Post by Legend on Oct 7, 2008 18:16:29 GMT -5
Casablanca and Joey at the Movies
11th Episode
11th Episode
casablanca3491 - Casablanca
Joey Jojo Jr. Shabadoo - Joey
Joey Jojo Jr. Shabadoo - Joey
NOTE: The segments are color coded:
Casablanca= Blue
Joey= Red
Neutral= NONE
Hello, MR Directors and patrons, and welcome to the eleventh episode of “Casablanca and Joey at the Movies”. Tonight we have a genuiningly special night, as this is the first episode in which I will work with Joey, my new assistant. It is also the beginning of a few new segments, ad, of course, we will announce the winner of the “8 Months of Theater Time Contest”! Before we start though, let me tell you the line-up for tonight. It will begin with what was formerly known as “reviews to current films”, but now, will be a chat between Joey and me as we discuss two films. After which, we will have Trailer Analysis, and then an interview, with the questions made out by Joey. Following this will be reviews to two older films, then a new current events section. Then, finally, we will announce the winner of the “8 Months” as well as close off the episode with a few updates and such on the show. First things first, let’s turn it over to Joey for a brief second.
Hello to all of our viewers out there on MR. I, Joey Jojo Junior Shabadoo (formerly ILoveCristo) will now co-host "At the Movies" with Casablanca. Although I am primarily a director I hope to be able to be very informative in my reviews and other segments. Here's the episode, so enjoy.
I hope you liked my first episode as much as I liked Casa on the others. I'll see you around MR, and you can all watch out for Episode 12.
First off, let’s look at a few current releases, and chat about those a bit. We did tow movies, and they are Indy’s “Parody Movie” and Blacksuit’s new film “An Amazing Spiderman”. Now, this is the first chat we have done, but hopefully it dives as in depth as our reviews, and if not, please say so in your comments on this episode. Here is the transcript to the chat:
Today we'll be looking at two films, Parody Movie, and An Amazing Spider-Man. Casa, what do you have to say about Parody movie?
Well, I know this film puts us at polar opposites, but I found it be uneven, too short, which for this film, feels like mercy, and just overall unfunny with no intentions to be funny, I'd say 1.5 out of 4.
I think we both went into this film expecting something different, but I understood this, where you kept looking for a dumb comedy. I think what we really got was a comedic drama, one that makes you feel for it's protagonist while getting a few laughs.
Well, I see what you mean about expectations, remember this film came out with "g" , and while I tried my best, even the most stern critic would have troubles not comparing them. On one hand you have a film which is really funny, very loose and free floating, and then you have a film which doesn't become what we expect, because it doesn't know what it wants to be. Sometimes it is a dumb comedy, sometimes it tries to be clever, and this unevenness makes it fall flat on its face.
I don't think you're thinking about the film as much as you should be. Several times through Parody Movie we see through the mind of the protagonist, who is trying to write a new parody move. You write what you see, and he is trying to see the world in the terms of a really bad, dumb comedy. The film puts these parts in on purpose, but wraps them in context which makes it brilliant.
Yes, and that is a good message…for a film that knows how to handle it. The main problem with this film is the scope. It is too short, it doesn’t try to excel at anything beyond its comedy and the message, while I agree, is there either very lightly or, more likely, by accident. The dialogue is simplistic, it lacks the cohesive structure that a message film needs and often it is hard to stay on track with the film, it’s mind boggling, in the worst of ways. The story, or lack of, seems razor thin.
I see this as just an artsy little short film. Just because it doesn't follow a set structure and doesn't focus on the points you like doesn't make it bad. It's not a comedy, but a tragedy, and I think you're just too closed minded to see the film for what it is. You're looking for something that isn't there instead of letting the film tell you what it is.
You are missing the point or art. Art doesn’t need structure, granted, and typically it is better left off formulaic, however, it takes an ambition to become so. Now, it seemed to me that this film just flew past any point of intelligence, and set its sights on being a comedy, and disregarded every possible benefit to get there. As typical in an indy film, he based it around some thrills, and this leaves no room for story, especially in an already short film. There is no space for development, and for the message we discussed earlier, it can’t squeeze in because of Indy’s attempts for humor.
Not all films need comedy, story, or anything else. These are just common elements that we have grown used to. Some things are greater than the sum of the parts. This is one of those things. Take for example, Napoleon Dynamite. I'm not saying this film has too much in common with it, but that is a film with practiacally zero plot, yet is widely regarded as a great film.
Well, of course not, look at “5:30” and such, hardly any plot. However, a film like that must be interpretive, it has to be open to different minds, and Parody Movie knew exactly what it wanted to be and tried handing it to us on a silver platter. Know, I also know comedy isn’t needed, however, when you try to use it and it fails, it is worse then not using it at all.
The jokes in this movie aren't there for the sake of being jokes, they're there for the sake of satire. You'll notice that in the film, as the protagonist sees these things he isn't laughing at them, he is saddened by them. It's all there to make you feel for the character, as a drama. There are a few jokes, but these aren't the OJ and Paris references, but short lines given by the characters. "How are we supposed to get Carmen Electra in a jail?" Not a huge laugh, but a nice chuckle. The film isn't about laughing, it's about crying.
See, this is where we split, though not completely. I see what you are saying, it makes sense. However, this film was really a look at ambition, and what it took to be an artist, or to make a decent film, but this plot suffered for two reasons. One, it just slid over this issue, when it should have dropped on it, stare at it and look into it as you couldn’t in the short runtime. Also, by taking a look into ambition, it lost its own, and became a movie that just tried to make us laugh, to spoof real life films. Comedy can be done in a satire, and was done so here, however, the term was confused, and the “satire”, as you call it, became the main point of the film, shifting the film back to… a comedy! It may have had a good heart, but it was created for jokes, plain and simple.
Satire doesn't always have to be for comedy, it can be used for different effects, and in this flm it manages to get several effects at once. Just because it has comedy doesn't mean that its only force it comedy. It works in other areas as well, and I think the sum of what it does in all these areas turns out to be good.
You are right in saying that satire can be used for many effects; however, you refuse to see what I’m getting at. This film doesn’t use it for different effects, only for one effect. And that effect is to make us laugh, and look into the minds of these directors-writers. Now, it may seems like I just hinted up towards drama, however, that is not the point of the film, as it goes over this point so poorly that it isn’t even worth mentioning. The real point is, and I hope you listen, that this film failed at making us laugh, and even though comedy can be used to evoke many emotions, it wasn’t used like such here, and thus, failed in total.
The film made me laugh a little; it made me cry a little. I didn't think it failed at what it tried to do, but at what you think it tried to do, which was be exactly like the movies it was making fun of. Technically it was well written, and in my opinion it managed to capture me and make me care about what was going on in it. That seems like a good film to me.
A good film to me is one which rises above the normal for that genre, and this not only didn’t excel, it fell short. I think I am right in stating that it is only a comedy, and I’m pretty sure that Indy had no other intentions, however, I see what you mean, and I’m thinking that this is a large case of over-analyzing. You are trying to make it out to be something that it isn’t, when really it is just a movie made for laughs, meant for laughs, and, if it succeeded, might have been a fine film. As for you crying, the only reason I could see crying is at the lack of ambition, but, if you truly cried Joey, I’ll buy you a pack of Kleenex as I know Nighthawk will break you down.
Obviously I wasn't literally crying, but my point was that it evoked other emotions than just laughter. However, it seems to me that you keep trying to fit the film into a genre, when it might not fit any perfectly into any. Some of the best comedies I've ever seen didn't make me laugh at all, while some that did are some of my least liked movies. However, it's clear that we aren't going to reach an agreement on this so just shoot down any final points of mine and let's move on to the next film.
I see, and I’d just like to say that we both have points, however, saying this film has messages is like hinting up towards something which may or may not exist, and is so unimportant that it doesn’t matter anyways, as this film is a comedy that failed at being funny, its sole purpose. But, there is more to discuss and I suppose we will have to chock this down as a disagreement. With that, let’s move on to our next film “An Amazing Spiderman”, the new film by HellBlazer, and Joey, how about you get the ball rolling?
---------------------
Spider-Man was a very tough read. It has a great plot, the characters are developed nicely, that's it. The script looks like it was written by a six year old monkey on crack. IT's hard TO read a script THAt'S written LIKE this. The story is changed from the classic, sometimes for real reasons (good ones), sometimes because it seems like the writer forgot a character's name. I'd like to see Mr. Connor's turn himself into a Lizard with no PhD, but it's okay because apparently there is no sequel planned for this film.
Well, again, I see a slight discrepancy, as I thought it was a very good film actually, and not only a good super hero film, but a good thriller, as it really kept me glued to the screen and seemed more inclined to enthrall us, then to give us a lot of useless action. I think that it had typos, and that wasn’t a good thing, but not a flaw. However, I think your real reason to not like it is because you were expecting a super hero film, and that’s not bad, as you write super hero film, however that is not what we have here. What we have here is a thriller, and this may be why it was so hard for you to read, or at least understand, because it was so different from what you wanted, or perhaps just thought, it would be. I’d say 3.5.
I have to agree that the reason I liked the plot was because it was very "thrillerish." I really liked the plot and how it kept frightening us. We also got some good looks into the characters of Peter and Eddie and great action. My main problem is that in this film I see so much untapped potential. The way the film is nowhere near properly formatted makes me realize that the script wasn't given a second look. It wasn't read over and thought about how it could be made better, it was just thrown together and put out there. If it were cared for more I think this could've been one of the greatest scripts I've ever read, but instead what we got was an unfinished product.
