Post by Cristo on Sept 29, 2008 18:11:44 GMT -5
Casablanca and the Movies
Episode #9
casablanca3491 - Casablanca
First off, let me apologize for what I consider a lesser episode, but Episode 10 takes so much time!
Hello, MR Directors and patrons, and welcome to the ninth episode of “Casablanca and the Movies”. As we draw closer and closer to the mammoth episode 10 my work just keeps piling on and on! However, I like to believe that we have some fine things for you tonight, I hope so, as the last few episodes have had lower ratings then usual (I know a 8 and 7 is still high, but low to what it has been). However, this isn’t the time to be worrying about the past, but to be looking at the present, and currently the present holds a couple of films and some trailers, so let’s take a look at that. Today will be, using my now default quote, a “fairly typical” episode, with nothing new really going on. However, until episode 10 and after, there hasn’t really been much new going on. We will start off Trailer Analysis this time, something usually not done by any sane man, however, with episode 10 coming up, my sanity is slowly leaking away. After this we will have an interview, however, no ordinary interview, this one will be with Blaggers, the director of the upcoming crowd pleaser “g”. After this I will review two older films, as customary, and then we will look at some announcements and also listen to me as I discuss episode 10, rules for the contest (again), and just the show in general.
So, with all of that behind us, let’s get started!
Firstly, we have another trailer to a film which has me quite interested, “Garden of Beasts”, which looks like it could be a good thriller and a good drama, however, let’s look anyway. It starts:
The scene opens in a warehouse. Paul Schumann, a German-American, is seen crouched behind a large crate, a shotgun in his hand. There is another man seen in the distance, facing away from Paul. Paul stands up, and shouts. The man turns around.
Man-
What are you gonna do, shoot me?
Paul-
That's quite possible.
Now, I assume Paul is the main character, as the other person is just called “Man”. Knowing this, I assume that we either follow around a “bad” guy, as you could say, or someone who has a profession in killing people, a hitman. I’m going with the second option, as it seems more feasible, dramatically. Also, notice how the director indicated that he is “German-American”, obviously telling us that nationality plays a role in this film somewhere, quite an important role too, or I don’t think it would have been included. Then:
Cut to Paul in an alleyway, a man behind him, holding a handgun to the back of Paul's head.
Paul-
Oh God.
Cut to Paul standing in a park, a blonde woman, Kaethe Richter, standing next to him. They're walking slowly, talking in German.
The main character is, I believe, captured. Probably by the law. I assume the woman is part of this law and since they are walking slowly, casually, I assume that the law isn’t arresting him for murder, but hoping they can use him for their own benefit, perhaps to kill someone. Notice again, how the use of “German” is used. The director is really pushing it down our throats that nationalities play a role in this film, and as of right now, I can safely say that we have a political thriller. Knowing what I do about history, I’d guess it takes place around 1940-1945, during World War 2. Kaethe may or may not be a main character, but I am going with “yes, she is”, as her name sticks out, and the way her and Paul walk together, looks like something of a future relationship, or a past one. Let’s see:
Paul-
So, you said you were married?
Kaethe-
Yes. In this park as a matter of fact.
Paul-
Ah. I've got a history here. I can't remember what it's called though.
Kaethe-
The Tiergarten. My husband was shot in the back here, although it was a misunderstanding, and the shooter thought that he was someone else. The man actually ran up to me, apologizing.
Paul looks at her, raising an eyebrow.
First off, nice story! Secondly, it seems they know each other, and the intimate question about the husband makes me wonder if they once had been a pair, or if they were just good friends. The last line really tells us nothing, except why the husband is dead, and right now, I really could give less about him, but look at Paul’s line about the place having “history”. The use of the word “history” and the way he uses it, just, again, reminds us that this is a historical piece, and we are getting all sorts of clues as the what kind of film this will be. The last line does give us one implication though, I almost missed. The husband was killed by a shooter, seemingly a hitman, Paul may be a hitman too, someone had a gun to his head. Many shooters, which makes me think that is a large part of the film. I now really think that Paul is a hitman and the woman was a friend of his, and now works for the police and wants to hire him, however, I may be way off. It continues:
Cut to Paul crouched down outside of the Olympic stadium, a rifle with a scope mounted in front of him.
Cut to Paul in a bar, Otto Graham, a German man, sitting in front of him.
