Slow-Mo Makes Everything Better

I suppose this is a little late in the game, but can we talk about 300 a little? More specifically, how, as the first feature-length film shot entirely in slow motion, it is a groundbreaking achievement in cinematic excellence.

Now, far be it for me to drift into hoity-toity elitism ... but slow-motion makes everything better. Or, more specifically, messing around with the speed of a film can make it much more palatable to the senses. By slowing things down, viewers are able to notice the minutia and nuances of a performance, and generally soak in the film's dramatic-ness (it's a technical term). Similarly, slow-motion can take a good scene and make it better simply by making it longer! While the theatrical release of 300 comes in at just under 2 hours, the original "normal motion" cut lasts only about 35 minutes. Granted, these 35 minutes are filled with more blood, guts, man-thighs, 12-pack abs, torture, and dismemberments than your average red-white-and-blue-blooded ("red-blooded," to me, just reeks of Communism) American normally gets in a whole hour-long episode of 24, so it's not like we're missing out on anything like "plot" or "dialogue" as a result of the 35 minutes of actual film.

(Tangent: the thought just occurred to me: 300 ... 24 ... is there some connection between these gruesome works and their numerical titles? Is this some kind of game of chicken to see who can up the ante the most? The higher the number = more violence? Perhaps that's why 8 1/2 and Pi were kinda tame, and the horrors of 2001 unspeakable. But I digress...)

Anyway, the point is this: 300 is just 35 minutes of action, slowed down till it lengthens the film to 2 hours of box office excitement. Yet, 300 is not unique; there is a time-honored tradition of employing slow motion--albeit on a lesser scale--in more "respected" films. Take, for instance, this classic scene from Orson Welles' Citizen Kane, where the eponymous character utters his famous last word: "Rosebud." (Spoiler: it's the jigsaw puzzle.)

Chilling. Incidentally, Welles originally shot this scene sped up--another well known technique of engaging the audience, as perfected by luminaries of the screen such as Benny Hill and Martin Scorsese. Fortunately, they included the original director's cut on the Kane DVD, which shows Welles' original vision of the above scene:

What a difference. Honestly, I don't know which one I prefer. And yet, the success of both techniques in Kane is not an aberration, as empirical evidence suggests that either will make any film better. Indeed, many consider director Robert Zemeckis' employment of slow motion for the floating feather in 1994's Forrest Gump to be key to that film's upset of Oscar favorites Dumb & Dumber and The Santa Clause. (Of course, this maxim does not always hold true, as 2003's slow motion extravaganza Seabiscuit lost to Lord of the Rings: The Return of the Profit King, in a blatant act of nerd-pandering.)

(Frickin' Legolas.)

Setbacks in recognition of cinematic excellence notwithstanding--we all know that an Oscar means crap--what is true here is that the amount a film uses slow motion or speed-upiness* is directly proportional to its quality as a work of art. This is not to say that the techniques are not controversial: at the time Kane was made, slow motion was widely considered a Communist plot to make impure our precious bodily essences, and the public backlash was much more the reason for Welles' blacklisting than the machinations of an inconsequential newspaper magnate. Yet, today the techniques are employed much more widely, and this has resulted in today's movies, on average, being superior to normal-motion tripe of yesteryear such as North By Northwest and Metropolis. I, for one, cheer on the continuance of slow motion's integration into films, and hail 300--the first all-slow motion film--as an achievement no less groundbreaking than colorization or the use of "Lux Aeterna" in every single epic movie trailer.

*Look it up.

Friday Fun, week 5

Just keep on keepin' on, man.

Keeping up with last week's selection of film star of yesteryear Rock Hudson, this week's alternative to the gorgeous Adriana Lima is Gene Kelly. Apparently, being a dancer (and thus having sexy man-thighs) qualifies one as "hot." At least according to some.

You decide.

Y'know, I might not think Gene Kelly is attractive whatsoever, but I gotta admit... the man's got style!