I’ll agree that it wasn’t formatted, or spelled, or whatever correctly, and that does show a lack in interest from the director, which is sad for a film as good as this, as well as a lack of dedication, because it appears to have so much in the scenes and such. Also, I’m glad you mentioned the characters. You are very correct in saying we were able to dive into them, as the script really opened them up, didn’t it? Another nice observation you made is how frightening it is. It played out like a horror film, not of monsters, but of characters, of the connections between them and their inner demons, what makes them tick, and that could be the worse kind of horror, as it really hits us inside the gut.
You know what? This isn't a terrible film, but the reason I think I'm so tough on it is because I see my same mistakes from The Life of Superman in this film. The last part that I was working on in that film ended up being really rushed. Now I realize how I could've made it better and I think it drags down the whole film. I never forgave myself for that. I think this film suffers from exactly the same thing, but instead of only being in about 2/5 of the film, it's through the whole thing. I think the director will see this in his own film and the next one would be much better, which is why I was very disappointed to see him say there wouldn't be a sequel which I thought was heavily set up in this film.
That is a nice analysis Joey, and I saw a director’s cut which was quite shorter, which I’ll have to send to you, because the pacing seemed much better in that version. It was bogged down at scenes, which is why I am tempted to give it 3.25 or so, but the abridged cut I saw beforehand had such a breakneck speed to it, with thrills and horrors around every corner, and it made it, surprisingly, so much better, it really seemed like the better film, and was such a more enjoyable read. In this longer script, the characters are there, the thrills are the same, but it spends so much time building up to them, that by the time they come, it doesn’t have the shocking impact as if they just popped up, and took us, and our emotions, by surprise.
Well, I think we agree that this film has a lot of good points, but the outward appearance hurts those good points. However, I see that the outward appearance is what a film is all about. If it looks bad, it's harder to try to break through to the greater inside. This film was a chore to read, and I found it hard to appreciate its good points.
Yes, the outward appearance does play a lot in how deep you can dive in a film, as it is like the skin you have to break through in order to get “down under”, and the skin was difficult, for sure. It was hard to read, as you said, but also it was difficult in themes. It tried to be much more then a superhero film, more then an action film, and it made itself these themes to do so, and that isn’t a bad thing, in fact, it is quite good, as it shows ambition, however it really takes some patience to get into, where as the other script of it, was much easier to break into. Also, I seem to be more forgiving then you, and I can’t help but wonder if this is because I saw that shorter cut, and I know what the film can do. If that abridged version, didn’t exist, maybe I wouldn’t like this film as much, so your criticism is definitely not off track, and I could agree with much of it.
See, all this about ambition... this is where I think you tend to overanalyze films. It doesn't matter what a film tries to do, just what it actually does. I can see this film try to do things, but it often comes off melodramatic and almost preachy. I don't find that to be a high point of the film. It has good action and moderate plot and characters and atmosphere. That's pretty much all I have to say about the film.
In my opinion, ambition is a large part of the film, and films in general. It couldn’t do anything without trying, so I don’t get what you are saying, and as for the preachy elements, I both agree and disagree. These are the moments I was mentioning that are “filler”, they lead up to the thrills and ruin the mood, however, they are also where we get the depth from the characters you, yourself, appreciated. Without these moments, it doesn’t allow you to really get into the film and the characters; however, it does have to be done with moderation, and sometimes, it isn’t done so controlled here. It does drag at spots, but overall, these moments only slightly effect the film, the pacing is what it really changes.
What I mean about ambition is that you seem to like a film for trying to do something, even if it doesn't actually do it. However, you also seem to think the film did succeed in developing themes, while I think it failed. A nice action flick with a pretty good story that got ruined in execution. I wish there was a sequel so I could see it address this film's problems, but apparently there won't be, so I have nothing else to say. I think we're done here.
Yes, ambition does play a large part with me, but it does have to succeed, or the ambition wouldn’t really be noticeable, but we are done, it seems. Overall, I liked it a lot, it did drag at scenes, but hopefully that shorter cut I saw can get re-released and that would fix up a few problems. Nice suspense, great thrills, and nice drama. I’d see it, but if you do, watch it as more of a thriller then a super hero film.
Well, I did appreciate this film as a thriller. I wasn't looking for some sci-fi straight up action, but it actually did action very well along with some scares. That's what made me like it as much as I did. Anyway, I don't think I'd recommend this film, but if the director released a fixed up version like Casa said I would see it again. Well, I think we've had a good chat, and I hope we've been informative and can make this into a nice recurring segment.
I’d also like to thank you Joey, it was nice talking to you and hearing your interesting opinions, and while we disagreed, I enjoyed your reasoning. I also look forward to chatting with you next time on episode 12, and am interested on your opinions on further movies. I think you were a great addition to the show and I am more then honored to have you, thank you, and thanks to the viewers, we hope to see you next time.
Again, I hope that chat went as a success, and I sure appreciate Joey getting together and talking movies with me, thanks Joey. And while we did vary in opinions on both films, slightly, I see where you are trying to go, even when, during “Parody Movie” you were seemingly walking in the dark. Up next though, however, we have a more lightly toned event, also one which will seem quite familiar, Trailer Analysis. We are starting off today with a trailer to “From NY to Georgia”, a promo actually, to the new film by Blacksuit, coincidentally, the director of “Spiderman”. So, knowing that background knowledge, and curious to see which of his quirks carry over, let’s see how it begins:
Fade in: We See BlackSuit_CrimeBoss, wearing jeans, and a Hawaiian shirt. He is sitting on a reclined chair next to a swimming pool.
Now, automatically, I think we are in store for a comedy. First, and most obvious, the name. “Blacksuit_Crimeboss”, the director of the film. This resonates back to “g”, and makes me think that, while no other Movie Reel characters will be in this, we have a comedy of one man. One man who gets in a series of adventures, and while friends may accompany him on the way, the central focus and the plot lay within this young man. Now, the second reason I believed this to be a comedy is the mood. Hawaiian shirt, jeans, a pool. Him wearing jeans tell us that he is not at Hawaii, as well as the fact that the writer purposely pointed out “Hawaiian shirt”. This detail into the clothes also tell us that this clothing choice was picked for some effect, most likely a comical effect, as it seems neither dark nor adventurous. Also, he is on a reclined chair by the pool. Two things about that. One, he is a young man reclined by the pool. He did not come to the pool to swim. What does a young man do you didn’t come there to swim? Look for women, leading to my second point that women were in swim suits by the pool, so not only is this a key place for someone like him, it is a situation pregnant with possibility.
BLACKSUIT
(looks at camera.)
Oh, hello there! I am BlackSuit_CrimeBoss. I've been part of movie reels since November of last year, and while I've contributed immensely to the site, such as coining the term "Reel Tickets", and calling Vince Rivers Coumo(I'm on to you). But I feel as though you need more from me. You may be asking yourself "What Blacksuit? After coining the now universally used term 'Reel Tickets', what more can we receive from you". Well, I'll tell you.
Black_Suit Sits up.
BLACKSUIT(CONT.)
So, Ive decided to use this time to show you the ways of picking up beautiful women. This is what you'll need. 1. A laid back attitude. 2. A reclined chair. 3. A swimming pool where you are legally allowed to be. And finally. number 4. A copy of Stephen Kings novel IT.
(A beat)
Now, since we have all of pieces, its time to use them to GET a piece.
(a beat)
Umm uh, Unfortunately, due to some difficulties, I was not able to get a woman to demonstrate this with me. However I managed to get the next best thing, A MAN!.
Oh, how spot on I was! Very good. Although, it is more unconventional than I expected. It starts like a documentary. In that, Blacksuit tells us who he is and his more “sinister” purposes for having us watch. He is going to show us how to get a “piece” of action, at the risk of sounding off the censorships. Now, this, if anything, tells us what kind of film we are in for. We are in for a light comedy, however, I expect drama. And let me tell you why. I sense that this man, or another in the story, is lonely, has no woman. And the plot around this move, I’m guessing, is to get a woman, or go experience life while finding one. It has the themes that “18 Road” has about finding yourself on a journey, and that is what I expect to see here. Also, I suspect that the movie will have a different kind of comedy, not the typical “spoof” style, which is both so typical and easy, but a more awkward style, where it presents us with absurd moments and expects laughter. For example, not only does the character recommend we have “Stephen King’s IT” for picking up a woman, it has a beat afterwards, as if a space where canned laughter is inserted, they are basically telling us, “now you laugh here” and “then laugh here”, and that tells me that the director is insecure, sadly. He needs to back his humor up; besides the free-flowing, quick speed comedy we all love. Hopefully I am wrong, and if I’m right, hopefully this problem will be fixed.
Emile Hirsch walks in, holding a script
EMILE
Uh, Hey BlackSuit, I'm getting paid for this too, right?
BLACKSUIT
I aleady paid you for this.
EMILE
No you didn -
BLACKSUIT
- Alright lets get started!!!!!
blacksuit pulls out the novel, and begins to read it. Emile looks at the script, and begins to read his lines, almost like a robot.
EMILE
Oh, hello there, I see you are reading a book. It looks like a long one.
