Well, it’s safe to say I have completely abandoned this website. Been over a year since I’ve actually posted anything, or checked anything to be honest. But wow, 2,579 hits! You guys are the best! I’m sorry I’ve abandoned this site frankly, but I have a new blog up and running that I’m actually updating constantly. I want everyone reading this to go to there for now on, as more content is always on the way. The longest i’ve gone without posting anything was 3 or 4 days instead of 3 or 4 months, or a year.
1880 – American George Eastman begins to commercially manufacture dry plates for photography.
1880 – Eadweard Muybridge holds a public demonstration of his Zoopraxiscope, a magic lantern provided with a rotating disc with artist’s renderings of Muybridge’s chronophotographic sequences. It was used as a demonstration device by Muybridge in his illustrated lecture (the original preserved in the Museum of Kingston upon Thames in England).
January 1, 1881 – American inventor George Eastman founds the Eastman Dry Plate Company.
1882 – American inventor George Eastman begins experimenting with new types of photographic film, with his employee, William Walker
1882 – French physiologist Étienne-Jules Marey invents the chronophotographic gun, a camera shaped like a rifle that photographs twelve successive images each second.
1885 – American inventors George Eastman and Hannibal Goodwin each invent a sensitized celluloid base roll photographic film to replace the glass plates then in use.
1887 – Hannibal Goodwin files for a patent for his photographic film.
1888 – George Eastman files for a patent for his photographic film.
1888 – Thomas Edison meets with Eadweard Muybridge to discuss adding sound to moving pictures. Edison begins his own experiments.
1888 – Louis Aimé Augustin Le Prince creates the first motion picture films created on paper rolls of film.
1889 – American inventor George Eastman’s celluloid base roll photographic film becomes commercially available.
1890 – Wordsworth Donisthorpe and W. C. Crofts, filmed London’s Trafalgar Square using a camera patented in 1889.
1891 – Designed around the work of Muybridge, Marey, and Eastman, Thomas Edison’s employee, William K. L. Dickson finishes work on a motion-picture camera, and a viewing machine, called the Kinetoscope.
May 20, 1891 – Thomas Edison holds the first public presentation of his Kinetoscope for the National Federation of Women’s Clubs.
August 24, 1891 – Thomas Edison files for a patent of the Kinetoscope.
1892 In France, Charles-Émile Reynaud began to have public screenings in Paris at the Théâtre Optique, with hundreds of drawings on a reel that he wound through his Zeotrope projector to construct moving images that continued for 15 minutes.
1892 – The Eastman Company becomes the Eastman Kodak Company.
March 14, 1893 – Thomas Edison is granted Patent #493,426 for “An Apparatus for Exhibiting Photographs of Moving Objects” (The Kinetoscope).
1893 Thomas Edison builds a motion-picture studio near his laboratory, dubbed the “Black Maria” by his staff.
May 9, 1893 – In America, Thomas Edison holds the first public exhibition of films shot using his Kinetograph at the Brooklyn Institute. Unfortunately, only one person at a time could use his viewing machine, the Kinetoscope.
January 7, 1894 – Thomas Edison films his assistant, Fred Ott sneezing with the Kinetoscope at the “Black Maria.”
April 14, 1894 – The first commercial presentation of the Kinetoscope took place in the Holland Brothers’ Kinetoscope Parlor at 1155 Broadway, New York City.
1894 – Kinetoscope viewing parlors begin to open in major cities. Each parlor contains several machines.
1895 – In France, brothers named Auguste and Louis Lumière, designed and built a lightweight, hand-held motion picture camera called the Cinématographe. The Lumière brothers discovered that their machine could also be used to project images onto a large screen. The Lumière brothers created several short films at this time that are considered to be pivotal in the history of motion pictures.
November 1895 – In Germany, Emil and Max Skladanowsky develop their own film projector.
December 1895 – In France, Auguste and Louis Lumière hold their first public screening of films shot with their Cinématographe.
January 1896 – In Britain, Birt Acres and Robert W. Paul developed their own film projector, the Theatrograph (later known as the Animatograph).