A Teatise on the "Chick Flick"

If I may, I'd like to take a momentary break from reviewing movie trailers and write on the topic of the "Chick Flick." Everyone has heard of this term before, and many have used it themselves; however, does anyone really know what a chick flick is? Is it simply a romantic comedy of any kind? Any kind of romance--comedy or otherwise? This would seem to be the most obvious first thought: men, after all, have only two emotions: anger and lust. We've got no room for piddly, sissy emotions like "love" or "caring" or "cleanliness." And so it would seem natural that adding a romantic element to a movie would automatically qualify it as a chick flick. Yet, Indiana Jones, one of the manliest movie heroes of all time, had a "love interest" in each of his adventures. Are we really ready and willing to call Temple of Doom a chick flick? Hearts are symbols of love, but c'mon...

Hell, even most Schwarzenegger flicks have some kind of thinly-veiled romantic crap thrown in. So I think I can say that having romantic in a movie does not necessarily make it a chick flick. So where else do we go? I did some looking around and found a book on Amazon.com (The Ultimate Guide to Chick Flicks--sounded promising enough) that listed ten things all chick flicks have in common:

1. Create a Sympathetic Heroine
2. Offer up a Love-Worthy Hero
3. Don't Forget the Best Friend
4. Something's Wrong with the Heroine's Life
5. They Meet
6. Toss in Impediments to the Romance
7. They Dance
8. Pack in as Many Memorable Moments as Possible
9. The Hero Employs the Three Magic Words
10. Achieve the Ultimate Happy (or unhappy) Ending

Parts of this list seem specious to me, so let's test it out on, say, The Piano, which certainly seems to qualify nebulously as a chick flick.

1. Create a Sympathetic Heroine
   

   Holly Hunter's character can't talk. She gets sold into a marriage with some jerk down in New Zealand. Check.

2. Offer up a Love-Worthy Hero
   

   Harvey Keitel's character is also a bit of a jerk... though he does let Hunter play her piano. Tenuous at best.

3. Don't Forget the Best Friend
   

   I guess we can consider the daughter as the best friend here. Check--but only grudgingly.

4. Something's Wrong with the Heroine's Life
   

   See number 1. Check.

5. They Meet
   

   We at the innuendo yet? Check.

6. Toss in Impediments to the Romance
   

   Well, it is an extramarital affair after all. Most husbands aren't cool with that. Check.

7. They Dance
   

   If you count seeing Keitel's ugly bare ass while they're doing it as "dancing".... Check.

8. Pack in as Many Memorable Moments as Possible
   

   This is a bit ambiguous, isn't it? What qualifies as a "memorable moment"? Seeing Keitel's ass and wang would count, I guess, if only because the images are now burned forever more into my brain. Check.

9. The Hero Employs the Three Magic Words
   

   Dunno, can't remember if Keitel's character ever says "Suck me, beautiful." Probably not. Nix.

10. Achieve the Ultimate Happy (or unhappy) Ending
    

    Yay! They get married and live happily ever after! Check!

Using this standard, The Piano easily qualifies as a chick flick. Seems good, but let's try the list on something else. How about... True Romance. Written by Quentin Tarantino, this movie is the anti-chick flick: it's got gratuitous sex and nudity, lots of cursing (could you expect anything less from Tarantino?), and tons of blood. In short, it's a man's man movie. However...

1. Create a Sympathetic Heroine
   

   Down-on-her-luck prostitute with a jerk wigger for a pimp. Check.

2. Offer up a Love-Worthy Hero
   

   I don't know about love-worthy, but Christian Slater is, from what I hear, "attractive," and he plays the lonely-but-non-threatening geeky comicstore clerk. We'll give it a check.

3. Don't Forget the Best Friend
   

   The two lovers become best friends. Awwwwwwwwww. Definitely a check.

4. Something's Wrong with the Heroine's Life
   

   See number 1. Check.

5. They Meet
   

   Prostitute is on assignment... It's the hero's birthday... Check.

6. Toss in Impediments to the Romance
   

   Prostitute wants out, pimp doesn't take too kindly to that. Check.

7. They Dance
   

   Queue up sex scene and gratutious nudity. Check!

8. Pack in as Many Memorable Moments as Possible
   

   Again, very ambiguous. But there's enough here to qualify. Check.

9. The Hero Employs the Three Magic Words
   

   A surprising amount in here. Check.

10. Achieve the Ultimate Happy (or unhappy) Ending
    

    The King guides our heroes out of trouble and they live the rest of their lives on the beach or something. Check.