Now, before we go any further, let me tell you what will happen. Now, the first part is essentially pointless except for reminding us that we have a more unconventional comedy, and perhaps warning us what will come, which I will explain in a second. Now, she is reading her script and notices the book. We know the book is “IT”, and we know she is supposed to be impressed, and having the script, she will probably act it. Two things could happen, she could fall for it, or not, right? Wrong, there is a third option. Something could happen besides that, and that remains in the unknown. As I said earlier, about the warning, it is telling us what will happen. And that is clearly, the most unconventional choice, number 3. Let’s see if I’m right.
BLACKSUIT
Oh! I didn't notice you there! Yes, this is Stephen kings IT! I've decided to come to a peaceful place today and read it. Again.
EMILE
How interesting. Is it your favorite.
BLACKSUIT
You can say that. I remember when I was four years of age and first read it. . It was about I'd say the 13th book I've ever read. So I guess 13 is not unlucky for me!
EMILE
Wow, your extreme knowledge of literature and also books is very intriguing. Are you available for the next 32 minutes.
BLACKSUIT
Actually, I do believe I am.
EMILE
Then I think we should totally go to my room and do sex.
BLACKSUIT
Sure, Why not!
(BlackSuit gets up).
By the way, Don't I know you from somewhere?
What, I’m wrong, not yet! I just would like to show you that this is all pointless. Do not read it. Analyzing the trailer, we could have done with nothing from here, however, not everyone will take the time to analyze, and thus, that is why this is here. But do you see how effective analyzing really is?
EMILE
Yes, I am....Emile Hirsch's.......mom?
Emile Looks up from the paper with scorn
EMILE(CONT.)
What the FU -
BLACKSUIT
FROM NY TO GEORGIA OUT JAN 1ST!!!!!!
And there you have it, the surprise I guessed there would be. Thus, overall, expect a more odd film, one with surprises like this, which are almost predictable really, as they seem to give themselves away, so maybe, in the film, you can look for that. But, it seems fun, nonetheless, and an enjoyable read.
With that closing, let’s go to the second trailer, “Nighthawk 2: Walk in the Air”, a new project by Hydrin who made the “film”, and I use that term lightly, “Nighthawk”. It starts:
Captain Gibson: After 10 years in prison of torture we finally were set free. We found out the general wasn’t dead. But he was in hiding for the day to come. That dreaded day. The day called "The war for the skies."
I’d like to thank Hydrin for that, for being our narrator, because I am sure we couldn’t figure that out for ourselves with some nice descriptions. (Sarcastic, if you couldn’t tell). Truly though, this film seems to have one flaw already, it wants to give us the story, to hand it to us with both hands. It leaves nothing for the imagination. The general didn’t get punctured by a bullet speeding, twirling through the air, breaking waves of sound as it rushed for the general’s body, the general simply died. No crap, no excess detail, thus, no excess greatness, only the raw greatness, which, so far, I see none of. Also, it looks like it doesn’t want us to be troubled, nice of them, but pathetic, as they try to make everything as simple for us as possible and go the step before spoon feeding us. We are grown film watchers, and can handle a films like this for ourselves.
(An explosion and people screeching are heard.)
Chinese general: This war will never be forgotten.... or remembered.
(The Chinese general laughs and shoots an American.)
(Fade out to a tower with Japanese in it.)
General Huranao: Yes general?
(Chatter is heard in the background.)
First off, “This war will never be forgotten.... or remembered.”? Let’s skip that for now, because this tells us nothing expects the dialogue in this film is meant for nothing but to sound cool. And war, often, isn’t cool. Hydrin has a problem. He fails to tell us where and when we are. It goes from “Fade out to a tower…” to dialogue. Now, in making it simple, he lost us. Who this is, and exactly what is going on, is lost in a wave of nothing. And then after the General Huranao’s question, what do we get; chatter. This is either mindless scripting, or terrible trailer quality, as “Yes General?” is no climax.
General Huranao: I'll send my men now. The americans will be dead before they take a single step.
(Dramatic music plays. The scene turns to the prison cell holding Captain Gibson and Cadet Windar.)
Cadet Windar: We cant get out of here Captain!
Captain Gibson: Just because we're prisoners now doesn’t mean we aren’t pilots! We're ready to take on this war. Are you with me?
Cadet Windar: I am, but.... how will we escape?
(The Captain pulls out a walkie-talkie.)
Captain Gibson: Call the German's. We're winning this war... even if it costs our lives.
(A Nighthawk engine is heard. Then you hear it breaking the sound barrier.)
General Huranao again, and he gets in a whole line! Answering his own question. The “dramatic music” plays, not music, dramatic music! For high action! And the action? A few lines which sound cool, but mean nothing, absolutely nothing.
Just because we're prisoners now doesn’t mean we aren’t pilots
Actually, it means that you are captured in war. And this line could have been easily taken out, along with half the trailer, and just replaced with. “Let’s get out!”. Far more compelling.
Captain Gibson: Call the German's. We're winning this war... even if it costs our lives.
This wins the award for worst line I have heard yet. We’re winning this war? Call the Germans? What? Yes, and the Germans will be all too happy to let you, right? Now, I know it is literal, and I know that it is supposed to raise the action, but come on. It is this clichéd, terrible line which bogs down the script and gives it a aura of such unintelligence, that it sounds…stupid, to say the least. Overall, I expect nothing more out of this film, then “Nighthawk” gave us, except maybe a few more lines. It seems awfully dull, simple minded and predictable, as, if I wanted; I could tell you every aspect of this film. Don’t go, not with your expectations above dumb fun, anyways.
That ends our Trailer Analysis for the night, and usually there may be one more, however, forgive us, as this episode is experimental, and we are still working out the kinks. We do, though have an interview for you now. An interview with me!
Q: Hello Casablanca, thank you for agreeing to an interview.
Although you are not a director, you have quickly earned yourself respect as one of the greatest writers on Movie Reels. Do you have any particular methods to your writing, or any personal quirks that you think you throw in?
A: First, I’d love to thank you for interviewing me Joey, and I look forward to working with you more then you can imagine. As for your question, I have to say yes to both. Firstly, and foremost, I write in a stream of conscious method, which means I write as I think, writing what I think. When you read Trailer Analysis, those are my thoughts you are seeing, dictated on paper for all of you to see.
Next, you asked if I had any quirks, and my answer is varied. My quirks go with my style. I type like I do, and never in any other form, so what you see is me, quirks and all, and, as they are part of me, I cannot point them out, as they seem natural to me.
Q: We all know you as a critic, and as such you seem to view films very objectively, but are there any styles of films you enjoy more than others? Do you enjoy one particular genre, or lighter films over darker ones?
A: Shockingly not. One may assume that I prefer darker, more surrealistic journeys of the mind, you can say, but also I enjoy action, comedy. I said when I joined I believe that I carry no prejudices and that “my favorite type of movie is a good one”. That still stands. However, they must effect me emotionally in some way. Either through the heart or the mind, I need to feel it, see it, and believe it.
Q: You've seen and reviewed the majority of films here on Movie Reels. What were the ones that particularly stood out for you, good or bad?
A: Well my top five films are:
1. Wolf Man
2. Most Dangerous Game
3. Science of Evil/Mills of God
4. Long Coats
5. Justice
As for films I didn’t like. Certainly “A Clockwork Orange” and “Summer Rush” make the list, and, to a lesser degree “Serve and Protect”, which had some good things behind it actually. “Parody Movie” and “The Punisher” are two modern examples which come to mind as being disappointing, to different degrees, and “Nighthawk” was quite terrible.
Q: You have made this a very high quality show. What sort of work goes into that process? How much time do you generally spend on each episode?
A: It only takes me 1 hour per episode, of course episode 10 took longer, but it is usually 1 hour average. For how different it seems then every other show and movie, it follows one same principle and that is a formula. Granted, I mix things up sometimes, but on the whole I will often do current reviews, then Trailer Analysis, my personal favorite, then an interview and then old film reviews. However, once you and me start working together, I hope to have things slightly different episode to episode.
Q: What do you think of the Movie Reels community? How do you get along with the other members? Do you try to stay professional in The Lounge for the sake of objectivity, or do you keep your personal and professional Movie Reels lives separate?
A: I often won’t look at who directed a film until later, which has led to a few embarrassing mistakes, but, I feel it is necessary to get caught up with names. I have friends, that’s for sure, people I enjoy being with a lot, and I believe this community is much better then the real world community, however, I never let anything get in the way of my thoughts, which is why I quit that job as accepting and declining television pilots. I need my opinion, it is my most valued feature.
Q: You do a pretty nice job of promoting your show, especially the much anticipated Episode 10, but you don't seem to follow the methods that movie directors do of releasing many trailers and such. How important do you think advertising is for the success of your product, and is there any particular way you think is most effective?
A: I don’t feel trailers are necessary for me, or teasers or posters or anything else. I’m sorry that I can’t remember the name, but someone commented on an episode saying that my show brought every film and every director together and, while staying modest, I can’t help but to agree. Even I think it is nice to see so much different films and styles mixed and analyzed. Advertising, for me, is useless. For directors though, it borders the essential.
Q: And of course I must end with the now trademark question, "what do you think about “Casablanca and the Movies? Is there anything missing, or anything you want to see?" What I mean is, how does the show effect you as a writer and member of Movie Reels? Are there any ideas floating around in your head that you would like to implement? What is there in the future?
A: There is that question. The one I have been asking for ten episodes. It seems like a good, old friend, and so does the show. To give it up would be like killing that old friend. This show will always live on, its as simple as that, and now with you and me working together, we can do greater things, explore new terrains and feature new and exciting methods and ideas. I would like to get more radical, more experimental, more of a maverick as we dash through unique systems and plans.
