KGB Productions, Inc.

Hugo - 2011

2012-01-30T11:19:00.000-05:00

I went to the movies Sunday to see Martin Scorsese's movie Hugo. To say that I liked the film would be an understatement. In Hugo Scorsese uses his love for cinema to tell a tale of a young boy and old man who have lost something and how they re-discover it again together.

George Melies is a favorite filmmaker of mine. I remember seeing some of his films as a small child, and they always struck me as fantastic. The craft that Melies uses in his films is extraordinary, and I was always frustrated that documentaries of early cinema didn't contain more of George Melies. Here Scorsese does this in a fictional film, while at the same time giving us the history of George Melies, and his films.

I just hope that when the DVD comes out that maybe it would be accompanied with a documentary of George Melies and his work. Maye even some of his films could be included. It would be so worth it.

The following video was from Sunday Morning on CBS, and it compelled me to rush down to the theater and see Hugo before it was gone.

All I can say is thanks Marty for the film, and thanks for all the films you've done. You're a BIG inspiration.

New Canon EOS C300 Digital Cinema Camera

2012-01-17T16:53:00.002-05:00

Here's something I found interesting. I like Canon's support, and have never had a problem with any of their products.

Canon EOS C300 Digital Cinema Camera from B&H Photo Video on Vimeo.

Das Fraulein (2006)

2012-01-09T11:25:00.000-05:00

Das Fraulein is a Swiss production about Slavic émigrés living in Zurich. It is a simple and yet touching potrait of immigrants living in a culture not their own.

The film concentrates on three women. Mirjana Karanovic is Ruza, a Slavic émigré in her fifties, who years ago transplanted herself from her native Serbia to Zurich Switzerland over 30 years ago. She runs a canteen in the city and she trusts no one. She lives a life of loneliness, and isolation. She and her Croatian associate, Mila (Ljubica Jovic) are confronted with the arrival of Ana (Marija Skaricic), a much younger Bosnian drifter, who enchants Ruza with her fresh spontaneity and zest for life. It is between these three women that the movie focuses on. The film is about barriers breaking down, and how through the interaction of others we change.

Writer/director Andrea Staka's Das Fräulein paints an exceptionally sensitive, multi layered, and richly textured portrait of a blossoming friendship between three women. Staka uses the film to explore their relationships to each other and themselves. She (Staka) conveys the women's inner emotions of the characters very intelligently using close-ups, and stark imagery. The feel of the film is very important and it conveys the loneliness, and the mundane of life. The film looks as though it were shot with florescent lighting, yet I 'm sure the filmmaker wanted the look she got. It works here and enhances the films emotional response.

The film is lensed with special attention to characterization and tone. This makes the film very viewable, and interesting. From Ruza's overly efficient life to Ana's carefree existence Staka does a neat balancing act in showing how the characters affect each other. When Ana thows Ruza a surprise birthday party we can see the walls slowly crumbling in Ruza whose emotions are distant and cold. I enjoyed the films use of characters. I was interested in all three women. All from the same area that once was Yugoslavia yet all of different age and mind set.

Mirjana Karanovic as Ruza does an excellent job showing how much hurt she feels behind that cold exterior. It is only when Ana begins to tell Ruza of her own plight that we see that change happening. Marija Skaricic as Ana really nails it as the care free women who hides the inner scars of war. In her performance we see a slow realization that life is too short and one should enjoy what life offers and let other people in instead of keeping them away.

The film is a quiet one. It is a character piece where the performances are very good. The director doesn't hit you over the head with lots of dialogue, or phony film making tricks to illicit emotion. Instead she lets the actors do their thing, and through the films tone we feel what we feel. Staka's trusting collaboration with director of photography. Igor Martinovic results in a handsome, carefully constructed visual style which adds depth to the film.

The film is worth seeing and is a pretty good character film. The film is sub-titled, and the characters speak Serbian, and German. The film is worth seeing if you want to see strong performances and good quality film making.

Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol (2011)

2012-01-03T11:23:00.000-05:00

I was interested in seeing the latest Mission Impossiable because I had heard that they filmed certain sequences in IMAX, and I wanted to see the results. I've seen several films in IMAX and have always come away from the experience at just how clear the images are. The filmmaker Brad Bird makes good use of the process, and the film really looks great.

I've been a big critic with studios making or re-making films in 3D. It feels very gimmicky, and there still are those stupid glasses. My little one hates them, and doesn't like watching a 3d film with them. Avatar was amazing, but in the hands of a filmmaker like Jim Cameron there is no doubt that he uses the technology to his advantage, and to the films advantage.

The IMAX experience is similar but I have always come away from an IMAX experience that seemed breath taking. The imagery, and the sound is fantastic.

The story is simple. This is not just another mission. The IMF is shut down when it's implicated in a global terrorist bombing plot. Ghost Protocol is initiated and Ethan Hunt and his rogue new team must go undercover to clear their organization's name. The film goes to several countries and it looks almost like a travelogue. The beautiful scenery will amaze you and transform you into the film. The most and best use of the IMAX experience is when Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) is hanging from one of the biggest an tallest buildings in the world, and that we see it is him, and not a stuntman.

The photography is breathtaking as you look down at the height of the building. Then there are the performances of the cast. The one who shines here is Simon Pegg. His character provides the laugh track to the film, and it isn't forced. There were some scenes that looked a bit forced, but I was easily brought back by the action of the film.

I cannot see this film make a good transition when it hits TV/cable, but there is enough action in the film to keep ones attention, but if you must see this film see it in IMAX. It's pretty awesome, and the film really lends to the format.

Paula Patton is sexy and tough as the agent Carter. Jeremy Renner is pretty cool as an agent who has some dark deep secrets that become relevant to the film, but it's Simon Pegg's performance that sticks out. The film wraps up with more Mission Impossible films to come, which seem appropriate.

The one thing though that I felt which was weak in the film was the villain. Michael Nyqvist
plays the villain and I felt that we didn't get enough of him to be a formative villain for the IMF. It's a weak argument for the film. But I felt that the villain needed to stand out more and he didn't. So hence my mentioning it here. If you're going to have a villain bent on global annihilation you should have one a bit more better drawn then he was in the film. Just look at all the Bond films and there villains. Those villains are and were memorable.

But if you like action flicks you won't be disappointed, and I have to say I was impressed with Cruise's performance. Cruise seems to be growing into the part of Ethan Hunt, and he seems to be enjoying it and it looks that way on screen. If you see the film you won't hate it. It's a good pop corn movie.

Alvin and the Chipmunks: Chipwrecked (2011)

2011-12-29T10:16:00.001-05:00

I know, I know. Long time, but I'm back and the first movie I review is a kids film. Having children of my own they have grown up with Alvin, Theodore and Simon, so when this film hit the theaters you know I had to go.

This is the third. Yes the third film in the series of the chipmunk movies. Each one is cute and interesting, but they are defiantly geared to the children. In this film Dave and the boys along with the chipettes go on cruise.   Yes you remember them from the second movie don't you? Anyhow the chipmunks get shipwrecked on an island after disobeying Dave (Jason Lee). Dave and Uncle Ian (David Cross) also get shipwrecked on an island, and need to find the chipmunks. That is of course if this is the same island as where the chipmunks are, and if you're thinking it isn't then I have a bridge to sell to you in Brooklyn.

The movie is a bit of slapstick, and moral lesson for the kids. Sure we laugh when the chipmunks cause havoc on the cruise ship, but its all in fun. Then of course the moral of the story is that parents love us no matter what, and that sometimes we should listen to our parents. That's it in a nutshell. I could get more detailed, but the film is for children. What I do hate is how the studio markets it to children, but I guess that's how studios make their back-end. Through merchandising toys to children and their parents.

Also there are several songs in the movie by well known recording artists that are given the chipmunk version. Maybe another selling point that the studio tries to tie into the movie.  Then again with children being so media savoy the songs are to them just extensions of what they hear in everyday life, so instead of it being my soundtrack it's my children soundtrack, and that's okay because the movie is geared to them. I'm just happy to hear them laugh and howl when Alvin does his thing.

If you have children who are old enough to see Alvin it's a good distraction, and you may just laugh at one or two of the gags. The animation, and the live action clips of the movie are okay. I've seen better, but they do an okay job, and the children didn't notice anything, so in the end the studio wins. I just wish that they would have cared a bit more and maybe not rushed it. There are a few process shots that look out of place, and sometimes the film looks rushed. Like the studio had a deadline to get it out before Christmas, which I'm sure they did. Next time guys take a little more time, and take some care in the film you are creating.   Other then that I can't fault the film.

It's fun to see with the family, and I even saw it with my 85 year old mom who loved it. Goes to show you a movie can appeal to all ages of the heart.

Evolution of a Revolution

2011-10-14T20:44:00.001-04:00

I had a chance to go to the CCW conference this week again, and update myself and talk to others about content & communication. I find the conference interesting and I learn a lot by talking to vendors, and other technicians and artists who are in the field of communication. Many provide content to the web, and that content is spilling over to other traditional media such as cable, and network. One of the seminars was titled: "So What Comes After File-Based Work Flows? The Next Generation". I found it interesting what others are doing, and how they are doing it. Media is getting faster and that ability to become immediate is changing the landscape of how people consume different types of media. Maybe it's just the way human beings are. We think that knowing something immediately will give us an edge or help us.
What I was excited about is that the web has knocked down barriers between countries, people, and governments. People hear things and see things and it sparks ideas, and even movements.

My dad was a big believer in communication. He was a short wave radio operator and he loved talking to others around the world. My dad always felt that he could get to the truth by just asking the people who were there. Of course now governments, and corporations have seen the power of the web, and do so by influencing others to their way of thought. It's a double edged sword, and one that can do much harm and great good. It's up to the user to decide what he or she does with it, and there is some really GOOD things happening.

To get back to the seminar. I was pretty blown away on how fast people could post their content so quickly. Using an I-pad to shoot, edit, and upload a video clip we can now have that immediacy quickly, and since it doesn't go through the traditional gatekeepers such as editors, producers, and even politicians we can get a more honest look at the human condition. People producing their own content as easily as writing or speaking.

I can only think of once when suddenly media was so drastically changed, and that was when Gutenberg developed the printing press in 1440. It was then that books could be printed for more then just the aristocracy. Then in the 19th century when the development of the steam powered rotary presses came along we started to print in an industrial scale where books became cheaper and everyone had access to books, and newspapers. That's what's happening now with social media. The proliferation of handheld devices is making it more accessible to everyone, and the language is changing.

Josh Apter demonstrated his I-pad camera, and it was pretty cool to see how fast one could create content and distribute it. In a way it is already happening with people uploading events on their phones to their YouTube or FaceBook accounts. Just imagine that on a grand scale, and imagine media providers combing through user based content, and broadcasting them. Such footage of disasters, wars, revolutions, and events coming to us in real time from a variety of sources.

I can only imagine the problems this can create, but it also provides us with a voice. An idea, or a concept can be shot through the web, and instantly communicated to thousands if not millions.

We are in the infancy of a modern day revolution ladies and gentlemen. Like all thing it has great good, and great evil too. It's how we decide to use it that will dominate human beings for a long time to come. It's a brave new world, and some sci-fi authors nightmares, or their utopias are over the next horizon. Let's hope we all choose well.

The Exorcist (1973) # 5

2011-10-08T21:13:00.000-04:00

The Exorcist was a film that showed me that horror could be filled with terror, and the unexpected. I saw this film at a relatively late age. I was way too young when it first came out, but I had heard stories about the film. Whether these stories were true it didn't really matter. It fed the myth of the film in my mind, and when I finally saw it I was amazed at the artistry of the film. From the direction to the cinematography the film "The Exorcist" is a film that deserves mention here. Based on the William Peter Blatty's 1971 best-selling theological-horror novel of the same name the movie remains pretty faithful to the book.

Having seen the film later in life I did become obsessed about the cinematography of the film. Owen Roizman was the cinematographer, and from the first shot to the last shot the film is a masterpiece in cinmatography. I'm not going to say much more about the film because it's all been said before. The Exorcist is the only horror film to be nominated for ten academy awards. That is until Silence of the Lambs was nominated in 1991. The Exorcist won two of the ten in best adapted screenplay and best sound. I think it should have won more, but that's another story.

The film is a battle between good and the ultimate evil (the devil). Maybe the film hits some sort of primordial reaction within us that makes us turn away in horror. After all it is about the devil possessing a young little girl, and battling a priest who is questioning his faith. I know for some the film is blasphemy, but again I think it goes back to that very primitive emotion within us all. Like I said about "The Evil Dead" possession movies seem to strike a chord within a audience.

I know my own perception of the film was that it was a "forbidden film". That all the stories were true, and that the film was garbage, or cheap exploitation, but that's the myth. When I did see it I saw it more as a good horror film about good and evil, and that good and evil weren't so black and white. Our hero in the film has doubts, and a troubled past. What he does in the end is a noble sacrifice. When you really get right into the story of the film the movie is truly a classic. From the music, to the cinematography, and even the direction of the actors are all well done. It's a film that plays well today and will play well into the future. I know even today when I hear the theme of the film it brings up goosebumps in me.

Why this film isn't number one or two is purely a personal reason, but it is a film that any true horror fan should watch. If you doubt me in thinking that it is scary I dare you to see it alone at night by yourself. I guarantee that after watching the film you'll think twice about turning off that light when you go to sleep.

The Evil Dead (1981) #4

2011-10-06T19:57:00.000-04:00

I saw Evil Dead where it was meant to be seen. A drive-in. I had heard about this film from some of my classmate’s back in high school, and I read everything I could put my hands on about the film. Fangoria magazine was my pipeline to the fantastic, and for a teenager with an over active imagination, and a thirst for all things movies Fangoria was the magazine to read. That and "Cinemagic" magazine. A magazine devoted to filmmaking.

The stories about how "Evil Dead" was made fascinated me. A bunch of guys going out into the country with some film equipment and their cast and crew and making a film. What they came back with was a film that hit a nerve with audiences, and it became a success. Sam Rami and his gang made cinematic low budget history when they made their film "the Evil Dead". A film with very few characters, and a simple plot. My film professor was right in a way. If you want to make an interesting film take some buddies and film some where in the woods with some actors and crew. His argument was that there was nowhere to go and so you could concentrate on getting the film done, and finished. One location, few actors, low budget. In a way my professor was right, but sometimes it's easier said then done. Evil Dead is a film that shows what a filmmaker can do with little resources and a lot of ingenuity.

Another film shot in 16mm Evil Dead went on to become a success in theaters. Sam Rami's career started with the film, and he's grown as a director. No one can argue that him directing the Spiderman franchise was a bad choice. I was never a fan of the sequels to "The Evil Dead", but there are fans who love them, and who am I to argue with them. A lot of Rami's movies contain some really blatant humor. Almost "Three Stooges" type of comedy, and I do remember reading that Rami was a fan of their films.

Also I would be remiss in talking about the film if I didn't mention Bruce Campbell the films star. Since he made his debut in "the Evil Dead" he has made a name for himself in Hollywood, and he's a favorite of mine.

The Evil Dead is a film that has a lot of atmosphere, and is pretty scary. I remember seeing it with a buddy of mine who liked these type of films but was pretty creeped out by this one. His answer to why it was so creepy for him was that it dealt with "possession" and that creeped him out. After all how do you fight a loved one who is possessed by an evil spirit? You kill the spirit you kill the person who you know. Maybe that's why "Evil Dead' is such a scary good film. It posses the question what would you do? The possessed do some awful bad things to the living, yet they hide in the bodies of our loved ones. The creators of the film do a great job of pushing the film forward. They use the location to their advantage, and the dark woods come alive with evil. Evil that is unseen, yet they use a flying camera through the woods as the spirits POV. Like any good filmmaker would do it's better to not see the monster and have the audience use their imagination on how it really looks then actually show it.

Evil Dead delivers, and it's a film that really plays well this time of year. It's also a film that other filmmakers should study and become inspired by. I know I was, and the film does still play well after all these years. If you want to see a good solid scary film that has some good performances Evil Dead is your type of film.

Dawn of the Dead (1978) # 3

2011-10-05T18:07:00.002-04:00

If I had to name one film that blew my mind when I was a teenage it would have to be "Dawn of the Dead". George Romero's "Dawn of the Dead" is a film that is on so many levels it boggles the mind. A horror film, a satire on society, a statement on consumerism, and a sequel. That's what "Dawn..." is and in lesser hands it would not have been effective, but because the filmmaker is George Romero this film hits the audience on all levels. I was about 14 years old when this film came out, and it was one of the hardest films to see for me back then. Released without a rating it only played in several theaters, and if you were not accompanied with an adult you didn't get in. I saw it in Germany while visiting my aunt, and in Europe it was called "Zombie 2". Argento had made a film called "Zombie" previously and called his cut of Dawn "Zombie 2". Little did I know that there were two versions of this film. One was the European one which was released by Dario Argento and included different music, and some other cuts. Here in the United States it was released by United Film Distribution and that was the Romero version.

After seeing both cuts I did like Romero's version better, but it explained why my friend and I would argue on some parts of the film. It was because we saw two different versions of the film. Maybe it was because the film was released when I was a teenager, but it was a film that all other horror films had to measure up to.

Romero is a skillful filmmaker, and he puts a lot of dark humor into his films. The violent scenes of the film were very comic bookish in tone. The blood was bright red, and the effects were primitive, but effective since no audience had seen such effect like that before.

The plot of the film is about a group of survivors of the "zombie apocalypse" who hole up in a mall while all of society is falling apart. How Romero presents this "zombie apocalypse" is interesting. There is no reason why the dead are coming back. The audience is given some clues, or some reasoning, but Romero never gets into the details. It isn't really important. What is important is how society quickly falls apart, and how we ourselves are responsible for screwing the whole thing up.

Thats why the film plays on so many levels. You could take the film and actually dissect it into a thesis on "American consumerism". It has been done, and it isn't all a bunch of BS. Romero elevates the horror film here and does it without hitting his audience in the head with a blatant preachy message.

The film was made independently with the help of European financing, and when it was released it did do okay boxoffice wise even though it was released in a few theaters here because it was not rated. A few years later it was released in a rated "R" version, along with Romero's film "Knightriders".

I have to confess I am a Romero fan. I've even met him a few times as so many fans have done, and gone to some screenings where he lectured. I've enjoyed his stories of production, and find it amazing why Hollywood shuns him at times. Romero's films are laced with deeper meaning, yet they are fun and escapist type films. I remember how as a teenager I tried to create my own "zombie apocalypse" amateur film in Super 8. Maybe that's why the film holds a special place in my heart.

Any way. This is one of my top films for seeing around this time. It holds up well having been made in 1978. Also the re-make by Zack Snyder of this film is also interesting, and it is one remake that I think is worth seeing. It is at least an interesting take on the original film, and it does have its moments of pure fright.

So if you find yourself alone on a dark and stormy night I would suggest watching "Dawn of the Dead". It's a film that really has some scary moments, and makes that October chill even chillier.

Halloween (1978) #2

2011-10-03T20:19:00.000-04:00

I would have to say that the one film that makes this month memorable is"Halloween". Not the re-make of course, but the original from John Carpenter, and Debra Hill. It stars Jamie Lee Curtis, and Donald Pleasence, and it was originally called "The Babysitter Murders". The movie was done on a low budget, and looks fantastic for it's budget range. I'm always amazed at the camera work in the film, and how great the cinematography looks. Dean Cundy is the man behind the cinematography and the look of the film. Along with the art direction the film really feels like it was shot in October even though it was not. The film was shot with a Panaglide, and Carpenter makes good use of it here. The camera floats through each scene, and it gives us the audience this lurking sense of dread. Where will Michael Myers (the killer) come from next? Carpenter always has you guessing.

I'm a strong believer of atmosphere in a movie, and Halloween is such a movie. The films plot is simplistic, but memorable and unlike other films the villain here is somewhat a mythical character come to life. Michael Myers is the boogeyman . I think Halloween was one of the first films to do so. Carpenter admits that the film is about evil, and about sex. It is sex that starts the whole film and there is a re-current theme in the film about promiscuity, but essential the film is about evil, and how it never dies. To make more of the film then what it is seems to be would be a waste of time. Halloween is a good simple horror film with some good acting, and slick production values. Carpenters musical score for the film enhances the film and makes the audience get involved in the action. I remember seeing it in the theater and people were shouting at the screen for the character to run or hide. To get the audience that involved takes some skill, and shows Carpenter to be a great manipulator of suspense.

In essence the film is a good solid horror film with a bit of a nod to those old B-movie films. The casting of Donald Pleasence was key here. Pleasence plays the psychiatrist that is hunting Michael Myers after he escapes from the insane asylum. Pleasence brings to his part a man who knows who Michael Myers really is. Pleasence character (Dr. Loomis) is one who has seen true evil, and he is on a crusade to stop it.

Simple put I like Halloween for its feel and its simplistic plot line. It has been repeatedly been done since then, but it was Halloween that was the first to do so. It's production value adds to the film. Carpenter is a true craftsman, and we see how well he does it here. The shots at night are picture perfect and erie. The setting which is a small town called Haddonfield can be any town in the USA, and that too is the movies strength. That murder and mayhem can happen anywhere in a small town is what adds to the myth of Michael Myers. In the beginning its almost Norman Rockwell territory. When Myers comes to visit Rockwell's image of a small town is turned into a nightmare. Maybe that's what fascinated me, and makes the movie so memorable for me. The killer is a man in a mask who is expressionless, yet frighteningly filled with anger. Nick Castle who plays the "shape" as he is listed in credits does a convincing performance of an unstoppable killer.

The film is well paced, and moves along quickly. It's a good solid horror flick, and that's as simple as I can put it. In the end evil losses, and will return. We are left with questions, and a haunting suspicion that Michael Myers maybe around the next corner coming this time for us. Halloween is a film that involves its audience, and it makes the movie a thrilling experience to watch. That's why it's second on my list and a film that still thrills me today.

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1975) #1

2011-10-02T19:49:00.002-04:00

Okay it's that time in the year. The weather gets cooler, the leaves begin falling from the tree, and we all begin to dress up in silly little costumes.