The first part of that does nothing except reinstates what I believe, that Paul will be a hitman to kill someone, someone in Germany, as this is in the 1940’s where the Olympics were held in Germany. Also, I wouldn’t be surprised if it was someone political, maybe related (not by blood, but by work) to Hitler, as many of the politicians attended the Olympics. The last part of that gives us a new character, Otto Graham. Again, the use of “German”, thus, again and again, telling us that the killing is based on him being German, which meant in the 1940’s, that you were with Hitler. I assume Otto Graham is the man who the law, and Paul wants to kill, and I assume Paul is only doing it for his own purposes as I see nothing to indicate that Paul has a hated for Otto. Then:
Cut to Paul running through a parking lot, diving to dodge bullets being fired at him from behind.
Cut to Reinhard Ernst and Hitler standing face to face, across each other from Ernst's desk.
Cut to Ernst falling after a gunshot is heard.
Ah, the icing on the cake. This pretty much gives proof to that fact that Hitler will be tied in somehow; however this also disproves one of my theories. I now think that Ernst may be the one who needs to be killed, as he obviously is with the Nazi party, and apparently is shot in the last part of this excerpt. Who is Otto, then? I don’t know maybe Ernst’s assistant? Nonetheless, I expect heavy political themes in here, and while it seems to be a little off from history, I would still label it as a historic film. Let’s end this trailer off:
Cut to Ernst on the ground, a man on top of him.
Odd wording choice! It almost forces a giggle, but that would be immature, wouldn’t it? Anyways, I just wanted to say that sense Ernst isn’t dead; I think that he wasn’t killed in the gunshot above, as this seems like a final battle, where he is still alive. The man on top may be Paul, but since I think the director would have written “Paul”, I really don’t know. I guess we’ll have to keep an eye for it; I certainly will keep an eye out for this movie.
Next, we have a trailer to “Max Payne” a trailer I haven’t done yet, though I expect the movie to be pretty good. Let’s take a look at how the director starts it off:
EXT. ROOFTOP
MAX stands on a rooftop holding a sniper in his hands.
MAX PAYNE (V.O)
They were all dead. The final gunshot was an exclamation mark on everything that had led to this point. I released my finger from the trigger, and it was over.
Ironic, this coming after “Garden of Beasts”, as they are both about hitman it appears. However, due to the nature of which Max is talking, I assume his reasons are more personal then Paul’s, who seemed to be doing it to get out of trouble or something. Notice how he says “everything that had led to this point”, that shows that he has a history with the villains, a vendetta. My guess, they killed someone he loved.
INT. HOME
MAX stands in his bedroom staring at his dead wife. Blood is all over her and all over the bed. MAX falls to his knees.
MAX PAYNE (V.O)
My whole life was ripped apart in a New York minute.
WOW! Slick move by me. It was, and his wife, no less! Now, a mood is established here, especially in the quote of dialogue. I feel that this is noir done darkly. Now, noir is already dark as it is, but add another shade of darkness and you get, besides “Max Payne”, quite a dark movie! I really do like that quote, by the way.
MAX walks through a club all of the lights are flashing and music is playing. No one is there.
CUT TO: MAX opens a curtain and sees JACK LUPINO. LUPINO has no shirt on and a pentagram tattooed on his chest.
JACK LUPINO
(Screaming)
The flesh of fallen angels! Come to me, all!
Hmmm… This makes me confused, as this is out of the ordinary for noirs, which are commonly down to earth and quite realistic. I expect this to be realistic; however, I expect a few fantastical, bizarre, almost supernatural under themes. Whether they will show or not is still undetermined, but they will be resting there.
INT. BANK
EFFECT: SLOW MOTION
A THUG throws the grenade at MAX. MAX runs towards it and jumps in the air. He grabs the grenade in mid-air and quickly tossing it back. CUT TO BLACK. An explosion is heard.
The first scene of action. Due to how it is done, I can expect quite a bit of action in this film, more so then the usual noir, except “The Punisher”, that is, but on top of the story and drama we saw, this proves that there will be a nice mix of elements. It seems like the director is using everything involved in a good mystery to create…a good mystery, and by the way thinks are coming out so far, it looks like he is succeeding.
TITLE CARD: DOMINIC WEST
INT. OFFICE
ALEX BALDER sits at his desk smiling.
TITLE CARD: PAUL GIAMATTI
INT. BUILDING
MONA SAX leans against an elevator door, holding a gun.
TITLE CARD: FAMKE JANSSEN
EXT. NEW YORK STREETS
VLADAMIR LEM pulls up in his car. He leans out.