The show affects me in many ways. If it wasn’t for the show, I don’t know if I would still be here. It is my value and my dedication. On Movie Reels, it is the reason I exist.
And finally, plans for the future. Episodes past 100, past 1000. You and me, Joey, working together for years, and finally, I should reveal it, an award ceremony of some sort on episode 25! With Joey and me consecutively hosting it. That is my wish. My dream though, my life’s goal, is to make episode 100!
Thanks for the interview Joey; you did it as good as me, if not better. I know we will be great together and am so glad to have you with me. As the famous quote goes in “Casablanca” (the 1941 movie), “this looks like the start of a beautiful friendship.”
Now, let’s move on to another older event. And that is Reviews to 2 Older Films. Tonight, we will start with the controversial film “Wonderland” by Emily Freemont.
**.75 out of ****
What a sexually charged film! And not only in the obvious ways, but in the language, the mannerisms and everything. For example, look at the line, “Well, show us Alice’s blonde curls!”, referring to some money. Also, look at “Dear God, she is so pretty… bag her up!”, referring to the money, once revealed. Everything pertains to womanhood. This is to establish an atmosphere. These men have no regard for women what so ever, and later, when he couldn’t say what color his wife’s pubic hairs were, it goes as proof.
Now, this film is commonly hated, but I find it strangely compelling. First of all, I love the “Alice in Wonderland” connections, I think it is clever, and fitting, as we are really pulled “through the looking glass” in this film, really taken through a mirror or down an endless hole, and shown a bizarre, unpleasant film, which is curious, controversial, and despite the fact that the effect has dampened down, it is still, in my opinion, a staple of Movie Reels, and always will be.
I am not saying it is a great film, but it is a good one, and if you don’t think so, read it again, as it may require more then one viewing. The material is shocking, there is a sickening few lines about a character’s daughter, but look at it as art, for that is what it is. Art, sometimes, isn’t pleasant, not always clean, but it is undeniable by both force and essence, when viewed. “Wonderland” is that kind of film. Disgusting and sickening, but essential viewing, and a work that I may go back to one of these days, to experience the trauma, the wonder, and the nauseating beauty that it really can be.
And thus ends our first review.Now, let us move on to our next film: “The Hobbit”.
**.75 out of ****
This is a fine example of storytelling really. It is almost like a lesson, like a study, showing us the methods used in how to weave a plot with characters and themes, as it shows us different examples. Journey’s, flashbacks, adventures, all the while loosing sight of their own plot and becoming rather episodic, dull, a really quite boring at scenes.
I do not have a short attention span, and I can usually sit through a film in one day or less, depending on the quality, however, this film had me checking the progress bar, waiting to get on with it, as the scroll bar seemed frozen with time, stuck there in the middle of a story which would never move, never progress, as it just led to more stories, with one large plot somewhere, lost in the woods.
It is hard to appreciate “The Hobbit” because it glides over all of its advantages. It’s only interest is to cause wonder, to astound, but doesn’t know which aspect to amaze with. The characters? The plot? The visuals? It tries to succeed at everything and thus, lets its ambitions sweep it away and get gone with the wind (nice movie reference).
It would be easy, and convenient, to compare this to “City of Dragons”. However, I won’t. “City of Dragons” is a great movie, and this is not. That is because “City” has its goals set on letting us agree to take the path of adventure, letting us choose what amazes us, while this film forces it on, rather harshly, pointing out its own wonders like an arrogant film with too much self-esteem to give any freedom to the viewers, and it really feels stilted, contained, not allowed to break free and roam, roam in the manner “City of Dragons” did. And thus, it wears itself out, eventually, and dies down, after long, nice, but eventually dull stories.
With that, let us ends reviews for right now, and let me make one more apology. Originally, we plan to start having lectures in these episodes, similar to “Episode 10”, but not as ostentatious. Please forgive those until they are fully worked out. Also, I believe we would all like to now who wins the contest, so without further ado…the winner of 8 Months of Theater Time! Who was only one number away from my exact number, and he is…..
Click for the Winner!!!!!!! i538.photobucket.com/albums/ff349/Casablanca3491/winner.jpg
Congratulations from Joey and I and we hope you use it well!
With that, its time to turn to the last segment of the night, Joey’s Current Events Column. So please, read up on the latest Movie Reels happenings!
Let's see what's going on in Movie Reels current events in what I hope will be an informative and long running segment.
-SCF Films won the Highest Grossing Director award for his critically acclaimed film --"The Wolf Man" which left theaters on October 4th.
-Other films that left theaters included Legend's "World War III" which sold an astounding 29 tickets and T-Mac's "The Comic Shop" which sold a very nice 23 tickets.
-New releases included Blacksuit's action/thriller "An Amazing Spider-Man" which got mixed reviews, and was seen to have good action, plot and characters, but was not very polished.
-The heavily awaited fan favorite "g" gave us all a look at our own characters in the Movie Reels based comedy by Blaggers. Well liked across the board, it was somewhat criticized for its length and depth (that's what she said).
-"Parody Movie" by indy42 divided Movie Reels critics between thinking it was either a brilliant satire, or no better than the films it was making fun of.
-"18th Road" by Daz got great reviews, being called a "comedy with a twist" with great plot and characters as well as jokes.
-"Nighthawk" by new member Hydrin123 was generally panned, being called "basically one scene" but got a positive review from veteran MR director Cristo who called it "an intense adventure."
-New films announced include the Movie Reels Documentary which has got everyone's imaginations going. When asked for a release date, Mr. Vincent joked "late October to late December."
-Xplayadam announced that "Dryerman Returns" will premiere at the Entertainment Awards, just as the first premiered at the Reelies.
-Legend announced "South Park Episode II: Attack of the Puberty" which puts MR based characters in South Park's world, complete with their own animated models.
-Indy announced Punisher 2. Although the first received mixed reviews, he says this one will address the problems of the first but keep the high paced action that the first one got right.
-He then announced a remake of the 1973 B-Movie "The Werewolf of Washington" which is apparently about werewolf attacks on election night.
-His third announcement was "Electric Boogaloo," another MR based film. After my short role in "g" am I excited to see where this goes.
-He also put out a pilot episode for "The Angry Movie Critic," which wasn't picked up.
-Rockstar Productions announced "In Utero: The Last Days of Kurt Cobain, the Director's Cut." Nobody commented except Indy, who "LOL'd" at the fact that nobody commented.
-In the Lounge, Vince scared the hell out of everybody by making a topic titled "Movie Reels Closing" which turned out to be asking when we think MR may end. He then asked us if the HGD chart and Youtube work for us. They did.
-Bucksfan questioned if he should release his remake of the slasher pioneer "Halloween" and the rest of us reassured him that it was a good idea.
-Indy tried to induce a ticket binge to help his films "The Punisher" and "Parody Movie," to no avail.
-Batman posted a picture comparing cartoon characters Cotton and Peggy Hill to John McCain and Sarah Palin. Using my vast TV trivia and the fact that I haven't missed an episode of King of the Hill since 2003, I spoiled the ending for everybody.
-A child who could not be named (but we know as Damien) broke into a zoo and killed a bunch of lizards by beating them with rocks or feeding them to the crocodile. Authorities are unsure what to do with such an unususal case, but I suggested the worst punishment imaginable, pinning his eyes open like in "A Clockwork Orange" and forcing him to sit through "300."
-Dr. Zilla Productions announced a name change to Good Times Productions and the Indiana Jones spoof they were making got delayed until next summer.
-Batman said his computer privileges have been taken away so he won't be on for about a month (haw haw!). He said this would obviously delay his upcoming release "Max Payne" but knowing Batman it probably wouldn't be released anyway.
-In the VIP Lounge, 16thhour asked us all what would be our best and worst days ever. Nobody answered.
-I announced how I Bel Air'd my whole class. It was funny. Indy then recalled the tale of how he did a dramatic reading of Stayin' Alive, but nobody got it.
-Xplayadam asked us what our next five films are, in a pretty informative topic.
-Most importantly, Legend announced the death of the VIP Lounge, as the initial excitement, and then traffic, slowed down. Let's see if he's right.
-In the Entertainent board people got excited about the MLB season and we were reminded of an old trailer for the TV show "Greyson" which I used as an excuse to go on a long rant about how bad the last four seasons of Smallville were.
-People kept talking about the US election and we made fun of all the idiots who think Palin is intelligent or at all qualified to be President.
-In more important news, Mr. Vincent put out a call for commercials and other material for the Entertainment Awards, to a pretty good response, but keep working on it because we could always use more stuff.
-Super Saturday II got a huge response, however, Mr. Vincent didn't think about how much it would eat up his ad free page views which he recently purchased. A few DVDs were won and many people who lost not only budget money, but Cristo got to change their names for 24 hours. I lost both and became ILoveCristo, but I won the chance to change "SpaceOdessy's" (Casa's) avatar. However, everything was changed back before the 24 hours was up, and I never did find out why. Vince says this may be the last Super Saturday, but hopefully there will be another in a few months, as the first two were very close together.
-In "At the Movies" news, Episode 10 got huge ratings and people eagerly signed up for Casa's Eight Months Theater Time contest. I've been working hard on my first episode, somewhat sidetracking my progress on my films, but my release dates have been prepared for that. Not helping my progress, while writing this I accidentally hit Reset instead of Send and had to write this all over again, but it's done now so I hope you enjoy it and I hope I've helped you all keep up to date.
