30 March 2009

Hugo trailer and new poster



Harder at work at Hugo than I expected. Just a few quick promos. Response to the trailer I've posted (mostly on my facebook, nothing really on youtube) has been overwhelmingly positive.




Here are the opening credits, I chose Louis Armstrong as the title song. Since I'm not selling Hugo hopefully I won't get sued.







22 March 2009

'Hugo'...My Venture into Animation


With the completion of first short film, and in the process of planning a bigger, feature project (with actual actors!) for the summer, I'm also going to try my hand at animation. Obviously, I'm not Pixar, and the best animation I'll be able to come up with won't look much more sophisticated than an old episode of South Park, but I'm not worried about that. I want to tell a really good story, and that'll be the goal. Aiming for about 10-15 minutes or so for a Fall 2009 release. I'll post more info as I develop it. Anyway...

Hugo, which yes, is a take on the name of some of the infamous 'ugly' cartoon characters throughout history, is about a subject that's bothered me for years: the lobsters in the tanks in seafood restaurants and grocery stores on death row. Hugo is the story of a 100-year old American lobster who's seen more history than most humans who is one day plucked from his home and put up for sale in a seafood restaurant. Let the escape being.


Here's a promo pic:





My First Short Film

Just finished my first short film, ever. Before you take a look at it, here are a few tidbits about it:
  • I wrote and shot this film from scratch in about 2 days. My actor I realized probably couldn't do it at the last second and my brother, or camera man, wasn't able to make it up. Desperate, I changed everything. This was originally about a rebellious angel. I ended up with a dramatic horror.
  • So then it turns out the audio SUCKS, so I make it a dialogue-less film.
  • Every piece of audio was added in post, from the big things like the rain and thunder to tiny things like the faucet turning on, everything was done in post.
  • Because I'm poor, the entire thing was edited with Windows Movie Maker. It's not exactly what Spielberg uses, but it's simple.
  • I'm the star of the movie, unfortunatley. I hate being in front of the camera and love being behind it and hope I never have to act in one of my own films again. Because I was pretty much my own camera man, setting up the shots took three times as long and none of them were perfect.
  • In gist, this short film is an example of how every shortcoming that's thrown at you shouldn't stop you from making a decent product. If I can put something like this, which looks better than Vin Fucking Diesel's first film, then what the hell are all these directors doing with their $250 million dollar budgets? Buying $20 million dollar tripods?

11 March 2009

Watchmen: Meh...






Before starting I think it’s first necessary to inform any and all readers that I had not even heard of this Watchmen thing before trailers and hype started spreading throughout the internet like an unstoppable epidemic. Within a few months, the mass hysteria over the greatness that was to premier in theaters in March of 2009 was a little too annoying to ignore, so I researched it and discovered that Watchmen is actually a graphic novel by Alan Moore that most comic book readers put up on a pedestal right next to Halo and God. The novel involves colorful characters in costumes going around fighting crime and a secret plot against them all (according to Wikipedia). My reaction: so? It sounded to me like a typical, clichéd, stereotypical crime fighting story with nothing particularly interesting about it except for the fact that it takes place in an “alternate” 1985, where Richard Nixon still rules (I didn’t make that up). Despite my own personal questions about it, Watchmen apparently doesn’t have the same effect on most people, who revere it with the utmost loyalty and have been salivating over the film since it was announced. Naturally, I had to know what all the fuss was all about. I haven’t read the comic, like I mentioned before, but I did feel obliged to get in on the secret that everyone in the world except me seemed to know and go see the movie.
First impressions were positive. It’s always a good thing when a movie can completely dash all doubts about the stupidity of its setting right out of the starting gate. The film opens with a beautiful flashy montage showing the development of alternate history in which it takes place along with the opening credits that made me completely forget about its implausibility and pulled me into the story’s setting quite well. I was impressed. Good job, so far, Watchmen.
Then it goes south.
The story begins with the murder of a former superhero, who gets thrown out of a window by some guy dressed like a rejected version of the Joker. A fight preludes the death that’s complete with slow motion dramatics and loud sounds to cue hit points. It turns out that, according to Rorschach (I know I probably spelled his name wrong. I don’t care.), a vigilante with a shape-shifting mask and the personality of that recently-divorced guy at the bar, has the feeling that there’s an underlying conspiracy to get rid of all former superheroes, who have been outlawed (think The Incredibles if they ended up in a Grand Theft Auto game). This sets off a chain of stories which are essentially all interconnecting origin stories that lead up to about an hour of present time “saving the world” stuff. There’s a blue God guy named Dr. Manhattan (I’m assuming that’s a really, really bad and obvious allusion to the Manhattan Project), this Batman wannabe who isn’t cool enough for bats so he dresses like an owl, a girl who wears the suit from Kill Bill, and maybe another one or two that were lost in the shuffle of goofiness that is the Watchmen.
Now comes the inevitable criticism, and it really stems from one thing: tone. Watchmen is a movie about guys who dress up in very, very colorful costumes and is supposed to deal with superheroes in the “real world,” which in itself is an oxymoron. It’s hard to take the film as seriously as it wants us to when you have giant blue penises swinging around and “Hallelujah” blaring when one of the heroes finally gets it up after saving people from a burning building. Add that in with the fact that it doesn’t even take place in the real world, it takes place in an “alternate” world, which again takes away the suspension of disbelief. The film tries to mix things that look like pieces of a MadTV skit or a Saturday morning cartoon with downright seriousness, something that was attempted before in Spider-Man 3, and look how well that turned out. If you’re going to try and put your superhero in a realistic setting (um…The Dark Knight) then make it a realistic superhero, not a giant fu*king God-like being who’s practically unbeatable and has a summer house on fu*king Mars!
The acting isn’t very good, and jumps around from overacting to underacting. For example, when Dr. Manhattan goes from a geeky scientist to blue Mr. Clean, he steps into some giant machine to get back his watch (Watchmen, get it?), he gets locked in, and the two scientists behind the glass window practically shrug their shoulders, showing very little, if any, dread for what’s about to happen. What the hell is the point of that machine, anyway? Does it have a practical purpose besides turning people blue? Then, later on, you have the Shakespearean overacting, like from Rorschach. I know he’s a moral absolutist and sees the world in black and white, but seriously, dude, you’re wearing the Invisible Man’s outfit and killing people with hairspray torches, crack a joke once in a while!


