Tuesday, May 05, 2015
It looks like the summer movie blockbuster season is opening up early with the opening of "Avengers: Age of Ultron". The second Avengers begins with a promising opening. It seems that the Avengers are once again battling the forces of Hydra. From there the story develops into creating another baddie named Ultron.
The film is fun, and works well, but the one problem was that it seemed overly long when it didn't need to be. The theater was packed, and everyone seemed to enjoy it, but there were some younger children in the audience that seemed bored when there was no action on the screen, so the movie may not be geared to them particular. But then why does the studio gear the merchandise to small kids.
I enjoyed the movies little jabs at itself. The humor in it was funny, and it endeared us to the characters. Such as Captain America's purity, or the Hulks anger issues, or even Iron man's love of one-liners and even Thor's good looks.
Like I said my one criticisms is the length. But I do love the characters, and the one thing this movie sets up is the next Avengers movie, with a different cast with some regulars still present. Marvel Studios is following the comic. It was well known that the Avenger's roll call changed a lot in the comics so Marvel is staying true to the comic. Overall it's a good outing, and if you have children who are fans then it's a no-brainer to go see it with them.
Joss Whedon is a heck of a director, and he produces a well crafted film. It's my hope that Whedon continues, and doesn't get bored with the franchise. Whedon brings love of the characters to the movie, and we the audience care for them. I believe this is why this film will resonate with its audiences. It is no mistake that Whedon comes from a writing background. He has worked on and produced some of the better quality TV shows on this decade where character development is deeper then in movies because it can establish character within several episodes. Here he does it within a movie, and though a bit long it does work in my opinion. We already have some character development in the previous movies so the audience knows what to expect, but to Whedon's credit he builds on it. It's a strong film, and one audiences should enjoy.
Sunday, February 15, 2015
I won't give out too much details about the movie for those who still want to see it. With over 100 million copies of the trilogy sold and the books being translated into 52 languages I would think there is a built in audience for this movie. So no matter what the critics say people are going to go see it and so this review really won't matter, but as a movie does it stack up to others of it's genre. That genre being the erotic film.
Erotica is a genre that dates back a long way. From books, to films the genre has been a popular one and a very lucrative one too. The film tries to be, but it isn't at all erotic. There is a scene in the film where our heroine (Dakota Johnson) and Jamie Dornan (Mr Grey) sit at a piano and are whisked away in a passionate embrace, which is as close to erotic as the film gets.
But to say that this film is devoid of any redeeming value is a lie. Ms Johnson's performance is what makes the film. She does a good job at conveying her characters interest in Mr. Grey's obsessions, but it is Johnson's ability to portray her character as a strong and independent character who is set afire by her awakening desires. She is what makes it interesting. I totally agree that the film could have been edited a bit better. just as the characters are getting interesting we find ourselves at the end. The end is unsatisfying, and we the audience are left up in the air. I realize that this is part of a trilogy, but the book stands on it's own, and is not dependent on the second or third book. Instead they explore a different period in the characters lives. The movie does not do this and by leaving the audience hanging it make the film weak.
There are a lot of other films that I really could are better. I would think this to be a romantic film with S&M as a theme on how broken we as human beings can be, and how puritan we as a society are, but the film treats it like a gimmick. It cheapens it, and makes the film not as good as it should be.
Dakota Johnson does a lot here to make us feel for the character she plays and she does a fantastic job at it. Jamie Dorman tries to do the same and he does his best but there is little for him to work with. Dorman's character is a caricature of a wealthy troubled millionaire. He tries his best at what the screenplay allows him to, but we still don't get who he is. It is only at the end when there is a conflict that we see or have a clue to what his character is really like.
Listen if you're a fan you'll see the film despite the reviews, but from what I am told there is more depth in the book about the characters then there is in the film. Again Ms Johnson's performance is quite good, and just alone I recommend the film.
It's not a bad date movie. It certainly will make the dinner or late nightcap conversation a bit more interesting.
Saturday, December 27, 2014
Thursday, August 14, 2014
I've worked in the A/V field now for over 20 years and have installed, re-fitted, replaced, and fixed many A/V related equipment. The largest expense, and the most maintenance heavy piece of equipment is the LCD projector.
No matter where I go I am confronted by these dinosaurs and as always I've written memos on what to do about them that usually lands on deaf ears. replace those LCD with LED projectors and you're organization will be happy, and a even have a bit more cash. LED projectors are quite good, and can last 10 to 20 years. Now of course the having a piece of equipment that last almost 20 years may not be the greatest. After all you want your organization to have the latest pieces of equipment, bu a projector is just that a display device. Hook it up to a computer and or a DVD player and you have an instant presentation device. Include a smart board and have a multimedia 21st century blackboard.