VLADAMIR LEM
I'll help you Max. I'm going to make you an offer you can't refuse. I've always wanted to say that.
It looks like we are introduced to the main villains, all seemingly the stereotypical noir villain, though that isn’t a bad thing. I also adore the “Godfather” reference at the end, clever.
TITLE CARD: SEAN BEAN
INT. HOTEL
RICO MUERTE runs down a hallway holding an UZI in his hands.
TITLE CARD: JAMES GANDOLFINI
INT. BASEMENT
FRANKIE NIAGRA swings a bat at MAX, who is tied up to a chair.
TITLE CARD: MICHEL MADSEN
EXT. NEW YORK CITY - NIGHT
NICOLE HORNE is at her desk and she pulls a gun out of a drawer.
More villains, though the woman at the end, just a wild hunch, may be someone who turns good, or is good. The rest of the trailer just assures what I’ve covered, so we won’t post anymore, I would, though, like to add a few more words about what we’ve seen.
I expect a film that mixes its darkness with action, and while this may seem like an odd concept, I feel that the action will be done lighter then the drama, thus, giving us a film that is a mixed breed. Mixed in genre, and also in mood. Whatever the cross though, the mood is perfect, the tone is astounding, and it looks like a good film!
With Trailer Analysis done for now, let’s turn to that interview with Blaggers, as I am anxious to see what he has to say.
Q: Hello Blaggers, thank you for agreeing to an interview. Now, other then the Captain Scarlet series, I really haven’t seen too much by you, but I have a sense I know what your style is. You seem to like lighter films, or, at least, films with a light tone, despite their sometimes dark stories. Would you say this is accurate?
Hmm. I think what I try to do is make balanced films. To use Captain Scarlet 2 as an example, the tone was a lot darker than the first, but I tried to balance it out a little bit - Captain Blue is a fairly sarcastic character, and I tried to use this to provide some form of comic relief. That said, I don't believe in films being dark for the sake of being dark, or being cheerful for the sake of being cheerful. I think that the ending of Captain Scarlet was a lot more hopeful than the ending of the sequel - it ends with the good guys winning, and an upbeat song. It's a very optimistic film in general. With Captain Scarlet 2, I tried to show that the good guys don't always win... that the villains are a genuine threat. My other film, Bioshock, is very dark, because it's based on a very moody video game, and I couldn't really fiddle with that too much without lowering it's success as an adaptation.
To get to the point... No, I don't really favor a lighter tone in films more than a darker one. I try to mix it up a little bit.
Q: Now, your next film “g” is a comedy, unlike the Scarlet films. Through the trailer though, I still felt a thrilling atmosphere to it, as if it was similar in style to Scarlet. Did you carry over a lot of your common themes and techniques to this movie, or is it quite different then your normal work?
Um, well, I think I have quite a specific writing method, so I could see how you might find it similar in that way, but stylistically and thematically, it's completely different from anything I've done before. I look at it as a sort of experiment - I think I have a decent sense of humor, but I wanted to prove to myself that I was capable of writing a comedy script that actually made people laugh. Hopefully, I've achieved that goal successfully.
Q: Now, there are quite a bit of comedies out, most successfully by T-Mac, however yours is the first which seems to have a parody style humor to it. What do you think makes your film rise above the other comedies? Is it the Movie Reels references or the way you wrote it, having that suspenseful mood to it?
Well, T-Mac is pretty much the king of MR comedy, so if g ends up being comparable to his work, I'll be very happy. My primary inspiration for g was the fantastic (no homo). Since I started writing, lots of different influences and ideas have shaped the film, so it's very different from (no homo), but I have to give that film credit for giving me the first ideas for g.
In terms of what makes it funny, I would say that a lot of humor is derived from Movie Reels references. However, this isn't an Epic Movie scenario - reference after reference, with the humor (if you can call it that) coming from the mere fact that you can say 'I know what they're talking about! That's funny!' I've tried to use the inside jokes and such in different contexts, and modify them a bit so that people may understand what is being referenced, but still find the jokes legitimately funny. Both people who I've shown early versions of the film to have said it's very funny, so hopefully other people will feel this way.
Q: I noticed your attention to details in “g”, from what I saw anyway, and did you pour a lot of time into this? It appears like you did, however, what would you say it took to make this film?
