Random Musing: Watchmen Teaser Trailer

As I indicated last week, I spent most of this evening in an IMAX Theater in Opry Mills watching "The Dark Knight." (The review will be posted before the end of the week!) While sitting in the dark, excited for the film to finally begin, some previews rolled. A "Madagascar 2" trailer, a "Harry Potter 6" early teaser, yay... But then it happened... The "Watchmen" trailer. I had no idea it was going to open for "The Dark Knight"! (But apparently some people did...). It started discreetly enough - a man was helplessly being charged with electricity in a room and then an aircraft lifted out of a city river into the night. I thought for a moment and quickly realized - I was watching the earliest "Watchmen" trailer. I had seen the birth of Doctor Manhattan and the rise of Nite Owl's ship. I got really excited really quickly as I watched shots of Ozymandias, the Silk Spectre, the Nite Owl, and Rorschach... It was amazing. I had chills - I was struck with awe by its wonder. It has proven to me that everything I determined the other day is really going to fulfill me upon the film's release on (apparently) March 6, 2009. As soon as I find the trailer I watched on the internet (or Youtube), I will add it to this post. Check back when you see it hit the net! It is so worth it!

UPDATE: It is here!!!! Watch:

Read more...

Random Musing: The Dark Knight

It is days until July 18th and guess what is just around the corner? "The Dark Knight." The other day, I discussed my intense desire to see the film, and the day of its release rapidly approaches. While anxiously awaiting the day I finally see "The Dark Knight," there has been one other thing on my mind: the film's opening weekend box office. For months I have predicted an enormous box office the size of "Pirates of the Caribbean" or "Lord of the Rings," and I think it might just come true. For now, I want to focus on the opening weekend and the fact that it might cause record books to explode.
With the hype surrounding the film's release, I have long expected a huge opening weekend. Filmschoolrejects.com says five important factors will drive the opening weekend of "The Dark Knight": the fact it is a sequel, it follows a hugely successful film, it has had a powerful, intricate, and lengthy marketing campaign, it has achieved early critical praise, and it is the last film appearance of the recently deceased Heath Ledger. I have to agree with them because I think I have been reasoning based on the same factors they have strategized. Despite this line of thinking, I have mostly gone on gut instinct, so I have decided to turn to some resources on the internet for support.
Cinemablend.com says that "showings of The Dark Knight [are] already selling out in some cities." Not surprising because everyone I know is trying to garner his or her Friday night ticket.
Businesssheet.com thinks "'The Dark Knight' has generated an arguably unprecedented level of interest, and early showings in IMAX theaters and normal multiplexes are selling out left and right - so much so that insiders are predicting a $130 [million] box office take in three days." This sounds about right. Oddly enough, Warner Brothers is trying to tone down this number to around $90 million for the opening weekend so that they will be "surprised" when it is easily surpassed.
Furthermore, MovieTickets.com claims "'The Dark Knight' has sold eight times the amount of tickets online as 'Spider-Man 3' did at the same point during its sales cycle — 21 days prior to release." ("Spider-Man 3" opened to $152 million dollars in its opening weekend, the largest opening weekend in history.) Looks like we have a huge opening weekend on our hands.
But on the other hand, Screenrant.com contends "The Dark Knight" will have a weaker-than-expected opening weekend because of some facts like running time and film rating. Reasonable, but I just do not think it is convincing enough of an argument to prove "The Dark Knight" will not be logically looking at a huge opening weekend. The sequel to the critically and commercially successful "Batman Begins"? Check. The last performance by the late Heath Ledger? Check. A great deal of successful marketing? *looks at multitude of teaser posters flooding the internet* Check. Success.

Read more...