January 1896 – In the United States, a projector called the Vitascope was designed by Charles Francis Jenkins and Thomas Armat. Armat began working with Thomas Edison to manufacture the Vitascope, which projected motion pictures.
April 1896 – Thomas Edison and Thomas Armat’s Vitascope is used to project motion pictures in public screenings in New York City
1896 – French magician and filmmaker Georges Méliès begins experimenting with the new motion picture technology, developing a lot of early special effects techniques, including stop-motion photography.
1897 – A total of 125 people die during a film screening at the Charity Bazaar in Paris after a curtain catches on fire from the ether used to fuel the projector lamp.
I know I said in my previous post my next article would be about movie history, but I found this rocking great photo of one of my personal favorite actresses – Julia Roberts. So, I had to share here since I don’t really want to get a Twatter of Faceboob.
I think it’s safe to say that this (^) is one of the greatest photos ever taken. meeeeeeow.
I’m sorry for people who read my blog, I haven’t posted in almost three months. Nothing happened to me except my movie addiction grew worse, so I really have no clue why I didn’t stop by for a quick post. There is no denying I’m an asshole. So, after my three month stupidity break, it’s time to get down to real business. This blog was meant for me to share my opinions, and more importantly, what I know about movie history. Sorry for the delay, good folks out there. My first official post in a while will be freshly pressed within a half an hour or so. Again, sorry for being an asshat.
I was inspired to do this post after I saw what was one of the worst movies I’ve seen in months last night: the remake of Straw Dogs. It was horrible, very stupid, and lacked the intensity and artistic merit that made the 1971 Peckinpah original an instant classic. It lead me to ask the simple question that’s on everyone’s minds: Why remake everything? Why not do something original for once.
In all actuality, greatly original things are released all the time, but mainly in the independent or limited release circuit. Not all modern films suck, there are actually some masterpieces, such as Blue Valentine, The King’s Speech, A Dangerous Method, 50/50, Melancholia, etc etc etc. So, when you can pump out a film as great as those, why fuck up so greatly when remaking something? Well, to tell you the truth, some remakes are well done. The movie Heat, a crime film starring Al Pacino and Robert De Niro, is a remake of Michael Mann’s earlier T.V. movie entitled “L.A. Takedown”, and Heat is definitely the better film.
So why remake films? Typically, filmmakers who remake classics or earlier films just for money to fund a dream project, and usually they ruin them and miss the entire point of the original. That alone is one of the main reasons I tend to gripe about remakes, the fact that they really don’t care how bad the films suck, they just want cash. Originality is getting to be a scarce thing and we’re starting to lose all our great stars for these people we call ‘stars’ today. A lot of modern actors and actresses, such as Ryan Gosling, Michael Fassbinder, and Michelle Williams, are wonderful at their crafts, but then we got a lot of not-so-great people working out there. That’s another reason remakes tend to suck ass, not enough star-power. Take for instance someone like Nicolas Cage. He works his ass off, he drips of star power, yet he goes mainly unaccounted for, and even constantly made fun of. I’d be a fan of Cage’s anyday over someone like Robert Pattinson. And also take a look at Michael Madsen. The man makes 25-30 films a year. I haven’t seen too many of Madsen’s movies, but when an actor works almost to death making films day in and day out like he does, they deserve credit.
But I could somewhat forgive all that if the writing didn’t suck so much ass. When writing a screenplay, the writer should be a little bold, not this fake “edgy” thing they got going for all them terrible teen films like ‘Twilight’. I wish mainstream films had the artistic integrity of independent films. In the Indie circuit, practically everything goes, but in mainstream cinema, they try to tone it down lest they go and hurt someone’s feelings. When great writers such as David Mamet go unused that often, it really messes everything up. It’s like we were promised that everything was going to get a little bolder, a little more artistic, when films started getting more graphic and graphic in the ’60s and it worked well up until the late ’80s when almost everything was dumbed down. If they didn’t dumb everything down, get a great writer, a great director, and some stars that don’t completely suck at acting, then maybe, just maybe, not all remakes would suck so much. This, my good internet people, is what grinds my gears. To quote Peter Griffin.