It's Halloween soon, and the countdown has begun. So why not celebrate the month of October with my very own countdown. A countdown of the best horror movies. Based on me. I'm sure opinions will vary widely, but I figured I give it a shot, and see just how many I can write about here.

First up is a movie called "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre". The original one that is. Not the remake or the prequel that they made not too long ago. I'm not a big fan of those, and remakes in general. I understand them from a studio's perspective since there is another younger audience out there who may want to see it, and when there's money to be made you can bank that a studio is going to make a remake. After all it's easy money, and the word franchise is a golden ticket for the studios.

But this review is about Tobe Hooper's movie "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre". The original movie that stared Marilyn Burns, and Edwin Neal. I was never a fan of the movie until I re-saw the film with a friend of mine. From that time I became a fan of the film, and have always recommended it as the quintessential horror film of all time.

Now I know some of you out there may not agree, but I'd have to say that the film is a stroll through mayhem and chaos with a bit of dark humor laced within the storyline. Just the beginning of the film sets it aside from all other films. The viewer is subjected to disturbing images of decayed human limbs, and a graveyard monument of two human corpses joined together. We are then introduced to our characters, and their trip degenerates into mayhem from there.

I won't go into the plot since so many people know it already, but what Hooper does here is give us a ride on the wild-side that devolves into madness, and hysteria. He does this so well that we actually care for the protagonists in the film. Hooper slowly manages to bring the madness by the introduction of the "Hitchhiker", and then his family. When you think it can't get any crazier it does, and that’s the movies strength. The film is shot in 16mm and it gives it that documentary or docudrama feel. When the killing begins all bets are off. No one is immune, and all become a victim of the madness that the filmmaker has released.

Some of the scenes when Marilyn is introduced to the whole "chainsaw family" can only be described as a trip into madness. Marilyn Burns plays the scene for all that its worth, and you can feel the terror coming off the screen as the “family” tries to kill her. The scene is so strong that you will want to pull your head away from the screen and not look, but you are transfixed in the moment and can't. That is what true horror is, and I have to say "Chainsaw..." does that.

So that's why I put it at number one on my horror list. It still scares me, and repulses me at times. It can still shake me and after watching it I feel like I've just gone along with Marilyn to the gates of insanity. Its power is because of Hooper's direction. He has done many films after this, but "Chainsaw" is the one that he hit it out of the park. It's no wonder that it has a place in the museum of modern art. I mean it's a classic in its own right, and you can thank Hooper and his production team for making it a classic.

Simple put it's a classic through and through. The images, the sound, and the feel of the film give it its status. None of its remakes does that or even comes close. What I can summarize is that a few talent individuals got together and made a film that they wanted and they pulled no punches. They were young and hungry back then and they wanted to make something that they thought would sell. Little did they know that they would make a classic that would stand the test of time. Not many films do this, but this film does. That's why it's number one in my book. See it with the lights out, and be prepared to get scared, and thanks Mr. Hooper for making a classic that all filmmakers should aspire to.

Kickstarter artist Help

2011-09-16T16:00:00.001-04:00

Okay it's been awhile, and someday I'll get to writing about it, but for now this caught my eye.

I hope the filmmaker gets to do this. I really enjoyed his web series "Westside".

Check it out.

Captain America: The First Avenger (2011)

2011-07-24T21:05:00.000-04:00

It's summertime and the movie blockbusters are lining up at your local theaters. To say that Captain America was a film I've been waiting for is an understatement. In my youth their was Captain America (cappie for short), then spiderman, the Fantastic Four, Iron Man, and the Hulk. I was a Marvel child (sorry DC). I would devour all comic books as soon as I got them. So when Captain America was announced about two years ago I began counting the days. Even got my big boy to want to go see it since he loved Iron man.

So can you predict where this review will go? I was not disappointed seeing Cappie and I thought Joe Johnston direction was well done. A origin film is hard to do. There is a lot of back story to cover, and sometimes it's hard to get it all in and be faithful to the comic. Captain America has no problem there. Johnston does extremely well to cover the true origin of Captain America, and stays faithful to the comic. Chris Evans does a great job portraying Steve Rogers/ Captain America. Some may call it a one note performance, but I do believe he gives depth to Captain America the human being. Hayley Atwell, Tommy Lee Jones, Hugo Weaving, Stanley Tucci, and Sebastian Stan all give great performances that add to the film.

The music by Alan Silvestri is dead on and enhances the film greatly. How the filmmakers explain the different variations of Captain America is pretty cool. I enjoyed seeing it as a period piece, and the filmmakers touch on the various different stages that Capie goes through. This includes the different shields he used to his team he assembles to fight Hydra and the Red Skull. Marvel could have made several films of Capie fighting the Nazis alone and that would have been fine, but there is a lot of material to cover and the filmmakers get through it at a good pace.

I know this all leads to the movie "The Avengers" set for next year release. It will be interesting how it all comes together and how the characters fit. I like how Marvel is putting their films together, and making sure each film fits into the Marvel universe. It was also good to see that San Lee one of the creators of Marvel had a small role in it. He even has one of the funniest lines, so look out for it if you get a chance.

"Captain America: The First Avenger" is a film that will make you laugh, and shout. It's enjoyable, and breathtaking to watch. It remains one of my favorite superhero flicks of all time. See it and enjoy it because Cappie's back in town.

Transformers: Dark of the Moon (2011)

2011-07-04T10:33:00.001-04:00

What can I say with two boys who are fans it was my duty to take them and get lost in the inexplicable plot that are the Transformers. A movie based on a toy, which is based on an old animated series too. I have to confess I was not a fan of Transformers when it was on Saturday morning cartoons, but through my boys I've learned to love the series. The animated series did show some intelligence, and did have some interesting stories to tell. Transformers: Dark of the Moon is an all out assault of imagery of robots battling, and for what small boy does this not make sense? The series is about a blood feud between the Decepticons and the Autobots. One loves freedom, and liberty, and the other is into tyranny and destruction. It's as simple as that, and what director Michael Bay does is provide us with over two hours of mayhem and chaos. The New York Times said it best in it's review "Mr Bays lax notions of coherence and plausibility are accompanied by a visual imagination that is at once crazily audacious and ruthlessly skillful".

I could not have said it any better. It's a film that is visually stunning, and the CGI action is almost flawless. There is also some funny performances by such stellar actors as: Frances McDormand, John Malkovich, and John Turturro. Even Leonard Nimoy is the voice of Sentinel Prime. So the cast is entertaining. What I didn't like was the performance and the addition of Rosie Huntington-Whiteley as Carly who played the role of Shia LaBeouf girlfriend a bit too stiff. No doubt she is eye candy and make no mistake Ms Whiteley is a very appealing looking young women. I just wish she had more to do then just play the girl in peril. It always amazed me to see her with her high heel shoes on running and climbing through wreckage of battle. I mean seriously people how about some comfortable shoes. But no doubt Ms Whiteley was put there for us men to google lustily at. All I can say is in a movie about fighting robots who cares about the young hottie unless she's packing an Uzi or something. Let's say something about strong women role models who can kick ass too. My boys certainly didn't notice anything but the fights, and that's what this series is aimed for, so next time Mr. Bay get it right.

I have to say that the film does drag, and at two hours and thirty four minutes it's a bit long even for young boys to sit through. There's a lot that could have been cut out, yet I'm sure it'll only be extended in the directors cut on DVD. I am one of the few people who appreciate Michael Bay. Bay is a visual artist who knows how to paint his canvas, and keep his audience riveted to the screen. In a way I think Mr. Bay was looking more to the animated series then the the last two pictures. Bringing in Leonard Nimoy seemed to be a salute to that since Nimoy did voice the villain Galvatron in the animated movie.

Did I enjoy seeing Transformers: Dark of the Moon I can say with an enthusiastic yes. Seeing it with ones children is almost half the pleasure of seeing a movie such as this, and it creates lasting memories that will warm my memory for years to come. I guess that's the magic of these films. Seeing it with your own children, and becoming a child for the amount of time that the movie is up on the screen. Rooting for the hero's, and booing the villians is all part of the fun, and it made this middle-aged man become a little boy again, so for that I am eternally grateful to the filmmakers.

If your a fan go see it. If you have children who want to see it go with them and share in the experience. This is old fashion, yet high tech fun.

Super-8 (2011)

2011-06-30T16:49:00.002-04:00

Okay first off I have to thank Steven Spielberg, and JJ Abrams for a trip down memory lane. Super-8 brings back a time when things were a bit simpler, and life was a bit slower. Now that I've dispensed with the nostalgia I have to say I really liked the film. The ending seemed a bit corny to me, and yet it worked. After all Super-8 is simply a B-movie picture that we all once watched on Saturday nights at the local drive-in. Joe Dante did this in a film called "Matinee" way back in 1993. What Spielberg and Abrams does in Super-8 is ratchet the action up a bit more then what Dante did.

Super-8 feels like a long lost Spielberg film when he started out. It's a bit like "ET", "Close Encounters of the third kind", and "the Goonies" all rolled up in one. Yet Spielberg is only the producer. Super-8 was written and directed by JJ Abrams, and I have to confess I really liked the story, and best yet I loved the characters. Joel Courtney , Elle Fanning, Riley Griffiths, Ryan Lee , Gabriel Basso, and Zach Mills all give a great ensemble performance. I have to give props to Abrams for pulling out these performances. I really cared about these characters, and each one was authentic. It's this that gives Super-8 its likability, and what it has going for it.

Some reviewers say that the film falls apart in the end, and that the cheesy effects take over. I disagree. First off the effects worked for me. I liked that they did not show the monster or alien till the end. Keeping it in shadow, and showing it at night is all classic B movie plotting. As for the end I don't want to give it away, but the stories characters did say that when the alien touches you you know what its thinking and it knows what your thinking. It's telepathic, and it understands our hero's mind. Joel Courtney does a great job portraying Joe Lamb.  Joel's character is a child who has lost his mother and can't let go of her.  Joel carries a locket she wore which has a picture of him and her when he was a baby. Abrams does a very effective thing here and uses that to show his attachment to his mother. He also uses actual Super-8 footage of Joe's mom and Joe growing up. Pictures of him as a baby, pictures of him growing and her measuring his height, and of play time with mom. How many of us have old film footage of our parents and grand-parents that doesn't elicit some kind of emotion with-in us. Abrams uses that emotion to make a connection with his audience and Joe. That's the magic of cinema. Images that are familiar to us are like a group collective of sorts. Images of mom, and baby, and of child and father. We all have that stored in us and here the filmmakers mine that for emotional response. It resonated with me, and it works.

Now in a era where we are bombarded with images 24 hours a day 7 days a week through television, the Internet, and even in the supermarket does this familiar imagery work.  I think it does because in some respect no matter the generation we all have that collective imagery of our family.  I like how the filmmakers do it. They don't do it maliciously, but in a way that seems to connect us all. In a way Abrams and Spielberg are saying we're more alike then we think we are. That's comforting to know, and maybe I'm reading a bit more into the film then there is, but it did strike a chord with me.

I was one of those kids running around with a camera gathering his friends up to tell a story I had watched on the late movie or somewhere.  I remember reading magazines such as "Super-8 Filmmaker" and Cinemagic and dreaming up new ideas and stories. Imagination is a kids best friend sometimes, and navigating those treacherous teen years can sometimes be more dangerous then adults admit to us. Each generation has it's problems to overcome. We look back in nostalgia, but back then it was serious and if we told our parents everything you know they would have locked us up in the house and never let us out.

That brings me to the message of the movie. It's about loss, forgiveness, and letting go. In the movie the adults are all walking around living in the past. They haven't let go of grudges, and can't seem to move on. It's this message that I really took away from the film, and it's the one thing that made it special for me. The performances are all good.   Kyle Chandler as Joe's father gives a good performance, and one that really shows how sometimes we don't let go of things, and that when we do we begin to live life again.

I enjoyed the film, and really carried away from it some deep and personal memories about youth and imagination. Super-8 resonates with the familiar, and its message is loud and clear, yet its entertaining. It's what a movie should be, and the message isn't preachy. It's a good throw back to when films were fun. Go see it, and enjoy it I know I did. Also don't leave at the end of the credits. There's more, and it's fun, so remember don't leave after the credits roll. just sit there. You won't be disappointed especially if you were one of those Super-8 filmmakers way back when.

Peter Falk (1927-2011)

2011-06-24T20:27:00.000-04:00

Everyone talks about Columbo, and it's true Falks character as Columbo was perfect. But he left a lot of great performances on film. His accomplice or partner in crime was the director/actor John Cassavetes. Below is a clip from a movie called "Nicky & Mickey", which starred Cassavetes. The movie was directed by Elaine May. The scene alone shows both actors talents. Mr. Falk thanks for the memories.

Renegade Rewind - A Video yearbook

2011-06-16T11:03:00.000-04:00

Rewind-opening from Karl Bauer on Vimeo.

This was done several years ago when we were pushing the video equipment to the brink. It was a team effort, and it was pretty successful. All I can say is that rendering can be a bear. If your an editor you know what I mean.

Bridging the Generations - Vietnam Nurses

2011-06-06T16:10:00.002-04:00

Vietnam Nurses - Bridging the Generation series from Karl Bauer on Vimeo.

The above video are highlights from one of the first shows I did in the series called "Bridging the Generations". It was made for the humanities department where I used to work, and these assignments were always interesting to do. The people I've met through these types of programs have been inspirational, and informative for me. I learned a lot technically with these videos, and each one got better and better. I just hope in a world of budget cuts, and dropped programs that these types of programs can continue. The more we know about our past the better our future will be. If you are interested in aquiring copies of the programs for your school or organization please go to the Lenape District TV, and order from there.

Blanc de Blanc (2009)

2011-05-30T21:47:00.004-04:00

Blanc de Blanc is a small film with heart. Originally made on a bet that the director could make a film in 2 weeks. The film is quite professional for its limitations, and it works. The story is bare bones, yet the plot is somewhat engaging. A young women meets a mysterious man, and they start a relationship. It's as simple as that, and thats the films charm.

How Lucas McNelly (director) presents his film is at times slow and plotting, but it is the actors that make this a fascinating film. Both Rachel Shaw and Jason Kirsch are brilliant in their performances. Watching these actors is what riveted me to the film. The film is shot beautifully by David Eger, and the music by Jerome Wincek is effective and does set the tone of the film.

What I felt was weak was the stories structure. There is a lot of dialogue that seems to be used as padding for the film. I felt that a lot of the scenes could have been cut. The film is strongest when the two principles are on the screen, and it is their performances that held me. I understand that McNelly uses his scenes to set the films pace, and he does so effectively, yet it felt slow to me, and my attention wandered a bit. I have to confess I was eyeing the fast forward button at times. But I can't stress enough that I really loved the performances by the principles, and think McNelly did a great job in pulling that out of them.

I don't agree with how the film ends, and I won't spoil it here. Leaving the ending ambivalent seemed more of a cop out then a real choice. Of course this is the filmmakers choice to choose, and McNelly does a heck of a job producing an intelligent and interesting film.

I found the film inspirational, and really enjoyed watching the performances of Shaw and Kirsch. It's amazing one can do with so little.

The film is available for rent on-line for $2.99 and its well worth seeing what an artist can do with limited resources. Help support a bunch of talented artists, and maybe get inspired in the process.

Thomas Mai on Todays New Film Business

2011-05-27T16:32:00.000-04:00

Thomas Mai Presentation ETMA, Strasbourg from Thomas Mai on Vimeo.

This is really interesting, and should be seen by others, so hence it's here. Hope it inspires, and that you learn something.

Stella's Secret

2011-05-23T11:17:00.001-04:00

Stella's Secret from Karl Bauer on Vimeo.

This is my 400th entry here, and I wanted to post something I'm quite proud of. I've met many people throughout my life, and I've had the honor and the privilege to meet some extraordinary men and women. Though I seem to be going through a transition of sorts I still want to continue meeting these extraordinary men and women, and get their story out.

Every one of us has a story to tell. I truly believe that. Those stories need to be shared. We all have commonalties together, and telling these stories helps us understand our fellow neighbors, and citizens. We have to stop building walls and start building bridges to each other. It frustrates me to see a house divided. When I was growing up I heard the stories of my father, mother, grandmother, and grandfather. I heard what they went through, and being young at the time I truly didn't understand all that they had to say. Now being older I get it, and I understand. More and more we are losing this practice, and history is becoming more and more lost to us. We are bombarded with pop culture, commercials, and 24 hour news and slowly losing our history. By documenting the stories we hold onto them for the next generation, so they can make sense of it all.

I want to do more. It's as simple as that. I hope I can and am allowed to.

Battlefield: Los Angeles (2011)

2011-04-30T22:29:00.001-04:00

I had wanted to see this film for sometime now, and heard good things about the film. To say that I wasn't disappointed is an understatement. Battlefield: Los Angeles is a film that brings chills to one soul. It is a film that is quite relevant in today's world were we Americans find ourselves engaged in several different wars. Maybe because of the current events this film hits home.    The plot is simple:

"A Marine Staff Sergeant (Aaron Eckhart) ,who has just had his retirement approved goes back into the line of duty to assist a 2nd Lieutenant and his platoon as they fight to reclaim the city of Los Angeles from alien invaders".

The movie starts with the invasion, and then flashes back to introduce us to our platoon. We have the marine who is married and expecting, the one who is going to get married, the big strong marine who feels protective of his buddy who is marrying, and the marine of the dead brother who died under the leadership of staff Sargent (Aaron Eckhart). There are others too, and they show up in the movie later. But we are given a sort of intro to the characters who we will care for, so when and if their deaths happen we the audience feel something. Jonathan Liebesman is the director of the film and he does a competent job in setting this all up. The cinematography is rough on purpose. The footage looks like combat photography from every war we've waged in the 20th and 21st century. I could have done with a little less shake and bounce as I call it, but it is effective, and makes you feel that your in the action.

Aaron Eckhart gives a great performance here, and it should be noted it's hard to show character without dialogue. His face is very expressive, and we see his pain and feel it. We also feel his anger at the alien invaders, and we see how combat can be so adrenaline driven. In one scene he takes out a drone alien ship, and when he comes back we see his hand twitching in a jolt of nerves, and adrenaline. We really get it, and his suttle performance really adds depth to the film. There's Michelle Rodriguez who gives a tough and commanding performance as Tech Sargent Elana Santos. Even Michael Peña gives a good solid performance here.  These performances are what makes the movie solid. The special effects are eye startling, and the enemy look and sound frightening, but it is our platoon that moves the movie forward.

I know a lot of people will say it's like a video game, and it's a shooter type game.  I do see parables in that argument, but the film is entertaining. I would not take away that excitement, and cinematic tension that the movie produces by just saying it's a video game. There's more to this movie then just that. The characters are what brings the story home for us the audience.

I said that this movie has relevance in today's current events because there are wars happening now, and TV news shows us daily those who are involved in it. Seeing and setting the film on American soil brings the combat home to us. It's not in the desert or jungle somewhere else happening to other people. In this movie it's Los Angeles and it's our own people being shot and killed, and our own city being destroyed. For the duration of the film it humanizes war, and shows victims. Both men, women, and children. Of course we all know war is terrible, but do we actually feel this if we haven't lived it. Think of generations of children cowering in fear from bullets, and bomb blasts. Think what we take for granted and then show how a war destroys all of that. In a way this film does just that. It does so by not preaching, but by showing, and making the film as visceral as war can be. In this post 911 era it hits home all too well.

Maybe I'm reading way too much into it, and what it really is is a film that is a very, very entertaining. But given the times that we live in I think the film has more meaning.  I defiantly recommend the film, and wouldn't hesitate to see it again.

Winner!

2011-04-28T20:17:00.000-04:00

Finally completed the script. Wanted to do something creative in a year where everything gets turned upside down. I have to say that I thought at times why am I doing this, but it was a great creative endeavor, and it's fun to flex that creative muscle once in a while. In a world where things are upside down it's good that I can concentrate on something creative and force myself to completion.

Is the script any good? It's got potential I think. It needs some re-writes, but every GOOD script or movie is done with re-writes. I enjoy creative criticism, and there aren't many people who do that. It's usually "it sucks" or "its great". No in-between. Constructive criticism is what its all about, and if you have people who can do that you should defiantly take advantage of it. If it's anything I've learned in my years on this earth it's that criticism can be helpful, and hurtful sometimes. You yourself have to determine which will get through and which you will use.

Okay enough preaching. See you on the next entry.

Sidney Lumet in his own words

2011-04-22T16:46:00.001-04:00

"Finally, movies are art....the amount of attention paid to movies is directly related to pictures of quality.....my job is to care about and be responsible for every frame of every movie I make. I know that all over the world there are young people borrowing from relatives and saving their allowances to buy their first cameras and put together their first student movies, some of them dreaming of becoming famous and making a fortune. But few are dreaming of finding out what matters to them, of saying to themselves and to anyone who will listen. "I care". A few of them want to make good movies."

- Sidney Lumet
Making Movies

Close-Up (2011)

2011-04-18T05:28:00.004-04:00

It seems that CLOSE-UP has been announced as an Official Selection of the SoHo International Film Festival 2011, which will run April 15th - 21st, 2011

I just came across this fellow Philadelphian, and I took a look at the trailer, and it really looks and sounds good. It has peaked my interest, and I'm very impressed to hear that it was shot on the Canon EOS 7D. How cool is that. Charlie Anderson is the director of Photography, and it is produced in conjunction with Lucky Basturds Productions. A lot of who is in the film are local talent from here in Philadelphia. The budget for the film according to the director was $7,364, and it looks like a lot of blood sweat and tears went into the making of the film.

I always want to praise a fellow filmmaker who gets his or her story out there, and so that's why it's here. The film has its premiere at the SoHo International film festival in NYC on April 19th at 1:00pm. It's to be held at the Quad Cinemas in NYC on 13th Street.

Take a look at the trailer below, and if you’re in NYC go see the film, and meet the filmmakers, cast and crew. Congratulations guys and I hope to see this real soon. It looks very interesting.