Random Musing: Bernard Hill

Watching "The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers" last night, I happened to realize the actor playing King Théoden was none other than Bernard Hill, who also played Captain E.J. Smith in one of my favorite movies of all-time: "Titanic." During his performance, I also realized that Hill must fancy playing characters who end up looking like deer in the headlights...
As Captain Smith in "Titanic," he is instructed by Bruce Ismay to speed up the ship in order to quickly reach New York - to "surprise them all," "make the morning papers," and "go out with a bang." When the Titanic ends up slamming into an iceberg one night and he learns the "unsinkable" will founder, Smith ends up looking like a wandering zombie. He has a ship of thousands and a handful of lifeboats against a huge, frigid body of water. Once a seeming leader and director, he has become no more than a cowering child.
His performance as King Théoden in "The Two Towers" inspired my déjà vu. At the film's climactic "Battle of Helm's Deep," he leads 300 Rohirrim in defending a fortress sieged by 10,000 of Saruman's Uruk-hai. As I watched the awesome battle, I noticed the return of Théoden's deer in the headlights look and quickly thought back to "Titanic."
What is it about a role that pits leadership against an unconquerable force that appeals to Hill? Although these are the only two films in which I have seen Hill, I feel like I have seen the same character in the land of Rohan and the northern Atlantic - the same look - the same performance. Is Bernard Hill destined to go down in the books as "the fool" in all those movies? What an honor.

Read more...

Quote of the Day: Some Like It Hot

"I'm a man!" ~ an exasperated Jack Lemmon
"Well, nobody's perfect." ~ a doting Joe E. Brown in "Some Like it Hot"

Read more...

Quote of the Day: On Golden Pond

"Ethel Thayer. 'Thoundth' like I'm 'lithping', 'dothn't' it?" ~ a belligerent Henry Fonda in "On Golden Pond"






*look for it around the 5:40 mark*

Read more...

Random Musing: Watchmen

Since the age of four, I have been a comic book collector. I may have my father to thank for that since he used to read them to me when I was a baby. It is therefore unsurprising to accept that I have plunged into comic book after comic book since I was old enough to read. In the time I have collected comic books, I have read many titles, but the more adult ones, such as Neil Gaiman's legendary Vertigo-imprint "Sandman," have evaded my notice. I only preferred the simple stories - Superman saves the world! or Batman's "Knightfall" (one of my favorite storylines... ask me about it!). Finally, last summer, I decided to give in and test out some of the classic storylines that are legendary within the comic book industry. I read DC's universal "Crisis on Infinite Earths" (fantastic!) and decided to test out a graphic novel I had heard a little about but had never given a look: "Watchmen." That graphic novel ended up changing the way I thought about comics...
It took me three days to read over 400 pages of well-crafted writing by Alan Moore, but I would never regret a single minute of it. I could not put it down for anything. Afterward, I posted a note on my Facebook page that I thought I would share again here:

I have had the pleasure of reading what I would consider to be the greatest graphic novel in the history of the medium: "Watchmen" by Alan Moore (with illustrations by Dave Gibbons). It delves into complex psychological realms, unearthing the mental and personal trials and tribulations of "costumed heroes" living in a world on the brink of nuclear war and where a "mask killer" is on the loose, knocking off the formerly celebrated heroes. Upon completing the several hundred page novel, I found myself laying on my bed while whispering "wow" over and over unceasingly. For those of you who are curious and would like to read this transcendent masterpiece graphic novel, I would recommend it in the highest regard for its achieved brilliance within the intricate storylines, the wisdom of Moore's parallelisms within the weaving, and the attributes it absorbingly displays.