I hear an expression sometimes when I ask people if they liked a particularly movie: “It’s good…if you’re into that sort of thing.” I can’t think of any better way to describe this film than that phrase. Watchmen is a movie for people who like Watchmen the graphic novel. Just like U2-3D is a movie for people who love U2 and The Fast and the Furious is for white kids who want to be black. I have no doubt that it remains faithful to its source material considering it runs longer than it takes to actually read most books these days; I don’t see how they could’ve left anything of significance out. It feels like it goes on forever, with the stories all winding down to a single 40-minute climax that would’ve been better suited for a mini-series on the SciFi channel.
Watchmen isn’t bad. It has enough action to keep you entertained, the effects may not be dazzling but they do the job, and Rorschach carries the film fairly well when the other characters don’t. Unfortunately it’s bogged down by its contradictory intentions, its silliness mixed with staidness, its confusing back stories and its unacceptable length. This results in what is no more than an average movie for those who aren’t already in love with its source. There’s nothing particularly horrible about it, but nothing great either. Most of the themes explored have been explored in movies many times over (this includes its ending, which really lacks any emotional gravity) and the effects aren’t anything revolutionary. Watchmen is a movie made for, dare I say it, the fanboys. If you love the original graphic novel, then I have a strong feeling you’ll love the film as well. To us, the mainstream, it’s just another super hero movie, a dime a dozen, but the people who worshipped the novel over 20 years ago I think will be satisfied by what it has to offer, and that it acts as a perfect companion to any previously established Watchmen collection. For the rest of us, it’s been there, done that, with nothing new to bring to the table.

Watchmen
Running time: 2 hours 43 minutes (there was a misprint at the movie theater I went to that read 1 hour and 43 minutes…imagine my bladder’s surprise)





Score: 2 out of 4

Twilight: An Emasculating Surprise


[This was originally a class assignment, hence the quotations.]


Over the previous Summer I found myself increasingly perplexed by a media phenomenon that seemed to ever so obnoxiously sweep the globe. Apparently, a popular teenage book series, which I’d never heard of, was being made into a film to be released in the Fall. The aforementioned film, Twilight, concerned the escapades of a teenage vampire and his love for a teenage non-vampire with (like totally OMG!) horrendous consequences (despite the implied, yet subtle notions of bestiality). Immediately, my crappy-cash-cow-movie-aimed-at-teenage-girls sense went off upon having to endure the swooning of every girl in the audience during the film’s trailer attached to, quite audaciously, The Dark Knight. The 2-minute preview that featured the likes of gloomy Harry Potter-esque forested landscapes and Hollister models pretending to be vampires had me all but ensured that it would be no more than a Nickelodeon movie disguised as something bigger, and I quickly organized a propaganda-filled campaign of hatred towards it. I began a personal boycott of the film, cursing it as the epitome of the spoiled tween white girl persona, that it would only be enjoyed by those who wear the word “pink” on the back of their sweatpants and drive around in silver Jettas, and that any money it made would be solely derived from that demographic. When the reviews were posted after the movie was released, I was overjoyed to see that many critics agreed with me, like Frank Ochieng, a featured critic of MovieEye.com:

"Twilight sparkles for its intended audience of indiscriminate adolescent females. However, it will only be deemed as a softened, hackneyed horror show of synthetic affection for the rest of us."