Hell, by the book's standard, True Romance is more of a chick flick than even The Piano! Clearly, Tarantino did this on purpose; he probably decided he wanted to try making a manly movie with chick flick cliches in order to prove to the world that it's possible to make a "sensitive" gory action film, but impossible to make a "gory action" chick flick. Hell, the title of the Tarantino film even suggests that the movie is a play on chick flick conventions.

So what does this all mean? Implicitly, anything could be a chick flick. And yet... how many women out there actually enjoy watching True Romance? I would bet big money that it's not even close to the number of women who enjoy The Piano. I guess the real question is what was Tarantino's intent when he put the chick flick elements into True Romance? Did he truly want to incorporate them into the movie because he thought they would add something to the narrative, or was he merely playing around in order to mock the chick flick conventions? Possibly it was a bit of both, but I'm not sure if we'll ever know for sure.

But what I do know is this: couples, if you're ever at the videostore and can't decide on what to get--she wants a chick flick, he would rather stab his eyes out with a pencil--just compromise and get True Romance. It's got enough to satisfy her need for emotion and romantic fulfillment, yet still has the action and nudity to keep him interested. It's a win-win, baby!

Friday Fun, week 4

At first glance, some of you may think that the Friday Fun stuff I do around here is sexist or whatever. But it's not! I believe that everyone--men and women, children and adults, regardless of sexual orientation--should ogle whomever they find attractive. For me, it's Adriana Lima (or my girlfriend, if she's reading this). But if you're thinking that I only show hot women every Friday on this blog--fear not! So to go along with Adriana this week, I found a nice photo of movie hunk Rock Hudson. Enjoy!

Cyber Seduction

Cyber Seduction: His Secret Life
Lifetime (July 2, 2005)
Director: Tom McLoughlin
Cast: Jeremy Sumpter, Kelly Lynch, Lyndsy Fonseca, Jake Scott

View the trailer


Wow. Just... WOW. What else can I say about this movie? Despite being made by Lifetime: Television for Women (or, perhaps, because of it), the trailer to Cyber Seduction: His Secret Life is something else. Sadly, it's just a made-for-TV movie--and one that ultimately must have the moral that being a prudish woman is better than being a Redbull-chugging porn addict--so, despite the film's promising title, the trailer doesn't contain any nudity. And yet...

One click can destroy a mind... a marriage... a family.

This inane slogan is interspersed with what the folks at Lifetime presumably think is drama. And despite the fact that the film's synopsis clearly pegs previously-good-boy-now-turned-porn-addict Justin as the main character, the trailer almost completely ignores his struggle with whether or not to whack it, and instead focuses on the trials and tribulations of MILF mother Diane, as she tries to keep her fragile reality from crumbling down into a pile of porn-addled rubbish. "I can't believe this is happening to us," Kelly Lynch's character Diane confides in a friend, never coming to grips with the fact that her movie son must have come across (pun very much intended) the sex scene, including full frontal nudity, she did in the 1989 movie Warm Summer Rain (safe for work).

However, the trailer notwithstanding, the producers obviously want to have Justin's porn addiction be the crux of the movie. From the synopsis:

"This is an important topic because online porn addiction can affect all ages," says "Cyber Seduction" executive producer Michael Bremer. In fact, according to a recent survey, 90% of eight- to 16-year-olds with Internet access have viewed porn online, mostly while doing homework. "Addicts blur the lines between fiction and fantasy, creating devastating effects on relationships," adds executive producer Paul Goff.

Clearly, there is an epidemic out there, where 9 out of 10 boys cruise around the internet ghettos, snorting crack off of dead hookers, giving blowjobs for loose change, and killing a man just to watch him die, all the while looking for the next big porn fix. Concerned parents thought Cinemax would be the downfall of our society, and clearly its late-night softcore skin flicks have paved the way for greater evils, like stealing your parents' credit card to get access to for-pay porno sites, or--may God have mercy on our souls--drinking Redbull. The usual rallying cry from parents who would rather censor things so that the rest of us can't enjoy our porn want to make the world a better place is, "Won't someone think of the children????" (As an aside, I know there's a Michael Jackson joke in there just itching to be let out, but I'll refrain... for now). However, this only seemed to have spurred on the internet porn industry, which has, quite to its economical benefit, indeed thought of the children when designing their wanking sites.