For my first post in a little while, I bring some sad news for film fans. Actor Bill McKinney, who you may remember as the Mountain Man who raped Ned Beatty’s character in the now famous “Squeal Like a Pig” scene from the classic film Deliverance, has passed on. A really tremendous loss to all fans and family of him, me included because I’m a fan and I’d constantly yell Squeal Like a Pig. In addition to Deliverance, the great Bill McKinney also starred in films like “The Outlaw Josey Wales”, “Back to the Future Part III”, and “First Blood”. But his greatest impact will always and forever being, from what I read, a great person to his fans. I never knew Bill, but I wish I did. He seemed like a genuine, humble, nice person. I’ve always read such great things about him and it’s quite sad he has passed on. I hope his legacy never leaves anyone, and that he gains some new fans in the generations to come. I’ll miss you Bill, you were a true talent.
“Today our dear Bill McKinney passed away at Valley Presbyterian Hospice. An avid smoker for 25 years of his younger life, he died of cancer of the esophagus. He was 80 and still strong enough to have filmed a Dorito’s commercial 2 weeks prior to his passing, and he continued to work on his biography with his writing partner. Hopefully 2012 will bring a publisher for the wild ride his life was. He is survived by son Clinton, along with several ex-wives. R.I.P. Bill sept.12 1931 – dec. 1 2011”
For this blog post, I will take two films that have major plot similarities, break them down by talking about visual style, substance etc, and choose which one I think is better.
For this first one, it’s Walter Hill’s 1978 carsploitation classic “The Driver” versus Nicholas Winding Refn’s ultra-stylish 2011 crime-drama “Drive”. Before I start, let me post the plots.
The Driver: “The Driver” is specialist in a rare business: he drives getaway cars in robberies. His exceptional talent prevented him from being caught yet. After another succeeded flight from the police, a self-assured detective makes it his primary goal to catch the Driver. He promises remission of punishment to a gang if they help to convict him in a set-up robbery. The Driver seeks help from the player Isabelle to mislead the detective.
Drive: A Hollywood stunt performer who moonlights as a wheelman discovers that a contract has been put on him after a heist gone wrong.
Now, when you break it down, the plots aren’t exactly the same, it’s more in the portrayal of the main character. Both films portray the driver as a quiet person irked into violence, a person who has no real life other than his work, and a person who gets his job done not for money, but for success. I like both Ryan Goslings portrayal as the character and Ryan O’Neal’s portrayal of the character. They both perfectly embody the lonely driver longing to break free of this sorta job that is not only running him ragged, but also taking a toll on his life.
But which one do I like better? Well, for my money, this round will go to Drive. Everything about that movie was simply amazing: the soundtrack, the editing, the intensity of the performances, the stunts, the direction, and especially the writing. But that doesn’t mean ‘The Driver’ is lesser quality film. The Driver is equally well written and acted, and of course directed with those spectacular chase scenes, but what puts ‘Drive’ ahead is not that it’s a better film, which it sorta is, but that it doesn’t take the simple action popcorn Hollywood approach to it. In fact, the film shouldn’t (and it isn’t) be classified as an “action film”, it is actually a slowly built up crime drama with heart pounding suspense. And the most spectacular part of the ordeal was that for a film that built up over time, it didn’t feel like forever. It never felt sluggish, and it definitely wasn’t boring. Winding-Refn is already put on my list of “directors to watch.”
In conclusion, I personally like Drive better, but I recommend both films. They are almost equally brilliant. I’d give Drive a 10/10 and The Driver a 9.2/10. Drive is still currently in theaters (it is to be released on DVD and Blu-Ray on January 31st, 2012), but you can pick up The Driver at your local library or video store. Thanks a bunch for reading, and enjoy a few photos and a trailer from each movie.