Thank you very much Joey, for that, a segment I really like. Also thank you everyone else, for making this show possible.
I hope you liked my first episode as much as I liked Casa on the others. I'll see you around MR, and you can all watch out for Episode 12.
And I too would like to say, thank you for watching this episode of “Casablanca and Joey at the Movies”, and I hope to see you next time!
NOTE- Please comment including how you like the new format, as well as how you enjoyed the chat. Thank you.
5Hello to all of our viewers out there on MR. I, Joey Jojo Junior Shabadoo (formerly ILoveCristo) will now co-host "At the Movies" with Casablanca. Although I am primarily a director I hope to be able to be very informative in my reviews and other segments. Here's the episode, so enjoy.
I hope you liked my first episode as much as I liked Casa on the others. I'll see you around MR, and you can all watch out for Episode 12.
First off, let’s look at a few current releases, and chat about those a bit. We did tow movies, and they are Indy’s “Parody Movie” and Blacksuit’s new film “An Amazing Spiderman”. Now, this is the first chat we have done, but hopefully it dives as in depth as our reviews, and if not, please say so in your comments on this episode. Here is the transcript to the chat:
Today we'll be looking at two films, Parody Movie, and An Amazing Spider-Man. Casa, what do you have to say about Parody movie?
Well, I know this film puts us at polar opposites, but I found it be uneven, too short, which for this film, feels like mercy, and just overall unfunny with no intentions to be funny, I'd say 1.5 out of 4.
I think we both went into this film expecting something different, but I understood this, where you kept looking for a dumb comedy. I think what we really got was a comedic drama, one that makes you feel for it's protagonist while getting a few laughs.
Well, I see what you mean about expectations, remember this film came out with "g" , and while I tried my best, even the most stern critic would have troubles not comparing them. On one hand you have a film which is really funny, very loose and free floating, and then you have a film which doesn't become what we expect, because it doesn't know what it wants to be. Sometimes it is a dumb comedy, sometimes it tries to be clever, and this unevenness makes it fall flat on its face.
I don't think you're thinking about the film as much as you should be. Several times through Parody Movie we see through the mind of the protagonist, who is trying to write a new parody move. You write what you see, and he is trying to see the world in the terms of a really bad, dumb comedy. The film puts these parts in on purpose, but wraps them in context which makes it brilliant.
Yes, and that is a good message…for a film that knows how to handle it. The main problem with this film is the scope. It is too short, it doesn’t try to excel at anything beyond its comedy and the message, while I agree, is there either very lightly or, more likely, by accident. The dialogue is simplistic, it lacks the cohesive structure that a message film needs and often it is hard to stay on track with the film, it’s mind boggling, in the worst of ways. The story, or lack of, seems razor thin.
I see this as just an artsy little short film. Just because it doesn't follow a set structure and doesn't focus on the points you like doesn't make it bad. It's not a comedy, but a tragedy, and I think you're just too closed minded to see the film for what it is. You're looking for something that isn't there instead of letting the film tell you what it is.
You are missing the point or art. Art doesn’t need structure, granted, and typically it is better left off formulaic, however, it takes an ambition to become so. Now, it seemed to me that this film just flew past any point of intelligence, and set its sights on being a comedy, and disregarded every possible benefit to get there. As typical in an indy film, he based it around some thrills, and this leaves no room for story, especially in an already short film. There is no space for development, and for the message we discussed earlier, it can’t squeeze in because of Indy’s attempts for humor.
Not all films need comedy, story, or anything else. These are just common elements that we have grown used to. Some things are greater than the sum of the parts. This is one of those things. Take for example, Napoleon Dynamite. I'm not saying this film has too much in common with it, but that is a film with practiacally zero plot, yet is widely regarded as a great film.
Well, of course not, look at “5:30” and such, hardly any plot. However, a film like that must be interpretive, it has to be open to different minds, and Parody Movie knew exactly what it wanted to be and tried handing it to us on a silver platter. Know, I also know comedy isn’t needed, however, when you try to use it and it fails, it is worse then not using it at all.
The jokes in this movie aren't there for the sake of being jokes, they're there for the sake of satire. You'll notice that in the film, as the protagonist sees these things he isn't laughing at them, he is saddened by them. It's all there to make you feel for the character, as a drama. There are a few jokes, but these aren't the OJ and Paris references, but short lines given by the characters. "How are we supposed to get Carmen Electra in a jail?" Not a huge laugh, but a nice chuckle. The film isn't about laughing, it's about crying.
See, this is where we split, though not completely. I see what you are saying, it makes sense. However, this film was really a look at ambition, and what it took to be an artist, or to make a decent film, but this plot suffered for two reasons. One, it just slid over this issue, when it should have dropped on it, stare at it and look into it as you couldn’t in the short runtime. Also, by taking a look into ambition, it lost its own, and became a movie that just tried to make us laugh, to spoof real life films. Comedy can be done in a satire, and was done so here, however, the term was confused, and the “satire”, as you call it, became the main point of the film, shifting the film back to… a comedy! It may have had a good heart, but it was created for jokes, plain and simple.
Satire doesn't always have to be for comedy, it can be used for different effects, and in this flm it manages to get several effects at once. Just because it has comedy doesn't mean that its only force it comedy. It works in other areas as well, and I think the sum of what it does in all these areas turns out to be good.
You are right in saying that satire can be used for many effects; however, you refuse to see what I’m getting at. This film doesn’t use it for different effects, only for one effect. And that effect is to make us laugh, and look into the minds of these directors-writers. Now, it may seems like I just hinted up towards drama, however, that is not the point of the film, as it goes over this point so poorly that it isn’t even worth mentioning. The real point is, and I hope you listen, that this film failed at making us laugh, and even though comedy can be used to evoke many emotions, it wasn’t used like such here, and thus, failed in total.
The film made me laugh a little; it made me cry a little. I didn't think it failed at what it tried to do, but at what you think it tried to do, which was be exactly like the movies it was making fun of. Technically it was well written, and in my opinion it managed to capture me and make me care about what was going on in it. That seems like a good film to me.
A good film to me is one which rises above the normal for that genre, and this not only didn’t excel, it fell short. I think I am right in stating that it is only a comedy, and I’m pretty sure that Indy had no other intentions, however, I see what you mean, and I’m thinking that this is a large case of over-analyzing. You are trying to make it out to be something that it isn’t, when really it is just a movie made for laughs, meant for laughs, and, if it succeeded, might have been a fine film. As for you crying, the only reason I could see crying is at the lack of ambition, but, if you truly cried Joey, I’ll buy you a pack of Kleenex as I know Nighthawk will break you down.
Obviously I wasn't literally crying, but my point was that it evoked other emotions than just laughter. However, it seems to me that you keep trying to fit the film into a genre, when it might not fit any perfectly into any. Some of the best comedies I've ever seen didn't make me laugh at all, while some that did are some of my least liked movies. However, it's clear that we aren't going to reach an agreement on this so just shoot down any final points of mine and let's move on to the next film.
I see, and I’d just like to say that we both have points, however, saying this film has messages is like hinting up towards something which may or may not exist, and is so unimportant that it doesn’t matter anyways, as this film is a comedy that failed at being funny, its sole purpose. But, there is more to discuss and I suppose we will have to chock this down as a disagreement. With that, let’s move on to our next film “An Amazing Spiderman”, the new film by HellBlazer, and Joey, how about you get the ball rolling?
---------------------
Spider-Man was a very tough read. It has a great plot, the characters are developed nicely, that's it. The script looks like it was written by a six year old monkey on crack. IT's hard TO read a script THAt'S written LIKE this. The story is changed from the classic, sometimes for real reasons (good ones), sometimes because it seems like the writer forgot a character's name. I'd like to see Mr. Connor's turn himself into a Lizard with no PhD, but it's okay because apparently there is no sequel planned for this film.
Well, again, I see a slight discrepancy, as I thought it was a very good film actually, and not only a good super hero film, but a good thriller, as it really kept me glued to the screen and seemed more inclined to enthrall us, then to give us a lot of useless action. I think that it had typos, and that wasn’t a good thing, but not a flaw. However, I think your real reason to not like it is because you were expecting a super hero film, and that’s not bad, as you write super hero film, however that is not what we have here. What we have here is a thriller, and this may be why it was so hard for you to read, or at least understand, because it was so different from what you wanted, or perhaps just thought, it would be. I’d say 3.5.
I have to agree that the reason I liked the plot was because it was very "thrillerish." I really liked the plot and how it kept frightening us. We also got some good looks into the characters of Peter and Eddie and great action. My main problem is that in this film I see so much untapped potential. The way the film is nowhere near properly formatted makes me realize that the script wasn't given a second look. It wasn't read over and thought about how it could be made better, it was just thrown together and put out there. If it were cared for more I think this could've been one of the greatest scripts I've ever read, but instead what we got was an unfinished product.
I’ll agree that it wasn’t formatted, or spelled, or whatever correctly, and that does show a lack in interest from the director, which is sad for a film as good as this, as well as a lack of dedication, because it appears to have so much in the scenes and such. Also, I’m glad you mentioned the characters. You are very correct in saying we were able to dive into them, as the script really opened them up, didn’t it? Another nice observation you made is how frightening it is. It played out like a horror film, not of monsters, but of characters, of the connections between them and their inner demons, what makes them tick, and that could be the worse kind of horror, as it really hits us inside the gut.