So, "Can Justin kick this self-destructive habit?" as the synopsis breathlessly asks. Well, considering that this is a movie made for the middle-aged-independent-woman-soccer-moms out there, the answer is a resounding "yes." However, I posit the supposition that Justin's soul will be irrevocably sullied by his three-month flirtation with the darkness known as internet porn. Of course, the trailer hardly pays this a thought, as Diane is not on screen for a grand total of one second during the 30-second trailer. Justin, by comparison, is on screen for a measly eight seconds. I suppose the producers know their audience, and that this audience responds better to a story which, depending on the perspective, is about an independent mother who wants her family to remain spiritually pure, rather than a story about an abrasive bitch who won't let her son whack off to scantily-clothed-yet-not-actually-naked women. Actually, now that I think about it, by not letting her son ogle beautiful women, Diane is really just making sure that Justin becomes that 1 in 10 that doesn't look at porn. She is ensuring that Justin grows up an introverted and repressed loser--someone who will probably eventually molest little children. It really makes sense when you consider that Micahel Jackson was probably too busy being exploited promoted by his parents to ogle beautiful women while growing up.

With all that in mind, I cannot in good conscience give this trailer any stars. Perhaps it would be different if we, the audience, got a good look at what Justin was wanking to--for realism's sake, of course--but sadly this trailer only gives us hints of probably less than fulfilling things to come. But, really, what else can you expect from a channel that plays "The Nanny" eight times every day?

Secret Things

Secret Things
First Run Features (January 2, 2004)
Director: Jean-Claude Brisseau
Cast: Coralie Revel, Sabrina Seyvecou, Roger Mirmont, Fabrice Deville

View the trailer


One of the greatest things about foreign movies is that they're usually just softcore (and sometimes hardcore) pornos. I mean, check out this synopsis of the French movie Secret Things:

Two young women find themselves struggling to survive in Paris, street-wise Nathalie, a stripper, and naïve Sandrine, a barmaid. Together, they discover that sex can be used to their advantage, and pleasure. Both find positions in the office of a large bank, where bored, under-stimulated, prey are easy pickings. After making their way though several layers of executives at the bank, with destructive, and lucrative, results, they approach Christophe, scion to the bank director. What they don't know is that Christophe is a manipulative voyeur, whose last two lovers set themselves on fire when he rejected them. A connoisseur of high-class orgies, Christophe is only interested in new talent to satisfy the appetites of all whom he controls. In Christophe, the girls have found an opponent who knows all their wiles, and will challenge their simple under-class friendship with levels of jealousy and ecstasy that they have never experienced before. Will they survive?

I don't think I'm imagining things when I say this sounds like the plot of 90% of all pornos. But maybe I'm wrong; I'll have to consult with my friend Gary, the porn expert, about such matters. But anyway, with a plot like that, and a trailer filled with sexy French women, what's not to like?

The trailer begins with the two women taking off their clothes from underneath the long trenchcoats they're wearing, and then proceeding to walk around outside and talk about how exciting it is to do this. Already, the trailer is off to a great start. Sadly, the middle part of the trailer slows down a little, as it tries to show the very beginning of a sensual sex scene; however, the scene is too dark to see much of anything--if the porn industry has taught us nothing else, it's that lighting is key--and takes too long to get started. And then by the time anything actually happens, the trailer cuts to a different scene--namely, where a woman is taking off her clothes, trying to seduce some random guy in an office while his door is still open and people are walking around in the hallway. Good stuff.

Finally, the last segment of the trailer shows the two women feverently making out in a closet with the door ajar, while some doofus stands there staring, mouth agape. This lasts for a good little while, until the trailer finally ends with the inviting words "coming soon." God, I love double entendres.

Anyway, I'm not really sure what else there is to say about this trailer, except go watch it now. It's pretty hot stuff, and proves that the only difference between pornos and foreign films is the lighting and (sometimes) the acting. As long as you don't think about it too deeply, it's a very enjoyable ride, and very deserving of a 4-star score.