If These Knishes Could Talk trailer

2011-04-13T23:37:00.002-04:00

Documentarian Heather Quinlan is looking for finishing funds to complete her film about New York accents. Check out the trailer down below, and if you know people, or if you have services like an editing bay, or a mixing facility I'm sure she would be greatful.

The trailer is a good piece of work. It would be awesome if someone could help her out. For the record I don't know Ms Quinlan, but the trailer screams finish me, and being a "Nu Yorker" I'd love to see this film get a release somewhere.

Red, White, and Blue (2010)

2011-04-11T21:20:00.001-04:00

After being in the SXSW festival last year this film got some notice, and some really good reviews. After hearing about it I was interested and I finally got a chance to see it this week-end, and I have to say that the first third of the movie I really enjoyed, but after that for me the film falls apart. The film is about Erica a young woman living in Austin who is promiscuous, she picks up men and dumps them immediately after having sex, never allowing herself to get too close to anyone. This changes when she gets better acquainted with her neighbor who has just moved in. His name is Nate and he is a quiet man, slightly creepy, but he persists in being kind to her, and he wins her affection in a non-sexual way. Now this happens all within the first twenty to thirty minutes of the movie, and then we are introduced to other characters who become the movies motivational piece for the violent ending.

Like I said before the first third of this film is really good. There is not much dialogue, but we get what the filmmaker is trying to say. Erica is damaged goods. Without her saying or explaining it we know somethings wrong with Erica. we also know that Nate is damaged goods also, but in a far more sinister way. I think the filmmaker was trying to cause attention to Nate and Erica, and maybe inferring that he may be a serial killer scoping out his next prey, but I didn't get that. What I got was an odd relationship forming that seemed to be interesting, and right when you have me hooked you introduce other characters and don't go back to Nate and Erica for a very, very long time. I know those characters have a link to Erica because we see them having sex with her, but when they appear again I really wanted to go back to Nate and Erica.

Erica is played by Amanda Fuller and Nate is played by Noah Taylor. Their performances are strong, and very well done. Taylor has a look that works, and it is in this look that makes his performance really work. Fuller's performance is that of women who is damaged goods who you want to save. There is quite a bit of nudity in the film, and in the end the film becomes violent. Yet I felt that everything was forced. Plot points in the film don't make sense. The character that the filmmaker introduces as Franki seems wrong for the part. I didn't buy him as the character, and maybe that's why it falls apart for me, or maybe I was so hung up on Nate and Erica that I found Franki's introduction a nuisance.

Simon Rumley is the director of the film, and he does a competent job, but some of the shots seemed underexposed, and dark. I've heard of ambient lighting, but a little more light would have helped. Some shots seem to be soft due to the fact that the cinematographer was riding the lens wide open thereby loosing a lot of depth of field. Maybe I'm technically nit-picking here, but it did cause me to notice it, and it took me out of the film. I understand low light cinematography, but I really think the production team should have watched the film "Blood Simple" by Joel & Ethan Coen to get some good pointers on atmosphere, and lighting. That's one film where the creators actually made a great piece of cinema.

I also didn't like the pacing of the film, and that's maybe because of the earlier problem of the director cutting to new characters, and never getting back to the original characters. But the film seemed to drag, and even at the end the violence seems to go on and on. There is no crescendo, and no finale. The film is populated with music from what I assume are local bands down in Austin. It does nothing for me, and even when the director uses his own music it's annoying more so then it is useful. If you want a good example of how to create a chaotic feel to the violence watch the original "Texas Chainsaw Massacre". Tobe Hooper does a magnificent job creating terror and the insanity of violence within the film. The film is in the MOMA for a reason, so more filmmakers should look at it, and study it.

If you want to see a still disturbing film in the same genre go watch "Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer" directed by John McNaughton. The film is still very disturbing, yet it is put together far more superior then "Red, White, & Blue.

In the end there are films that are way better then this one, so I can't recommend this film. People have said that this is a horror film, but I can't really classify it as that. Maybe its a step above films that are labeled "torture porn", but I really don't think so. I myself hate the genre (torture porn), and wish it a speedy demise and even though the violence happens at the end of the film all that proceeds the violence doesn't redeem the film. You can do a lot better.

Hobo with a Shotgun (2011)

2011-04-10T01:30:00.000-04:00

Where do I start. If your into comic book violence, bad character development, and just plain blood and gore this is your film. For me it is not, and I can't recommend this film at all. The film is suppose to be a send up on the 80's exploitation films, but it NEVER does it for me, and in truth I walked out on the film. There are few films I walk out of and this was one of them. No I did not get squeamish because of the blood, and violence. I left because because it was not worth my time, and a total waste .

Now I would like to just end this review here now, but I can't. I like to write about why did or didn't I like a film, so in as brief possiable as I can be I will try and do so.

Hobo with a shotgun stars Rutger Hauer as the Hobo, and I really can't see why they used him. I love Hauer in "LadyHawk", The Hitcher, and even "Blade Runner", so for the life of me I don't know why they use him the way they use him in this film. I don't think the filmmakers knew how to use Hauer effectively, Hauer is an actor of high caliber, and he could have been used to such a good effect that it stuns me to see such a good actor under utilized.

A little history is due here for clarification of how this film came about. The filmmaker entered a contest to supply the film "Grindhouse" with a trailer of an up coming film that doesn't exist. The trailer was included in the movie. The trailer stared all unknowns, and was very good for what it was. It felt like a throwback to those yester-year exploitation films. Fast forward to the future, and it seems someone gave the creator money to come up with the film they made as a trailer first. Only thing is that they should have stuck to the trailer. Casting Hauer was interesting. After all Hauer is a good actor, and I really think he could have done great with the film, but the movie that was actually made contains nothing for Hauer to do. It does not use Hauer to his full potential because there is no decent plot for him to work with.

Of course the story is ridiculous, and revolting at times. People have compared it to the 1980's exploitation films, but I disagree whole heatedly. Those movies used reality to their advantage, and did not go over the top like this film does. I'm a fan of those movies, and this film falls far short of those films it tries to emulate.

In my opinion the films creator has watched too many Troma films, and is trying to re-create them. The violence is gross, and does not serve the film at all. The actors performances are all over the top, and the dialogue they sprout is terrible. I am convinced that the filmmakers did not know what they were doing or how to make a good film of that genre. If you take a look at the earlier trailer for the film you would think that the filmmaker knew his genre, but apparently not, and it shows big time.

Don't waste your time on this trash. Everything about it is a waste. If you want to see the film they should have been made see the original trailer. Run away from this film. The faster you do the better off you'll be.

Script Frenzy

2011-04-01T21:41:00.000-04:00

It's that time of year, and I'm kicking myself in the ass and writing once more. With all that is going on I really don't know how, but somehow I'll manage. If anything it will be an excuse to finish the screenplay I stopped working on last year. need to keep the creative juices flowing, and it's self satisfaction for me.

It's a real B-type film. If you feel stagnant in the creative department give Script Frenzy a try. You may just get out of it a screenplay. It doesn't cost a thing.

Also using the new and improved Celtx screenwritting program. It's very good, and easy to learn.

New York Subway 1986 NYC -directors cut- with stereo audio track.mpg

2011-03-29T23:31:00.001-04:00

I had to put this up here. Thinking that the guy who did this filmed it with a BIG old Arriflex 16mm camera while recording sound on a Walkman is so cool. I remember having to sneak shots of the subway when I was in film school. Taking an old filmo B&H DS70R camera was more my style. I even still have one. Never had the heart to get rid of it. If your unfamiliar with a DS70R camera their the cameras that are built like tanks and saw action as far back as World war 2. You had to wind them up, and you got a good 30 to 40 seconds till they stopped and then you would have to wind them again. That's of course if you shot at 24 frames per second. You could get more if you shot at a lower F.P.S, but if you did that you better be rock steady or you'll see every shake and shimmy. Those cameras also had parallax viewfinders so shooting with a 10mm lens and going hyper focal distance was the key to getting some good shots. You did that because you wanted to get everything in focus, and not have people pay attention to you when you filmed. Part of stealth film making back in the day. I'm just amazed the guy who shot the above scenes got an Arriflex with a 400 foot magazine attached through subway security back then. I mean that's BIG! My only thing is why he shot it on reversal. If he would have shot negative he'd have such a better range of exposure. But then again I'm amazed it's reversal film, and I have to salute the guy just for getting it all down on film. Brings back memories.

Rango (2011)

2011-03-24T12:28:00.001-04:00

Last weekend the family saw Rango, and I have to say I liked the film a lot. The animation is much better then in other animated films out there now. The film is simple. A lizard whose name we don't know has an accident and is stranded in the desert alone. Our protagonist seems to be a thespian of sorts though he has little interaction with individuals. After all he is a lizard in a glass cage, so his people skills, if I can call them that, are limited. But wait if you examine the film "Rango" there are deeper meanings. Don't some of us live in a glass bubbles? Are we not all living our own reality? And when the bubble breaks such as in Rango's case we must confront the harsh reality of the outside world?

What am I talking about? Isn't this a cartoon geared for children? On some level it is, and that's its main purpose. To entertain and sell Rango merchandise. Oh! sorry was that a bit of cynicism on my part? Well in essence Rango is an animated film that is entertaining for the children in the audience, and on another level its hilarious for the adults, but you need to pay attention, and listen to the dialogue. It is because of the duality of the plot that the film is so successful to both adults and children. My boys loved it, and they were having a grand old time. I heard them laugh and giggle at the antics of Rango, and his gang. I have to confess I love films like this. I laughed at the antics like a child myself, and then really laughed at what I heard because I got the in-jokes.

I mean dialogue like: "thespians?... I thought they were illegal in 8 states!" you have to give a nod to the filmmakers for putting it in there. It's as though we all get the joke, and we understand it, but for the children in the audience it goes right over them. Only later will they get it when they see it perhaps with their own kids some day.

The animated sequences are stunning, and much more beautiful then others I've seen of late. The story is funny, and it works in some respect. My littlest one did get bored I think mid-way through the film, but then again he was very much engaged towards the end. My oldest said it was funny, and I heard him laughing throughout the film, so I'll take his word he liked it.

The film does not alienate, and it isn't mindless. There is thought put into the story. There are moral lessons in it, and there are characters we all can relate to. This is what makes "Rango" such a good film. There was a lot of thought put into the film, and you can see that. The filmmakers really thought things through and it shows.

Another thing which I liked was that it wasn't in 3-D. The story didn't need it, and it was fine without it. With all the studios tripping over each other to create new 3-D versions of films I found "Rango" refreshing. No gimmick, but good story, good characters, and great filmmaking.

I suggest you see the movie with some young ones and get an extra charge at hearing them laugh and giggle along with yourself because for an hour and forty-seven minutes you'll be a kid again too. That's the magic of the movie "Rango", and that's why I recommend it highly.

Elizabeth Taylor (1932-2011)

2011-03-23T20:57:00.000-04:00

Not only was she an icon, but she was a good human being. Her work for and on behalf of AIDS charities will never be forgotten. She was a class act, and a great performer. She will be missed.

Red Dawn Remake Re-vamped

2011-03-16T20:08:00.001-04:00

Okay so I hear that the studio MGM is re-vamping it's film "Red Dawn" to have North Korean invaders instead of Chinese invaders. First off MGM shot this way back in 2009 and shelved the film because of money issues with the company. Now the studio is spending money to change Chinese insignias with Korean insignias, and replacing dialogue to fit the re-vamp.

First off I don't know why re-making a movie like "Red Dawn" was done, but since that ship has sailed I figured maybe its one more way to sell a so-so film to a more youthful market. Then I heard that John Milus the man behind the original "Red Dawn" was co-writing a novel with New York Times bestselling author Raymond Benson called "Homefront". This is to coincide with Core Games releasing a video game called "Home Front".

"Homefront represents a fascinating vision of the near future,” added John Milius. “After completing my work on the game, it became clear that there were many more stories to tell, and this book will offer a chilling look at this near-future world.”

So now that I hear that a studio is re-vamping its re-make of "Red Dawn" to have North Korean soldiers invading the United States you can see that maybe this is an example of "Transmedia" marketing.

Which brings me back to the conference I was just at about two weeks ago where such people as Ted Hope, Christine Vachon, Frank Rose, and Lance Weiler talked about independent filmmakers and storytellers using trans media to further its audience reach.

Now I'm not sure if MGM, and Core Games, along with some other studio will see an opportunity to market the film, the game, and the novel, but if this doesn't scream transmedia I don't know what does.

I have not seen a frame of the film, and I am a fan of the original "Red Dawn" film. it is one of my guilty pleasures, and the dialogue in the film is just so great. Especially when Harry Dean Statton cries out to his boys: "avenge me, AVENGE ME!" I mean really how fun is that. I even still watch it when it's on cable. Hey it has Patrick Swayze, C. Thomas Howell, Lea Thompson, Charlie Sheen, and even Jennifer Grey. Personally my favorite actors in the film are Ben Johnson, Harry Dean Stanton, and Powers Boothe. It's just a fun film to watch sometimes. I used to watch it with my father-in-law and we had so much fun when it was on. Dad would always get a kick out of me yelling the dialogue out. Maybe its a guy thing that I like it so much or maybe its the fond memories of me and dad watching the film, but I'm getting way off point with this. Needless to say its an interesting film.

So maybe someone somewhere who has juice can pull it off. The marriage for the re-make of the film, and the release of the game seem almost too good to pass up. Add the novelization, and you have a cross-platform release of a film that may or may not be good, but it would certainly be an interesting way to market a film that may have a built-in audience.

The LA Times has a more in-depth article about the re-vamping of the remake of "Red Dawn", and it's more about the financial aspects of the studio. Still I think there is an opportunity here for a transmedia marketing event. Only time will tell I guess.

Mars Needs Moms (2011)

2011-03-14T20:58:00.003-04:00

Let's here it for moms! This film celebrates those moms who work tirelessly at home raising us, and getting no respect from their offspring. It was a quiet weekend and the boys wanted to see "Mars Needs Moms", so since I'm not one to say no to a movie we all went. It was time well spent, and we all laughed. The film is about Martians needing moms because you see they’re incapable of raising their own offspring, which every so often emerge from the ground. Yeah I know, I know from the ground? What are the people at Walt Disney studios smoking? I mean really Martian babies from Mars itself? But remember it’s a film for the kids, and my two boys didn't blink. So what the heck. Suspension of belief is the name of the game, and funny thing is it works. The film gets to the point, and the action starts soon after, and that's all that matters. My boys seemed enraptured by the Martian world, and they said they looked cool. My boys especially liked the boy Martians who lived in the junkyard.

But I'm getting ahead of myself, and I'm revealing a bit too much, and I don't want to do that. I didn't expect too much from the film, but it does have its touching moments, and it does have a message in it. That message is Moms are the best", and with simple logic like that who can argue with it.

In essence it about a boy out to save his mom, and how heroic is that. Every young boy wants to do that, and the film feeds on that. It even has a message about uniformity and the beauty of individuality, but don't quote me on it. It's just a fun movie, and it does what it’s suppose to do.

The animation style is interesting, but there is no wow factor. Maybe because we've seen it already and it's nothing new. Maybe we're all a bit jaded. It's the same technology Robert Zemeckis used for the movie "Polar Express". Zemeckis is a producer on this film as well. The use of real actors is unique and adds to the look of the film. I think Joan Cusack does a great job as the mom, and Seth Green is pretty good as the boy. The filmmakers its seems replaced Green's dialogue after the production was finished due to him not sounding like a little kid. This does not distract from the film, and it is enjoyable to watch. Dan Fogler does a good job as Gribble too, and he's pretty funny as well.

So is it worth it? I have to say if your have boys who like sci-fi and adventure I'd say yes. It's a good family picture, and it's fun to watch. There's enough here to satisfy all, and when all is said and done "Moms do rule". Enjoy!

Cost of a Soul

2011-03-11T19:11:00.005-05:00

Local filmmaker Sean Kirkpatrick is getting his film (Cost of a Soul) released in 50 AMC theaters nationwide on April 15th. It's good to hear about a local guy getting his due. Take a look at the trailer below, and on April 15th support Philly film making.

Kirkpatrick’s film was shot in Philadelphia and it stars Chris Kerson and Will Blagrove. The story is about two Iraq war veterans who struggle upon returning to Philadelphia after their discharge, and who cross paths in a very dramatic way.

DIY Conference NYC

2011-03-09T18:05:00.001-05:00

Last weekend I went to the DIY conference at the New School in New York. This was my second time at a DIY conference. The first was here in Philadelphia, and both times I was very inspired by the crowd, and the guest lecturers. For those who are not familiar with the DIY conferences it is a roving conference that happens across the United States. "The workbook Project is for those who want to be creative in the digital age. An open creative network that provides insight into the process of funding, creating, distributing and sustaining from one's creative efforts".

Lance Weiler is the founder of the Workbook Project and also a story architect of film, TV and games. Lance is the one who started it and it has become a very impressive forum to voice ideas, and to network with other digital artists. Frank Rose gave the keynote lecture about "The Art of Immersion" which was fascinating. Mr. Rose discussed examples on how the audience became involved with the story and characters. In essence making the audience participate in the story. Lance Weiler talked about his new project "Pandemic", and how they used Transmedia to tell a story and get the audience to participate and evolve the storyline. Dr. Nicholas Diakopoulos talked about story through statistics, and if it sounds boring it was anything but. Molly Crabapple discussed her "Dr. Sketchy" empire, and how she achieved it. She was one of my favorites, and she gave an inspiring speech. It was very thought provoking, and revealing.

Brian Newman gave a great lecture about "Net Neutrality", and really entertained the audience with his colorful and passionate speech about those who threaten the net by eliminating access to it.

I could go on, and on, but the guests and the lectures were as always inspiring, and it made one think. Between the guests there were people who would stand up and who are in need of services, and hopping to try and connect with others. That's what DIY network is all about. It's getting artists of all types together to collaborate on their projects.

I even met a young lady by the name of Bea Hundal is VP of Digital AAJA-NY and is a broadcast journalist at BBC News. I gave her a copy of my feature, which I had and we talked a bit about digital media. So you see you never know who you'll met and talk to. The people who attend this conference are passionate people who have such a wealth of knowledge, and that's what makes this event so awesome.

There are no pretenses here. Everyone shares, and everyone is looking to further the cause of DIY. In the end you come out of the seminar energized and filled with ideas. Hopefully you've made some interesting contacts that will help you and your project get off the ground. The event is simulcast through the web also, so those in different locations can take part in the event. The event is free, and it is open to all. You can bet that the next time they have another DIY seminar I'll be there again. I just have one request and that is come to Philadelphia again guys. We have people here who are starving for new ideas, and we have the venues to showcase the DIY spirit. Till next time I'll be waiting, and creating.

Don't Let Me Drown (2009)

2011-03-01T19:46:00.004-05:00

I caught this on HBO the other day and I was very impressed, and quite taken by this film. "Don't let Me Drown" is the story of two Latino kids who fall in love in a post 911 New York. The film is directed by Cruz Angeles, and it is also written by him and Maria Topete. The film is beautifully shot by Chad Davidson, and it uses it's New York locations well. Both families are from working class parents who in some way are touched by the events of 911. The filmmakers in an interview had an idea about the film as they saw events transpire in New York. It reminded of them when they were growing up in Los Angeles during the crack epidemic where fear and violence was a common thing. The director Mr Angeles said in an interview that after the events of 911 fear seemed to sweep the city, and it affected many people. In the film the two families are knee deep in the 911 events. One family has lost a daughter, and the other whose dad was a custodian in the towers is now cleaning up at the site, and being affected by the dust. Both are powerful stories in their own right, but combining the two stories makes the story even more powerful.

There have been several films dealing with the 911 events, but this story is about a love story with two people from different sides of the fence. I have to say that part of this film that really touched my heart was that the film took place in my old neighborhood in New York. I recognized locations, and it brought 911 all back to me. Another viewer probably wouldn't get the nuances that the filmmaker use by using these locations, but I applaud them for having done so. It makes the film more real, and authentic.

The screenplay was developed by the Sundance Institute, and it shows in the quality in the writing, and in the performances of the actors. Both E.J. Bonilla as Lalo and Gleendilys Inoa as Stephanie do a remarkable job here. I buy their performances and they make it real for me. All the other performers in this film also feel authentic and real, and that's all on them. Damián Alcázar, Gina Torres, Yareli Arizmendi, and Ricardo Chavira all give powerful performances in the film. If I can point out one outstanding performance here it's Ricardo Chavira as Dionisio who really gives it his all. You see anger, frustration, grief, and helplessness all in his face, and you feel for the man even when he gets violent. The film is raw, and it doesn't flinch in its portrayal of its characters. All of the characters are noble and are just trying to get past the day, and hold onto their families. It's this that makes the film so watchable. You want a happy ending here, and in a way you get it, but its an ending based in reality. There are no sunsets to walk into. There is just the day, and the hope that love can push grief and loss away.

The film does have humor in it also and it makes us laugh at how the characters react to different situations. How the young generation looks at the old generation is one endearing and at times laughable. It's this that cements the film as one of those films that gets itself. The background is 911 after all, and its hard to find any humor in that subject, but by showing how we all get through grief and tragedy with some humor it shows how human we really all are. This is what makes the film hit home. At the end of the film I wanted more. I didn't want to leave the characters. I wanted more, and yet it's as it should be. We should be wanting more, but the filmmakers have no ending here. The characters ending is another day with the promise that love will get them through it, and in the end isn't that how we all try and live our lives?

If you get a chance to see this film see it. I don't think you'll regret it. There is some Spanish in the film that is subtitled for us non-speaking Spanish people, but again this only adds to the film. As I've said before it adds to the authenticity of the film, and it doesn't interfere with the enjoyment of the film. It only makes you love it more. Very highly recommended.

Back into the past

2011-02-27T15:38:00.000-05:00

CCI-Highlights from Karl Bauer on Vimeo.

