The people over at retrocrush.com have put together a an awesome list of the 100 scariest movie scenes.
With 100 scenes nothing is really left out, and they are working on adding youtube clips for all 100.
The list is great and has a good balance between surprises and obvious choices, not to mention the people that write it are pretty funny.
Included are Jaws, Halloween, the Evil Deads, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, the Ring, the Shining, and some choice cuts from David Lynch, along with some real treats like Suspiria, Fulci's Zombi, Return of the Living Dead, Nosferatu, Event Horizon and even Pee Wee's Big Adventure.
Click the title of the post, or here, to check it out.
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Thursday, May 24, 2007
John Rambo will fuck you up
A promo has been posted online for "John Rambo" aka Rambo 4. Yes, Rambo 4.
It's basically 2 minutes of Rambo's soft side, and 2 minutes of Rambo's fuck you up side.
This clip is so official you may not even believe it's real, and I'm not even being sarcastic. If you hate militant terrorists in Bangkok and love black mullets then this is for you so click the title of the post to link up, and enjoy.
It's basically 2 minutes of Rambo's soft side, and 2 minutes of Rambo's fuck you up side.
This clip is so official you may not even believe it's real, and I'm not even being sarcastic. If you hate militant terrorists in Bangkok and love black mullets then this is for you so click the title of the post to link up, and enjoy.
Style vs. Narrative
I just got done watching the Russian action/sci fi/horror/thriller Nightwatch and I gotta admit, I wasn't as impressed with it like many others. The "Watch" trilogy uses the same basic formula as Lord of the Rings: a bunch of good characters that aren't human racing against a bunch of evil characters that aren't humans to find the one thing that will determine if good or evil prevails in the end. The idea of a R-rated version of LOTR seemed wonderful, and "Nightwatch" is even based off of a book so it's like a Spanish person taking Spanish in high school, it gets a B just for showing up.
Now, when I got done with it I found myself strangely unsatisfied. Actually more like an emptiness, and I struggled with this because throughout the whole movie I kept thinking to myself how amazing the film looked and how unconventionally it was directed. Then I came to this crazy (sarcastic) realization about how much I really didn't care about what happened in the movie (kind of like I felt after "300").
So after nearly 18 years of watching movies that I can remember I realized that, to me of course, narrative is far more important in determining whether or not I like a film then style is. That's sort of an obvious statement, I know this, but at the same time it led me down a path of reminiscing about movies I should have liked but didn't, and ones that absolutely blew me away.
Funny conclusion, most of the ones that blow me away treated style and narrative equally. Let's examine...
Take Spiderman 3 for instance. I was so confused after this one I couldn't even review it. The first person that asked me what I thought about it, I told them "that was a lot of movie to take in." I still think that, and now I know what I mean. Instead of focusing on the style of Spiderman I think Mr. Raimi and co were relying way too heavily on narrative. Raimi attempted to show us arcs and emotional instability in Spidey, Parker, Brock, Venom, MJ, Harry/Goblin, Sandman, and Gwen Stacy. How hard is it to tell us about how 9 people feel in the beginning, and why they feel different in the end?
Hard enough to get a lot of people hating your movie.
You look at the first 2, there's style, that Raimi style he built off the Evil Dead trilogy and Darkman, and it's combined simple paced, question raising narrative that we can balance with the visuals.
How about the first Matrix, a perfect balance of style and narrative. Probably the most obvious example I can come up with.
With the Matrix, we realize that when the bar is raised with style, the bar must similarly be raised with the narrative. The film opens when a girl with a Pat Riley haircut dressed in bondage leather kicks the shit out of a whole platoon of cops, and lets not forget the infamous spinning camera shot all in the first 5 minutes. With that dish served so fast anything less then you telling me the entire world is a fake computer program built so that humans will survive in a coma like state so machines can use us as a power source to generate their being is going to make me leave unsatisfied.
This is where I realize there comes a point in every film where the director, in some way, decides what's more important, style or narrative, and I think it's the lack of taking on the responsibility to focus on both that's leaving us walking out of the theatre saying "that was alright" time and time again.