Friday Fun archive

Since it will quickly become convoluted and lost into the depths of the internet abyss, I'm putting up an archive listing of all of the previous Friday Fun times we've had. The permanent link to the archive is now on the right, above the "About me" crap.

• Week 1
• Week 2
• Week 3
• Week 4
• Week 5

Friday Fun, week 3

Well, it's Friday again. And that means that once again I'll be posting some pictures of hot celebrities. As usual, I've got a photo of the gorgeous Adriana Lima for the audience that likes women. And this week's guy-to-appease-my-girlfriend is Guy Pearce, who you may remember from such films as Memento, LA Confidential, and Utopian Surgery: Early Arguments Against Anaesthesia in Surgery, Dentistry and Childbirth. Well, maybe not that last one. It's a little obscure.

Anyone, on to the ogling!

Guy has some skeletons in his closet.

Land of the Dead

George A. Romero's Land of the Dead
Universal (June 24, 2005)
Director: George A. Romero
Cast: Simon Baker, John Leguizamo, Asia Argento, Robert Joy,Dennis Hopper, Eugene Clark

View the trailer


Twenty years after the release of Day of the Dead, "legendary" filmmaker George A. Romero--not to be confused with George "Fireball" Romero of Pensicola, Florida--comes back for one more zombie movie. Sadly, the time naming convention of the previous three movies in the series has been scrapped; personally, I felt that Twilight of the Dead, Sunset of the Dead, or even "It's Almost Dinnertime, So Don't Go Spoiling Your Appetite" of the Dead would've worked as better titles than the boring Land, but maybe that's just my opinion.

Anywho, Romero is back with this film, no doubt trying desperately to cash in on some of the zombified money made by Shaun of the Dead, 28 Days Later, and the remake to Dawn of the Dead in recent years. Well, according to the trailer, he's back to put a cap on his legacy or some such nonsense. An obvious lie. And I don't think we can begrudge him too much for this blatant money grab, seeing as, after all, many of the greats of cinema were solely about making money--Greg Steelberg, Randy West (I), and Bud Lee, to name a few. Besides, while checking up on Romero's bio, I noticed this summary for his upcoming epic, Diamond Dead:

Aria De Winter has been enlisted by Death himself to kill 365 people in one year. Hard task? Well, it helps when Aria is planning an historic concert for the Diamond Dead, the world's most famous underground rock band. It also helps that she's the ex-girlfriend of the lead singer of the band. It helps even more that the band members have been dead for over a year.

Apparently, Romero has become drunk with power and success. That, or he owes someone a big favor. Regardless, if this is what he's going to be doing now that the ...of the Dead series appears to be over, I think we can all agree that Land of the Dead needs to be cherished--if only so that we may throw Diamond Dead down the memory hole.

Well then, onto the actual trailer. Unfortunately, this is one of those trailers that shows more clips from Romero's previous zombie films than his new one; I suppose the studio felt it necessary to give evidence to back up its claim that he is "legendary." Apparently, Land takes place sometime after Night of the Living Dead: the world has been overrun by the Republicans zombies, and the last remaining humans are holed up in a fortress of solitude walled, prison-like city. The zombies also have apparently been "evolving," to the point where they can construct rudimentary pipe bombs and are adept at military pincer attacks. They also seem to be amphibious in this iteration, but seeing as how this is a movie where Dennis Hopper is in charge, we're obviously supposed to suspend disbelief.

Ultimately, the trailer devolves into a typical horror-movie-with-lots-of-fast-cuts-and-scary-noises-and-explosions trailer, which is a little sad because the trailer showed so much potential when it was only showing clips from the previous ...of the Dead films. It's got its moments, but in the end this trailer just doesn't cut the mustard. You'd be better served eating a large bowl of Hagan Das and watching The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants.

Friday Saturday Fun, week 2

Okay, so I'm a little late in putting up this week's addition to the Hot People Me and My Girlfriend Like To Oggle section of this site. So sue me.

Anywho, last week I put up photos of Adriana Lima and Ryan Reynolds. This week, it's Adriana and that sexy Johnny Depp. My girlfriend says he's really hot, and I think I found a pic that really illustrates this. Enjoy!

Me, I'll stick with Adriana, thankyouverymuch.