This is just highlights of a program I did for where I used to work back in the 90's. Learned a lot here, and worked like a dog. From lighting, to graphics we did it all at the Computer Channel. I worked for a great producer by the name of Steven Lyshior. It's been awhile, but I just got around to digitize some footage, and figured I throw it up here. Learned how to create cheap sets that looked awesome, and all it took was a trip to your local Home Depot.

The graphics nowadays are a lot more sophisticated. I remember running the computer over-night to render certain effects. All shows were also cut on "The Cube" a non-linear edit system that no longer exists. The Immix Video Cube had a control surface with faders to allow mixing and shuttle controls without the purchase of third party controller. It's amazing to realize that what was done back then could be done with off the shelf non-linear editors, and prosumer cameras now.

Gnomeo & Juliet (2011)

2011-02-21T20:32:00.002-05:00

What does one do when the kids are off from school, and it's a birthday to boot. Well one heads to the cinema for some laughs. So the family headed out to see Disney's latest "Gnomeo & Juliet", and we were not disappointed.

The film is a send up on "Romeo & Juliet", only with garden gnomes. Hey I was skeptical at first, but it was the only film out there that was decent for the kids to watch, and you know what it was kind of cute. There I said it. It wasn't offensive, and it didn't totally stink. In fact Sir Elton John is one of the people who is responsible for this making it to the screen, and his songs are all over this film. Sir Elton's creative hands are all over this film, and he does a good job at keeping us entertained. Their are voices by Michael Caine, Maggie Smith ,Jason Statham, Patrick Stewart, and even Ozzy Osbourne. With talent like this it can't be all that bad, and it isn't. The film runs a brisk 84 minutes and in the film there are some funny bits, and it even has some moral lesson that we are all the same no matter what color we are. In this case it's blue and red, but you get the message.

The film is to entertain a younger audience. It has some jokes that adults would find funny and it does it tactfully. Seeing it with a bunch of kids is half the fun, so I would recommend bringing the nieces and nephews. I know I enjoyed hearing my own kids laugh at the action and if a movie can do that it's worth seeing just to hear that.

This film is being released in 3D and 2D, and we saw the 2D version, and we're fine with that. I can't say that the 3D would have enhanced this film at all, but that seems to be a personal choice. If you like 3D and can't get enough I'd say see it, but if you want to save a few bucks you won't miss it with this film.

All in all I enjoyed the flick, and it was great being a kid again and giggling with the family.

The Losers (2010)

2011-02-20T13:15:00.001-05:00

Finally saw the film "The Losers" on HBO last night, and I have to say it was entertaining. Where you think it is just another action-adventure film with explosions and firearms you won't be too off base, but the film the Losers has something else. That something else is humor and some good acting also. It's a simple revenge flick where "After being betrayed and left for dead, members of a CIA black ops team root out those who targeted them for assassination."

That said about the plot the film has some pretty funny moments among its actors. There is a real chemistry between the actors, and the banter back and forth is amusing. It makes one like the characters and want to see more. The one scene where the actor Chris Evans goes in to infiltrate a computer company is pretty funny, and the fight between Zoe Saldana as Aisha, and Jeffrey Dean Morgan as Clay is amusing to watch.

I think this is what makes this film stand out from your typical action adventure film. The film is based on a comic book, and it's beginning credits pays tribute to that by showing the characters in cartoon form. I had never heard of "the Losers" before, and it has peeked my interest in the comic book series.

The film is directed by Sylvain White who does a great job with the action sequences. I would also be re-miss if I didn't mention Jason Patric performance as Max the bad guy. He is funny and reeks of villainy, and you can see Mr. Patric is having some fun here. That's what makes the film so watchable. It's just fun. The actors play the parts tongue in cheek, and it works. This is not a serious film. This is a film where your suppose to have some fun at, and everyone from the director to the cast know it. If you get a chance and you want to see some fun on the screen I wouldn't hesitate to see this film. Where the film "The Expendables" goes wrong, "The Losers" doesn't. It's a lot better and you have the sense that everyone in it is having a great time. You will too I'm sure.

Possession (2002)

2011-02-19T11:04:00.002-05:00

I caught this late at night on cable, and I found myself quite involved in the plot of the movie. The film is about:

"A pair of literary sleuths unearth the amorous secret of two Victorian poets only to find themselves falling under a passionate spell."

The film stars Gwyneth Paltrow as Maud Bailey, and Aaron Eckhart as Roland Mitchell who are the two literary sleuths. Jeremy Northam plays Randolph Henry Ash, and Jennifer Ehle plays Christabel LaMotte who are the two Victorian poets. There are some really good performances here and the plot is one where we are really interested in finding out about the two poets love affair. There is deceit, and betrayal in the film, and in a way this propels the story forward. The director Neil LaBute does an interesting job at tying the two stories together. Watching Eckart and Paltrow is also very interesting, and I have to say both look stunning when they are on screen. Both performers give a depth to their characters which make the audience want to follow them on their literary sleuthing.

Of course the performances of both Jeremy Northam, Jennifer Ehle, and Lena Headey are also without fault. The film treats its literary origins with remarkable respect, and does make the viewer long for the days when human expressed themselves in letters. It is this part of the film where I really thought the film was interesting. There are scholars who study poets, and writers through their work and their correspondences. We live in an age where the art of writing has seemingly gone away. Letters to one another is no longer a sought after commodity. Instead we write notes that seem to be short and less descriptive in our feelings. Emails, and instant communications have killed the art of good letter writing, and it seems to be a loss for mankind. I can still remember a day when a letter would come from a friend or loved one and one would be excited by it. Now with mass communication being what it is I feel we have lost something in our correspondence with each other. This film shows us a different era where words had the power to move individuals to do extraordinary things.

The film also is a statement about poets and poetry. In one scene Echkart's character says that their are no more poets, and in a way he is right. Not like there was earlier when the written word had more power. Maybe LaBute wanted us to think about this while the stories played out up on the screen. It is a mesage that permutates the film. The film is from the novel by A.S. Byatt, and is executive produced by Barry Levinson.

The cinematography by Jean-Yves Escoffier , and it is beautifully shot. The production design is stunning and is by Luciana Arrighi. The film is slow and well paced, and if your not into talky romantic films this film may not be for you, but it does have a good story. The performances are really good, and it does seem to have a point. Anyone who loves the written word will love this film.

I was surprised how much I liked it. I'm not a big fan of Mr. Labute. His two films which I really despise are In the Company of Men, and Your Friends & Neighbors . I also did not like his take on the film The Wicker Man. I mean why mess with a classic, and after seeing LaBute's version you'll appreciate the original so much more. But that's for another discussion. To say I was surprised that LaBute directed this is an understatement. He does the material some justice here, and the film is a really fascinating to look at and the characters are compelling to watch. All in all if your a die heart romantic you'll love this film.

Character vs. Content

2011-02-18T15:37:00.002-05:00

I've been looking at movies, TV shows, and cable series lately. I've been watching them and have found out that a lot of what I like in these shows are the characters in them. Of course series shows on TV have a distinct advantage over movies and that is we follow a character or characters through the course of a season. Movies can only get it right in about two hours and it's all on the director and actor to make sure that the audience follows our protagonist throughout the film. I'm not going to say one is easier then the other. There are some series that do it right, and there are some series that fail to illicit our attention. In movies I've always gone by the rule that if I am not convinced in the first ten minutes of the film that I'm interested in the character or characters I lose my attention to the story. If I don't believe in a character in a series I change the station, so some series on TV have to meld content and character together by drawing in the audience slowly, but having a hook in the first ten minutes. Movies also do this but not as quick as TV or cable does.

In a series the producer may have a story arc he or she follows that was created by the series creator. Most successful TV shows have these. The more the creator knows where he or she wants to take the story the better the character arc is. Movies on the other hand are story centric. It's usually up to the actor to get the performance the director wants of the character he or she is playing. Usually this is done before the cameras even start rolling. In rehearsal and readings the actor and director talk about the character and what that character is feeling and his or her motivation. Through these readings and rehearsals the actor comes up with a sort of profile of the character they are playing.

In a series this happens in readings, and rehearsals too, but in TV time is short because your producing several episodes of a story or stories. Maybe the episodes are connected, but usually the story is new. It is in episodic TV where the actor can slowly work in his or her performance. An example of this would be NCSI. The actors on that series have been with us for a awhile, and there have even been actors who have left the series, yet what NCSI does is that we as an audience "like" the characters they play. The banter between the characters in the series provides us with some personnel information of the characters, which we like.

The writers use this to create engaging stories, yet it's interesting to see what the actor comes up with as his or her performances evolve in the series.

In movies it's a bit quicker. An actor needs to know what the character does, what his or her back story is. Usually this helps their performances and helps propel the story forward. I remember talking to actors on my feature and the one thing I regret is that I didn't have more rehearsal time. What saved me was that I had some great actors who took the time to talk amongst themselves about their characters. They would run it past me, and I would usually help fill in the blanks of what I thought. This helped since I was the writer, but I do believe that if I had rehearsed a bit longer I would have gotten a stronger story out of it. Nuances in characters is the key sometimes. The way an actor walks, and the way their character re-acts to situations can tell volumes about their character, which enrich the story.

Series have a distinct advantage there, but the one thing they do have to do is tell "good" stories" that rivet the audience to the couch. It's really hard to do this in 45 minutes, yet some successful series like "Blue Bloods, "NCSI", and "CSI: Las Vegas" do so perfectly. This is even harder in half hour shows known as sit-coms. Some sit-coms that have really done this are "MASH", 'All in the Family", "Alice", "Family Ties", and "Maude" just to name a few. In all of these sit-coms the actors themselves had to bring out the characters in the story. Of course this was done with some talented writers, producers and directors. Chemistry between actors and other talent is important, and using professional actors makes ones life easier. Actors who know their craft and who continue to study their art can make a semi-interesting story something that resonates with its audience.

So what am I trying to say here? Is story important? Is character important? I think it's a bit of both. If the audience doesn't identify with a protagonist how can they elicit sympathy for that character. Eventually they loose interest in the story, and that is something you don't want as a producer or director. As a writer always re-write, and as a director always be open to ideas that actors bring to a character. It can make a so-so story into a strong story, and a good story into a better story.

The Center of the World (2001)

2011-01-31T23:33:00.001-05:00

I caught this film on IFC on demand, and I got sucked into the film slowly. The film is directed by Wayne Wang a director I am familiar with, but I haven't seen much of his work. His films The Joy Luck Club, Chan Is Missing, Blue in the Face, and Smoke are indie favorites.   The Center of the World is a sort of erotic tale between a women and man and their three nights in Vegas.    The plot of the film is described best here:

"A San Francisco computer wizard, who has made his millions in the digital world, meets a beautiful stripper at a gentleman's club. Immediately attracted to each other, the two take off for Las Vegas, where, for three days, they explore the limits of their sexuality and the nature of passion and pleasure"

The interesting thing here is the characters. There is quite a bit of sex, and male and female nudity in the film, but that's not what makes the film so compelling to watch. This film isn't for the raincoat crowd. In fact sometimes the sex gets in the way and some scenes do play on a bit too long. There are two scenes which are liked were when the characters confess a truth about themselves in conversation. Those two scenes seemed to ring true to me, and more of that was lacking in the film. I'm sure the film was exploited for its mature content, but I would be doing this film a big disservice if I said that this film is nothing more then a sexually explicit film and nothing else.

The film is about two characters who seem to be drawn to each other. Money and sex are the catalyst that put them together, but their is something else, which the movie never quite delves into that draws them together.  Florence is played by Molly Parker , and Richard is played by Peter Sarsgaard. These two actors do a wonderful job inhabiting their characters. It makes the movie compelling to watch. I'm sure with lesser actors this would not have been such an interesting film.

Like I said the film does drag in spots, and I do feel Wayne Wang puts filler in as we see our characters wandering Las Vegas.  I would have liked more honest dialogue between the two and to know why they are this way, and who they really are. But I'm not going to say don't see this film because of its weak points. I like the honesty of the characters and some of the erotic scenes are interesting. Both actors are beautiful, and there is no averting ones eyes when their on screen. You are almost a voyeur of sorts, and the director does this on purpose. It's that voyeuristic feeling that compels the audience to watch.

In the end the film is open ended. You decide how you think it goes. Their is no moral high ground here. Sex is for pleasure in this film, and it shows how we sometimes define it as love or lust.   The film shows that there is a fine line between lust and love, and that both are not necessarily bad. The film was shot on digital video and the photography is pretty intimate, which adds to the films appeal.

If your interested in compelling characters and some erotic imagery I think you'll like the film. The film was written by four individuals including the director Wayne Wang. Also I was pleasantly surprised to see Miranda July as one of the writers here. I consider Ms July a very good filmmaker in her own right and her film Me and You and Everyone We Know is a superb film. I believe that it is Miranda July's and Ms Siri Hustvedt's writing that makes it ring true. They bring a women's perspective, and maybe that's what makes the film so viewable. All in all A good film, and one that shouldn't be overlooked.

Blue Valentine (2010)

2011-01-27T17:59:00.000-05:00

While watching Blue Valentine I became engrossed in the characters. Ryan Gosling and Michelle Williams play Dean and Cindy. The movie is divided into past and present. We are shown how the two met and the circumstances that lead up to their marriage. The other half of the film is how they deal with the marriage falling apart. Director Derek Cianfrance does this in increments throughout the film, and he weaves it all together nicely. First off the performances by Gosling and Williams are dead on, and you can see that they really inhabited the characters, and made them their own. The film is 112 minutes and in some way I feel that it goes on a bit too long. I'm not saying I hated it for its length what I didn't like is the pacing of it. It felt a bit too showy for me and that the actors and the director were trying just a bit too hard.

In the story the couple have fallen into a rut, and both seem complicit in the marriages demise, but for there to be so much drama in the story seemed like the writers were putting everything but the kitchen sink into the film. Cindy's problem is that Dean seems to be happy with just being, and he seems to have no ambitions. He is a man who works as a painter, and a mover at times, and though he seems to have other talents he does not use them. He is happy to be in a family helping to raise his daughter, and love his wife.   I don't know if this is so much of a problem. Dean's character seems to be a straight up decent guy. Now there are other factors that may make Dean something of a problem, but the movie only hints of these problems. One is his drinking. He does not come off as an alcholic, or an abuser of liquor, but in an argument with Cindy he dismisses it as occasional. In the end he does show up drunk at Cindy's work, and things escalate from there, but again I didn't see all of Dean's faults.

Cindy on the other and seems happy when they marry as we see in clips, but somewhere something changes in her. Her Grandma plays a significant part in her life, and in the beginning she talks about falling in love and how does it feel. I really liked the scenes with Grandma played by Jen Jones and Michelle Williams. I felt that there was something left out that we needed to know. We see that Cindy's home life is not that of Ozzie and Harriet.  It seems that both her mother and father have a rocky marriage and one were arguments happen more then talk.

Like I said we as the audience we are given clues, and glimpses of where these characters come from, yet everything doesn't add up to the total melt down of Cindy and Dean's marriage. I've heard that the script had been re-written several times due to other actors being involved. Maybe something got lost, but there seems to be something missing.

Don't get me wrong I kind of liked seeing this film. It's a hard film to sit through. The performances seems very real, and I really thing Ryan Gosling should get a nod for his performance as Dean. Ms Williams is already nominated for an Oscar, and to leave Gosling out seems wrong.    Originally the film got an NC-17 rating due to explicit sexual content, but I don't see where. I thought the scenes between the two were original and pretty raw and honest. The camera is always in close-up and we watch the emotions on the actors face, and feel their emotions. These scenes make the film so reverting to watch.

It true that I did want to see Cindy and Dean get it together and pull through as a couple, and there is a scene towards the end with Gosling as his daughter tells him to stay which is just heartbreaking. But then maybe the film wouldn't be as honest as it is. I so wanted to stay longer and see what happens to Dean and Cindy, and maybe that's the movies true meaning. Life does not always have happy endings.

A note about the cinematography here. The past performances were filmed on film, while the present day was shot on digital video. Derek Cianfrance does this so well, and the blending of the two mediums give a feeling of different times between the characters. I don't know if it is the color or just the way it feels but the two distinct time periods give two emotional vibes that the director uses very effectively.

All in all I really liked the film, and I can't say I hated it. The performances are strong, the production value is beautiful, and the the characters are people you might know, which brought it home for me. If you get a chance see the film, and see for yourself. I have this one warning though. After watching it you will think differently, and the characters will stay with you for some time after the movie, and maybe that's a good thing.

The Social Network (2010)

2011-01-27T00:15:00.000-05:00

After watching David Fincher's film "The Social Network" I have to say that along with Aaron Sorkin's screenplay the film really involves its audience in the characters circumstances. I did not really come to this film expecting anything, but I found myself very involved in the characters.

The story takes place in flash back mostly, but the way Fincher does it you don't mind at all, and it does not draw you out of the movie by doing so. Mark Zuckerberg the creator of Facebook is drawn with a very brood brush. You wonder if any of the film is based on actual events, or whether it's taken from many different accounts. I would assume that the filmmakers painted the characters in brood strokes due the fact that the characters in the movie are based on actual people who are still alive and working. Being that we live in a very litigious society I would think that the filmmakers are walking a tightrope of sorts. Still this does not distract from the story. The story is strong, and when you strip it all down the story is about two friends who betray each other.

How Fincher shows Zuckerberg create Facebook is remarkable. You are drawn into the creation of what would become a successful venture beyond any ones expectations. Even its creator, and that's what makes it fascinating. The characters are the ones we are so drawn to. Fincher portrays Zuckerberg as a driven individual who is very gifted in computer programming, yet lacks the social skills to deal with people. Every innovator or inventor had a vision and Fincher shows Zuckerberg as that individual. The flaw of our hero is his social graces. What Zuckerberg wants he gets. Zuckerberg's vision is all consuming and their is a cost to that and Finchers shows what that cost is. Our characters are not evil or good. They are just driven individuals and Fincher shows us even before the creation of Facebook that we are a society driven by class, and status. Fincher and Sorkin do a remarkable job at holding up a mirror to all of us and showing us that our love of status is what fuels Facebook itself.

The cinematography is sepia in tone or it feels that way. There are no bright colors in this film, and it's pace goes back and forth from future to past with ease. The dialogue is crisp, and the characters are engaging.

I cannot find any faults to this film. In fact it sort of scares me. How a simple invention like Facebook can dominate a landscape such as ours. Zuckerberg is not guilty in creating something like Facebook. He is only its inventor, and he saw that it had a life of its own through its users. Early in the film we see that in some way Zuckerberg was driven by status. It happens right in the beginning of the film when Zuckerberg's girlfriend ends their relationship. Through their dialogue you can hear our main character talk about status, and worth. It's a set-up for the whole film to come, and Fincher does it so well.

What "the Social Network" ultimately does is that it creates some interesting characters who create a phenomenon known as Facebook. Whether Facebook is good or bad is still too early to tell, and in a way we are all complicit in Facebooks success. The movie itself does not hold any judgement to anyone of the characters. Instead it shows us how we were the ones who created the monster in the first place, and whose to say that it is a monster. Maybe it’s just evolution, and Facebooks time has come and Zuckerberg was the only one who could see that. Either way it's a very well made movie and quite engaging. Jesse Eisenberg gives a wonderful performance as Zuckerberg, and I also liked Andrew Garfield who plays his best friend Eduardo Saverin. I do believe that the writing will get an Oscar for Aaron Sorkin. Also Justin Timberlake is good as Sean Parker, and critics should take note of that. All in all a very well worth movie to watch, and one that exhilarates and frightens at the same time, but only in a sutile way, and that's what makes "The Social Network" a very good film.

The Angry Nerd Guy!

2011-01-22T13:35:00.000-05:00

His name is James Rolfe, and I've been watching some of his videos as the character "The Angry video game Nerd". He reviews video games of past and present, and he has a large fan base. Mr. Rolfe did this for fun way back when, and it mushroomed on him and he now does it for pay. Rolfe wants to be a filmmaker, and has announced his intention to make a film based on his character "the angry video nerd guy".

I think that is awesome, and it shows how one man's cleaver invention has become something popular among fans. His fans get him, and see his love for what he does. That's why his fan base is so big and strong. Theirs no bullshit here if you pardon my expletive, and the fans see that. Rolfe is a very good filmmaker just by his videos alone. They are well edited, shot well, and written.

I look forward to seeing some more of his videos. I'm not a huge fan of video games myself, and I cannot imagine the time Mr. Rolfe puts in to creating even one of his videos. These videos are intricate, and yes he does play every last one of them. Right there he should be given an award just for doing so. Rolfe is amusing, and funny, and I've laughed more then once at his antics. I wish him all the best, and hope to see more of him with more personal projects in the future.

His website is at Cinemassacre Productions. You'll find tons of videos there that will amuse you. My favorites of course are the ones that are movie based, but his game reviews are funny as well. I wish him and his team much success.

And this should serve as an example on how doing something you love to do becomes something bigger, and eventually a career.

Nice Guy Johnny (2010)

2011-01-14T22:20:00.001-05:00

After watching "Nice Guy Johnny" I thought to myself this is what niche film making is all about. What niche you ask? The niche of "twenty something angst" movies.   There seems to be a lot of movies that have come and gone, and I can only classify them in that category. These movies are not to be confused with "teenage angst" movies. Those two types of genres are completely different. In the "teenage angst" movies it's all about authority, and sticking it to those who have authority over them. Parents, teachers, and pretty much any grown up above 18. "Twenty something angst" movies are about the many choices one has in life and picking that choice even though it may not be the grown up thing to do. Usually "twenty something angst" films deal with careers, love, and or sex. "Nice Guy Johnny" is about career, sex, and being happy doing what you love, and not letting society dictate to you on how to be happy.