Now, when I got done with it I found myself strangely unsatisfied. Actually more like an emptiness, and I struggled with this because throughout the whole movie I kept thinking to myself how amazing the film looked and how unconventionally it was directed. Then I came to this crazy (sarcastic) realization about how much I really didn't care about what happened in the movie (kind of like I felt after "300").
So after nearly 18 years of watching movies that I can remember I realized that, to me of course, narrative is far more important in determining whether or not I like a film then style is. That's sort of an obvious statement, I know this, but at the same time it led me down a path of reminiscing about movies I should have liked but didn't, and ones that absolutely blew me away.
Funny conclusion, most of the ones that blow me away treated style and narrative equally. Let's examine...
Take Spiderman 3 for instance. I was so confused after this one I couldn't even review it. The first person that asked me what I thought about it, I told them "that was a lot of movie to take in." I still think that, and now I know what I mean. Instead of focusing on the style of Spiderman I think Mr. Raimi and co were relying way too heavily on narrative. Raimi attempted to show us arcs and emotional instability in Spidey, Parker, Brock, Venom, MJ, Harry/Goblin, Sandman, and Gwen Stacy. How hard is it to tell us about how 9 people feel in the beginning, and why they feel different in the end?
Hard enough to get a lot of people hating your movie.
You look at the first 2, there's style, that Raimi style he built off the Evil Dead trilogy and Darkman, and it's combined simple paced, question raising narrative that we can balance with the visuals.
How about the first Matrix, a perfect balance of style and narrative. Probably the most obvious example I can come up with.
With the Matrix, we realize that when the bar is raised with style, the bar must similarly be raised with the narrative. The film opens when a girl with a Pat Riley haircut dressed in bondage leather kicks the shit out of a whole platoon of cops, and lets not forget the infamous spinning camera shot all in the first 5 minutes. With that dish served so fast anything less then you telling me the entire world is a fake computer program built so that humans will survive in a coma like state so machines can use us as a power source to generate their being is going to make me leave unsatisfied.
This is where I realize there comes a point in every film where the director, in some way, decides what's more important, style or narrative, and I think it's the lack of taking on the responsibility to focus on both that's leaving us walking out of the theatre saying "that was alright" time and time again.
Thursday, May 03, 2007
Spiderman 3 Countdown
What we know:
-There are 3 villains: Venom, the New Goblin and Sandman
-the budget is reportedly over $250 million, the most expensive movie ever made cost $286 million (Cleopatra). As of now this puts Spidey 3 at 2nd. Spiderman 2 is currently the 5th most expensive movie ever made
-running time is over 2 and a half hours
-Sandman was somehow involved in the death of Uncle Ben
-Venom kidnaps Mary Jane (this is shown in the trailers)
-Gwen Stacy is in the film and is played by Bryce Dallas Howard (the blind chick in the "Village")
What we've heard:
-Venom is the main villain (as stated by Sam Raimi at various comic cons)
-Toby won't be back again as Spidey
-The characters cry, a lot
So far the reviews have been similar whether or not the critic likes the film: a lot of villains, a lot of eye candy and a lot of crying.
The one saving grace of the film could be David Koepp's screenplay. He's arguably the most productive and successful screenwriter in Hollywood right now and having to take on 1 superhero, 3 villains and 2 love interests is no small feet.
There's no question this film has been hyped as much, if not more than "300" a few months back and sadly that scares me a bit because I walked away from "300" with that sort of "eh" feeling. Like I needed more.
I'm betting that a live action Venom will be enough to make that "eh" feeling an "ahhhh." Contrary to some, I'm just fine with Topher Grace as Eddie Brock, as I am with Lowell from Wings as Sandman. I'm willing to bet that Sandman is the least seen villain, followed by New Goblin, then Venom. Sam Raimi isn't stupid, he knows the people want Venom, and he knows more Venom equals more box office caaaaaash.