You know what? This isn't a terrible film, but the reason I think I'm so tough on it is because I see my same mistakes from The Life of Superman in this film. The last part that I was working on in that film ended up being really rushed. Now I realize how I could've made it better and I think it drags down the whole film. I never forgave myself for that. I think this film suffers from exactly the same thing, but instead of only being in about 2/5 of the film, it's through the whole thing. I think the director will see this in his own film and the next one would be much better, which is why I was very disappointed to see him say there wouldn't be a sequel which I thought was heavily set up in this film.
That is a nice analysis Joey, and I saw a director’s cut which was quite shorter, which I’ll have to send to you, because the pacing seemed much better in that version. It was bogged down at scenes, which is why I am tempted to give it 3.25 or so, but the abridged cut I saw beforehand had such a breakneck speed to it, with thrills and horrors around every corner, and it made it, surprisingly, so much better, it really seemed like the better film, and was such a more enjoyable read. In this longer script, the characters are there, the thrills are the same, but it spends so much time building up to them, that by the time they come, it doesn’t have the shocking impact as if they just popped up, and took us, and our emotions, by surprise.
Well, I think we agree that this film has a lot of good points, but the outward appearance hurts those good points. However, I see that the outward appearance is what a film is all about. If it looks bad, it's harder to try to break through to the greater inside. This film was a chore to read, and I found it hard to appreciate its good points.
Yes, the outward appearance does play a lot in how deep you can dive in a film, as it is like the skin you have to break through in order to get “down under”, and the skin was difficult, for sure. It was hard to read, as you said, but also it was difficult in themes. It tried to be much more then a superhero film, more then an action film, and it made itself these themes to do so, and that isn’t a bad thing, in fact, it is quite good, as it shows ambition, however it really takes some patience to get into, where as the other script of it, was much easier to break into. Also, I seem to be more forgiving then you, and I can’t help but wonder if this is because I saw that shorter cut, and I know what the film can do. If that abridged version, didn’t exist, maybe I wouldn’t like this film as much, so your criticism is definitely not off track, and I could agree with much of it.
See, all this about ambition... this is where I think you tend to overanalyze films. It doesn't matter what a film tries to do, just what it actually does. I can see this film try to do things, but it often comes off melodramatic and almost preachy. I don't find that to be a high point of the film. It has good action and moderate plot and characters and atmosphere. That's pretty much all I have to say about the film.
In my opinion, ambition is a large part of the film, and films in general. It couldn’t do anything without trying, so I don’t get what you are saying, and as for the preachy elements, I both agree and disagree. These are the moments I was mentioning that are “filler”, they lead up to the thrills and ruin the mood, however, they are also where we get the depth from the characters you, yourself, appreciated. Without these moments, it doesn’t allow you to really get into the film and the characters; however, it does have to be done with moderation, and sometimes, it isn’t done so controlled here. It does drag at spots, but overall, these moments only slightly effect the film, the pacing is what it really changes.
What I mean about ambition is that you seem to like a film for trying to do something, even if it doesn't actually do it. However, you also seem to think the film did succeed in developing themes, while I think it failed. A nice action flick with a pretty good story that got ruined in execution. I wish there was a sequel so I could see it address this film's problems, but apparently there won't be, so I have nothing else to say. I think we're done here.
Yes, ambition does play a large part with me, but it does have to succeed, or the ambition wouldn’t really be noticeable, but we are done, it seems. Overall, I liked it a lot, it did drag at scenes, but hopefully that shorter cut I saw can get re-released and that would fix up a few problems. Nice suspense, great thrills, and nice drama. I’d see it, but if you do, watch it as more of a thriller then a super hero film.
Well, I did appreciate this film as a thriller. I wasn't looking for some sci-fi straight up action, but it actually did action very well along with some scares. That's what made me like it as much as I did. Anyway, I don't think I'd recommend this film, but if the director released a fixed up version like Casa said I would see it again. Well, I think we've had a good chat, and I hope we've been informative and can make this into a nice recurring segment.
I’d also like to thank you Joey, it was nice talking to you and hearing your interesting opinions, and while we disagreed, I enjoyed your reasoning. I also look forward to chatting with you next time on episode 12, and am interested on your opinions on further movies. I think you were a great addition to the show and I am more then honored to have you, thank you, and thanks to the viewers, we hope to see you next time.
Again, I hope that chat went as a success, and I sure appreciate Joey getting together and talking movies with me, thanks Joey. And while we did vary in opinions on both films, slightly, I see where you are trying to go, even when, during “Parody Movie” you were seemingly walking in the dark. Up next though, however, we have a more lightly toned event, also one which will seem quite familiar, Trailer Analysis. We are starting off today with a trailer to “From NY to Georgia”, a promo actually, to the new film by Blacksuit, coincidentally, the director of “Spiderman”. So, knowing that background knowledge, and curious to see which of his quirks carry over, let’s see how it begins:
Fade in: We See BlackSuit_CrimeBoss, wearing jeans, and a Hawaiian shirt. He is sitting on a reclined chair next to a swimming pool.
Now, automatically, I think we are in store for a comedy. First, and most obvious, the name. “Blacksuit_Crimeboss”, the director of the film. This resonates back to “g”, and makes me think that, while no other Movie Reel characters will be in this, we have a comedy of one man. One man who gets in a series of adventures, and while friends may accompany him on the way, the central focus and the plot lay within this young man. Now, the second reason I believed this to be a comedy is the mood. Hawaiian shirt, jeans, a pool. Him wearing jeans tell us that he is not at Hawaii, as well as the fact that the writer purposely pointed out “Hawaiian shirt”. This detail into the clothes also tell us that this clothing choice was picked for some effect, most likely a comical effect, as it seems neither dark nor adventurous. Also, he is on a reclined chair by the pool. Two things about that. One, he is a young man reclined by the pool. He did not come to the pool to swim. What does a young man do you didn’t come there to swim? Look for women, leading to my second point that women were in swim suits by the pool, so not only is this a key place for someone like him, it is a situation pregnant with possibility.
BLACKSUIT
(looks at camera.)
Oh, hello there! I am BlackSuit_CrimeBoss. I've been part of movie reels since November of last year, and while I've contributed immensely to the site, such as coining the term "Reel Tickets", and calling Vince Rivers Coumo(I'm on to you). But I feel as though you need more from me. You may be asking yourself "What Blacksuit? After coining the now universally used term 'Reel Tickets', what more can we receive from you". Well, I'll tell you.
Black_Suit Sits up.
BLACKSUIT(CONT.)
So, Ive decided to use this time to show you the ways of picking up beautiful women. This is what you'll need. 1. A laid back attitude. 2. A reclined chair. 3. A swimming pool where you are legally allowed to be. And finally. number 4. A copy of Stephen Kings novel IT.
(A beat)
Now, since we have all of pieces, its time to use them to GET a piece.
(a beat)
Umm uh, Unfortunately, due to some difficulties, I was not able to get a woman to demonstrate this with me. However I managed to get the next best thing, A MAN!.
Oh, how spot on I was! Very good. Although, it is more unconventional than I expected. It starts like a documentary. In that, Blacksuit tells us who he is and his more “sinister” purposes for having us watch. He is going to show us how to get a “piece” of action, at the risk of sounding off the censorships. Now, this, if anything, tells us what kind of film we are in for. We are in for a light comedy, however, I expect drama. And let me tell you why. I sense that this man, or another in the story, is lonely, has no woman. And the plot around this move, I’m guessing, is to get a woman, or go experience life while finding one. It has the themes that “18 Road” has about finding yourself on a journey, and that is what I expect to see here. Also, I suspect that the movie will have a different kind of comedy, not the typical “spoof” style, which is both so typical and easy, but a more awkward style, where it presents us with absurd moments and expects laughter. For example, not only does the character recommend we have “Stephen King’s IT” for picking up a woman, it has a beat afterwards, as if a space where canned laughter is inserted, they are basically telling us, “now you laugh here” and “then laugh here”, and that tells me that the director is insecure, sadly. He needs to back his humor up; besides the free-flowing, quick speed comedy we all love. Hopefully I am wrong, and if I’m right, hopefully this problem will be fixed.
Emile Hirsch walks in, holding a script
EMILE
Uh, Hey BlackSuit, I'm getting paid for this too, right?
BLACKSUIT
I aleady paid you for this.
EMILE
No you didn -
BLACKSUIT
- Alright lets get started!!!!!
blacksuit pulls out the novel, and begins to read it. Emile looks at the script, and begins to read his lines, almost like a robot.
EMILE
Oh, hello there, I see you are reading a book. It looks like a long one.
Now, before we go any further, let me tell you what will happen. Now, the first part is essentially pointless except for reminding us that we have a more unconventional comedy, and perhaps warning us what will come, which I will explain in a second. Now, she is reading her script and notices the book. We know the book is “IT”, and we know she is supposed to be impressed, and having the script, she will probably act it. Two things could happen, she could fall for it, or not, right? Wrong, there is a third option. Something could happen besides that, and that remains in the unknown. As I said earlier, about the warning, it is telling us what will happen. And that is clearly, the most unconventional choice, number 3. Let’s see if I’m right.
BLACKSUIT
Oh! I didn't notice you there! Yes, this is Stephen kings IT! I've decided to come to a peaceful place today and read it. Again.