These are all good subjects and have been explored throughout cinematic history. Cassavetes did it with his first film "Shadows."   Director Mike Nichols did it in "The Graduate". I mention these films because they are far superior films then Nice Guy Johnny. Now I'm not saying I hated the film. I respected the work, and all in all the production is well done, and well made. It was reported that the film was done for $25K, and it looks very good for a film made for that much money. But I'm thinking it's more of a publicity stunt to garner press for the movie then it is the actual budget. The film looks really good, and I doubt that if you add up all the deferments that the cast and crew took took while making this film you would find that the budget is much higher then reported. That's not a bad thing and it certainly doesn't make this film a bad film. What does make the film a poorer film then the other films I've mentioned is the incessant music that comes up forcing the audiences emotion. Once in a while that is okay, but the filmmakers hit us over the head with one tune after another. The only reason I can explain the music is that the filmmakers want to push the soundtrack as well as the film, which is fine, but don't tell me that it's great film making when you use the music as a crutch.

The interesting thing about this movie is that Edward Burns the director has released this to the web first, and has bypassed conventional film distribution, and I think that this is the one thing that sets this film apart from others. As I explained it's a niche genre, and by targeting your audience directly through the web Burns builds on a built in audience. It's what a smart filmmaker does when faced with such diverse products that both cable, the Internet, and film studios churn out. In interviews Burns says that it is the future of how films will be distributed in the future by filmmakers themselves. The deal with "Nice Guy Johnny" is that Burns leases the film to companies and he doesn't give up his ownership in the film. In time he will build a library of films that he can sell, and that will hopefully make him and his investors money. It sounds like a very smart business plan, and it will be curious to see how it plays out, and if it can be a viable way to make films in the future.

Burns is no stranger to releasing a film this way. His film "Purple Violets" was released on itunes first. There have been no figures on how much was made, and who made what, but apparently it was successful to a point, hence his release of "Nice Guy Johnny" in almost the same way.

There is more wrong with the film then right, but it still is a very nice and sweet film about "twenty something angst". Edward Burns even plays a part in it, and he's pretty funny in it, but it's nothing we haven't seen from Burns before. The best performances in the film were Kerry Bishé as Brooke, and Max Baker in a small part as Max.  I wasn't a big fan of Matt Bush who plays Johnny. At times I thought his character got on my nerves, and he played too "nice".   I mean there is a scene when he is talking to his fiance's father, and you just want him to explode and make a definitive gesture about his independence, and his love for what he does.   Marsha Dietlein plays Nicole (the fiance) and she plays it as a stereotype.  It would have been more interesting to see some more depth there, but there was none in the screenplay so I can't fault her there.

This brings me to story.  I loved the theme, and I love what the story is about. Passion for ones love (career, relationship, or other).  I feel it falls flat.   I hate that the characters are all one dimensional, and that there is no surprise for us. It's all so typical, and the ending is seen coming a mile away. That's why I'm not a big fan of this film. If you like this type of movie I think you'll enjoy it.  Maybe you have to be a certain age to really love this film, but to me it says nothing new, and it does it poorly. Other films do it better.

With that said I'm a big fan of Edward Burns. I loved his film "The Brothers McMullen".    Even "She's the One" is a favorite of mine.  Burns is a good filmmaker and with good material Burns hits home runs, so I'm sure he'll do so again. So if you like films that are whimsical, and about "twenty something angst" you may like this film. For me it lays flat, so I can't recommend it.

Goodnight Siagon

2011-01-13T22:36:00.001-05:00

This is a video I did way back when I was in college. It was a final project in my TV production class. It was done live, and there is no editing. I left everything the way it was. I was pretty interested in the era of Vietnam. Even wrote a script about a platoon of soldiers fighting in Vietnam, and their day to day adventures. It wasn't very good and it sits somewhere gathering dust, but soon after "Platoon" came out, and the film was everywhere. Oliver Stone's film was one of my favorites, and it was a great story.

This video is a small tribute to the men who fought in Vietnam. I even met some and talked with them about the war and how they returned back to civilian life. Those stories still reverberate in the old mind. Especially now with the conflicts that we as a nation are in now. My buddy Marty was the guy who played in the production, and he did a pretty good job. I was happy with it, and after getting my grade I threw the tape in a drawer and forgot about it. I just recently found it, and so hence before it goes into "video oblivion" I figured I post it here. The project was done live, and as the song plays we had to cue Marty as to whether he was on camera or not. The whole class participated and each student had his or her crew position. It worked out well, and looking back at it we learned a lot in those production classes back at Brooklyn College. Anyway I figured I post it. It's all part of the collective now, and maybe that's where it should be.

I said it then, and I'll say it now. To all the veterans past and present. Thank-you for your service and sacrifice. You are always remembered. God Bless.

Bridging the Generations

2011-01-08T00:41:00.000-05:00

Bridging the Generations: Korean War vets from Karl Bauer on Vimeo.

This was done my first year I worked for the Lenepe Regional school district. It was done quickly. It's still very engaging to hear about these men's adventures. A teacher was involved in getting the veterans. We had a student crew, and I produced & directed it from our small TV studio in the school. Figured it belongs up here as previous work, and its something that interests me. I had some very interesting conversations with the veterans while taping the shows.

A Look Back to the future?

2011-01-07T14:42:00.000-05:00

Early Work from Karl Bauer on Vimeo.

I've been digitizing some old reels and projects. After seeing this it's amazing what we did before NLE editing. The two commercials from the cable association, and Illinois Power actually aired. My movie knowledge helped in that one. The Merrill Lynch one was what they call a "Steal-a-matic". That's where you steal scenes or shots from movies, and other commercials to create a new one so the client can visualize what the agency has in mind. The client didn't want it. All I remember from that project was cutting the audio. One of the guys in my department was a big help, and I really learned a thing or two from the tricks he'd do on the A/B roll edit system.

The last was a college project we had to do. It was my friends project, and we shot it with a very lovely model. It was shot handheld, and that was a big mistake. I think we shot two or three 400 feet rolls of film, and after getting it back we had to edit it. I remember my friend and I sitting at the flat-bed editor for hours cutting to the track she decided to use. We had film hanging like spaghetti all over the editing room. Reminds me how far editing has come. We were all racing to get the project finished before its deadline. The money and time we spent at Kodak, and at the Labs were not to be believed. Thank God for student discounts!

Hi I'm Carl by Jack Tew

2011-01-05T17:06:00.001-05:00

Hi I'm Carl from Jack Tew on Vimeo.

Sometimes you come across things you want to share, and this is one of them. while uploading some new material I came across this short film by Jack Tew. Of course I was interested because of the name of the film and my own name. I figured why not. I have a pet peeve sometimes that Hollywood stereotypes characters called "Karl". Either the character is a moron like Bill Murry's character in "Caddyshack", which I really found funny, or "Carl" is bad guy like in the film "Ghost", or the original "Die Hard". Either way the name seems to have no middle ground. In this short film I liked the character "Carl". I felt for him, and felt his loneliness, and desperation. When the women he fancy's calls his name you just want to cheer. It reminds me of the film "Marty" starring Ernest Borgnine. A great film and one where Borgnine won an Oscar for.

The film was shot with the Canon 7D and it looks sharp. I wasn't too thrilled by some of the lighting where the characters face was in ugly shadow, but the majority of the film is lite well. I would be curious to find out if it was lite with balanced florescent bulbs. What ever it was lite with it does give the feel of a cold and desolate existence, and having worked in places like that I like how the filmmaker conveys this through nuance's in the photography.

The score is wonderful too. Very minimalistic, but quite effective. Stuff like this inspires me, and makes me really want to do more character pieces. Mr. Tew, you rock, and I can't thank you enough for that nice slice of life. It put a smile on my face, and warmed the old heart.

If you like this you'll like Mr. Tew's other short "One Night Stand". It's pretty funny, and well done.

Deadly Obsessions re-cut trailer

2011-01-01T13:49:00.000-05:00

Deadly Obsessions - Revised Trailer from Karl Bauer on Vimeo.

It's been a long time coming, but needed to re-cut my films trailer. So here it is. Now I'm satisfied.

More editing to come of various works. From weddings, to short films, and even some commercials, and old industrials.

Part of the on-line portfolio.

The Red Riding Trilogy (2009)

2011-01-01T00:12:00.001-05:00

Part One hits you with a two by four. Part two kicks you in the privates, and part three wallops you to the ground. That's what the Red Ridding" trilogy does. It is a film that creeps up on you and swallows you whole, and you just hope that you make it to the end.

The "Red Riding" trilogy is based on four crime novels written by the British author David Peace.    The trilogy was adapted by Tony Grisoni, who has worked on several films by Terry Gilliam. Each movie is directed by a different director giving each one a distinct different feeling.    The entire trilogy runs 305 minutes, and if you sit through it one after the other your a better person then I am. The plots are intricate, and sometimes difficult to keep straight, yet it does keep one on his or her toes. Characters come in and out of each episode, and we are thrust back in time and then forward in time at lightning speed. To boil it all down to a theme I would have to say that the "Red Ridding" trilogy is about the evil that men do in the world, and how all are culpable in these deeds including the innocent.

Part one is entitled "1974". there we are introduced to a young reporter who is covering a news about the latest disappearance of a young girl. As he digs he uncovers a pattern, and more and more police corruption.   In Part two labeled "1980" we are introduced to a inspector who is given the job to investigate a rash of murders of women. As he and his team dig deeper he uncovers the truth and how the police are implicated in the murders. More and more corruption is found, and our inspector finds out what is really going on. The last in the trilogy is called "1983" and it is the final installment of the "Red Ridding" saga. Here another inspector in the police department is given the task to investigate the disappearance of another little girl, which is a repeat of what happened in part one.    This inspector is from the inner circle of the police department and is complicit in the cover ups and corruption of what is known as "the North".

The film is a very brooding and telling tale of evil, and how good men do evil things to cover up more evil deeds. The location of this story is in West Yorkshire, the city of Leeds to be specific. Leeds is presented as a featureless location where towns look almost to the point of ruin, and the moors of England are decaying and decrepit. the cinematography is excellent along with the pacing of the film. The feeling of disgust and hopelessness creeps up on you, and makes the film something that the viewer can't turn away from, yet there is a strong compulsion to do so.

The movie is distributed by IFC, and should be seen on video just for the sake of the viewer taking his or her time to view it all, and absorb what is happening. The film was released theatrically in New York, and was accompanied with intermissions, but I salute all who sat through all the viewings at once.  I can only imagine after seeing it for 5 hours that one would feel almost numb.   This is a compliment to the filmmakers. The story and the characters are all reviting to watch.

The film reminded me of those film noirs of the past, only this film hit harder and below the belt. Somethings you never see coming. Now that's not to say that this film is bloody and gross. The murders happen off screen, and we do see bodies, but they are only glimpses, and what we see stays with us. A film dealing with murdered little girls and women is something hard to watch. We are exposed to all kind of depravities in the film, and yet we become more and more numb as the film goes on. We the audience want closure and we are compelled to see it, but this is the real world, and justice is severed differently here. Corruption is rampant, and society seems to be decaying.

In the end the viewer is brought out the other side and there is some sort of closure.   Only there is a cost to our characters. Maybe that's what makes this film so worth seeing. Despite the decay and depravity of it all there is some good.

I'm a big fan of the author Jim Thompson, and this filled certainly reeks of his influence. But also the influence of James Ellroy.

The cast should be mentioned, but they are all good and all should be mentioned when talking about this film. I'll just suffice to say that if you really want to know who is in it see the list on IMDB. The interesting technical aspect of these movies were that they were shot with different formats.

Part one was shot in Super 16mm, and it has a lot of handheld work, and feels very gritty. The second part was shot in 35mm, and feels like your standard police drama, but with a big kick. The third part was shot digitally on the RED camera, and is used very effectively.

All I can say is that these films are well done, and should be seen if your seriously into making films. If you love crime dramas then get ready to be walloped and stunned.

Films like these get me excited and show how good stories can be made by having good material to work with. So if you dare watch these films, and prepare to be amazed, but take it slow. I think it works better that way. One can digest the plot lines and the actions slowly and really get a better scope of the film as a whole if you sit through each one and take your time in seeing the next one. But if you do see it all at once be prepared to be shell shocked. This film pulls no punches and is one riveting story. I highly recommend it.

Complices (Accomplices) 2009

2010-12-26T14:31:00.008-05:00

Accomplices is a movie that is deeply layered. On the surface it's a who done it. A murder mystery about a boy whose body is found flooding in the Seine. On the other hand this movie is about so much more. We meet out cast of characters first as two detectives investigating this young boys death, and then we meet the boy in flashback. The two stories move forward until they meet at the end. In between the story arcs we get to know the characters. Our two investigators played by Gilbert Melki, as Hervé Cagan, and Emmanuelle Devos as Inspector Karine Mangin really bring a three dimensional feel to their characters. Both these actors play so real that you really get to know them, and in a way care about them. Both detectives are in their mid 40's and they have been on the job for some time. There seems to be a bit of chemistry between the two, but the movie isn't about that, and doesn't dwell on that aspect of their relationship. The other story arc is about the young boy who turns out to be a male prostitute (Cyril Descours) , and his young lover Rebecca (Nina Meurisse). As both stories move forward we come closer and closer to the truth, and who killed the young man named Vincent.

What we do know is that the young man dies, and Rebecca is missing. As the two inspectors delve deeper into the mystery we are also privy to some intimate details of the inspectors. How similar they both are, and how each of them carry a burden that almost seems to overwhelm them. The film is directed by Frédéric Mermoud who does a very good job at weaving the two tales together and creating characters that have depth. The movie feels real. It is the only way I can describe it. There is no artificial prompting of audience's emotion through dramatic close-ups, and music swelling at times. No your emotions for the characters are genuine, and not forced. You care for each one, and you feel vested in seeing what the outcome can be even knowing that one character dies. In the end when we find out the truth we also feel for the victim of the crime, and somehow Frédéric Mermoud does this masterfully.

The performances should not be also overlooked here. Both Gilbert Melki, Emmanuelle Devos, Cyril Descours, and Nina Meurisse give exceptional performances of their characters. I bought their characters hook, line and sinker, and maybe that's what makes this film so special. The reality of the film. I even want the young lovers to succeed in their relationship even though I know one is doomed if not both. In the end

Frédéric Mermoud does a wonderful job in rapping the plot up in a very satisfying way. That is no small credit and credit should be given to both Frédéric Mermoud, and Pascal Arnold who both wrote the film. It is hard enough to create an engaging plot but to create characters that we are drawn to and interested in is a sign of good writing.

I would be remiss here to not list all who bring this tale to the screen and contribute in a very unsung way. The photography by Thomas Hardmeier makes you feel that you are witnessing a glimpse in the lives of the unsung, the reflections in the Seine river are breathtaking without being distracting. Sarah Anderson's editing does a great job in pacing the movie and making the two story lines converge. Then there is Grégoire Hetzel score which does not intrude into the movie making us aware of it. It instead makes you feel the emotions that run through our characters. Each one has a loneliness that they are trying to desperately reach out of but can't.

I can go on and on about this movie, but I really think it should be seen. The ending will make you feel satisfied even though the subject matter is a bit hard to witness, and difficult to comprehend. What I really took away from this movie was it's story about love, and loneliness. From the two inspectors investigating a simple murder to the relationship between Rebecca and Vincent. All four of these characters will stay with you for awhile after watching the film, and a good movie is suppose to do that to you. Highly recommended.

Pirate Radio (2009)

2010-12-23T21:55:00.000-05:00

Would you believe way back in the 60's jolly old England gave about 30 minutes of pop music a day due to the fact that the government saw rock and roll as immoral, and lewd. The answer to this was pirate radio. These were actual ships that transmitted rock and roll tunes to the English while they were in international waters. It was legal, and the these stations had about 25 million listeners.

That's the premise of "Pirate Radio", and I have to say it's a rocking good time. Written and directed by Richard Curtis Pirate Radio is one of those films that transports you to a time where music hadn't been monopolized by corporations yet. It was the time of the Beatles, The Stones, Iggy Pop, and the Kinks. The British invasion was on, and what came out of that was some great music.

Pirate Radio is an ensemble piece, and it has a multitude of characters. There's Philip Seymour Hoffman, as the Count. Nick Frost as Doctor Dave, Chris O'Dowd as Simple Dave, and of course Rhys Ifans as Gavin Canavagh. There are others which will make you laugh and snicker. My favorite casting choice is Bill Nighy as Quentin.   Nighy is a one man dynamo who is one of my favorite actors. If you ever get to see a movie called The Girl in the Café, I suggest you do. Nighy is outstanding in it as he is in Pirate Radio.

The plot I guess is simple. Pirate Radio is a thorn in the British governments side, and they want it gone.  The director does show how governments try and legislate things they don't want or like. Only thing was that most Brit's listened to Pirate Radio, and it was like putting the Jeanie back in the bottle. They couldn't, and it eventually failed, only later to be taken over by large corporate conglomerates, but hey this is a review not an opinion piece.

Right!

The film shows the day to day antics of the DJ's on board the Pirate radio ship, and we are introduced to Carl (Tom Sturridge) who spends a summer on board the ship.  It is most ironic that in an era of self expression, and sexual liberation the men on board the ship are almost prisoners. They live to be on the air and play their music. The film is steeped in songs from that era and it feels authentic.  Most of the action is on-board the ship, and it is funny.   As the government tries to plot the demise of the Pirate Radio, we are introduced to people listening to Pirate Radio covertly. They are nurses, secretaries, truck drivers, students, doctors, lawyers and so on. It's amazing to even comprehend that a government would try and stop something that the people already knew about and wanted. Curtis does a good job showing this all in montage and split screen with the music blaring to the music of that era.

After watching this film I felt a bit of pain for the old days. Where radio wasn't so corporate, and it was driven by the music and the personalities of the DJ's. Here in the states FM was rock and rolls revitalization along with high fidelity sound, and "Pirate Radio" gives off that vibe of smacking that authoritarian mindset. I did go back after seeing this film and play some albums I haven't heard in a while, and it brought back memories of a day long gone. That's the only sadness here. Their seems to be no frontier. Some say it is the digital arena now, but that's a pay site, and radio was and is free for anyone to listen to.

All in all the performances are solid and funny, the music is grand, and the message is true. Philip Seymour Hoffman gives a moving little speech as his program is turned off, and that is "you can never silence the music".

Give me an Amen! And could you turn that music up a bit LOUDER please!

Here's the original Pirate Radio: Radio Caroline

Rock On!!!!

SALT (2009)

2010-12-22T20:07:00.001-05:00

This is one of those films that escaped me last year. After seeing it now on DVD I have to say I was very much entertained. The plot and the circumstances are quite ridiculous, and yet the non-stop action in this film makes it very entertaining. From the start we are given a full roller-coaster ride of thrills, and I have to say I had fun seeing this film. Angelina Jolie gives a very determined performance as Salt a supposedly double agent who runs from both the Russians and the Americans.

The action scenes are really well done, and there is very little CGI work which seems to be the norm in today's films. That's refreshing, because some of the scenes we can actually see Jolie doing her own stunts. I must say the lady has some tenacity to do that, and it's what makes the film so enjoyable to watch.

Of course there were times where I said to myself while viewing the film that had that happened in real life the character would have a concussion and a few fractured bones, but this is the CINEMA! Our heroine comes off with little scratches and no broken bones due to the magic of cinema. I did hear that Jolie did injure herself slightly while filming, yet she was fine to continue. It just shows the ladies dedication to the part.

If your looking for a fun and entertaining film to watch that is balls to the wall action then rent it, but if your not into those types of films then I guess this film would not be your cup of tea. The only thing I have to say is that the BIG surprise in the end wasn't too much of a surprise. I saw it coming from the beginning and was a bit disappointed by the revelation. I mean I love spy movies, and always love the fast pace of the genre, but the film didn't have as many twists and turns as I thought it should have. I mean that's what makes films of this genre so exciting. SALT does not have that. Instead it has relentless action, which I liked and thought was well done.

I heard that there were three cuts to this film. One the theatrical release which opens the film up to a sequel. The directors cut has somewhat of a more definitive ending, which would be more of a let down for this type of film considering the action is it's center piece. The third ending had the character return to Russia to exact her revenge. Guess the studio wanted a possible sequel if the film did well. The director (Phillip Noyce) is said that the will not be involved with the sequel. To me that's unfortunate since he's a very good action director, and this film screams action.

All in all a fun and entertaining movie, and nothing more. Also Angelina Jolie is one hot looking lady who knows how to give a performance. Without her the film would fall flat. Funny thing is that this is a film that was written for Tom Cruise, and when he backed out of the film Jolie took it, after they wrote it for a female character. I think it works, and I'd like to see more of the character down the line. Can someone say franchise?

Cloverfield (2008)

2010-12-18T18:58:00.002-05:00

After seeing Monsters I had to go back and see Cloverfield. A friend said that I should, so I figured why not. First off I did not see this when it first came out. I saw footage of it and said that it would just be too jarring on the eyes, and apparently it was for some. The jarring camera work is enough to put me off, but a funny thing happens when it goes to video. The screen shrinks and all that shaking of the camera becomes a little bit less annoying. I say a little less because I swear the filmmaker in me wanted to grab the camera and film it the right way with less shake. But the filmmakers of Cloverfield knew what they were doing, and that little imperfection added to the reality of what we were seeing. I mean how scary is a Godzilla movie? Now if you put a camera in one of the hands of someone running from Godzilla I would think that would be a whole lot more intense. Not a new idea in this reality based world we now live in, but something someone hasn't done till now. In fact it's an interesting take on the "monster movie". Matt Reeves the director of the movie does a really good job at creating the fear and the anxiety of the film. Drew Goddard who is the writer of the film does a remarkable job at the dialogue of the film. I mean I actually think at some point that we are seeing "real" people in an extraordinary situation, and what I mean about "real" people is not actors. That's a credit both to the director, the writer and the cast.

Now I know there was a lot of hype when this film came out, and apparently it did well in world wide release. The studio did a lot of viral marketing, and it targeted a certain demographic to go see this film. Well apparently it worked and there seems to be legions of fans out there for this movie. I really do believe that EVERY FILMMAKER needs to take a lesson from this film, and use alternative ways to promote your film. Take a look at the film "Monsters" which was released this year. "Monsters" is a much smaller film then Cloverfield, and it probably doesn't have the P&A budget for a release like Cloverfield got, but I do think more attention to alternative ways in advertising could do for Monsters what the studio did for Cloverfield. Of course these two films are totally different types of movies, but they are of the same genre, and hence already have a built in audience. One film taps into that genre and builds on it, while the other film doesn't. Now since this is a review of Cloverfield I'll stop here and just say that filmmakers and studios should take note and see that there is a different way to reach audiences other then the traditional way.