No, I didn't spend a lot of time at all. I tried to work on it over a long period of time, doing a little every day, and not only was that draft painfully unfunny, but I only got a few pages done. So, on Friday the 12th of September, I sat down and started writing as quickly as I could with no form of plan or outline. I was finished by the next Friday. I've been tweaking it since, of course, but the film was basically done in a week. I don't think it feels rushed, though - I think it feels very complete. A lot of the best jokes in the film came from this spontaneity, so I think it worked in the film's favor.
Q: In Captain Scarlet 1, you had a more light hearted and almost “cheesy” style to it. Will the thrills in “g” be like this, or more intelligent like in the second Captain Scarlet. Basically, do we have here a film with brains?
Haha, not at all. I like to think that I have quite an intelligent sense of humour (I could well be wrong >_>), but that's about where the intelligence ends. g is just meant to be a fun read - you don't really have to think while reading it.
Q: Two more questions. First, what do you think the role of advertising plays in films, specifically sequels, like Captain Scarlet 2? Is there already a large hype around it, or does the trailer really bring the hype out?
Well, if it's the first film in a series or a one-off, then you need to do your absolute best to convince people it's worth spending the time reading it. So yeah, marketing is very important. If people like the first film in a series, then I think promotion is less important for a sequel, but you can't rely on hype alone. You need to prove that the newest film in the series is a worthwhile continuation of the story.
Q: And finally, what do you think about “Casablanca and the Movies? Is there anything missing, or anything you want to see?
It's fantastic. I'm a big fan of the show. Films reviews, trailer analysis, interviews - the show has it all! Thank you very much for taking the time to interview me.
-------------
My pleasure! Thanks for the interview!
Well, what a nice interview, especially with “g” right around the corner. I think Blaggers gave us some real nice answers, which I found to be both quite revealing, and also a nice look into Blagger’s new film and the style of all of his films. First off, I liked hearing him say that “g” sounds like a movie with no brains, no intelligence and nothing of any educational value. And that’s what I wanted, and expected, and I think we all hoped for. A good, funny film, that’s doesn’t force us to think or philosophize, but just enjoy ourselves, and also, I was glad to hear that not all of the humor derived from Movie Reels references, but from other sources too. Thus, making it a nice film for everyone, not just those who keep up to date on this site (basically everyone anyways). Also, off of the film and on to the director. Doesn’t he seem like just the right person for this film? T-Mac, yes he may very well be the “king of comedy”, however, we need someone fresh for this film, someone new to the comedy genre and not weighed down with the clichés of the genre. We needed someone who can mix the thrilling elements in also, making for an action/adventure/suspense/comedy, and that looks like what we have.
Overall, “g” is my most anticipated film on Movie Reels so far, and I expect nothing but sheer brilliance and I don’t expect to get anything less, as Blaggers, already a great director, looks like he outdid himself with this, sure to make him one of the finest directors on Movie Reels.
Back to reviews though, as I am starting to miss them. First, to an old film, one titled “The Nightmare Ends on Halloween”, a film by an obscure director named blinky500.
***.75 out of ****
What a visual atmosphere this creates. It breathes with the life of horror and creates a mood, so dreamy, so eerie, that it seems more like a nightmare then a film, more of a daydream into the horrors of hell then of a film short with a camera. It shows the beauty of art, the awe films can bring, and what, with a passion for the cinema, one can do. In fact, and no dismissal to 16 Hour, it rivals 5:30 for the most perfectly executed video on MR, and the greatest.
The lightening, the colors, all are nothing short of amazing. The red light that glares with Freddy, the blue-ish atmosphere with Pinhead, and the green light with Jason, it is all done so perfectly that you want to watch it over and over; pausing it and just gazing into the abyss of imagery it shows, of meticulous awe.
The screenplay and acting is just there, nothing really, however the images are something to talk about, as I am now.
Overall, see it now! You need to see one of the greatest videos on MR.
Now, “When a Stranger Calls”.
Like “Debt Collector”, only to a lesser degree, this shows the bad side of making videos. It shows how bad acting, bad writing and bad directing can slaughter a film, that really was going nowhere in the first place.
The images are so poor, so uninspired, that there were moments where I was tempted to turn it off and continue episode 10, not because it was poorly written, but because of what utter crap some people will assume I enjoy watching.
In fact, it was so pointless, my review ends here…
With those done, let’s quickly turn to announcements and reminders.
First of all, episode 10 will be out on October 3rd, remember that.
The contest rules and the schedule can be found under the Lounge, and some people still owe me things, so get those in!
I have to end it now, as time is running short, however, I apologize for the rushed episode, and hope to see you all at episode 10, thank you for watching another episode of “Casablanca and the Movies”!