**Taken from my own personal Rotten Tomatoes account**
On my first vision of this film, I discussed the ever-so-brilliant qualities of this film, and I have read the book since then, so I have been contemplating how to go about comparing the book to the movie, as they both are exactly the same, with one thing going into more detail about one thing and another thing going into more detail about another thing….it’s just a really hard thing to ponder. But, I’m done with all my pondering, so here’s the review.
*This may include some slight spoilers. You’ve been warned.*
The film begins with a shot from the end. The Narrator, an unnamed Product Recall Specialist from an unnamed car company, has the barrel of a gun in his mouth. The gun is being placed in his mouth courtesy of our anti-hero Tyler Durden. The Narrator stops everything in a halt, and backs the story up completely.
————————————————————-
The Narrator goes to his doctor to get something prescribed for his insomnia, but the doctor refuses, and tells him to go to a support group for men with testicular cancer, and that they have the real pain. The Narrator goes to the support group for testicular cancer, where he meets a cancer patient named Bob, a former bodybuilder who reveals he was a “juicer”, and becomes addicted to the support groups because he can release all his feelings and cry, which people start to care for him if he doesn’t speak much and cry more. After the support, The Narrator can sleep, therefore, he’s happier and more relaxed.
————————————————————-
After all the support and his gain in sleep, another imposter shows up, named Marla Singer, and he’s not able to cry with her in his presence, so he can’t sleep again. He decides to confront Marla, and they work out a schedule to go to the support groups, so they won’t run into each other.
————————————————————-
During a flight for a business trip, the narrator meets Tyler Durden, who is a soap salesman. The narrator arrives home to find his apartment has been destroyed by an explosion. He calls Tyler and meets him at a bar. Tyler agrees to let the narrator stay at his home on the condition that the narrator hits him. The narrator complies and the two end up enjoying a fist fight outside the bar.
————————————————————-
The narrator moves into Tyler’s dilapidated house and the two return to the bar, where they have another fight in the parking lot. After attracting a crowd, they establish a ‘fight club’ in the bar’s basement, to help vent male aggression.
————————————————————-
That’s just the basic story, but explained out in a course of a few paragraphs, so I don’t spoil anything big for those who haven’t seen this film yet.
There are some differences, in lack of detail or different parts adding up to each other, from the book and the movie, and some of them are: (SPOILERS!)
(1). The book goes into greater detail of the account of Tyler’s and Marla’s lusty romance, while the movie just shows them having sex a few times.
(2). The ending of the book was way different from the movie, especially the last couple of sentences.
(3). The movie goes into greater depths of Bob’s death, while the book just mentions he got killed; the movie shows most of the act of his death
(4). Marla was portrayed as an ultra-slut in the movie, but she was a little bit toned down in the book.
(5). The book goes into more detail of how The Narrator tracks down Tyler after he leaves, while the movie shows The Narrator going to different places and just checking a few addresses.
(6). Tyler is much more of a psycho in the movie, while in the book he is a “classic-styled” psycho.
Okay, I’m done with my nerd argument, so here’s the review:
Fight Club is and will always be, without a doubt, one of the greatest satires on anti-socialism out there, and truly one of the most detailed and dark.
All of the performances were great, detailed, original, memorable, and unique from one another, especially Edward Norton, who played The Narrator, and Brad Pitt, who played Tyler Durden. Meat Loaf was great as Robert “Bob” Paulson, as was Helena Bonham Carter as Marla Singer, but the best performance was Norton’s. While everyone was exceptionally brilliant, especially Pitt, Norton just stole the show with his brilliant, and very dark portrayal as not only a guy with insomnia, but a guy who has many problems, and someone each of us can relate to, as everyone has a little bit of The Narrator in us.
The script was very well written, maybe one of the best scripts of all time. It stays true to the book, with only a few things either explained more here or in the book.
The direction was completely unforgettable, and should’ve won some awards, at least an Indie award or something.
Well, to conclude, Fight Club is one of those perfect films that don’t come around too often, but really should. I can highly recommend this to anyone who hasn’t seen it, and I’m even trying to get my grandma to see it.