Just brilliant. I loved reading this graphic novel so much that it quickly became my favorite book of all-time (and I have read some classics!). After reading it last summer, I started to do some research on Google and Wikipedia, and I soon found out that Time Magazine included it on their 2005 list of "the 100 best English-language novels from 1923 to the present." That was no surprise. What did surprise me was that Warner Brothers is apparently making a film adaptation of the graphic novel.
Did that last sentence make you cringe just a bit? It should have, especially if you have admired "Watchmen" like I have. But fear not! Just last night, I happened to be doing my ritual perusing of Wikipedia and found the page discussing the film. I had not thought about the film since last summer and decided to see what was going on with the production as of now. I was surprised. I found that the film had been rescued from "development hell" and had already been filmed by Zack Snyder ("300"). Having made "300" so stylistically rich, Snyder was someone with whom I felt more at ease. I even liked the choice of actors Patrick Wilson ("Little Children," "Phantom of the Opera") as Nite Owl and Jackie Earle Haley (also of "Little Children") as Rorschach. Seeing teaser photos of the actors on the set makes me really happy because I know at least the film's visuals will please me in keeping with the aesthetic of the book.
More importantly though, is the novel's rich writing. This is the part that makes me nervous. How do you take an intricately complex novel and make an equally formidable screenplay? It was done in 1962 when "To Kill a Mockingbird" (arguably one of the best screenplay adaptations of all-time) was made, so I hope it can be done again. It helps to know that the interlaced vignettes featuring the "Tales of the Black Freighter" will be released (animated!) on DVD in 2009 to coincide with the release of the film, especially since they are important as a "foil" for the main story. According to Wikipedia, apparently "The Tales of the Black Freighter DVD will also include "Under the Hood," a documentary detailing the characters' backstories, which takes its cue from Hollis Mason's memoirs in the novel." Along with the actual film's release, "Tales" may be "re-edited back in" to the film's sequence, so the film may end up being a near-perfect adaptation of the graphic novel that I hold so dear.
Having learned all of this, I can say that, in conclusion, I cannot wait for the film's release. At least, I hope it will be on time. Also according to Wikipedia, "on February 8, 2008 (as filming was finishing), Fox launched a lawsuit against Warner Bros., as producer Lawrence Gordon never paid out the studio as he sought a new studio to develop the project." Since filming has finished and DC Direct plans to release the film's action figures (yay!) in 2009, let's hope that its tentative release date of March 6, 2009 sticks.
Who watches the watchmen? I want to.

Read more...

Random Musing: Coming Attractions

Since I was a kid, I have loved everything Batman. I was a child at the height of TV's critically-lauded "Batman: The Animated Series," and I gobbled up its art deco style and Kevin Conroy's growling voice every week. I loved Tim Burton's "Batman" and "Batman Returns" and even liked "Batman Forever" and "Batman and Robin" despite their merciless camp and over-the-top cheese (hey, I was a kid!). But since 2005's brilliant "Batman Begins," I have anxiously awaited the arrival of this summer's sure-to-be-blockbuster-hit "The Dark Knight". For nearly a year and a half, I have been teased with photos and posters promising the forthcoming film's darkness and a creepy Heath Ledger Joker. Finally, the film is almost here, and my wait will be over... A co-worker informed me the other day that Peter Travers has already written a review of the film, applauding its psychology, darkness, and most importantly, "if there's a movement to get [Heath Ledger] the first posthumous Oscar since Peter Finch..., sign me up." For those of you who have difficulty reading between the lines of my previous posts, I live for the Oscars. When I hear that Ledger's performance was brilliant enough for a Best Actor Oscar, I get really excited. I remember my disappointment a few years ago when I first heard Ledger would be playing the Joker, and I clearly remember wondering how the handsome Australian heartthrob could possibly do justice to the zany Batman villain that the world had come to love through Jack Nicholson in the first film. Believe me, with the photos I have seen and the word-of-mouth I have heard since, I know that Ledger's performance will likely be my favorite part of "The Dark Knight" (not to mention the Joker is my favorite Batman villain). Anyway, I have anxiously waited the past few months for the release of "The Dark Knight," and I even have a countdown on my Facebook profile page that has shared my anticipation for the release. July 18 has been an important date on my calendar for months now, but I did not realize how important yet. A surprise was awaiting me the other day when I did some research on Wikipedia.
Enter "Mamma Mia". Since I was a child, Swedish pop group ABBA has been one of my favorite bands (thanks to my parents who raised me on "ABBA Gold"). I even remember being so obsessed in eighth grade that I bought every one of their souped-up, re-released studio albums on CD. I have only recently become familiar with the show "Mamma Mia!" on West End and Broadway, and I remember hearing about a year ago that Meryl Streep would be the main character (15th Oscar nomination, hopefully?). Just a few weeks ago, my aunt, my sister, and I expressed our interest in seeing the musical, which follows in the footsteps of "Hairspray" as being the new musical of the summer. Anyway, researching on Wikipedia the other day, I came to discover that "Mamma Mia!" starts the same day as "The Dark Knight"... July 18. So what do I do? Which will I see first? The newest Batman - a film about a hero that I have loved for so long - or Mamma Mia!, a film featuring music I have loved for so long (not to mention Meryl!)?

p.s. I plan to post reviews of both films after their respective releases, so look out for them, everyone!