Episode #9
casablanca3491 - Casablanca
First off, let me apologize for what I consider a lesser episode, but Episode 10 takes so much time!
Hello, MR Directors and patrons, and welcome to the ninth episode of “Casablanca and the Movies”. As we draw closer and closer to the mammoth episode 10 my work just keeps piling on and on! However, I like to believe that we have some fine things for you tonight, I hope so, as the last few episodes have had lower ratings then usual (I know a 8 and 7 is still high, but low to what it has been). However, this isn’t the time to be worrying about the past, but to be looking at the present, and currently the present holds a couple of films and some trailers, so let’s take a look at that. Today will be, using my now default quote, a “fairly typical” episode, with nothing new really going on. However, until episode 10 and after, there hasn’t really been much new going on. We will start off Trailer Analysis this time, something usually not done by any sane man, however, with episode 10 coming up, my sanity is slowly leaking away. After this we will have an interview, however, no ordinary interview, this one will be with Blaggers, the director of the upcoming crowd pleaser “g”. After this I will review two older films, as customary, and then we will look at some announcements and also listen to me as I discuss episode 10, rules for the contest (again), and just the show in general.
So, with all of that behind us, let’s get started!
Firstly, we have another trailer to a film which has me quite interested, “Garden of Beasts”, which looks like it could be a good thriller and a good drama, however, let’s look anyway. It starts:
The scene opens in a warehouse. Paul Schumann, a German-American, is seen crouched behind a large crate, a shotgun in his hand. There is another man seen in the distance, facing away from Paul. Paul stands up, and shouts. The man turns around.
Man-
What are you gonna do, shoot me?
Paul-
That's quite possible.
Now, I assume Paul is the main character, as the other person is just called “Man”. Knowing this, I assume that we either follow around a “bad” guy, as you could say, or someone who has a profession in killing people, a hitman. I’m going with the second option, as it seems more feasible, dramatically. Also, notice how the director indicated that he is “German-American”, obviously telling us that nationality plays a role in this film somewhere, quite an important role too, or I don’t think it would have been included. Then:
Cut to Paul in an alleyway, a man behind him, holding a handgun to the back of Paul's head.
Paul-
Oh God.
Cut to Paul standing in a park, a blonde woman, Kaethe Richter, standing next to him. They're walking slowly, talking in German.
The main character is, I believe, captured. Probably by the law. I assume the woman is part of this law and since they are walking slowly, casually, I assume that the law isn’t arresting him for murder, but hoping they can use him for their own benefit, perhaps to kill someone. Notice again, how the use of “German” is used. The director is really pushing it down our throats that nationalities play a role in this film, and as of right now, I can safely say that we have a political thriller. Knowing what I do about history, I’d guess it takes place around 1940-1945, during World War 2. Kaethe may or may not be a main character, but I am going with “yes, she is”, as her name sticks out, and the way her and Paul walk together, looks like something of a future relationship, or a past one. Let’s see:
Paul-
So, you said you were married?
Kaethe-
Yes. In this park as a matter of fact.
Paul-
Ah. I've got a history here. I can't remember what it's called though.
Kaethe-
The Tiergarten. My husband was shot in the back here, although it was a misunderstanding, and the shooter thought that he was someone else. The man actually ran up to me, apologizing.
Paul looks at her, raising an eyebrow.
First off, nice story! Secondly, it seems they know each other, and the intimate question about the husband makes me wonder if they once had been a pair, or if they were just good friends. The last line really tells us nothing, except why the husband is dead, and right now, I really could give less about him, but look at Paul’s line about the place having “history”. The use of the word “history” and the way he uses it, just, again, reminds us that this is a historical piece, and we are getting all sorts of clues as the what kind of film this will be. The last line does give us one implication though, I almost missed. The husband was killed by a shooter, seemingly a hitman, Paul may be a hitman too, someone had a gun to his head. Many shooters, which makes me think that is a large part of the film. I now really think that Paul is a hitman and the woman was a friend of his, and now works for the police and wants to hire him, however, I may be way off. It continues:
Cut to Paul crouched down outside of the Olympic stadium, a rifle with a scope mounted in front of him.
Cut to Paul in a bar, Otto Graham, a German man, sitting in front of him.