**Taken from my own personal Rotten Tomatoes account**
When you hear about the 1930’s, what is your first thought? Jazz Clubs? No. The Prohibition Era? No. Frank Sinatra? Perhaps, but no. Well, is it possible your thinking of a certain movie? Something in particular? I think I know what it is…Chinatown!
Chinatown tells the brilliant, but uncanny story of J.J. Gittes, a private detective investigating an adultery case who stumbles upon a vile scheme of murder that has something to do with water.
Jack Nicholson plays J.J. Gittes, the private detective. His performance is quite brilliant, and somewhat shallow when he gets mad, which is artistically mixed with a touch of complexity and a feeling of remorse that wraps up into being quite possible one of his greatest performances.
Faye Dunaway gives a strong, mysterious, and sultry performance as Evelyn Mulwray, the wife of the man involved in the murder scheme, who is also hiding a very deep and dark secret. There is not a single flaw in her sinister portrayal, and she definitely should’ve had an award named in her honor.
My only problem with this film is the fact that Burt Young only had a small part and was only in like two or three scenes. He was great, if not legendary and unforgettable, as Paulie in the Rocky series, and just as great, with what little part he had, in Once Upon a Time In America. So, I guess they, and they meaning Hollywood and the makers of this film and most of the films he has starred in, think he’s just a background character actor, which there’s nothing wrong with, but he should have at least one extra scene to call his own.
The direction, by Roman Polanski, was simply marvelous. Mixing genres of crime, drama, mystery, and film noir, and having a generous amount of complexity buried not too deep in a great character study styling, this film truly is an excellent throwback to life in the 30’s, and it especially shows how crime and crime solving have drastically changed.
The script was practically flawless. Each scene was more brilliant than the last, with just enough violence to get the point across, a good amount of eroticism coming from Faye, and a huge amount of mystery, with great plot twists and an even more amazing story to tell.
The cinematography, in most cases, was more natural than stylized, and definitely somewhat sweeping and very well done.
Chinatown is a brilliant mix of erotic thriller, mystery, and character study, with legendary performances and direction, and a flawless script and cinematography. It’s not everyday that a film is nominated for ten Academy Awards, but in Chinatown’s case, the day it was released was a grand day for all. I highly recommend.
Also, for all of you who like this film and watch the show Married…With Children, watch the episode called “Al Bundy, Shoe Dick”, as it gives a good spoof of the plot and some of the scenes.
**Taken From My Personal Rotten Tomatoes Account**
Detective Chris Kenner was orphaned as a child as his father was in the service and was killed and lived in Japan. Now he is on the trail of ruthless Yakuza leader named Yoshido, who helped establish a small Japanese area in Los Angeles and is now running a drug ring disguised as a brewery. However, Kenner must team up with a Japanese-American detective named Johnny Murata, and he also must protect a witness named Minako who would testify against Yoshido. But what Kenner will soon discover that he will be in a lot more than what he bargained for.
I think were this movie shines the most, is it’s 80′s cheesy B-movie styling. The acting, on both parts, are somewhat good, somewhat cheesy. The dialogue is definitely no joke, but it does include some clever jokes. The whole aspect is what you would expect in a great action movie, no better, no worse. I never really found a dull moment, basically because it really is straight forward action, graphic violence, somewhat gratuitous nudity, and some pervasive language.
What we got here, not a failure to communicate, but a rather nice action film, with some amazing stunts, good dialogue and acting, a sorta cheesy plot, a good little cameo by Vernee Watson-Johnson, who you may know as playing Will’s mother on The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air, and an all around good 90′s action movie feel, all wrapped up in a nice short 78-minute package. Also, for those of you who’ve seen the movie and recognized her, Tia Carrere would one year later star in one of the best comedy movies ever, Wayne’s World, as Cassandra. I can recommend this to cheesy action film lovers, or people who just want to see Brandon Lee in his first U.S. appearance, but people looking for a masterpiece should look elsewhere, because this film is strictly fun-based.
(The Driver)
(Drive)
(The Driver)
Film-u-Cation 