Michael Stahl-David , Jessica Lucas, Odette Yustman ,and Lizzy Caplan do a fantastic job here considering they had no idea on what the monster looks like and were reacting to nothing on the set. Maybe it's the camerawork that adds to the excitement, but at first I thought nothing about these characters and couldn't care less about them. In fact they seemed annoying, but as the film goes on I really began caring for these characters. That is no small feat for the actors, and they should really be applauded by their work. The direction is also intense and Matt Reeves does a remarkable job on the film. Critics have written about the film as a post 911 reaction to the attacks on NY. It's a good bet that the filmmakers did take a lot of what they saw that day and put it into this film. Images of buildings crashing down and dust clouds heading towards the people are all too familiar images of 911. The film does tap into that anxiety, and that dread of 911, and one cannot dismiss those feelings. It seems to be part of our collective memory now, and images that look and feel like 911 can stir up those feelings in all of us. The filmmakers do a good job in tapping into that angst while not exploiting it. It is only fair that people compare this film to some 911 moments since the movie deals with an attack of New York city, but like all films coming out after 2001 Cloverfield deals with a fictitious attack on NY by a monster of unknown origin. The movie humanizes the attack by concentrating on the people and not the attack itself. It's this that makes Cloverfield so engaging.

Because it was suppose to be a point of view story told through a camcorder there is no music in the film, yet the sound track is filled with dread. Only in the beginning do we hear music that is from the party in the beginning of the film. Also another great plot device is the notion of going over pre-recorded material. Occasionally we see the two leads in better days and it is these scenes that kind of make you feel for the characters a bit more. I have to say I thought I would hate this movie, but I really didn't. In fact I wanted to see more. I wanted to know more about the monster, and the events that lead up to the story. I wanted to know the after effects and what happens to our main characters. I guess the old saying leave them wanting more is right. J.J. Abrams has said that a sequel is coming, but he's not rushing it, and it will take a new direction which sounds intriguing.

I really do like this film, and want to see more. I'm a bit frustrated at not seeing it now, but hopefully real soon the filmmakers will get together and start filming a continuation of the storyline. There are a lot of speculation that it wouldn't be a sequel or it'll be another point of view of the monster marauding through the streets of NY. Whatever the scenario is I'm sure it'll be an interesting storyline. If you haven't seen the film the film is available on DVD, and if your a monster movie fan all I can say is "what are you waiting for". See it.

Monsters (2010)

2010-12-11T20:35:00.001-05:00

Just saw the movie Monsters, and was very impressed by the production and the story. This is Gareth Edwards first film of sorts. I say that because Mr. Edwards has done work some some documentaries (Perfect Disaster, Attila the Hun) and a movie called End Day.   Mr. Edwards knowledge of what he can do in the realm of special effects makes Monsters a movie a must see.

The story in a nut shell is this:

"Six years after Earth has suffered an alien invasion a cynical journalist agrees to escort a shaken American tourist through an infected zone in Mexico to the safety of the US border."

The two leads in this movie make this movie what it is. Scoot McNairy and Whitney Able are actors that are of the highest caliber. They are believable, and so convincing you think that you might just maybe be watching a documentary. I'm sure the director did this on purpose. I've read in articles that the director along with an associate producer/translator, a cameraman, and a sound man went to several locations in Mexico, Guatemala, Texas, and Belize and filmed his movie from an outline he had written. He used authentic individuals at the locations to give him the performances he wanted. It adds to the film, and makes the film completely believable. Mr. Edwards creates a world that is turned upside down, and I bought it all.

I also have to state that every filmmaker should watch this and read some of the interviews and articles that Mr. Edwards has given about the film.  Edwards did with less, and created more on the screen.

The film is not a Monster movie in the sense of that we expect to and that is to see these monsters pop out and cause havoc. What it is is more about two people, and their relationship with the world, and themselves. I know that sounds corny and a little strange coming from a movie that is called "monsters", but that is the core of the film. What the filmmaker creates is a believable world turned inside out, and we see the aftermath of what the Monsters are doing. There even is a hint that man may be the bad and evil one here, but I'll let you decided that on your own.

There are some great interviews here and here about the movie which ever filmmaker should read.  I have to say that I'm inspired by what Edwards does here, and it makes me re-think what is possible now in film making.

The whole thing about leaving your audience wanting more is so true here. Edwards does that, and in the end I really wanted more. I know the film is one big flashback, but I really wanted to know how the characters made out. In the end they stay with you, and for a little film like Monsters to do that the film has to have done something right to illicit that type of response in you.

I really suggest you watch it, and see it for yourself. Ladies you will also enjoy it too since it is all about relationships.   I enjoyed it and was intrigued by it, but most of all I was inspired by it.

Note here too. The cinematography is beautiful. I'm sure it was the landscape the filmmakers were in, but I have to say that some of the images in Monsters are picture perfect. Especially the scenes of the boat on the river. The images are beyond beautiful.

Portfolio

2010-12-02T22:30:00.000-05:00

Putting together an online portfolio of my photos. More to come.

Edge of Darkness (2010)

2010-11-22T15:09:00.000-05:00

The other night I saw "Edge of Darkness" starring Mel Gibson. I only knew the story a little, and wasn't too sure how I would like it. All I knew was that it was a film about revenge.

In Edge of Darkness Mel Gibson's characters daughter is killed right in front of him. The entire picture is about uncovering why she was killed and by who. detective Craven (Gibson) is a detective in the Boston police department, and after the brutal killing of his daughter he goes on a hunt for the men that killed his only daughter.

So there you have it the story in a nutshell, but what is pleasantly surprising is the feel and the performances of the films characters which really make this film something interesting to watch. All throughout the film I was thinking of several different types of noir type films, but the one that comes closest is "DOA". That's right the 1950 film which starred Edmond O'Brien. It's a favorite of mine, but what "Edge of Darkness" does is bring the human element into it. The relationship between Gibson's character and his daughter is the thing that makes the film work. It's the one reason you keep your eyeballs glued to the screen. We get little background into their relationship before the daughter (Bojana Novakovic) is so violently dispatched.

But what the director (Martin Campbell) does here is pretty interesting. We hear throughout the film the young women's voice or we see Gibson's daughter as a little girl, as he remembers certain things in their lives which are significant to him. It is these scenes that propel Gibson's character to do what he does. We see the hurt in Gibson's face, and for it to come out and make us the audience feel for the both of them is really something that the director should take credit for, as well as Gibson himself. It's what humanizes the film.

There is only one ending that this film could have, and it keeps it's noir roots intake for all that I'm concerned. The last shot made me smile, and yeah maybe it could be considered cheesy, but I really thought it was appropriate. The film is an interesting look at corporate and governmental abuses that crush the individual. It makes its point well, and yet like all noirs do they have their cynical way about them. In "Edge of Darkness" both the performances as well as the direction are all flawless, and well worth the look.

Jill Clayburgh (1944-2010)

2010-11-07T16:02:00.000-05:00

I was surprised to hear that Jill Clayburgh had passed away. I had just the other day thought of the film "An Unmarried Women" by Paul Mazursky. Clayburgh's credits are extensive so I won't list them all. Check out her IMDB credits if you wish.

I really don't know what to say here when it comes to a person who I've admired passes away. It just feels that she had a lot more to give and was still very young. We are at a loss for this, yet we can still see her performances in such films as; "Semi-Tough", "An Unmarried Woman", "Luna","Starting Over", "I'm Dancing as Fast as I Can", and "Hanna K."

Ms Clayburgh died Friday at her home in Connecticut home at 66 after living two decades with leukemia. She is survived by her husband (David Rabe), her children, and her brother James.

Ms Clayburgh will be missed and always known for her extraordinaire work in both the screen and the theater.

CCW Part 1

2010-10-22T17:46:00.000-04:00

So the other week I was invited to CCW conference. That's Content & Communication World. Since they provided me with free admission to the conference and seminars I felt I was obligated to go. I went last year, and enjoyed it, and learned a lot. This year was just as informative, yet I would have liked more vendors dealing with the production side of things, but all in all it was still very thought provoking. I figured that since I couldn't write one BIG blog entry about the conference I figured I try and spread it out. I went to ten seminars, and a couple of workshops in-between.

The conference was held in the Jacob Javits center in New York. Both days I did a lot of walking around to seminars and through the exhibit floor which had over 200 companies.

I was most interested in DSLR Production, and they had several workshops and one seminar that covered that. I'll get more into that on later entries here, but needless to say I liked what I heard. The only thing is that dealing with footage shot through these cameras can be a pain in the butt. As one cinematographer said he loves the look of it, but hates the work flow.

I still think that DSLR production is in its infancy, and there is still a lot of problems that they need to overcome, but I have to say the "look" of DSLR footage is well just "pretty cool".

I was also taken aback by NewTek's Tricaster. No longer do you need to be on a set. The new Tricaster can put your talent into a virtual set that looks awesome, and better still the virtual set can be modified by the user. The man who was demonstrating it was in front of a small green screen. He was very amusing, but what he did with the NewTek Tricaster was simply amazing. No more BIG studio. You yourself can do nightly or daily newscasts with ease. In fact the gentlemen doing the demonstration was being his own technical director. You can program camera moves without ever touching the camera. It's easy and pretty awesome. I've worked with NewTek's tricaster and thought it was a pretty good portable studio. The only problem was that it didn't come student proof, and hence the abuse it took rendered it useless. I think NewTek has made their product a bit more sturdier and durable, but I'd be interested in hearing from producers who have worked with it in the field. I believe NewTek's new Tricasters are much better, and you can do a whole lot more with them then I was able to do with their older versions.

Other seminars covered 4K acquisition and work flow, Lighting technologies for Production, and Social media. I'll try and do some justice of the info I've gathered, and try not to be a total geek.

There were several camera manufacturers on the exhibit floor also, and it was fun to play with all the various models. A lot of productions are shooting digitally now, and that's more and more happening throughout the production field, but to say tape is dead would be a bit misleading. I'll get into that also, and try to decipher my notes on that.

I have to say I came away from the conference invigorated and stimulated. There's a lot of possibility out there, and there is so much one can do now that wasn't possible in the past.

Stick around and let's talk shall we.

The New Year Parade (2009)

2010-09-17T00:29:00.000-04:00

I had been wanting to see Tom Quinn's movie "The New Year Parade" for sometime now, and only now have I gotten around to it. The movie for me didn't disappoint. Mr. Quinn photographed his film over four years, and with a ton of footage he has managed to create a beautiful film about family, and tradition.

The film introduces us to the McMonogul family, whose members have been part of the South Philadelphia String Band for several generations. Mike played by Andrew Conway finds out that his wife (Ann McDonald) has been unfaithful, and he moves out in a rage. Mike is the captain of the string band, and he buries himself in his obsession, or is it his duty of getting ready for next years show. Throughout the movie there are hints that Mikes wife had her reasons, yet the movie only hints at that. It's that which I find unfortunate because Quinn does show the stereo-typical Irish-American family as it has been depicted in many movies for sometime. You know the working class protagonist who says little but fights his demons day in and day out, and drowns those demons in alcohol. That's the disappointing thing about the film, yet I still liked it for it's atmosphere & the way it told its story about this family. It's not about despondent characters, but characters trying to come to grips with their family falling apart.

Quinn has mentioned in interviews that before writing this film he had video taped many friends of his who were victims of divorce. Through those tapes he set out to create a story that centers around an annual event that happens every year here in Philly. That event is the Mummers parade. It's an amazing event here in Philly, and what I like about the film is how Quinn weaves his story around the event. He uses "real" people to tell us why this parade is special. It is only through the backdrop of the parade that we are told the story of the McMonogul family.

Greg Lyons and Jennifer-Lynn Welsh play the McMonogul children. Jack (Greg Lyons) is in his early 20's while Kat (Jennifer-Lyn Welsh) is around 16, and they are devastated by their mom and dads break-up. Kat decides to stay with her mom, and we can see the division that is happening between mother and daughter. Jack on the other hand accuses his father of destroying the family and not forgiving his mom.

The movie shows this in a sort of documentary style. The performances of the actors are really well done, and I believe that the family is heading for a breakdown, yet again I feel as though I am seeing a movie I have seen before. Tough, down trodden men & women who believe in tradition, and who lead stoic lives. But more often the movie is obsessed with details with the mundane. Employing a style that flirts with the cinema Verdi documentary form of film making rather then the narrative form.

What makes it different is Quinn adding the footage of the club preparing for the parade. The movie feels authentic because of this footage , and it has likable characters which we feel for. It is this that makes "The New Year Parade" interesting and worth seeing. Maybe it's a compliment that I wanted to see more of the characters interact with each other. I wanted to see a bit of resolution here, but Quinn doesn't do that and that's alright. Life doesn't come with happy endings, and yet at the end of the film you feel satisfied. I heard that it took Quinn two years to edit, and it shows how masterful he was in getting his story put together in such a unique way.

In the end The New Year Parade is a film which is told in an unusual way by a very gifted filmmaker, and worth seeing.

Machete (2010)

2010-09-13T17:35:00.002-04:00

Okay I really wanted to like this movie. I'm a big fan of those "grind house" movies, and I have fond memories watching them in theaters that were far from stellar, but Machete is in no way a "grind house" film. It tries and fails miserable.

First off grind house movies were made with so little money the producers of those films had to come up with ways to exploit them. A scene that would get audience's tongues talking about. Here the filmmakers of Machete have enough money to do what they want and they do it poorly. The movie tries so hard, and doesn't even come close. The film is played way over the top, and it suffers from it. Robert Rodriguez who is the director or co-director of the film does it all, and throws everything and the kitchen sink into the film. The pacing seems all wrong, and it goes from one preposterous scene to another.

What also takes away from the movie is the actors themselves. Danny Trejo is the one person I like, but he doesn't do much here. He sneers, and says a few lines and that's around it. I would really like to see Danny Trejo in another film where he could use more of his acting ability. I'm sure he has talent, but in Machete Trejo's talent is wasted.

Also I am a fan of Robert Rodriguez, and yet I feel this film was far from his best. Does the film have action? Yes, but Rodriguez hits you over the head with it. At a point in the film I felt numb just because of what the filmmaker was throwing at me. I didn't care for the characters, and I began to watch the clock which is always a bad sign in a movie.

Again I really wanted to like this film, but in all honesty I can't say I did. Will others? I'm sure of it. I mean it does have its share of naked ladies, gun play, and bloody vengeance, so I'm sure it will find its audience. The one thing that makes me angry is that the filmmakers try to pass this film off as a grind house type of film, and it isn't. Many of those grind house films were a lot better, and had a story that seemed plausible to some extent. Machete does not. It's a check your brains at the door type of movie, and though I have no quarrels with such films I do like my films done with a bit more thought put into them. Machete is a film that has no thought in it at all except for the message about immigration, and even here Rodriguez does it with a heavy hand thereby missing the message all together. In essence Machete is just junk food for the senses, and after seeing it you'll forget it as easily as that Twinkie you had.

The American (2010)

2010-09-05T20:49:00.000-04:00

I had been interested in seeing this when I first saw the trailer awhile back. I've always been a fan of stories about spies, assassins, and other under worldly persona's. Charles Bronson in "the Mechanic", Terrance Stamp in "the Limey", and Bob Hoskins in "the Long Good Friday". All of these movies are fascinating and are good portrayals of people on the other side of the tracks. The American is a movie that follows that same formula, yet Cloney as the main lead plays it laid back. Jack or Edward we really don't know his name is a contract killer or a man who supplies contract killers. The story never says though in one conversation his employer says he doesn't have to kill here. That's what makes this movie interesting. It's the ambiguity of the story that pulls us in, and of course Cloney's performance. In the first few minutes of the movie we are treated to an ambush. Just when you think you know where the story is going to go Cloney's character does something unexpected. It is this event that really seals his fate, and even though we get to like Cloney's character through his performance we know that the inevitable is waiting.

"The American" is a movie which is superbly shot, and has enough atmosphere to swallow the viewer whole. It is Cloneys performance and the performances of his co-stars that make this movie so watchable. Violante Placido is beautiful to look at and she gives a good performance of a prostitute who falls for Cloney's character. There is a love scene in the film that is both erotic, and sensual without being exploitative. It works in the sense that we get to know a little bit more about our characters. Also Cloney shows himself off quite well also in the movie and I'm sure it's for the female audience of the movie. But maybe it's more then that. Cloney's character is defined through his actions and what he doesn't say. In other words Cloney shows us depth of the character through his gestures and eyes. Not many actors can do this, but Cloney can, and he does it so effortlessly.

The audience I saw it with didn't seem to like it, and seemed bored by the movie. This is no action movie. It is a character piece and one that has a thick atmosphere of deceit, and beauty. Maybe it's the way the studio is marketing the film that throws off it's audience, but I do believe that there is an audience for this type of film. Maybe it's the ending that the audience doesn't like. Yet I find that to be too simplistic of a statement. I really liked this film, and I liked all the performances in it. Paolo Bonacelli as the priest is a fascinating character, and one who feels three dimensional. Thekla Reuten also gives an interesting performance as a fellow assassin.

I can go on and on about the film, and how I liked it, yet I'm afraid that it won't find it's audience especially after coming out so early in the fall season. There should be some performances here that are worth academy award nomination. Alone the cinematography should get some mention. "The American" is a movie worth seeing for its performances and its story of a man who can't escape his past. If you like good cinema I suggest you see it.

Harry Brown (2009)

2010-09-01T20:28:00.001-04:00

Harry Brown is a movie I wanted to see when it came out, but never got around to it. I was thrilled when it released this week on DVD. With Michael Cain as the main character I wondered how this movie didn't do as well as it should have. Say anything about Michael Cain he always gives his A game in a film. The man could read Webster's dictionary and make it a good performance. Harry Brown is Daniel Barber's second feature, and he comes out of the gate swinging with this one. A film about revenge and growing old is what the film Harry Brown is all about, yet it plays on so many other levels too.

After Harry's (Cain) best and only friend (David Bradley) is murdered Harry takes on the hoods that have taken over his neighborhood. I know "visions of Charles Bronson in "Death Wish" come to mind, but "Harry Brown is a different movie. This film is not heavy on dialogue. Cain's face portrays his character in this movie. The loneliness, the desperation, and the anger, and the sadness is written in Cain's performance of the character.

The movie is violent when it gets going, but it does not portray violence for violence sake. It's dirty, and filthy. The filmmaker makes a point about today's society without hitting us over the head or becoming too dogmatic. I really liked Cain's performance in this film. At 77 years of age Cain can out perform any other actor of his day or of today's actor. He's fresh and he plays his part so close to the vest. You can feel his pain, and his loss. It's not over acted and over dramatized.

I've been a fan of Cain's since The Ipcress File and he has never disappointed. Anyone who is interested in Cain's acting should read his book: "Michael Caine - Acting in Film: An Actor's Take on Movie Making (The Applause Acting Series) Revised Expanded" In it he gets very matter of fact about acting and film making.

If you want to see a good film with a good performance by a veteran actor watch Harry Brown. I would also be amiss in not pointing out the performances of Emily Mortimer, and Charlie Creed-Miles who play the two detective assigned to investigate Harry's friends murder.

The film is a very entertaining and well acted piece of cinema. On one level you enjoy it for the stories sake, but on another level you really feel for the characters in the film, and for what the film is trying to say. This is another jewel in the crown of Michael Cain's career and one that should not be overlooked.

The Expendables (2010)

2010-08-27T21:41:00.000-04:00

What can I say about this movie? Anyone who sees it is probably a fan of action movies, and is a fan of Stallone. For an hour and fourtythree minutes one can be entertained to stuff blowing up, fire fights, and good guys vs bad guys. I won't go into what the story is about, and all the details of the film. Suffice it to say is that if your a fan of action movies you'll like this film.

I happen to be a fan of Stallone, and think he's a pretty good filmmaker. The Rocky series proves that hands down. But after leaving the theater I felt like this film could have been better. One complaint I had is "sloppy film making". What do I mean by sloppy film making? Well just that. Some of the cutting seemed quick and timed to get a reaction out of the audience. Now of course you want a reaction from the audience. Something positive and something that makes them get excited, but in this film I found it forced.

In an age of video games, and digital editing I do think that some filmmakers have adapted the video game as a feature. The cuts as I said were fast, and the camera moves were faster. Yes it's great to cut on action, but when the scene becomes a blur I sometimes want to hit the slow-mo button. Accompanying these cuts and camera moves are a screaming musical soundtrack in your ear along with the added special sound effects of grunts, groans, and snaps. To me it feels forced. Watch a fight scene in "Enter the Dragon" and your rooting for our hero, and amazed at his agility. What fast cuts make me believe is that the filmmaker has something to hide.

Yes I know film is an illusion, but throwing images at us, and ratcheting up the soundtrack does not impress me. Also filmmakers are relying too much on digital effects. A lot of the bullet hits, and bullet carnage was digitally enhanced. Now look at a film like "The Wild Bunch" and tell me which is better. I'm all for technology innovation, but when used to excess it becomes stale, and just plain sloppy.

Maybe it's the pressure of films getting into theaters at a particular date. The summer moths have become make or break territory for films. A filmmaker has no choice when he or she has a studio release date set in stone. I really don't know, or maybe the bean counters that have taken over Hollywood, and are kicking the creative people asses to produce. After all the market drives the film, and the summer months are hard months for movies. No more weeks for a film to catch on. If it isn't immediate it falls off the theaters schedule quickly.

Maybe hence the sloppy film making. At least that's how I see it, or maybe I'm just older and I have a different take on what passes for entertainment. I'm no gamer, but I do see flaws, and it makes me uncomfortable.