The first part of that does nothing except reinstates what I believe, that Paul will be a hitman to kill someone, someone in Germany, as this is in the 1940’s where the Olympics were held in Germany. Also, I wouldn’t be surprised if it was someone political, maybe related (not by blood, but by work) to Hitler, as many of the politicians attended the Olympics. The last part of that gives us a new character, Otto Graham. Again, the use of “German”, thus, again and again, telling us that the killing is based on him being German, which meant in the 1940’s, that you were with Hitler. I assume Otto Graham is the man who the law, and Paul wants to kill, and I assume Paul is only doing it for his own purposes as I see nothing to indicate that Paul has a hated for Otto. Then:
Cut to Paul running through a parking lot, diving to dodge bullets being fired at him from behind.
Cut to Reinhard Ernst and Hitler standing face to face, across each other from Ernst's desk.
Cut to Ernst falling after a gunshot is heard.
Ah, the icing on the cake. This pretty much gives proof to that fact that Hitler will be tied in somehow; however this also disproves one of my theories. I now think that Ernst may be the one who needs to be killed, as he obviously is with the Nazi party, and apparently is shot in the last part of this excerpt. Who is Otto, then? I don’t know maybe Ernst’s assistant? Nonetheless, I expect heavy political themes in here, and while it seems to be a little off from history, I would still label it as a historic film. Let’s end this trailer off:
Cut to Ernst on the ground, a man on top of him.
Odd wording choice! It almost forces a giggle, but that would be immature, wouldn’t it? Anyways, I just wanted to say that sense Ernst isn’t dead; I think that he wasn’t killed in the gunshot above, as this seems like a final battle, where he is still alive. The man on top may be Paul, but since I think the director would have written “Paul”, I really don’t know. I guess we’ll have to keep an eye for it; I certainly will keep an eye out for this movie.
Next, we have a trailer to “Max Payne” a trailer I haven’t done yet, though I expect the movie to be pretty good. Let’s take a look at how the director starts it off:
EXT. ROOFTOP
MAX stands on a rooftop holding a sniper in his hands.
MAX PAYNE (V.O)
They were all dead. The final gunshot was an exclamation mark on everything that had led to this point. I released my finger from the trigger, and it was over.
Ironic, this coming after “Garden of Beasts”, as they are both about hitman it appears. However, due to the nature of which Max is talking, I assume his reasons are more personal then Paul’s, who seemed to be doing it to get out of trouble or something. Notice how he says “everything that had led to this point”, that shows that he has a history with the villains, a vendetta. My guess, they killed someone he loved.
INT. HOME
MAX stands in his bedroom staring at his dead wife. Blood is all over her and all over the bed. MAX falls to his knees.
MAX PAYNE (V.O)
My whole life was ripped apart in a New York minute.
WOW! Slick move by me. It was, and his wife, no less! Now, a mood is established here, especially in the quote of dialogue. I feel that this is noir done darkly. Now, noir is already dark as it is, but add another shade of darkness and you get, besides “Max Payne”, quite a dark movie! I really do like that quote, by the way.
MAX walks through a club all of the lights are flashing and music is playing. No one is there.
CUT TO: MAX opens a curtain and sees JACK LUPINO. LUPINO has no shirt on and a pentagram tattooed on his chest.
JACK LUPINO
(Screaming)
The flesh of fallen angels! Come to me, all!
Hmmm… This makes me confused, as this is out of the ordinary for noirs, which are commonly down to earth and quite realistic. I expect this to be realistic; however, I expect a few fantastical, bizarre, almost supernatural under themes. Whether they will show or not is still undetermined, but they will be resting there.
INT. BANK
EFFECT: SLOW MOTION
A THUG throws the grenade at MAX. MAX runs towards it and jumps in the air. He grabs the grenade in mid-air and quickly tossing it back. CUT TO BLACK. An explosion is heard.
The first scene of action. Due to how it is done, I can expect quite a bit of action in this film, more so then the usual noir, except “The Punisher”, that is, but on top of the story and drama we saw, this proves that there will be a nice mix of elements. It seems like the director is using everything involved in a good mystery to create…a good mystery, and by the way thinks are coming out so far, it looks like he is succeeding.
TITLE CARD: DOMINIC WEST
INT. OFFICE
ALEX BALDER sits at his desk smiling.
TITLE CARD: PAUL GIAMATTI
INT. BUILDING
MONA SAX leans against an elevator door, holding a gun.
TITLE CARD: FAMKE JANSSEN
EXT. NEW YORK STREETS
VLADAMIR LEM pulls up in his car. He leans out.
VLADAMIR LEM
I'll help you Max. I'm going to make you an offer you can't refuse. I've always wanted to say that.