As far as the legitimacy to the film vs. the comic book, there's a few things to question: in the comics, Gwen Stacy was actually Parker's first love interest, not MJ. Comic fans know this, but casuals don't, so Stacy will probably just become a rift between Parker and MJ as well as Parker and Brock. However, in the comics Goblin kills Stacy. I see some foreshadowing here.
So a lot of questions arise in this, the first true summer blockbuster of 2007. More questions than "300", more questions than "Grindhouse" and certainly more questions than "Transformers" and "Rise of the Silver Surfer" (a live action Optimus Prime and a live action Silver Surfer, I could care less about the story).
Reviews so far have been so-so with the third installment of Spidey raking in a 64% on the tomatometer at rottentomatoes.com. But now, for my Spiderman 3 predictions:
Venom will appear more then most anticipate, Aunt May dies, Gwen Stacy is killed by Harry Osbourne (he'll drop her from somewhere high) , Sandman won't be responsible for Uncle Ben's death as previously thought, Spidey kills the New Goblin and that's why he rips off the symbiote suit, and the end will hint at the arrival of Lizardman or Carnage.
But what really matters is I finally get to see Venom tonight. God I'm such a dork.
Going to see the 11:59 pm showing tonight, and my review will follow. Wish me luck.
What we know:
-There are 3 villains: Venom, the New Goblin and Sandman
-the budget is reportedly over $250 million, the most expensive movie ever made cost $286 million (Cleopatra). As of now this puts Spidey 3 at 2nd. Spiderman 2 is currently the 5th most expensive movie ever made
-running time is over 2 and a half hours
-Sandman was somehow involved in the death of Uncle Ben
-Venom kidnaps Mary Jane (this is shown in the trailers)
-Gwen Stacy is in the film and is played by Bryce Dallas Howard (the blind chick in the "Village")
What we've heard:
-Venom is the main villain (as stated by Sam Raimi at various comic cons)
-Toby won't be back again as Spidey
-The characters cry, a lot
So far the reviews have been similar whether or not the critic likes the film: a lot of villains, a lot of eye candy and a lot of crying.
The one saving grace of the film could be David Koepp's screenplay. He's arguably the most productive and successful screenwriter in Hollywood right now and having to take on 1 superhero, 3 villains and 2 love interests is no small feet.
There's no question this film has been hyped as much, if not more than "300" a few months back and sadly that scares me a bit because I walked away from "300" with that sort of "eh" feeling. Like I needed more.
I'm betting that a live action Venom will be enough to make that "eh" feeling an "ahhhh." Contrary to some, I'm just fine with Topher Grace as Eddie Brock, as I am with Lowell from Wings as Sandman. I'm willing to bet that Sandman is the least seen villain, followed by New Goblin, then Venom. Sam Raimi isn't stupid, he knows the people want Venom, and he knows more Venom equals more box office caaaaaash.
As far as the legitimacy to the film vs. the comic book, there's a few things to question: in the comics, Gwen Stacy was actually Parker's first love interest, not MJ. Comic fans know this, but casuals don't, so Stacy will probably just become a rift between Parker and MJ as well as Parker and Brock. However, in the comics Goblin kills Stacy. I see some foreshadowing here.
So a lot of questions arise in this, the first true summer blockbuster of 2007. More questions than "300", more questions than "Grindhouse" and certainly more questions than "Transformers" and "Rise of the Silver Surfer" (a live action Optimus Prime and a live action Silver Surfer, I could care less about the story).
Reviews so far have been so-so with the third installment of Spidey raking in a 64% on the tomatometer at rottentomatoes.com. But now, for my Spiderman 3 predictions:
Venom will appear more then most anticipate, Aunt May dies, Gwen Stacy is killed by Harry Osbourne (he'll drop her from somewhere high) , Sandman won't be responsible for Uncle Ben's death as previously thought, Spidey kills the New Goblin and that's why he rips off the symbiote suit, and the end will hint at the arrival of Lizardman or Carnage.
But what really matters is I finally get to see Venom tonight. God I'm such a dork.
Going to see the 11:59 pm showing tonight, and my review will follow. Wish me luck.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