EMILE
How interesting. Is it your favorite.
BLACKSUIT
You can say that. I remember when I was four years of age and first read it. . It was about I'd say the 13th book I've ever read. So I guess 13 is not unlucky for me!
EMILE
Wow, your extreme knowledge of literature and also books is very intriguing. Are you available for the next 32 minutes.
BLACKSUIT
Actually, I do believe I am.
EMILE
Then I think we should totally go to my room and do sex.
BLACKSUIT
Sure, Why not!
(BlackSuit gets up).
By the way, Don't I know you from somewhere?
What, I’m wrong, not yet! I just would like to show you that this is all pointless. Do not read it. Analyzing the trailer, we could have done with nothing from here, however, not everyone will take the time to analyze, and thus, that is why this is here. But do you see how effective analyzing really is?
EMILE
Yes, I am....Emile Hirsch's.......mom?
Emile Looks up from the paper with scorn
EMILE(CONT.)
What the FU -
BLACKSUIT
FROM NY TO GEORGIA OUT JAN 1ST!!!!!!
And there you have it, the surprise I guessed there would be. Thus, overall, expect a more odd film, one with surprises like this, which are almost predictable really, as they seem to give themselves away, so maybe, in the film, you can look for that. But, it seems fun, nonetheless, and an enjoyable read.
With that closing, let’s go to the second trailer, “Nighthawk 2: Walk in the Air”, a new project by Hydrin who made the “film”, and I use that term lightly, “Nighthawk”. It starts:
Captain Gibson: After 10 years in prison of torture we finally were set free. We found out the general wasn’t dead. But he was in hiding for the day to come. That dreaded day. The day called "The war for the skies."
I’d like to thank Hydrin for that, for being our narrator, because I am sure we couldn’t figure that out for ourselves with some nice descriptions. (Sarcastic, if you couldn’t tell). Truly though, this film seems to have one flaw already, it wants to give us the story, to hand it to us with both hands. It leaves nothing for the imagination. The general didn’t get punctured by a bullet speeding, twirling through the air, breaking waves of sound as it rushed for the general’s body, the general simply died. No crap, no excess detail, thus, no excess greatness, only the raw greatness, which, so far, I see none of. Also, it looks like it doesn’t want us to be troubled, nice of them, but pathetic, as they try to make everything as simple for us as possible and go the step before spoon feeding us. We are grown film watchers, and can handle a films like this for ourselves.
(An explosion and people screeching are heard.)
Chinese general: This war will never be forgotten.... or remembered.
(The Chinese general laughs and shoots an American.)
(Fade out to a tower with Japanese in it.)
General Huranao: Yes general?
(Chatter is heard in the background.)
First off, “This war will never be forgotten.... or remembered.”? Let’s skip that for now, because this tells us nothing expects the dialogue in this film is meant for nothing but to sound cool. And war, often, isn’t cool. Hydrin has a problem. He fails to tell us where and when we are. It goes from “Fade out to a tower…” to dialogue. Now, in making it simple, he lost us. Who this is, and exactly what is going on, is lost in a wave of nothing. And then after the General Huranao’s question, what do we get; chatter. This is either mindless scripting, or terrible trailer quality, as “Yes General?” is no climax.
General Huranao: I'll send my men now. The americans will be dead before they take a single step.
(Dramatic music plays. The scene turns to the prison cell holding Captain Gibson and Cadet Windar.)
Cadet Windar: We cant get out of here Captain!
Captain Gibson: Just because we're prisoners now doesn’t mean we aren’t pilots! We're ready to take on this war. Are you with me?
Cadet Windar: I am, but.... how will we escape?
(The Captain pulls out a walkie-talkie.)
Captain Gibson: Call the German's. We're winning this war... even if it costs our lives.
(A Nighthawk engine is heard. Then you hear it breaking the sound barrier.)
General Huranao again, and he gets in a whole line! Answering his own question. The “dramatic music” plays, not music, dramatic music! For high action! And the action? A few lines which sound cool, but mean nothing, absolutely nothing.
Just because we're prisoners now doesn’t mean we aren’t pilots
Actually, it means that you are captured in war. And this line could have been easily taken out, along with half the trailer, and just replaced with. “Let’s get out!”. Far more compelling.
Captain Gibson: Call the German's. We're winning this war... even if it costs our lives.
This wins the award for worst line I have heard yet. We’re winning this war? Call the Germans? What? Yes, and the Germans will be all too happy to let you, right? Now, I know it is literal, and I know that it is supposed to raise the action, but come on. It is this clichéd, terrible line which bogs down the script and gives it a aura of such unintelligence, that it sounds…stupid, to say the least. Overall, I expect nothing more out of this film, then “Nighthawk” gave us, except maybe a few more lines. It seems awfully dull, simple minded and predictable, as, if I wanted; I could tell you every aspect of this film. Don’t go, not with your expectations above dumb fun, anyways.
That ends our Trailer Analysis for the night, and usually there may be one more, however, forgive us, as this episode is experimental, and we are still working out the kinks. We do, though have an interview for you now. An interview with me!
Q: Hello Casablanca, thank you for agreeing to an interview.
Although you are not a director, you have quickly earned yourself respect as one of the greatest writers on Movie Reels. Do you have any particular methods to your writing, or any personal quirks that you think you throw in?A: First, I’d love to thank you for interviewing me Joey, and I look forward to working with you more then you can imagine. As for your question, I have to say yes to both. Firstly, and foremost, I write in a stream of conscious method, which means I write as I think, writing what I think. When you read Trailer Analysis, those are my thoughts you are seeing, dictated on paper for all of you to see.
Next, you asked if I had any quirks, and my answer is varied. My quirks go with my style. I type like I do, and never in any other form, so what you see is me, quirks and all, and, as they are part of me, I cannot point them out, as they seem natural to me.
Q: We all know you as a critic, and as such you seem to view films very objectively, but are there any styles of films you enjoy more than others? Do you enjoy one particular genre, or lighter films over darker ones?
A: Shockingly not. One may assume that I prefer darker, more surrealistic journeys of the mind, you can say, but also I enjoy action, comedy. I said when I joined I believe that I carry no prejudices and that “my favorite type of movie is a good one”. That still stands. However, they must effect me emotionally in some way. Either through the heart or the mind, I need to feel it, see it, and believe it.
Q: You've seen and reviewed the majority of films here on Movie Reels. What were the ones that particularly stood out for you, good or bad?
A: Well my top five films are:
1. Wolf Man
2. Most Dangerous Game
3. Science of Evil/Mills of God
4. Long Coats
5. Justice
As for films I didn’t like. Certainly “A Clockwork Orange” and “Summer Rush” make the list, and, to a lesser degree “Serve and Protect”, which had some good things behind it actually. “Parody Movie” and “The Punisher” are two modern examples which come to mind as being disappointing, to different degrees, and “Nighthawk” was quite terrible.
Q: You have made this a very high quality show. What sort of work goes into that process? How much time do you generally spend on each episode?
A: It only takes me 1 hour per episode, of course episode 10 took longer, but it is usually 1 hour average. For how different it seems then every other show and movie, it follows one same principle and that is a formula. Granted, I mix things up sometimes, but on the whole I will often do current reviews, then Trailer Analysis, my personal favorite, then an interview and then old film reviews. However, once you and me start working together, I hope to have things slightly different episode to episode.
Q: What do you think of the Movie Reels community? How do you get along with the other members? Do you try to stay professional in The Lounge for the sake of objectivity, or do you keep your personal and professional Movie Reels lives separate?
A: I often won’t look at who directed a film until later, which has led to a few embarrassing mistakes, but, I feel it is necessary to get caught up with names. I have friends, that’s for sure, people I enjoy being with a lot, and I believe this community is much better then the real world community, however, I never let anything get in the way of my thoughts, which is why I quit that job as accepting and declining television pilots. I need my opinion, it is my most valued feature.
Q: You do a pretty nice job of promoting your show, especially the much anticipated Episode 10, but you don't seem to follow the methods that movie directors do of releasing many trailers and such. How important do you think advertising is for the success of your product, and is there any particular way you think is most effective?
A: I don’t feel trailers are necessary for me, or teasers or posters or anything else. I’m sorry that I can’t remember the name, but someone commented on an episode saying that my show brought every film and every director together and, while staying modest, I can’t help but to agree. Even I think it is nice to see so much different films and styles mixed and analyzed. Advertising, for me, is useless. For directors though, it borders the essential.
Q: And of course I must end with the now trademark question, "what do you think about “Casablanca and the Movies? Is there anything missing, or anything you want to see?" What I mean is, how does the show effect you as a writer and member of Movie Reels? Are there any ideas floating around in your head that you would like to implement? What is there in the future?
A: There is that question. The one I have been asking for ten episodes. It seems like a good, old friend, and so does the show. To give it up would be like killing that old friend. This show will always live on, its as simple as that, and now with you and me working together, we can do greater things, explore new terrains and feature new and exciting methods and ideas. I would like to get more radical, more experimental, more of a maverick as we dash through unique systems and plans.
The show affects me in many ways. If it wasn’t for the show, I don’t know if I would still be here. It is my value and my dedication. On Movie Reels, it is the reason I exist.
And finally, plans for the future. Episodes past 100, past 1000. You and me, Joey, working together for years, and finally, I should reveal it, an award ceremony of some sort on episode 25! With Joey and me consecutively hosting it. That is my wish. My dream though, my life’s goal, is to make episode 100!