It looks like we are introduced to the main villains, all seemingly the stereotypical noir villain, though that isn’t a bad thing. I also adore the “Godfather” reference at the end, clever.
TITLE CARD: SEAN BEAN
INT. HOTEL
RICO MUERTE runs down a hallway holding an UZI in his hands.
TITLE CARD: JAMES GANDOLFINI
INT. BASEMENT
FRANKIE NIAGRA swings a bat at MAX, who is tied up to a chair.
TITLE CARD: MICHEL MADSEN
EXT. NEW YORK CITY - NIGHT
NICOLE HORNE is at her desk and she pulls a gun out of a drawer.
More villains, though the woman at the end, just a wild hunch, may be someone who turns good, or is good. The rest of the trailer just assures what I’ve covered, so we won’t post anymore, I would, though, like to add a few more words about what we’ve seen.
I expect a film that mixes its darkness with action, and while this may seem like an odd concept, I feel that the action will be done lighter then the drama, thus, giving us a film that is a mixed breed. Mixed in genre, and also in mood. Whatever the cross though, the mood is perfect, the tone is astounding, and it looks like a good film!
With Trailer Analysis done for now, let’s turn to that interview with Blaggers, as I am anxious to see what he has to say.
Q: Hello Blaggers, thank you for agreeing to an interview. Now, other then the Captain Scarlet series, I really haven’t seen too much by you, but I have a sense I know what your style is. You seem to like lighter films, or, at least, films with a light tone, despite their sometimes dark stories. Would you say this is accurate?
Hmm. I think what I try to do is make balanced films. To use Captain Scarlet 2 as an example, the tone was a lot darker than the first, but I tried to balance it out a little bit - Captain Blue is a fairly sarcastic character, and I tried to use this to provide some form of comic relief. That said, I don't believe in films being dark for the sake of being dark, or being cheerful for the sake of being cheerful. I think that the ending of Captain Scarlet was a lot more hopeful than the ending of the sequel - it ends with the good guys winning, and an upbeat song. It's a very optimistic film in general. With Captain Scarlet 2, I tried to show that the good guys don't always win... that the villains are a genuine threat. My other film, Bioshock, is very dark, because it's based on a very moody video game, and I couldn't really fiddle with that too much without lowering it's success as an adaptation.
To get to the point... No, I don't really favor a lighter tone in films more than a darker one. I try to mix it up a little bit.
Q: Now, your next film “g” is a comedy, unlike the Scarlet films. Through the trailer though, I still felt a thrilling atmosphere to it, as if it was similar in style to Scarlet. Did you carry over a lot of your common themes and techniques to this movie, or is it quite different then your normal work?
Um, well, I think I have quite a specific writing method, so I could see how you might find it similar in that way, but stylistically and thematically, it's completely different from anything I've done before. I look at it as a sort of experiment - I think I have a decent sense of humor, but I wanted to prove to myself that I was capable of writing a comedy script that actually made people laugh. Hopefully, I've achieved that goal successfully.
Q: Now, there are quite a bit of comedies out, most successfully by T-Mac, however yours is the first which seems to have a parody style humor to it. What do you think makes your film rise above the other comedies? Is it the Movie Reels references or the way you wrote it, having that suspenseful mood to it?
Well, T-Mac is pretty much the king of MR comedy, so if g ends up being comparable to his work, I'll be very happy. My primary inspiration for g was the fantastic (no homo). Since I started writing, lots of different influences and ideas have shaped the film, so it's very different from (no homo), but I have to give that film credit for giving me the first ideas for g.
In terms of what makes it funny, I would say that a lot of humor is derived from Movie Reels references. However, this isn't an Epic Movie scenario - reference after reference, with the humor (if you can call it that) coming from the mere fact that you can say 'I know what they're talking about! That's funny!' I've tried to use the inside jokes and such in different contexts, and modify them a bit so that people may understand what is being referenced, but still find the jokes legitimately funny. Both people who I've shown early versions of the film to have said it's very funny, so hopefully other people will feel this way.
Q: I noticed your attention to details in “g”, from what I saw anyway, and did you pour a lot of time into this? It appears like you did, however, what would you say it took to make this film?
No, I didn't spend a lot of time at all. I tried to work on it over a long period of time, doing a little every day, and not only was that draft painfully unfunny, but I only got a few pages done. So, on Friday the 12th of September, I sat down and started writing as quickly as I could with no form of plan or outline. I was finished by the next Friday. I've been tweaking it since, of course, but the film was basically done in a week. I don't think it feels rushed, though - I think it feels very complete. A lot of the best jokes in the film came from this spontaneity, so I think it worked in the film's favor.