For months, I avoided exposing myself to Twilight; I avoided conforming like everyone else in the world and buying a ticket and supporting the very reason terrorists hate us. I went dateless for a few weeks while it was still in mainstream theaters, knowing that every girl I made one with would inevitably want to sit in the theater and tremble in the presence of “pin-up prince” (Ochieng) Robert Pattinson, who plays the leading vampire, and make me feel like the world’s ugliest college kid (even though Pattinson’s lipstick appears thicker than his female co-star’s most of the time). Alas, when the feature came to our local theater in recent days, I was finally coerced by some of those ravaging hormonal females into seeing it. I paid my dollar, ripped up a few Man-Cards, and stepped into the theater guns ablaze, prepared to metaphorically rip Twilight to shreds and burn its teen-corrupting corpse.
I rolled my eyes the first time our male heroic vampire, Edward Cullen, appeared on screen, predictably accompanied by the slow motion and slanted eye contact. A few minutes later, he locks eyes with the female non-vampire love interest, Bella, played by Kristen Stewart (aka the most boring girl in the world, ever), and I once again, though hesitantly, rolled my eyes. Then something completely unexpected happened. A scene or two later, Edward saves Bella Spider-Man-style by jumping in the path of a runaway van and stopping it just before it gets the chance to crush her puny little human body into oblivion followed by a longing stare into each other’s gaze. And, much to my utter surprise, I couldn’t come to visually criticize it; I couldn’t roll my eyes or chuckle mildly. Why? Because as much as I wanted to hate Twilight, as much as I would love to tell you how dreadfully awful and clichéd it is, I can’t. I can’t because, to my horror, the blue tinting, the somewhat serious romance and the awkward mystery of the main characters was all, well, it was all working.
Alright, I’ll admit it: Twilight is good. And no, I don’t mean good as in “tolerable”, I mean good as in that I genuinely enjoyed the experience. What the film does so well is something the marketing for it didn’t do so well: it doesn’t overdo anything.
Balance is important in filmmaking; spending too much time focusing on one aspect of your story to the point where it becomes monotonous bores your audience, but not spending enough time on it has the opposite effect, where plot points are lost. Twilight provides everything in small doses. The action, the drama, the suspense, and yes, even very good humor on occasion, is all delivered at a good pace throughout the course of the film without wasting too much time on either one. Yes, it has your occasional moments that appease only teenage girls, like Edward’s dramatic entrance, but they’re rare, and everything else in regards to the relationship between he and Bella is surprisingly mature. Like I said, nothing is overdone; the vampires are held in a more realistic light, but the movie doesn’t focus too much on it. It tells us what they are and leaves it at that, without incorporating magic or long rants about legends that interrupt the suspension of disbelief. It is, as one Washington Post reviewer put it, a “self-respecting vampire movie” (O’Sullivan). That may be the best way to describe Twilight; it’s respectful to itself and its audience and its actors and never goes down the road of horror, portraying the bloodsuckers in a more humanistic manner.
A movie is empty without its performances. Nothing does a better job at immersing you into the world the film attempts to create than good acting, and the title characters have some of the best on-screen chemistry I’ve ever seen. Maybe it’s because they’re both fairly creepy looking or both dry and weird, but the romance between Bella and Edward is, dare I say, believable. Having two actors stare at each other for prolonged periods of time is a common method used by directors to convey the essence of love, and it’s dangerous if the actors don’t have that special connection. Luckily, it works gloriously here as the feelings our two stars have for each other in the film come across as completely genuine.
Twilight is far from perfect, mind you. O’Sullivan mentions in his Post review that “the special effects seem outdated, as director Catherine Hardwicke relies too much on motion blur”. There’s an essentially useless character named Jacob who shows up once in awhile to steal screen time, but we never really learn anything about him, nor do we ever really care. The third act really falls apart, and feels as if it was put together at the last second. The story’s primary antagonist is both introduced and disposed of in under a half hour, and what feels like what should be the longest, most heart-wrenching section of the movie ends up being cut disappointingly short with no real sense of danger. It’s almost as if Michael Bay snuck onto the set and kicked Hardwicke off the director’s chair for the final leg of the film (I couldn’t resist), and because of that it speeds up as if to catch a deadline when the reality is that it needed maybe an extra 20 minutes or so of breathing room to come to a satisfying conclusion. It breaks what I dub the “Jumper Rule”, whereas the ending exists only as a precursor to an inevitable sequel.
None of these quibbles really ruin the experience the film has to offer. In fact, Twilight is one of the biggest surprises to reach movie theaters in a long, long time. It feels as if the filmmakers went against the grain of appealing only to teenage girls and made a dark, well-written, mature romance film with impeccable performances that does an outstanding job of never taking itself too seriously while at the same time never becoming a virtual parody. I applaud it, as well as all the people who ridiculed me for doubting it. It’s one of the rare films that seeks to outdo the expectations set before it, positive and negative, and succeeds grandly in both.
Twilight
running time: 2 hours
score: 3 out of 4