Thanks for the interview Joey; you did it as good as me, if not better. I know we will be great together and am so glad to have you with me. As the famous quote goes in “Casablanca” (the 1941 movie), “this looks like the start of a beautiful friendship.”
Now, let’s move on to another older event. And that is Reviews to 2 Older Films. Tonight, we will start with the controversial film “Wonderland” by Emily Freemont.
**.75 out of ****
What a sexually charged film! And not only in the obvious ways, but in the language, the mannerisms and everything. For example, look at the line, “Well, show us Alice’s blonde curls!”, referring to some money. Also, look at “Dear God, she is so pretty… bag her up!”, referring to the money, once revealed. Everything pertains to womanhood. This is to establish an atmosphere. These men have no regard for women what so ever, and later, when he couldn’t say what color his wife’s pubic hairs were, it goes as proof.
Now, this film is commonly hated, but I find it strangely compelling. First of all, I love the “Alice in Wonderland” connections, I think it is clever, and fitting, as we are really pulled “through the looking glass” in this film, really taken through a mirror or down an endless hole, and shown a bizarre, unpleasant film, which is curious, controversial, and despite the fact that the effect has dampened down, it is still, in my opinion, a staple of Movie Reels, and always will be.
I am not saying it is a great film, but it is a good one, and if you don’t think so, read it again, as it may require more then one viewing. The material is shocking, there is a sickening few lines about a character’s daughter, but look at it as art, for that is what it is. Art, sometimes, isn’t pleasant, not always clean, but it is undeniable by both force and essence, when viewed. “Wonderland” is that kind of film. Disgusting and sickening, but essential viewing, and a work that I may go back to one of these days, to experience the trauma, the wonder, and the nauseating beauty that it really can be.
And thus ends our first review.Now, let us move on to our next film: “The Hobbit”.
**.75 out of ****
This is a fine example of storytelling really. It is almost like a lesson, like a study, showing us the methods used in how to weave a plot with characters and themes, as it shows us different examples. Journey’s, flashbacks, adventures, all the while loosing sight of their own plot and becoming rather episodic, dull, a really quite boring at scenes.
I do not have a short attention span, and I can usually sit through a film in one day or less, depending on the quality, however, this film had me checking the progress bar, waiting to get on with it, as the scroll bar seemed frozen with time, stuck there in the middle of a story which would never move, never progress, as it just led to more stories, with one large plot somewhere, lost in the woods.
It is hard to appreciate “The Hobbit” because it glides over all of its advantages. It’s only interest is to cause wonder, to astound, but doesn’t know which aspect to amaze with. The characters? The plot? The visuals? It tries to succeed at everything and thus, lets its ambitions sweep it away and get gone with the wind (nice movie reference).
It would be easy, and convenient, to compare this to “City of Dragons”. However, I won’t. “City of Dragons” is a great movie, and this is not. That is because “City” has its goals set on letting us agree to take the path of adventure, letting us choose what amazes us, while this film forces it on, rather harshly, pointing out its own wonders like an arrogant film with too much self-esteem to give any freedom to the viewers, and it really feels stilted, contained, not allowed to break free and roam, roam in the manner “City of Dragons” did. And thus, it wears itself out, eventually, and dies down, after long, nice, but eventually dull stories.
With that, let us ends reviews for right now, and let me make one more apology. Originally, we plan to start having lectures in these episodes, similar to “Episode 10”, but not as ostentatious. Please forgive those until they are fully worked out. Also, I believe we would all like to now who wins the contest, so without further ado…the winner of 8 Months of Theater Time! Who was only one number away from my exact number, and he is…..
Click for the Winner!!!!!!! i538.photobucket.com/albums/ff349/Casablanca3491/winner.jpg
Congratulations from Joey and I and we hope you use it well!
With that, its time to turn to the last segment of the night, Joey’s Current Events Column. So please, read up on the latest Movie Reels happenings!
Let's see what's going on in Movie Reels current events in what I hope will be an informative and long running segment.
-SCF Films won the Highest Grossing Director award for his critically acclaimed film --"The Wolf Man" which left theaters on October 4th.
-Other films that left theaters included Legend's "World War III" which sold an astounding 29 tickets and T-Mac's "The Comic Shop" which sold a very nice 23 tickets.
-New releases included Blacksuit's action/thriller "An Amazing Spider-Man" which got mixed reviews, and was seen to have good action, plot and characters, but was not very polished.
-The heavily awaited fan favorite "g" gave us all a look at our own characters in the Movie Reels based comedy by Blaggers. Well liked across the board, it was somewhat criticized for its length and depth (that's what she said).
-"Parody Movie" by indy42 divided Movie Reels critics between thinking it was either a brilliant satire, or no better than the films it was making fun of.
-"18th Road" by Daz got great reviews, being called a "comedy with a twist" with great plot and characters as well as jokes.
-"Nighthawk" by new member Hydrin123 was generally panned, being called "basically one scene" but got a positive review from veteran MR director Cristo who called it "an intense adventure."
-New films announced include the Movie Reels Documentary which has got everyone's imaginations going. When asked for a release date, Mr. Vincent joked "late October to late December."
-Xplayadam announced that "Dryerman Returns" will premiere at the Entertainment Awards, just as the first premiered at the Reelies.
-Legend announced "South Park Episode II: Attack of the Puberty" which puts MR based characters in South Park's world, complete with their own animated models.
-Indy announced Punisher 2. Although the first received mixed reviews, he says this one will address the problems of the first but keep the high paced action that the first one got right.
-He then announced a remake of the 1973 B-Movie "The Werewolf of Washington" which is apparently about werewolf attacks on election night.
-His third announcement was "Electric Boogaloo," another MR based film. After my short role in "g" am I excited to see where this goes.
-He also put out a pilot episode for "The Angry Movie Critic," which wasn't picked up.
-Rockstar Productions announced "In Utero: The Last Days of Kurt Cobain, the Director's Cut." Nobody commented except Indy, who "LOL'd" at the fact that nobody commented.
-In the Lounge, Vince scared the hell out of everybody by making a topic titled "Movie Reels Closing" which turned out to be asking when we think MR may end. He then asked us if the HGD chart and Youtube work for us. They did.
-Bucksfan questioned if he should release his remake of the slasher pioneer "Halloween" and the rest of us reassured him that it was a good idea.
-Indy tried to induce a ticket binge to help his films "The Punisher" and "Parody Movie," to no avail.
-Batman posted a picture comparing cartoon characters Cotton and Peggy Hill to John McCain and Sarah Palin. Using my vast TV trivia and the fact that I haven't missed an episode of King of the Hill since 2003, I spoiled the ending for everybody.
-A child who could not be named (but we know as Damien) broke into a zoo and killed a bunch of lizards by beating them with rocks or feeding them to the crocodile. Authorities are unsure what to do with such an unususal case, but I suggested the worst punishment imaginable, pinning his eyes open like in "A Clockwork Orange" and forcing him to sit through "300."
-Dr. Zilla Productions announced a name change to Good Times Productions and the Indiana Jones spoof they were making got delayed until next summer.
-Batman said his computer privileges have been taken away so he won't be on for about a month (haw haw!). He said this would obviously delay his upcoming release "Max Payne" but knowing Batman it probably wouldn't be released anyway.
-In the VIP Lounge, 16thhour asked us all what would be our best and worst days ever. Nobody answered.
-I announced how I Bel Air'd my whole class. It was funny. Indy then recalled the tale of how he did a dramatic reading of Stayin' Alive, but nobody got it.
-Xplayadam asked us what our next five films are, in a pretty informative topic.
-Most importantly, Legend announced the death of the VIP Lounge, as the initial excitement, and then traffic, slowed down. Let's see if he's right.
-In the Entertainent board people got excited about the MLB season and we were reminded of an old trailer for the TV show "Greyson" which I used as an excuse to go on a long rant about how bad the last four seasons of Smallville were.
-People kept talking about the US election and we made fun of all the idiots who think Palin is intelligent or at all qualified to be President.
-In more important news, Mr. Vincent put out a call for commercials and other material for the Entertainment Awards, to a pretty good response, but keep working on it because we could always use more stuff.
-Super Saturday II got a huge response, however, Mr. Vincent didn't think about how much it would eat up his ad free page views which he recently purchased. A few DVDs were won and many people who lost not only budget money, but Cristo got to change their names for 24 hours. I lost both and became ILoveCristo, but I won the chance to change "SpaceOdessy's" (Casa's) avatar. However, everything was changed back before the 24 hours was up, and I never did find out why. Vince says this may be the last Super Saturday, but hopefully there will be another in a few months, as the first two were very close together.
-In "At the Movies" news, Episode 10 got huge ratings and people eagerly signed up for Casa's Eight Months Theater Time contest. I've been working hard on my first episode, somewhat sidetracking my progress on my films, but my release dates have been prepared for that. Not helping my progress, while writing this I accidentally hit Reset instead of Send and had to write this all over again, but it's done now so I hope you enjoy it and I hope I've helped you all keep up to date.
Thank you very much Joey, for that, a segment I really like. Also thank you everyone else, for making this show possible.
I hope you liked my first episode as much as I liked Casa on the others. I'll see you around MR, and you can all watch out for Episode 12.
And I too would like to say, thank you for watching this episode of “Casablanca and Joey at the Movies”, and I hope to see you next time!
NOTE- Please comment including how you like the new format, as well as how you enjoyed the chat. Thank you.
).