Q: In Captain Scarlet 1, you had a more light hearted and almost “cheesy” style to it. Will the thrills in “g” be like this, or more intelligent like in the second Captain Scarlet. Basically, do we have here a film with brains?
Haha, not at all. I like to think that I have quite an intelligent sense of humour (I could well be wrong >_>), but that's about where the intelligence ends. g is just meant to be a fun read - you don't really have to think while reading it.
Q: Two more questions. First, what do you think the role of advertising plays in films, specifically sequels, like Captain Scarlet 2? Is there already a large hype around it, or does the trailer really bring the hype out?
Well, if it's the first film in a series or a one-off, then you need to do your absolute best to convince people it's worth spending the time reading it. So yeah, marketing is very important. If people like the first film in a series, then I think promotion is less important for a sequel, but you can't rely on hype alone. You need to prove that the newest film in the series is a worthwhile continuation of the story.
Q: And finally, what do you think about “Casablanca and the Movies? Is there anything missing, or anything you want to see?
It's fantastic. I'm a big fan of the show. Films reviews, trailer analysis, interviews - the show has it all! Thank you very much for taking the time to interview me.
-------------
My pleasure! Thanks for the interview!
Well, what a nice interview, especially with “g” right around the corner. I think Blaggers gave us some real nice answers, which I found to be both quite revealing, and also a nice look into Blagger’s new film and the style of all of his films. First off, I liked hearing him say that “g” sounds like a movie with no brains, no intelligence and nothing of any educational value. And that’s what I wanted, and expected, and I think we all hoped for. A good, funny film, that’s doesn’t force us to think or philosophize, but just enjoy ourselves, and also, I was glad to hear that not all of the humor derived from Movie Reels references, but from other sources too. Thus, making it a nice film for everyone, not just those who keep up to date on this site (basically everyone anyways). Also, off of the film and on to the director. Doesn’t he seem like just the right person for this film? T-Mac, yes he may very well be the “king of comedy”, however, we need someone fresh for this film, someone new to the comedy genre and not weighed down with the clichés of the genre. We needed someone who can mix the thrilling elements in also, making for an action/adventure/suspense/comedy, and that looks like what we have.
Overall, “g” is my most anticipated film on Movie Reels so far, and I expect nothing but sheer brilliance and I don’t expect to get anything less, as Blaggers, already a great director, looks like he outdid himself with this, sure to make him one of the finest directors on Movie Reels.
Back to reviews though, as I am starting to miss them. First, to an old film, one titled “The Nightmare Ends on Halloween”, a film by an obscure director named blinky500.
***.75 out of ****
What a visual atmosphere this creates. It breathes with the life of horror and creates a mood, so dreamy, so eerie, that it seems more like a nightmare then a film, more of a daydream into the horrors of hell then of a film short with a camera. It shows the beauty of art, the awe films can bring, and what, with a passion for the cinema, one can do. In fact, and no dismissal to 16 Hour, it rivals 5:30 for the most perfectly executed video on MR, and the greatest.
The lightening, the colors, all are nothing short of amazing. The red light that glares with Freddy, the blue-ish atmosphere with Pinhead, and the green light with Jason, it is all done so perfectly that you want to watch it over and over; pausing it and just gazing into the abyss of imagery it shows, of meticulous awe.
The screenplay and acting is just there, nothing really, however the images are something to talk about, as I am now.
Overall, see it now! You need to see one of the greatest videos on MR.
Now, “When a Stranger Calls”.
Like “Debt Collector”, only to a lesser degree, this shows the bad side of making videos. It shows how bad acting, bad writing and bad directing can slaughter a film, that really was going nowhere in the first place.
The images are so poor, so uninspired, that there were moments where I was tempted to turn it off and continue episode 10, not because it was poorly written, but because of what utter crap some people will assume I enjoy watching.
In fact, it was so pointless, my review ends here…
With those done, let’s quickly turn to announcements and reminders.
First of all, episode 10 will be out on October 3rd, remember that.
The contest rules and the schedule can be found under the Lounge, and some people still owe me things, so get those in!
I have to end it now, as time is running short, however, I apologize for the rushed episode, and hope to see you all at episode 10, thank you for watching another episode of “Casablanca and the Movies”!