UPDATE! Doing some of my interning work today at the Belcourt Theatre, I was surprised to be given two passes to the July 16 early screening of "The Dark Knight," and at the IMAX, no less! Guess I will not be wondering anymore!

Read more...

Random Musing: Fox Classics at Costco

So the other day I went with my friends to Costco in Memphis, and naturally, I wandered into the movie section. I found a few good bargains, including "The Bridges of Madison County" and "The Sand Pebbles," each for $9.99. But, oh was a surprise awaiting me... Looking through movie collections, I just so happened to find the 20th Century Fox Studio Classics series in sets of three for a heavenly deal... $11.99. I kid you not. $11.99. Sweet bliss. It was like finding one of those classic films on DVD for that price plus getting two free (at any other retailer)! The set I chose featured George Stevens' 1959 "The Diary of Anne Frank," the 1943 Oscar-magnet "The Song of Bernadette," and the 1953 "Titanic." I honestly could not believe I had found this amazing "triple feature" set for such a steal, and I thought I would inform the rest of the world about my bargain buy. This was not the only set available for you curious few, but this was my favorite selection of all of the rest (which included such favorites as "Peyton Place" and "All About Eve," but neither in must-have triplet packs). And for the near future, I might have to go back to Costco... Be back soon!

Read more...

Constantine's Sword

*** out of ****

Religious zealots may not like the new documentary “Constantine’s Sword” too much. If they were not already turned off by James Carroll’s 2001 book of the same name, then they will likely despise this film. Both the book and the film compare Carroll’s own history through religion, including his role as a former Roman Catholic priest, to the history of Christians and their involvement in anti-Semitism, but the film takes an extra step in uncovering the pressures of Colorado’s evangelical Christian right on the Air Force. Well-directed by Oren Jacoby, the film tries to unleash the symbolism of thousands of years of religious travesties while filling viewers’ minds with even more symbolism. In essence, Carroll may have found the world’s “real” weapon of mass destruction - religion. Creative with the camera, “Constantine’s Sword” is a brilliant, fascinating, and enlightening film.

One of the best sequences of the film comes at the beginning, and I like it for its style; it features a superimposition of several crosses, central to the way Carroll sees the world and important to the thematic symbol of the cross as “Constantine’s Sword”—the harbinger of war. According to Carroll, the cross only became an important religious symbol under Roman Emperor Constantine, who had a vision that foretold his conquest of the Romans if he would hold a cross before his army when he went to battle. In this way, Carroll asserts that the cross has long been a symbol of war, starting with Constantine, and he lingers for a while on the emperor while visiting European landmarks. He then analyzes how the Jews have for so long faced so much persecution in the name of Christ. He contends that the Bible may have twisted history in making the Jews out to be Christians’ greatest enemies. Visiting one Jewish friend, he advises “if you want to study anti-Semitism, don’t study Jews . . . study non-Jews,” and this film would reasonably agree because it claims that Christians, especially those in the Catholic Church, are the reason for much of the world’s violence and war. He says that religion is “even a sponsor” of war, and at the end of the film, there is a connection of violence and war to modern times with the use of a 360 low angle shot of a cross with a plane flying over, which ties the symbolism of the cross as a weapon of religion to the use of a plane as a weapon in our nation’s current war. In addition, Carroll accuses Christians of hypocrisy since their feigned innocence ignores thousands of years of “evil” just like the Muslims who appear violent and evil today.

Meanwhile, a concerned Carroll introduces a well-hidden subject unbeknownst to America: the indoctrination of the Air Force by conservative Christian ideology. Only through some Jewish subjects who enlighten the narrator as to their own modern persecution can Carroll relay their trials to America. It disgusts me to watch the smug smile on the interviewed evangelical preacher’s face as he blindly ignores the wrong he is doing in forcing himself and his religion on those who have long and continuously been persecuted for “killing Jesus” like the Bible says they did thousands of years ago. This part of the film shows the effect of religion today, especially in a nation that should be practicing complete religious freedom. The battles for the freedom of religion and the separation of church and state in today’s politics ultimately uncover the pressure of the Christian right on the Air Force close to home.

