waste of millions of dollars, my choice would be the overlong and incredibly boring NEW MOON. What about you?

MA (chuckling):  I think my picks for worst of the year are probably films you really liked. Now, here’s a list I’d have trouble limiting to 5 picks, there were so many bad ones. But to keep things brief, let’s see, NEW MOON, for sure (by far the most boring film I saw this year), TOKYO GORE POLICE, THE DUNWICH HORROR, HALLOWEEN 2, THE FINAL DESTINATION, THE BOX, and there’s more, but I’ll mention only one last one, my pick for the absolute worst for 2009, a grade Z level movie called PLATOON OF THE DEAD. If I could incinerate just one movie this year, that would be the one.

LS: I guess that ends our BEST OF 2009 column. And now we are off into the vast expanse of outer space.

MA: How did we win this trip anyway? I don’t remember entering any contest to be a civilian in space.

LS: Me, either. It almost feels like someone is trying to get rid of us.

(ASSEMBLED PEOPLE YELL): Hurry up, get into the rocket!

MA: What’s the big hurry?

(CROWD shoves them into the rocket and shuts the door. Countdown begins)

MA: Well, I hope we get back in time for New Year’s. There are lots of new horror movies coming out in 2010.

(ROCKET roars and hurtles skyward)

UNSEEN NARRATOR:  What’s this?  Our Cinema Knife Fighters shot off into outer space?  Is there foul play afoot?  Is this some dire plot to rid the world of our friendly neighborhood movie critics?

Oh, the horror!  Could this be the end?

Tune in next time to find out. Same Cinema Knife Fight time, same Cinema Knife Fight channel. The worst is yet to come!

—END—


1 Comment »

DECEMBER MOVIES

Posted in 2009, Cinema Knife Fights, Coming Attractions with tags , , , on December 10, 2009 by knifefighter

CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT: NEW MOVIE PREVIEW/DECEMBER 2009
by Michael Arruda and L. L. Soares

(MICHAEL ARRUDA and L.L.SOARES are seated inside an elegant theater dressed in tuxedos, and sipping champagne.)

MA:  Isn’t this cool?  Our very own premiere party!

LS:  I’ve been to better.

MA:  I don’t know. I’m impressed.

LS (shrugs):  You don’t get out much, do you?

MA:  What do you mean?  They let me out of my cage every we— I mean, I go out every weekend.

(Notices LS’s beverage. It’s red):  What’s that you’re drinking?

LS:  Blood.

MA:  Figures. They give us free champagne, and you pass on it and drink blood instead.

LS:  I didn’t pass. I already drank the champagne. Now I’m drinking blood. It’s good stuff. Type O.

MA:  Whatever floats your boat. (Addresses audience)  Anyway, we’re here tonight to give you a preview of movies that we’ll be reviewing in December.

LS:  It’s not a big month for horror movies – which is our usual fare. But there are a couple of genre movies we’ll be reviewing.

MA: The big one, coming out on December 18, is AVATAR, and I have to say I’m really looking forward to this one. The trailer looks great, and it’s by James Cameron, who of course brought us THE TERMINATOR (1984) and ALIENS (1986). Haven’t heard much from him lately, not since his Oscar winning epic TITANIC in 1997, so I have high expectations for AVATAR. You?

LS:  I’m going to reserve judgment until we see it. The trailer looks good, but the CGI aliens don’t look as amazing as the hype would have us believe. Then again, it may improve a lot in 3-D. Do you think you’ll be able to see this one in 3-D, or is New Hampshire still in the Stone Age?

MA:  New Hampshire’s not in the Stone Age, even though it is known as the Granite State. From what I’ve read, a large number of theaters nationwide aren’t equipped to show the new 3-D movies , which require new technology. So it’s not just here in New Hampshire!  That being said, my local theater does have signs announcing prices for 3-D movies, so I’m hoping that this means 3-D is on its way!

(The TERMINATOR shows up and hands them press kits)

MA:  Gee, thanks!  Our very own press kits!

LS: Aren’t you supposed to be governing California?

TERMINATOR:  I’ll be back.

LS:  I think it’s time you came up with an original line.

(MA& LS go through press kits, finding models of AVATAR creatures, a miniature ALIEN, and a Leonardo DiCaprio doll, which LS tosses over his shoulder).

MA:  Don’t throw that too far. We’ll be seeing him again in SHUTTER ISLAND next year.

LS: Gee, I can’t wait (grimaces). And finally, at the end of the month, we get to see THE IMAGINARIUM OF DOCTOR PARNASSUS. This is interesting for two reasons. First of all, it’s directed by Terry Gilliam, whose work I usually enjoy a lot, and it’s the last role Heath Ledger had before he died. You know, the Joker from THE DARK KNIGHT (2008). Supposedly he died in the middle of filming PARNASSUS, but they were able to work around this by having another actor take over his role for half the film. I’m curious to see how this works out.

MA:  Yes, I like Terry Gilliam’s work as well. I have fond memories of TIME BANDITS (1981) and BRAZIL (1985).

LS: BRAZIL was terrific. I’ve been a fan of Gilliam’s since the Monty Python days, when he did the animation and sometimes appeared in skits. I’m also a big fan of his Hunter S. Thompson flick FEAR AND LOATHING IN LAS VEGAS (1998) and I really liked his last movie, TIDELAND (2005), a lot. He’s definitely one of the more interesting directors around today.

(THE JOKER walks by with a tray)

JOKER: Hors d’ourves, gentlemen?

LS: No thanks.

MA (reaches out): Sure!  I’m hungry. Some of us here didn’t fill up on liquids! (Frowns at LS).

LS (Slaps his hand away): We’re fine, really.

(JOKER walks away.)

MA: What?  It’s okay for you to have extra drinks, but I can’t have any food?

LS:  I was doing you a favor. It’s the Joker. That stuff is probably poisoned.

MA:   You’re going soft. In the old days, you’d be the one serving the poison.

LS:  That’s not it at all. This is my show. If there’s anyone who’s going to serve poison around here, it’s going to be me. More champagne?  (Offers MA the bottle).

MA:  Yeah, right. I’ll pass.

LS: Suit yourself. (Swigs from bottle, then tosses it at MA’s head, who ducks out of the way.)  That’s it for December movies.

MA:  At least for movies we’re covering with Cinema Knife Fight reviews. We’re sure to have some new solo reviews throughout December as well.

LS:  And don’t forget, coming this January, our lists for the Top Movies of 2009.

(Car driven by the TERMINATOR crashes through the theater wall, sending MA and LS running for cover).

MA:  Well, since our party here has been crashed, (groaning from off camera) it’s time for us to go. We’ll see you the weekend of December 18th, with our review of AVATAR.

LS:  And look for us in the meantime right here at the “official” Cinema Knife Fight Web site, as we’ll have other special treats coming up as well.

MA:  Until next time—.(They run away as the TERMINATOR and the JOKER chase them)

—END—

Leave A Comment »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 88 other followers