Why am I talking about this? Because organizations are slow to move on technology. If it ain't broke don't fix it, but I would ask you one question and that is how much did you spend on bulbs this year. When lamps are $100 to $300 don't complain about blowing lamps when they are used everyday by teachers, salesmen, and administrators.
LED solves all that. Bright image, quality bulbs, and almost maintenance free. Filter cleaning still is a must, but with less classrooms, and meeting rooms that have caustic material flying around the less dust gets trapped in those filters. But make no mistake have a maintenance schedule for your projectors or they'll soon fail.
What types of LED's you ask?
The PRO Series 7, 2100 Lumens LED HD Projector is a good basic LED projector. It only has 2100 Lumens so it may not be good for a room where daylight seeps through the windows and over powers the room.
Casio XJ-H2650: LED/Laser Conference Projector is a good one for the classroom
There are several out there but what you want is a projector that is nicely built and has a high lumens. One needs to shop for the right one, but there are projectors for your organization that will be better then and less expensive to run.
Remember high lumen, portability or non-portability. The potable LED projectors do have smaller lumens so beware.
The Panasonic PT-RW430UW WXGA 3500 Lumens Integration Projector is another good one, but one that may be a bit expensive.
Have any questions about lumens, projectors and LED projectors? Try this resource at E-bay. It is helpful and will clarify any questions you might have with projectors.
LED Projector Buyers guide.
I've worked in the A/V field for nThe life of an LED light source is seriously spectacular. Even with 40 hours of viewing per week, the average LED can run for an impressive 10-25 years, which is longer than the expected life of the product itself! Let us put in perspective how long 25 years really is in the world of technology. In 1985, the VHS was the standard in home recording, a really huge TV was only 32 inches, CDs were new, DVDs were only a dream, and high-definition was still 15 years away. Thus, because technology changes so much, the use of the same LED projector 25 years into the future is not really practical. But theoretically, it’s possible! - See more at: http://www.projectorreviews.com/projector-categories/led-projectors/#sthash.WpcGRxU1.dpuf
The life of an LED light source is seriously spectacular. Even with 40 hours of viewing per week, the average LED can run for an impressive 10-25 years, which is longer than the expected life of the product itself! Let us put in perspective how long 25 years really is in the world of technology. In 1985, the VHS was the standard in home recording, a really huge TV was only 32 inches, CDs were new, DVDs were only a dream, and high-definition was still 15 years away. Thus, because technology changes so much, the use of the same LED projector 25 years into the future is not really practical. But theoretically, it’s possible! - See more at: http://www.projectorreviews.com/projector-categories/led-projectors/#sthash.WpcGRxU1.dpufThe life of an LED light source is seriously spectacular. Even with 40 hours of viewing per week, the average LED can run for an impressive 10-25 years, which is longer than the expected life of the product itself! Let us put in perspective how long 25 years really is in the world of technology. In 1985, the VHS was the standard in home recording, a really huge TV was only 32 inches, CDs were new, DVDs were only a dream, and high-definition was still 15 years away. Thus, because technology changes so much, the use of the same LED projector 25 years into the future is not really practical. But theoretically, it’s possible! - See more at: http://www.projectorreviews.com/projector-categories/led-projectors/#sthash.WpcGRxU1.dpuf
Monday, August 11, 2014
Friday, July 25, 2014
I have a fascination of low budget films, and when I heard that Greydon Clark wrote a book about his career my interest peaked, and so I was happily given the book by my family for a father's day gift. Who is Greydon Clark you ask? He is the producer and director of such films as: Black Shampoo, Without Warning, Joysticks, Satan's Cheerleaders just to name a few. Why should you care? Well if you're a film enthusiast, a filmmaker, or even if you happen just to like low budget films this book may shed some light on how hard and difficult it is to produce these types of films.
Mr. Clark goes about telling us how he financed, and how he produced and directed his films. Many of these films were ultra low-budget, but you would be surprised to know where all the money goes, and that is talent. Clark never skimped on his talent, and knew that he needed to draw audience's in by getting bankable stars. Mr. Clarks budgets ranged from 50K if you can believe that to a couple of hundred thousands, but in each of his films he puts it up all in the screen. There is one film called the "The Forbidden Dance" that was produced for about two million, and shot within 18 days. I won't go into details, but the story behind "Forbidden Dance" is a movie in itself. From conception to actual movie all within 90 days.
The book is littered with stories on how Mr. Clark went about financing and shooting his films. It's even really amazing to hear how he himself was stiffed by unscrupulous producers and distributors. Mr. Clark does not mince words here and is a gentlemen through and through. He does not exploit some of the problems he had with his talent, and he keeps it civil which shows what type of guy Clark is. No low blows. The book is all about the films and his career and how he had to fight his way through the production madness we call filmmaking.