I really wanted to like this film, and part of me does. I would've liked a more in-depth look at the characters in the film. Instead I got stereotypes and one dimensional characters that seemed right out of a game.

Despicable Me (2010)

2010-07-18T21:55:00.001-04:00

The family and I went to see Despicable Me the other day and I have to say we all enjoyed it. The film is a funny and quirky film about a villain. Yes that's right the main character is a villain, and his name is Gru. What's even better is that Gru has minions. (Doesn't every villain)

These minions are the best thing in the film. They speak some gibberish that you almost understand, but laugh every time their on screen. My boys loved it, and I heard my oldest laughing along with his mom. I even found myself on the floor laughing at some of the jokes. (Yes it is that funny)

But please don't make sense of the story. It's a fable, and a fun one at that. My 83 year old mom even liked it, and thought it was cute, so all ages seem to like it.

The story is simple. Gru wants to be the number one villain of all time. So he sets out to steal the moon. Of course every villain has a nemesis, and Gru's is Vector. A younger more hip and a somewhat dead ringer for a young Bill Gates. I kid you not the villain looks like Bill Gates.

Anyhow Gru adopts three orphan girls to help him get the dreaded shrink ray back from Vector. But what happens to Gru is that the girls break down his meanness, and he finds love. Yes, yes I know how corny, and how contrite, but I'm telling you it works.

Steve Carell is the voice of Gru, and he does a remarkable job. I have to say that I'm slowly becoming a Steve Carell fan. I'm amazed at the guys depth. Pierre Coffin, and Chris Renaud are the directors of the film, and let me tell you the film flies by at a good clip. The film does not feel as though it is an hour and thirty five minutes long.

If you want to have some laughs and have a good time go see the film. It sure put a smile on my face, and the kids will love it. There are adult jokes in this film that will go over the heads of the kids, but will have you laughing or should I say rolling in the aisles.

It's a good summer movie, and one where the whole family will enjoy.

Heaven's Gate a classic

2010-07-15T19:59:00.004-04:00

Over at David Lowery's blog he talks about Heaven's Gate, and its director Michael Cimino. There is a link to a documentary on the movie narrated by William Dafoe. It's a good documentary, and after seeing it I had to post some of it here. I remember when this came out. It was 1980, and I was still in high school. I was enmeshed in film making back then. I started watching movies differently. It was also the height of the VCR, and believe it or not movies on videotape was the coolest thing. Only thing was that there wasn't much product yet. So the movies was where you still went to to study them. Heck! I remember sitting in theaters from afternoon till evening watching movies over and over again. I do remeber seeing a re-release of this movie. Not it's two and half hour version, but the original 219 minute version. By the time they released this I was in college I believe. I saw it somewhere in Manhattan, and seeing it blew me away. It's ironic that for a class in school I was required to read Final Cut. But I was always on the side that the original version is a classic, and seeing it now in wide-screen does the picture justice. I really do think that this film will become a major re-discoved classic. I'm not alone either TMC ran it one night too in it's original cut. Now that people are replacing their TV's with flat screens, and giving film presentations worthy of theater like viewing in their living room. I think there will be a lot of films that get re-discovered, but I believe "Heaven's Gate" will be one of them.

If you have time check out the documentary on YouTube. It really is interesting.

Albert Maysles

2010-06-11T11:12:00.001-04:00

I met Mr. Maysles awhile back, and was so impressed at his advice, and his interest in other filmmakers that I've come to the realization that the man is a true artist and documentarian. His advice here is something artists need to listen to.

Thanks Mr. Maysles.

The Future is here already!

2010-06-04T21:33:00.005-04:00

video platform video management video solutions video player

This is an interesting look at how movie making has evolved. Budget was $15K, and the effects were done with programs you can buy off the shelf.

Makes you really think. Why aren't YOU making a film. This is stuff that excites me.

Survival of the Dead (2010)

2010-05-31T09:44:00.009-04:00

So I broke down and saw this film, and in a way I'm glad I did. Survival of the Dead is no masterpiece, but it is better then Romero's "Diary of the Dead", and shows some promise even though the story seems too preposterous.

The whole story about letting the zombies live just seemed too off-beat. I mean zombies and bullets seem to go together. I mean what's the point in keeping a zombie alive? So the conflict between the two families doesn't make mush sense. What did make sense was the story of the survivors of the zombie Apocalypse. That's been it for me and I believe a lot others too. In the most interesting zombie film "Dawn of the Dead" Romero was going for the whole breakdown of society. He used comic book violence to get a point across without beating our heads in with the message. In essence it was fun and yet if you took apart the film there was a lot there. Even in "Day of the Dead" Romero goes darker and the violence becomes less comic bookish, and more realistic. In "Day of the Dead" mankind is in ruins, and the zombie Apocalypse is in full gear. Even in "Day of the Dead" Romero uses dark humor to show us the end of the world. Romero gives us even a glance of hope towards the end of "Day of the Dead" which is unlike Romero.

In Survival Romero seems to be going back to his roots and picking characters he is interested in. Alan Van Sprang plays a leader of a motley crew of military deserters who are searching for a safe place to rest. These aren't the good guys, and Sprangs character says that. They are just surviving, and isn't that what these Dead films are all about. How we as human beings survive this great zombie Apocalypse. It isn't all about the zombies. It's about what kind of society we transform into when faced with extinction.

I'm a HUGE fan of Romero and I really like what he has to say, but he's always constrained by his budgets. He does a good job getting his message through, so when the camera was on the survivors I was most interested in the story. The story between the two families was somewhat interesting, but it got a bit ridiculous towards the middle.

In the end "Survival of the Dead" isn't bad at all, and what I hear is that Romero is making some money off these films finally. I'm happy to hear that, and maybe with that extra money he can go back to what the series is all about, and that is the breakdown of society, and how mankind adapts to the zombie Apocalypse.

Maybe a cable series of the dead. Wouldn't that make sense? Possibly highlighting different survivors throughout its episodes. I would think that it would be financial viable, and it would keep Romero rolling in cash for awhile. Maybe it would free him up to do something more interesting, or different. I don't know, but whatever the case I still believe in Romero the filmmaker.

"Survival of the Dead" shows that Romero is still on top of his game, and still laughing while winking at us as he shows man kinds decent into the zombie Apocalypse.

PS: Can we start filming these films in country again. I know Canada has some interesting financial incentives to film there, BUT with this recession here there are a LOT of GOOD deals to be made with local film organizations that make it cheaper to film here then in another country. Also it just looks a lot better from a cinematic point of view.

When Your Strange (2009)

2010-05-15T20:52:00.004-04:00

What can I say about Jim Morrison and the Doors that hasn't been already said. For my generation he was and will be an iconic symbol of a time where an artist pushed the boundaries of his art. But that's not how I know The Doors. I remember hearing them blasting from big boom boxes that my buddies used to carry around. For some Morrison is the soundtrack of their youth and I guess I fall into that category. It was only later that I developed such a respect on what he did and how he did it. Without compromise Morrison did what he wanted to do. Call him a drug induced rock star that pissed off the authorities of his time or just call him the "lizard King". He was both.

When your Strange is a documentary on Morrison and the Doors and is narrated by Johnny Depp. Tom DiCillo is the director of the film, and he does a great job assembling footage that we haven't seen yet of Morrison and the Doors. If your a fan of the Doors theres not much new in information about the Doors that hasn't been said or written about. It is the footage that is new and how DiCillo mixes the music and the archival footage together is really special. I didn't have a problem with Depp's voice over since it is sparse and not all the time, but it would have been more interesting in just using the audio of Morrison and Doors to tell their story.

The film also made me appreciate Oliver Stones film "The Doors"even more with all the research he had done. It's all here, and it's pretty dead on. DiCillo does a good job, and I think in anyone else's hands the film wouldn't be as interesting as it is.

So if your a Doors fan I highly recommend it, and if not and you don't know much about the Doors and who they were I would also recommend it. Seeing Morrison so early in his career is interesting. I wanted to see more, and that's the only fault I have of the film. I know there's more. Such as Morrison's poetry, and his relationship with the band members and his long time girlfriend Pamela Courson. The film does not dig deep, and maybe there may not be anything else to dig up, but what of Morrison's associates? Where are they?, who were they?, and what were their stories of Morrison? Maybe that's for another film. It would be interesting to see a film about the selling of Morrison now and then, and get a true feeling on how he felt, and what he believed because right now we only see his band mates recollections. That would also be an interesting film, but probably not a sellable one where the band "The Doors" has become a marketing juggernaut. By keeping the myth of Morrison alive it has become more about selling the bands albums to future generations instead of a real look at an American artist who was more then just a singer . I would think Morrison would have something to say about that, but who knows if there is footage of him talking about his art, and his songs. I would be interested in seeing that footage. I surely don't believe that we have seen or heard the definitive Doors or should I say Morrison retrospective.

In any respect "When your Strange" is a compelling look at an artist who inspired a generation, and to this day still inspires others. Some label him a burned out rock star, and others saw him as a poet of his generation. That's the fascination of Morrison, and for some of us he will always be the iconic rock superstar. Long live the Lizard King.

Cinema 5D

2010-04-28T20:38:00.001-04:00

RED is coming to the masses!

2010-04-19T10:13:00.005-04:00

I've seen some really nice things from RED, and it looks like their ahead of the curve on new technology, and work flow patterns.

I'm sure there is a lot of testing to be done yet, but it's exciting news. Technology that breaks the barrier of just who can make new media. Simplicity is the key, and it looks as though RED is doing just that.

Paranormal Activity (2009)

2010-04-10T23:19:00.006-04:00

I finally sat down and saw the film that's been hyped for so long. I guess there are two camps to this movie. One is that you'll love it, or you'll hate it. There seems to be no middle ground here.

The story is about a couple who move into a suburban house that seems to be haunted. They do their own investigating by setting up a video camera to document the many odd events that are happening inside their house.

Now I have to say it is an interesting premise, and one that I think really works on some level. Yet it was not scary at all, and I found the movie quite dull. I did like the performances of Katie Featherston, and Micah Sloat as the haunted couple. Though I did think Micah's performance sometimes grated on me. I sometimes wanted to kick the screen when he was on. I don't know if that is a good thing here since I wanted to have some empathy towards the characters, and in the end I really didn't care what happened to them.

People compare this movie with the Blair Witch Project, yet I liked that film a bit better. Maybe because it was first, or maybe because it actually had some eerie parts in the movie that made it a really neat film to watch.

In Paranormal Activity I didn't get any sense of the outside world, yet the action was happening in suburbia. I realize that this is a low budget film, and may in fact be a micro-budget film that actually went on to make a lot of money.

Yet I think it was all hype. The studio did a good job at doing it, and convincing people to go, but to say that this film is a good horror film is a bit much to say.

I was interested in the film as a filmmaker, and was really hoping that it would have some decent scares or some decent plot points that would be interesting. Unfortunately it does not.

I give credit here to the actors who were very convincing. From what I've read the actors did not have an actual script to go by. The filmmaker drew up an outline, and that the actors would improvise their scenes together. That in itself is ballsy, and I really think the actors should get a bigger credit here then the filmmaker. The filmmaker surly knew talent when he saw it, but what I would really love to see is to have the actors get some more work from this. I really think their the ones whose talent shines in this film, and I look forward to seeing them in other work real soon.

If your interested in seeing what you can do wit a limited budget I suggest you watch this, and key into the performances. Remember as the filmmaker said in an article "knowing good talent and getting that talent is important". It makes or breaks a film, and this is one example where good actors shine.

Duplicity (2009)

2010-04-03T23:57:00.005-04:00

Duplicity is a film by director Tony Gilroy, which stars Julia Roberts, Clive Owen, Tom Wilkinson, and Paul Giamatti. All four of these actors make this movie worth seeing. Be warned though that this movie has enough twists and turns to keep you guessing.

The synopsis of the film is this:

"DUPLICITY is a slick, comic caper in which it’s never exactly clear who is being conned. It’s easy to see that ex-CIA agent Claire Stenwick (Julia Roberts) and former MI6 member Ray Koval (Clive Owen) have a heated history together when they embark on an elaborate mission of corporate espionage."

That's all I'm going to say about this. The way to enjoy this movie is just by watching it, and paying attention to the plot. Like I said the plot has many twists and turns in it, but the film is laced with some dark comic undertones that make this a funny romp. I have to say also that the cinematography by Robert Elswit is stunning, and I really like the feeling of this film. We don't know who to trust and the characters don't trust each other. It's a con within a con within a con. That's what makes it interesting. Tom Wilkinson's performance is stunning, but I dare you to name a bad performance by this actor. Wilkinson is a master here and I love how his character unfolds. But by naming one I do a disservice to all in this film. Julia Roberts plays it straight and serious, and it works. Clive Owens performance is flawless, and Paul Giamatti's performance is just a hoot. Giamatti is so fun to look at and watch I could watch him in almost anything.Watch Giamatti in American Splendor and you'll see I'm right.

Duplicity is a movie you could watch twice, and each time something else is newly revealed. the film and story is that intricate. The only thing I can say about this film is that it may be too complex. Maybe too many twists, but I kind of liked it, and I had no trouble following along. The dialogue is really snappy, and I think the direction works. For a film all about mistrust the director really trusted his actors to come through here. All their performances work for the film, and there is not one fault I can give in any of the performances.

In fact I am inspired to watch the directors commentary here, and learn just how he pulled those performances out. Surely that alone would be worth the price of the DVD. The film does jump around a bit. From present to past, and then back, yet it works here, and it kind of throws off the viewer which I think the filmmakers wanted.

All in all I recommend the film Duplicity. It's a very smart film with very good performances.

The Hurt Locker (2009)

2010-03-23T10:11:00.006-04:00

Okay I wasn't going to do another review, but having not updated here for some time I figured I should, and why not talk about a really good piece of cinema.

The Hurt Locker deals with an American bomb disposal unit based in Iraq. By now you've heard the hype and seen the awards show. It swept the Oscars, and what ever you have to say about this film it certainly brings the chaos of war home. Kathryn Bigelow's direction is flawless, and she does so because of her talented cast & crew. Bigelow goes for a documentary feel, and makes the viewer feel as though she or he is there with the characters, and that anything and everything is possible. You actually forget that your watching a movie and it feels like a reality program. The use of multiple cameras works here, and the suspense is derived from the hyper active camera.

The cast is also really good. They feel authentic, and seem like real hardened grunts working a job they know can get them killed anytime. Jeremy Renner, Anthony Mackie, and Bryan Geraghty give performances worthy of an Oscar even though they did not receive one.

One more thing I like to point out about the film. In essence the film is a low budget film. I believe it was shot for 9 million in the desert of Jordon. Though nine million seems like a lot I can tell you that a lot went to the local where they were filming.

The film has limited characters. There are a lot of scenes with extras, and some with named actors such as David Morse, or Guy Pearce, but the majority scenes have the three main actors of the movie in the frame.

The film is a well written film, and there are few lulls in the film. We expect the worst for these characters, yet it is amazing how well they come through all the chaos around them.

I can't say I enjoyed the film. It was gut wrenching and every frame made you wonder what was to come next. A good film is suppose to do that. You are transported to that local with the characters and you almost seem to live with them. Kathryn Bigelow does a marvelous job. Then again Bigelow is a dynamite director. From her first film Near Dark to The Hurt Locker Bigelow is a dynamic and visual director. Bigelow's films are filled with adrenaline like atmosphere which seem to be her trademark.

The Hurt Locker is as good and visceral as a film can get, and it's another example of talented people coming together and creating something extraordinary.

Dino Finders!

2010-02-28T16:26:00.003-05:00

My boy won as a prize a game where you dig out some small miniature dino bones from what looks to be a rock. Amusing at first I decided to video tape the boys progress.

It was fun, and kind of neat to see the boys so enthralled in amateur paleontology. Kyle loves digging and chiseling, and he so enjoyed the unearthing of bones, which were actually just plastic replicas, but it was fun.

I finally edited it all together and what took about an hour or two is now shortened to four minutes.

I added the music, and it sounds so like Jurassic park that it fit the theme, but I have to tell you I got lucky when I found the royalty free music.

Hey it was fun, and the boys enjoyed it. As well as the adults too.

Avatar (2009)

2010-02-04T10:00:00.005-05:00

It was a matter of time till I saw this, and I've been resisting the hype, but I saw it over the week-end, and I enjoyed it thoroughly. Now to get things straight. I like James Cameron. He is a decent filmmaker, and he makes movies that are very impressive to see. Avatar doesn't disappoint in this arena. The images are stunning, and the story itself, though simplistic, is well written.

I've head a lot of criticism about it being a tree hugging liberal type of movie. Where man is the enemy. For those who believe that type of clap trap keep watching Fox, and please stay at home. It's a MOVIE! Star Wars was just as simplistic, and no one spouted political triads about that movie. Maybe it was something to do with fighting the big bad Empire. I don't know and I don't care. Avatar is a story, and a pretty good story. There are some things that the filmmaker put in the story that can be a attributed to the problems we face here on earth, but Cameron doesn't hit us over the head with it. Those elements are part of the story. It works, and it works very effectively.

Now I was thinking I should just see this film in 2-D, and skip the 3-D thing. I'm not a big fan on the gimmick, but if your of the same thought I have to say DON'T! I saw the film in 3-D IMAX, and the film rocked. Cameron doesn't use the cheesy coming at you mentality. The 3-D effect is part of the image, and the images are breath taking. We are on a new planet and everything is vibrant, and strange. The 3-D effect enhances it all, and it does so in the most spectacular ways.

I don't want to say too much about Avatar's Oscar nominations, but now that the Oscars nominations have come out I really think some of the performers here in this film have been robbed. Stephen Lang does a great acting job as Colonel Miles Quaritch. Zoe Saldana does a magnificent job as Neytir, and the performances by Sigourney Weaver, Sam Worthington, and Laz Alonso all do the film justice. I don't know what the Academy is thinking with not nominating these fine thespians. Yes they may be an effect, but the camera recorded there performances. Maybe a bit differently then usually but all the same they were recorded none the less, and the effect doesn't denigrate their performances.

The whole film is masterfully put together, and one that is well made. Cameron brings film making into the 21st century, and does so with a very interesting and thought provoking film. If I had any advice to give I would say go see it in the theater. You will be impressed by the visuals and pretty taken aback by it.

Movies are escapism, and Avatar doesn't disappoint.

Back into the Past!

2010-01-25T10:22:00.007-05:00

I've been working on a film about my dad for some time now, and it's also encompassed my mom too. I felt I could not talk about one without talking about the other one. Of course not having dad here and relying on memory can be a tricky thing. Facts and events sometimes get distorted, so I've been painstakingly trying to piece together past family history. This includes me as well, and no matter how uncomfortable I am in front of the camera I need to record fragments of memory so that hopefully in the end it will all piece together.

I got the idea from Scorsese's film "Italian American" where the filmmaker interviews his mom & dad. If you get a chance to see it it's pretty funny and touching. Way back in 1996 I interviewed my mom. My dad had passed away a year earlier, and so with 16mm camera in hand I sat down mom and shot about two rolls of 16mm film. I basically set up a light and shot it. Took the film to DuArt Lab and had it transferred to videotape. I think it cost about $300 to $400 to process it and transfer it to tape. I also had to pay for the audio syncing of the video and audio since the audio was recorded on a Nagra 4.2.

It was a primer to my feature, and I learned quite a bit. One was that I needed an assistant camera badly. Doing it all is cool and ballsy, but quite stupid too.

Now with the digital realm I can just set up a Cannon GL and started recording. I used the same microphone I used on the 16mm shoot, and it worked flawlessly. I was back to the one man crew of my youth.

The problem is that my mom is older now, and memory and her frailty is of a concern. You don't want to push the lady, so I've come up with a wireless situation where I can record her where ever she is, and she can be comfortable talking.

I am using an audio-technica VHF wireless microphone. It's not the most expensive and best, but for what I want to do it works pretty good. I am also using an old Cannon ZR 60. Basically I'm using this as a audio recorder that happens to record video. After all it is the audio that is important here, and I want it to sound good. Also I can go almost anywhere with this, and have decided to also hopefully record my aunt and uncle. I've found out that if you just mike the person, and don't point the camera at them the person becomes a little more relaxed.

I will record video when I can, but right now I'm concerned with audio. With all this happening I am going through a treasure trove of family pictures that my mom has collected throughout the years. I 'm also going through my dad's home movies and transferring them when I can to digital. I even have old reel to reel tapes that I'm looking into transferring to CD.

This project is almost 14 years in the making. I've hemmed and hawed on doing it right, and struggled with putting something down. After all who really cares, but I.

I feel I'm racing the clock though. A lot of people have passed away since 1996, and one cannot stop time. Why I'm doing this is two fold. First off it's something for me to do. I haven't been quite active as I'd like to be in filmmaking, so this helps that. The other reason is that I want my boys to know their past. They never got to meet dad, and know only my mom. My boys are too young to appreciate their heritage now, but maybe someday they'll be interested in it. It's something I'm passionate about.

I've been kicking myself for my lack of enthusiasm for film, and this is one way to get a shot in the arm while testing the DV waters. I also don't want this blog to be just another blog about movies I've seen. There are too many of them and not enough nuts & bolts websites about filmmaking from the lower echelons of filmdom.

I'm supposed to be doing this for ME! It's about time I start doing more filming and less talking. So please forgive me while I kick my own ass into doing something I love. SO expect some masochism from me, and a lot of tough love from me. Time to re-awaken that guy who enjoys & sometimes hates the trials and tribulations of filmmaking.

Terminator Salvation (2009)

2010-01-18T20:03:00.004-05:00

So I've been interested in seeing this movie for awhile. I'm a big fan of the Terminator franchise, and I really loved the original one, so I was looking forward to seeing this when I got the chance.

Well it's a good thing I didn't see it in the theaters. Picked it up on DVD as a rental and to tell you the truth the buck that I spent on the rental even seems too much. To put it more bluntly this movie is soulless. I even was surprised at Christian Bales performance. He seemed like he was phoning it in, and as for the directing I really can't say anything nice. I even recognized some shots or sequences that were done in the original movie. The one sequence I remember was when the Terminator was chasing Conner through the Terminator factory. It seemed like a direct lift from the first movie when Sarah is being chased through the factory by the Terminator. I had to play back the sequence, but I'm sure it was a direct lift from the first movie. What? Is McG (the director) saluting Cameron's first movie?