All in all, “Constantine’s Sword” is a controversial film and a great history lesson, though occasionally a little boring. It balances the plot fixtures well, weaving a seamless, fascinating, eye-opening, and informative story. Carroll is an intriguing narrator, especially because of his past and how it has influenced how he has abandoned his Catholic heritage for the truth of the connection between religion and war. By the end of the film, I guarantee that viewers will form opinions on Christianity in both politics and the world. And war.

“Constantine’s Sword” will be showing at the Belcourt Theater starting July 11.

Read more...

Random Musing: Meryl Streep

Meryl Streep is well-known as perhaps the greatest modern actress. Her method acting and believable characters have garnered the attention of film critics and Academy voters for years, but oddly, with a record fourteen Oscar nominations (in leading and supporting roles), Meryl Streep has only nabbed two awards. Two? Out of fourteen? How is it that this talented actress has only gotten two awards? This is not to say that the Oscars just hand out awards to their favorites over and over (even Kate Hepburn only got four for acting, and that is the most in history!). I just think that it is interesting that after fourteen nominations, Streep has only achieved two wins, and even those were early in her career. The following is Streep's lengthy Oscar track record:

1978 (51st) ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE -- The Deer Hunter {"Linda"}
1979 (52nd) ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE -- Kramer vs. Kramer {"Joanna Kramer"}
1981 (54th) ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE -- The French Lieutenant's Woman {"Sara Woodruff/Anna"}
1982 (55th) ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE -- Sophie's Choice {"Sophie"}
1983 (56th) ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE -- Silkwood {"Karen Silkwood"}
1985 (58th) ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE -- Out of Africa {"Karen"}
1987 (60th) ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE -- Ironweed {"Helen"}
1988 (61st) ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE -- A Cry in the Dark {"Lindy"}
1990 (63rd) ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE -- Postcards from the Edge {"Suzanne Vale"}
1995 (68th) ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE -- The Bridges of Madison County {"Francesca Johnson"}
1998 (71st) ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE -- One True Thing {"Kate Gulden"}
1999 (72nd) ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE -- Music of the Heart {"Roberta Guaspari"}
2002 (75th) ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE -- adaptation. {"Susan Orlean"}
2006 (79th) ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE -- The Devil Wears Prada {"Miranda Priestly"}

Since 1982, Streep has seen about twenty-five Oscar seasons and has been nominated in ten of those annual ceremonies. Why is it that she has not been rewarded with another award since? It might be best to see who was awarded.
In 1978, her first nomination was eclipsed by the acting of Maggie Smith in "California Suite." In 1981, her role in "The French Lieutenant's Woman" was superseded by the great Katharine Hepburn in "On Golden Pond." (I have seen that film (one of my favorites), and the award was deservedly given to the legend.) But after Streep's win in 1982 for her powerful role in "Sophie's Choice," this is where she has been beaten at every turn:

1983 ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE -- Shirley MacLaine -- Terms of Endearment {"Aurora Greenway"}
1985 ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE -- Geraldine Page -- The Trip to Bountiful {"Mrs. Watts"}
1987 ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE -- Cher -- Moonstruck {"Loretta Castorini"}
1988 ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE -- Jodie Foster -- The Accused {"Sarah Tobias"}
1990 ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE -- Kathy Bates -- Misery {"Annie Wilkes"}
1995 ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE -- Susan Sarandon -- Dead Man Walking {"Sister Helen Prejean"}
1998 ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE -- Gwyneth Paltrow -- Shakespeare in Love {"Viola De Lesseps"}
1999 ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE -- Hilary Swank -- Boys Don't Cry {"Brandon Teena/Teena Brandon"}
2002 ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE -- Catherine Zeta-Jones -- Chicago {"Velma Kelly"}
2006 ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE -- Helen Mirren -- The Queen {"The Queen"}

So ultimately, Streep has just been prevented from winning again by some tough competition---actresses ranging from rising stars to aged legends, all in memorable roles. However, this does not diminish Streep's acting power in the least, and her nominations certainly prove her formidable value. Maybe one day she will be clutching that third award (if not another acting award, then a probable honorary award), but until then, she can at least reflect on her considerable nominations.

Read more...