The book is laid out in script form, and to any filmmaker it seems familiar but may be a bit distracting for other readers though I didn't find it a bit. I liked the way it was laid out. The book does contain photos also of his productions, but here I believe it cold have been laid out better. But I'm sure publishing costs to do a different layout would be a bit more expensive, and Clark wants to tell us the stories, and that is what's important here.
I have a whole new respect for the man though. Clark consistently gambled on his future by investing in his films. I always thought that for someone to consistently put his own money and risk his own fortune on his abilities as a filmmaker shows that this man has stones, Simple put he saw a market, exploited it, and sold his film off so he could make the next one. I find it hard to believe that no one in Hollywood would even put up his or her money and have Mr. Clark direct. It was Mr. Clarks speed, and his cost consciousness that got him the gig for "The Forbidden Dance". I guess it is as Mr Goldman says in his book "Adventures in the screen trade". "Nobody knows nothing in Hollywood".
The book is really interesting when Mr. Clark get's personal, and he does share his credit with his late wife who was always behind her husband and very supportive. It is tragic on how she passed, and it's heartbreaking to read.
If you're interested in filmmaking and want to hear what it's like from the trenches back in the day this book is a great read. Some of his ideas and his chutzpah would still work, and should be of some value to fledgling filmmakers like myself, but otherwise it's a fun read. It's available from the filmmaker's at his web site
Saturday, July 12, 2014
My oldest who is twelve wanted to see this and so over the July 4th opening we went with the family to see "Earth to Echo". A film about four kids on a search for extraterrestrials. This is not ET, or a re-hash of it. This is a bit different. The movie focuses on the kids, and the film is seen through video that the kids record as they go about their adventure. I thought the way the film was presented was kind of cool, and was a different take on movies with the same plot line. The movie reminds me a bit of a Spielberg produced movie entitled "Batteries Not Included", but their are differences such as the main characters are kids and the movie is marketed to younger teens and kids that are a bit younger. The movie is not great for children younger then 8, or that's how I felt. My youngest who is ten liked it, and thought the alien was cute, and there is the movies problem.
For all the promotion of the movie there aren't enough scenes in the film with our little alien friend. There should have been more scenes involving the teens and the alien. ET is the movie standard that the filmmakers needed to overcome. Spielberg knew what made his film and that was ET's interaction with the children in the movie. Here in Earth to Echo there isn't enough of that. The scenes with the alien and the kids are classic, but again not enough, and therefore I think the younger audience wouldn't care about the film. I believe the filmmakers made a mistake here, but one that isn't fatal. Maybe for their box office, but not for the film.
What the filmmakers have in their favor is that the movie is one if not the only movie that is out this summer that is for kids. I implore the studio to push hard on the kid friendly movie aspect, and maybe then they'll have better success at the box office. After all it seems as though this summer Hollywood is experiencing tough competition from other entertainment outlets, and it just being summer and kids have better things to do then going to movies.
The movie is like a puzzle and feels almost like a video game. Echo needs parts, and he is rebuilding himself. He has a mission to take back a long buried star ship under the earth. Now how the ship got there, and why we humans haven't found it until recently is a bit of a mystery to me. Also it seems that our government knows of the aliens existence and had shot it down, but how they knew it was heading to the ship, and why they shot it down in the first place is a mystery. The plot holes in the movie are big and confusing. Maybe something was lost in the editing of the film, but both my wife and I looked at each other and just shrugged our shoulders and went with it. The government agents don't show themselves in black, and carrying guns, which I believe is because of the demographics the movie is trying to appeal to. After all you don't want to scare your audience that you're trying to appeal to, so again I didn't make it an issue.
There's a lot to like though in this movie. I really was rooting for the alien, and really thought the children in the film were really good. I loved how they presented the movie. Like it was a video you would find on the Internet. A sort of found footage movie, but it did have scenes where we the audience were taken out of the footage the actors supposedly shot and into a conventional movie scene. But the filmmakers (Dave Green, Henry Gayden and Andrew Panay) do this skillfully, and it helps the movie. I think what sells this movie are the actors performance. They are good, and the four actors have chemistry together. It helps with the story line. Teo Halm, Brian 'Astro' Bradley, Reese Hartwig, and Ella Wahlestedt all do a great job in the film, and it is because of their performances that the film works.
I think this may even have some fans among the young ones it s marketed to. After all the message is that "your important" and "you can do anything". It addresses emotions that young teens and teens for that matter feel that no one takes them seriously, and the film doesn't preach the message.
All in all I enjoyed seeing it with the family. We all had fun, and we laughed even my mom had fun. So if you're looking for some family entertainment don't hesitate to go and see "Earth to Echo". Great family fun.