There are some interesting effects in the movie, but they are all worthless. The story seems to play out before Conner sends Resse back into the past. And it seems as though the Terminators are hunting Resse, so they know about the past future thing. My question is why didn't the Terminators off Resse right away. Instead they capture him, and put him in a cell. I mean really aren't these cyborgs a bit smarter then that?

The plot is laughable, and the performances really aren't that good, but I'll blame the director for that. And what's with the name McG? Reminds me of a McDonald's meal or something.

I have no really good things to say about this film. Sam Worthington played an interesting character, but again I blame all the performances here on the director, and at 2 hours and 15 minutes the film drags.

Save your money and don't bother renting or even buying this film. Watch ANY of the other Terminator films. Even Terminator 3 was a lot better then this. I just hope they continue the franchise because I like the films & storyline a lot. There is a lot of potential for the franchise to continue Just not with this film..

Moon (2009)

2010-01-17T13:26:00.005-05:00

This last Tuesday the movie "Moon" was released on DVD, and so this week-end I picked it up. I had wanted to see the film when it hit theaters but it only got a limited release, and so I never got around to it.

Moon is directed by Duncan Jones, and stars Sam Rockwell in a sort of dual role. More on that in a minute. The plot of the film is this:

"Astronaut Sam Bell has a quintessentially personal encounter toward the end of his three-year stint on the Moon, where he, working alongside his computer, GERTY, sends back to Earth parcels of a resource that has helped diminish our planet's power problems"

It's Sam Rockwell's movie since he is in it almost 99% of the time. It is no small feat to do this also. If you have one main character in your movie the story better be interesting, and the character identifiable, or you loose your audience. Fortunately Rockwell's performance elicits our interest and our sympathies.

The film reminded me of films back in the day. Such films as "Silent Running","Alien","Outland", and even a bit of of John Carpenters "Dark Star". The effects weren't all computer generated, and there was some model building done to show the surface of the moon and the complex where Rockwell's character lives. Maybe it's this, or possible the genre itself that reminds me of these older films.

I like films that show space as a lived in dirty environment. 2001 is the only film that shows it a bit more sleeker then the others I've mentioned. Yet the film reminds me of 2001 because of it's effects. Too much now is done with CGI, and though the effects are getting stunning and quite remarkable I still think it is sometimes not necessary.

But all things contribute to the liking of this film. The writing, the acting, the set design, and even the cinematography. That's what a good movie is suppose to do, and here Jones does it really well.

Are there some problems in the movie? Yes, but I believe those problems just didn't make it palatable to audiences in general. Such reviews like:

"Moon actually gets a little dull in the later reels, just when it should be peaking in mystery and tension." or "By halfway the film starts to feel like a mere exercise, one more effort to get maximum value from limited resources. Too much machinery, not enough dread" are valid reviews.

There does not seem to be a lot of urgency, or drama in the film. I myself liked the look, and feel, but their was no tension in the film. Jones does put in a count down to a ships arrival which is suppose to make us feel some dread, but we the audience already know what's happening, and so there is little tension. I know this film was done on a limited budget. I here the budget was about $ 5 million. For a sci-fi film that is low, and so as a filmmaker Jones needed to keep the costs down in his film. How is this done? By the simple trick of keeping the action in one location. That location is of course the moon, so the sets are very well done, and convincing. But again with little tension in the film there isn't much audience involvement.

Maybe that's what hurts the film. If you like sci-fi stories, and are an avid reader of sci-fi this film is for you, but for the mainstream audience it may be a bit too dull. Hence it's limited distribution I guess.

I enjoyed the film, and thought it was really neatly done. The old adage of leaving the audience wanting more may hurt this film. I really wanted to see Rockwell's character deal with his successful escape to Earth. But that would be a totally different type of film, and I think one more interesting. Also I had questions about the clones escape that was never answered. Like did the company design the clones with a limited lifespan so in order to protect their secret of cheap labor, or did the 1st clone die because of injuries due to his accident?

Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but that's what makes "Moon" so cool, and interesting. That's why I like it. It leaves me wanting more, and any movie that does that is good in my book. I recommend the film, and for those low budget filmmakers out there it is a sort of inspirational movie to watch. One can achieve an interesting and good looking movie with little budget. All it takes is ingenuity and this film has a lot of that.

Eric Rohmer 1920-2010

2010-01-12T11:37:00.007-05:00

1977 Interview with Eric Rohmer from zenfoolio on Vimeo.

Eric Rohmer died on Monday at the age of 89. He was considered one of the pioneers of the French New Wave, and a film maker I admired. His films are a bit difficult to get into. They are more conversation, and dialogue. But it is through these elements in his films that Rohmer did some pretty impressive work.

I remember my first introduction to Rohmer in film class. The film was "My Night at Maud's", and after that it was films such as "Chloe in the Afternoon", "Pauline at the Beach", and "Claire's Knee" that cemented in my mind that Rohmer was an extraordinary artist.

The best thing though is that Rohmer left us with a lot of really good films to watch and learn from.

Adieu Mr. Rohmer. You will always be missed.

Alvin & the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel (2009)

2010-01-03T14:32:00.006-05:00

When one has children, and they're home on winter break one needs to do something that the kids like to do. One solution was to take them to the movies. For entertainment for children this movie hits all the right buttons.

For me it was a bit more slapstick then I cared for, but the kids loved it. The plot is lame, and the story is weak, but that's not the point in this movie. It's all about the site gags, and the funny situations our three main characters get into.

Even I at times enjoyed the movie. Especially when I heard my two boys laugh at the antics on the screen. If you have little ones you can't miss with this. I even heard the wife laugh a couple of times at some jokes, so it does appeal to a wide variety of people. Even I wasn't immune to the sophomore jokes ad antics.

It's fun for the family, and the kids will like it too.

So I won't go into detail about the movie because there isn't much to say about the film. It's meant to be a distraction, and it being released over the holidays is a smart move on the distributors part. Where & when else can you corner the kid market then over a holiday break. 20th Century Fox is smart. Smart like a fox!

The Road (2009)

2009-12-28T22:48:00.006-05:00

What can I say that hasn't been said about this movie. It is a scary and upsetting film about the end of days. I had to catch this film before it vanished from theaters. With Avatar and all the new holiday films glutting up the theater screens I raced to the theater before the distributor pulls it. I understand why not many people have seen this film. It's a hard film to watch. There is no Mad Max action that usually is standard in films that deal with the Apocalypse of civilization. Maybe the film "2012" seems to have covered that territory and more audiences went to see that then "The Road".

I haven't seen "2012" and from the coming attractions I'll wait for the DVD. I know I'll miss the spectacle of the end of day shots that Roland Emmerich has compiled for the BIG screen, but I'll put my money on John Hillcoat's version of the end of the world thank you very much.

Why? You ask. Simple. It's a better film. The mood, the feel, and the performances of its actors in "the Road" are all of top notch quality. It is this quality that makes the film a real masterpiece of cinema. I'm not putting Mr. Emmerich's film down. After all sometimes spectacle is really cool, and fun. But for true heart "the Road" will have you gripping the theaters chair not from suspense, but of the sheer emotional onslaught that the film will deliver to your senses. "The Road is based on the book by Cormac McCarthy who wrote "No Country for Old Men". The filmmaker follows the book from what I am told, and it's because of this that the film is so powerful. There is not much dialogue in this film. The musical score is haunting, along with it's cinematography., but not just one element can be singled out in this film. It is ALL these elements that make the film such a powerful viewing experience.

Viggo Mortensen, and Kodi McPhee give outstanding performances. I have to say all the performances in the film are top notch. Charlize Theron is and will always be an actress who is severely under-appreciated.

If you can. Go see this film before it leaves the theaters. It's worth seeing. It's a film that stays with you for awhile, and that's a good thing. It makes you appreciate the here and now, and what we have, and maybe makes you even think about how dark it can become. This is a dark film, and one that grips you from beginning to end. Maybe not something you would see around the holidays, but if you do yourself a favor and love cinema I suggest you go see it. It's a film that is timeless, and will eventually become a classic.

Bless you Tiny Tim!

2009-12-23T11:05:00.008-05:00

Charles Dickens "A Christmas Carol" has been played out on stage and screen for longer then Dickens was alive, and yet several adaptations of the story have become classics. On of my favorites is the one with George C. Scott. Maybe it's because of nostalgic reasons I like it a lot, but seeing it does make me well up, and get emotional. I was watching that very version the other night with my mom, and thought that that's what a film really needs to do. It needs to move me. It's kind of cathartic when one sees a good movie that hits the viewer with a variety of emotions which we all share.

I've been silent because in this season of what has become a consumers nightmare of overload I've stepped back. Maybe it's because I'm older and I have kids, or maybe it's just getting back to basics for me. Where's the fun, and the excitement of it all. Personally I see a lot of ups and downs headed my way, and I'm sure many of you out there also see the same. I also grimace at not working at what I love to do, and that is making films.

For all its chaos and frustration film making is still a fun endeavor to do, and one I find rewarding. I complain of lack of time, lack of money, and lack of just plain faith, but its all excuses really. If you have the will to do something creative usually that creative spark finds a way out. It's like you can't contain the spark within oneself for too long. With all the tools available to an artist now in today's age there is a way to self expression no matter what the odds are.

Which brings me to this little entry. No more words, it's time to throw up things and see where they land. Being that movie making is a collaborative art form it is time to bring others into the fold. My idea is like a rock, and I need to toss it out there. Like a rock hitting water the ripples do occur and spread out hitting other ripples. Ideas are no good alone. They need to be shared, and talked about. Maybe the idea becomes something different, and evolves, but it all starts with and idea. Your idea.

The currency we use is our own desire to self expression. Meeting other artists who want to do the same is the key. The desire for a story to be told is all that is needed. The how's, the whys, and the what's will be answered by others who see differently then you, yet also share a desire to tell a story.

Of course there is reality. Nothing happens in a vacuum. The realities are family, finance, time, location, etc, etc, etc. One overcomes when one needs to. Life is to brief to think otherwise.

People talk about plans and business proposals when they should think more outside the box. If the system is broken, or different then work with it, and be innovative. Do what you love. If you love it that much that idea should rise to the top and be heard. If not, it doesn't matter. The desire is to tell a story or stories is what matters. Dickens did so, and was not compensated for his work very well in his time. I won't compare myself to Dickens, but I will dream of his greatness through reading and or watching his stories.

Now go out there and be the story teller you want to be, and be unconventional. The time is now, because you hear that BIG clock tick, tick, ticking away. That's your life going on by, and there is so much to be said before one is through. Thanks Mr. Dickens for the stories.

Corman gets an Oscar

2009-11-19T20:07:00.004-05:00

Seems as though there was a bit of a dust up about Roger Corman getting his Oscar in the old blog-o-sphere.

Here's a link to the ceremony itself. Both Ron Howard, and Jonathan Demme salute Corman, and it's a nice touch.

The dust up happened at a web site called Cinematical. Neil Sarver over at Bleeding tree wrote a interesting piece about criticism, and Corman. In the piece there are links to other opinions. Head on over and take a look.

When I heard about Corman getting an Oscar I said "about time". Call Corman the devil or the angel of independent film you still have to give him his due. He's created some interesting films throughout the years.

I have an affection for the guy, and I did meet the man and he is a very courteous and soft spoken man. I have all the respect for Corman, and I like the tribute they gave him.

I had thought that they would give him his Oscar in March of next year during the academy's broadcast, but instead they give it to him now.

I'm a bit saddened to hear that. I would have loved to see what some editor would do with the many clips from Corman's movies.

I was ecstatic to hear that Gordon Willis also received a Oscar. He is another man who has been looked over by the academy. Again though why not just televise it during the ceremonies next year?

Maybe it's just me. Too much the cine-file to let it go. But just those two men alone deserve MORE recognition then what the academy gave them. Come on academy these are true artists. They deserve more.

And don't get me started on Laureen Bacall either. She was another person honored too.

Irene Glezos on Law & Order

2009-11-11T07:33:00.005-05:00

TV ALERT everyone! Irene is on Law & Order this Friday (Nov. 13th). The show starts at 8PM, and Irene plays a wife of a murdered victim I believe. She says it was a great role. SO set your Tivo, VCR's & DVR's to NBC at 8PM to 9PM, and cheer Irene on. I think this is her third appearance in the L&O series, not including her appearance on the series "Conviction" which was a L&O spin-off that was cancelled mid-season.

Want MORE IRENE! I know I can't get enough so go on over to practice of artemisia.com. You can see her there too, along with a very talented bunch of other thespians.

Go Irene!

The Windmill Movie

2009-11-06T21:08:00.003-05:00

I noticed that I had missed the premiere of Alexander Olch's documentary "The Windmill Movie". Lucky for me HBO has it on demand till the end of November. To say that I was captivated by this film is a pretty fair way of describing it. The film was made by combing through 200 hours worth of footage of Richard P. Rogers autobiography. Rogers died in 2001 and it was up to his protege Alexander Olch who was a student of Rogers to make any sense out of it.

What unfolds is a beautiful honest piece about a man who feels compelled to say something, but has no idea what to say. It is only after his death and combing through his diaries, and recordings that Olch's makes sense of it all.

The site to the movie is here. If you do get a chance do see the film. It has always been my belief that we all have a story to tell, and yet we don't know what that story really is. Here is an example of a filmmaker who pointed the camera at himself and revealed to us the depth of life, and what it means to be a creative soul.

Go to HBO on demand and order it. If you subscribe to HBO it's free. How movies slip threw the cracks always amazes me, and I'm just glad I got to see this. It is inspirational, and challenging.

Is this the Winter of our discontent?

2009-11-05T19:16:00.012-05:00

With the weather changing here in the Northeast one wonders and ponders future events. I've been on Facebook a bit more then I'd like, but yet the site appeals to me because of its interaction with others. Social networking is something of a new thing. I mean it is to the vast majority of us. Of course back in the day there were bulletin boards and forums that one looked at for info and social networking of sorts. But now it's more mobile, and people are tweeting, and texting each other like it was going out of style.

So what has this got to do with film making? Well everything of course, because these tools now put the power in YOUR hands to start a sort of grass roots distribution effort for your film. Don't get me wrong it's difficult to do. Nothing worth while is easy and why should marketing your film through social networks be easy. It's time consuming and tedious at best. I'll say it right now. I'm not that good at it, but I do like connecting to like minded people. Creativity doesn't exist in a vacuum and using such tools as twitter and Facebook, and even Myspace you may be able to connect to an audience and or peers.

So why the title "the winter of our discontent"? Well it seems around this time there is more chatter out there and less content to be seen. C.C Chapman who lives in the Boston area said it in his blog today. There are more talkers out there then doers, and I so agree on that fact. But maybe that's just in general too. I've always been flustered by people who give no solutions to problems. These people expect someone else to FIX it. What usually does happen is that the problem is fixed but not before some stress and agita is given out to other people. In today's economy we're all working more with less, and this has become the norm.

I've REALLY been thinking about what I want to do. I have this production company and I so want to do another film, but I need to reach out to the creative community here and in the surrounding areas of where I live. Is it possible to come together and work on each others projects realizing that there are other priorities we may have in our life that may come up. I've always been a proponent of paying for someones service, but in today's economy who has the extra scratch to put up. I do like the idea of investing one self's skills into a project. In essence you become an investor in that project and all who work on that project give their time up for the project. I remember Rick Schmidt had that idea in his book "Feature Film making at Used Car Prices". I remember sitting with him and our group signing a contract together. It was a collaborative contract that stated that we all gave each other permission to work with the material we had shot, and that we would ALL profit from its success if that project became a success. It was a small video project way before the advent of DV, and it was to say the least very inspiring to work on.

I have been writing because after all ideas needs to be fleshed out, and written down. The screenplay is a blueprint of sorts. Only when your into production does that blueprint gets revised due to the realities of life. So I sit here pondering the possibilities. Which direction should I take?, what type of project should I commit to? What ever it is it needs to be something that I can live with for awhile because this isn't a short term project. I'm in for the long haul. So some serious thinking to do, and then a BIG leap needs to be made. Hopefully with a few other crazy creative types also, but none the less a leap needs to be made. Is this the winter of our discontent, or is it the beginning of something extra ordinary? We'll see what bubbles up!

Laundrea Thomas

2009-10-24T10:49:00.007-04:00

I just found out that Ms Laudrea Thomas died on August 9th of this year in Los Angeles California. It seems that she took her own life. She was 32 and she was way too young to leave this earth. I'm not going to say that I knew Ms Thomas very well. She was in my movie "Deadly Obsessions", and she was a pleasure to work with. I had hoped some how that someday we would work together again because it's so hard to find real good talent who have a passion for what they do.

To say that I was taken a back by this news of Laundrea's death is an understatement. I can still remember Laundrea's first day of shooting Of "Deadly Obsessions" it seems that she had car problems and her car broke down on the PA Turnpike on the day she was suppose to check in to shoot her scenes. Her father managed to rescue her, and drive her to the hotel where I had some of the cast & crew staying. Laundrea still made it on time and even brought some props that she thought we could use, which we did. She was a happy and determined young lady who gave 110%. I will always remember her that way and her laugh.

There is not much else I can say. The world is a little darker, and less friendly knowing that such a lovely women is nolonger with us. A link to her obituary is here & here.

Memorial contributions in Laundrea's memory may be made to Domestic Violence Services, PO Box 359, Lancaster, PA 17608.

Content & Communications World Expo

2009-10-16T13:56:00.004-04:00

I happen to be lucky enough to be invited to the Content & communications World Expo here in NYC, and take in a few presentations about digital media. First off it was very interesting to meet and see the men & women who work in the digital realm. Coming from an educational background I don't get to see, or play with the newest pieces of technology due to budgetary constraints. Where I work we do keep up with technology, but technology is a strange mistress. As soon as you get to know her she changes, and what you've learned about her becomes obsolete fast. I was hoping to see more technology for the class room, but here at the CCW expo it was more and more about monetizing the digital arena.

Since the technology is so quick to change there are companies trying to figure out how one can use digital technology and turn a profit doing it. I have no problem with this idea. Like all new techno logic breakthroughs there has always been people who want to profit from it, and make it more accessible to the consumer. Since the expo is called content & communications I met the people who provide the content to many different companies. From Television, to cable and even the Internet there are many people who contribute to this content. Yest as a society we seem to consume more content then we can produce. Also our content has become more and more specialized, or should I say more and more segmented.

In today's world its all about the here and now. I want what I want now, and if I can't have it instantly I go somewhere else. That's why there is a shift happening in media. Where Television, newspapers and magazines dominated in the past it is now all about on-demand satisfaction. This is in part because digital media is breaking out of it's box. No longer is digital media relegated to the computer, but it is now in our hands via cell phones and blackberry's. It is what we even watch. Eighty-five percent of us get our news via cable. The days of rabbit ears on the television are gone. Yet terrestrial TV is not dead. It has only changed, and is working hand in hand with digital networks. Through meta-data, SMS, and RSS we are connecting more and more with what we want to see. If your interest is in cooking you can find things about cooking a lot easier now, and so can marketers & advertisers. That's what I mean about segmented. These content providers need to get their content seen and they need to find an audience. Through digital technology this is happening more and more.

I can go on, and on about this and perhaps will since there is so much to digest, but what does this mean for me you are saying? Simple. To get or attract an audience you need to get it in front of eyes that want to see it. There is a number of various ways to do this, but I think you'll agree that the movies or serials you produce need to find their audience. Cutting through the clutter is a subject I've touched on previously here in this blog.

You can look at it in two ways. One, there is so much clutter that it's hard to stand out from the rest, or two you can do your own marketing and target the exact people who would be interested in your content.

I said it before and I'll say it again. There is a lot to say about all this, and a lot more to write about. I'll try and go through my notes and dissect them, and try to filter the most useful information out of them. I was very surprised that I came away from the expo a lot more optimistic, and hopeful then I thought I might. Maybe I can explain why here.

A New Beginning!

2009-10-07T08:50:00.007-04:00

It's been a while, and yet here I am. It's been a strange month, and now that were going into October that extra chill in the air kind of gives me a new spring in my step. Life has a way of running on by, and if you don't stop to look you just might miss it. So what's with the new Aggy philosophy? Since when is this a blog about feelings? Isn't it about film making?

Yes. Yes it is, and it time this fellow got back up, and start doing what he likes doing. Fuck fame & fortune. I'm not here to be the next Rodriguez, or Tarintino I'm here for me. Now don't get me wrong it would be really cool to get the recognition for ones films, and even make a living doing it. But the real question is why do I like film making.

Easy. Self expression. Before DV, and before the Internet I was just a dude with a camera who liked putting on shows, and telling stories. A lot of those stories were based on things I was watching, both on TV and at the movies. It was in college that I began to see film making as more then just storytelling, but as an art form. Unfortunately it is also commerce, and a lot of movies these days are just that commerce. Nothing bad about that, but I like a little meat on my bones. In essence more substance is what I'm after.

I've been looking at road blocks and been distracted from my goals. If there is something worth saying somehow you find a way to say it. That's not to say I've gotten all serious and high falutin about it all. Oh! not at all. I was more productive, and having MORE fun when I was doing my own little low budget horror, sci-fi epics then I was doing it professionally.

There are people out there who are doing there own thing, and having a good time doing it. I want to be one of those people again. Life is way too short for excuses. I need to produce, and in today's technology that is easier then it ever was. I mean do you know how hard it is or was to splice spaghetti (super-8) together? It's a lot easier now, and there is a lot of technology that can help.

So is this a new chapter? Maybe. I just need to break out of my own insecurities, and get that child like wonder back.

Anyone else feel that way?

Law Abiding Citizen trailer

2009-09-04T13:51:00.003-04:00

A shout out to a film shot here in Philly! Looks interesting!