My parents always told me how much they loved this movie, but I wasn’t really sure how much I was going to like Saturday Night Fever(Badham 1977) because I thought it was just about disco and I’m not a big fan of disco. But I soon realized this was a coming of age movie, and was much deeper than just disco and dancing. By the time the movie was over, without even knowing, 2 hours had passed and I finally understand why this movie was so successful and why my parents love this movie so much.

The opening scene was awesome, and I have seen this part referenced or spoofed in other movies. It brings you right into the movie, with the steady beat of the Bee Gees “Staying Alive” and John Travolta walking down the street. The film is about a young 19 year old, Tony Manero, who is living in New York with a dead end job in a hardware store. He has a very bumpy relationship with his family, especially with his father. Tony takes a back seat to his brother, who is a priest and whom his parents put on a pedestal. But on the weekends Tony is the King on the dance floor. Tony is a completely different man when he is out there; everybody knows him, he can get any girl he wants, and he is the BEST dancer out on the floor. This is when he sees an older woman, Stephanie, and she changes his life. First, they decided to enter the dance competition together at the local club, but things grew into a more serious type of relationship. Stephanie was a mature woman who told Tony that he needs to grow up because you need to be ready for the future. Tony was not planning anything for his future, and Stephanie wanted to get out of there and move to Manhattan. Tony learns that he needs to start thinking about his future and that is when Stephanie and Tony agree to help each other out and start out fresh.

This movie was generally toward the teenage/young adult crowd, shifting away from the adult viewers. It faced problems and ideas of the general teenager at that time. All they wanted to do was have fun and party. Tony and his close group of friends loved to go wild. They had a spot where they would go after the club which was on the bridge and they would start to climb the suspension cables. They would do drugs, like speed, which was used at this time so you would be able to dance the whole night. Tony was a very troubled though; he had the problems with his parents, which most teenagers face in their lives. There are different genres in this movie too so it satisfied different audiences. There is drama with Tony’s life at home and the way he is treated. There is action in this movie also: One of Tony’s friends was jumped while walking back home, so his group of friends decided to jump and fight the guys they thought did it. This scene starts off with them crashing their car into the rival’s hangout spot, followed by an extreme fighting scene. There is also a love story with Stephanie and Tony. The ending is great because Tony looks like he has finally grown up and knows what he wants to do with his life. The use of whammies and buildups were ideal. The music was used perfectly to keep the audience engaged. There was always something happening; fights, sex scene, or a dancing scene. A lot of the movie seemed like a music video and it worked superbly.

John Travolta + BeeGees= one of the greatest selling soundtracks of all time

 The movie didn’t have a specific score, but the soundtrack of this movie was a huge success. The soundtrack was released before the movie and helped get a boost in the audience wanting to go see this film. It was during this time of the 70’s where disco was at its peak in popularity. This soundtrack was one of the best selling soundtracks of all time. Disco was going mainstream because of groups like the Bee Gees which had many big songs in the movie. In this movie they didn’t just play a clip of songs, they almost played the entire thing. The music along with the splendid lighting and the dancing got you really into the song and made you want to move. This movie was able to capitalize on the increasing popularity of disco. The use of the Bee Gees on the soundtrack was a genius movie by the studio. The soundtrack had some of the biggest disco artists including: Kool & the Gang, KC and the Sunshine Band, and the band mostly used was the Bee Gees. After the success of this movie in the 70’s, it continued to make profits with the sequel and the rerelease of the movie on Blu-Ray DVD. The sequel to this movie was released in 1983, and it was called Staying Alive. This sequel was also a box-office success, but it didn’t get close to touching the achievements of Saturday Night Fever. It was directed by Sylvester Stallone and it starred John Travolta once again.

This movie was a perfect example of the direction Hollywood was starting to go, and the way movies began to make even bigger profits. Saturday Night Fever was able to use a lot of new techniques and make sure the success of the movie would be impressive. John Travolta was the star of this movie, and he did an amazing job playing Tony Manero. His dancing was wonderful and his performance was remarkable.

Who knew Melissa would like it as much as I do

The family video we go to doesn’t have the highest quantity of video game titles.  Unlike the evil Blockbuster, they might have four or five copies in instead of twenty.  But that’s the price I pay for not having to deal with Blockbuster’s attitude and high prices.  Ever since they charged me to clean a dvd that I just rented with god knows what gooey substance that was spattered on it I haven’t been back.  Service should come with a smile and reasonable price not a bitchy look and $9 for a game rental.

The only problem with having fewer copies is that sometimes I have to wait a few weeks to play the new releases.  Which isn’t always a bad thing. Keeps me from being glued to the TV weekend after weekend with that weeks hot new title.  If the game isn’t available I say “Ok, I’ll check back next weekend” but first I’ll have Melissa ask if it’s been returned just not reshelved.   Every times the friendly Family Video worker (and they are friendly) will say “Oh no we don’t” after they check the return bin. 

It’s a long shot but it never hurts to ask.

Yesterday we went there to if the had Left 4 Dead 2 in stock.  We LOVED the first one, which was a shock Melissa enjoyed it, so we were both excited to play the sequel.  I did my “excited but still wanting to act mature” sprint/walk combo back to the video game section.  I found the spot where the game I would be.  Empty, empty, empty, empty, empty…..and empty.  All the copies they had were out.

Time for the Hail Marry attempt of having Melissa ask.  She went up to the check out to take a shot in the dark and see if it was in the return bin.  I did a final once over to see if anything else tickled my fancy.  My fancy wasn’t tickled and it look like we’d be leaving game-less. 

As I walked to join my wife I saw her mouthing “do you by any chance have any copies of Left 4 Dead 2 that have just been returned”.  I knew what happens next.  She’ll look in the bin, say “No, I’m sorry” and then check when copies are out are due to be returned.

I got a little closer and head the worker say “You know what…..”  and then she turned around.

OH MY!  This wasn’t the normal game rental dance I’ve come to know so well.  She turned around rather than walking over to the drop off bin.  Once again I broke into my “excited but still wanting to act mature” sprint/walk to get the latest on this strange turn of events.

I heard her say “Someone called a few hours ago and put it on hold but they haven’t shown up so you can rent it”

The video game Gods hath smiles upon me!

I turned to Melissa in my jubilation and said “HA!  Everytime I ask you to ask you roll your eyes but this time it worked.  IT WORKED.  THE GAME WAS IN STOCK.  SUCK IT!”  I’m not sure which she was more annoyed by.  That I was right about they might have it in stock, I was going to spend the next eight hours shooting zombies, or I was rather loud in my excitement.

Left 4 dead 2 is a fun game but what makes it great is snatching victory from the jaws of defeat to rent it.

Jaws, 1975 – Direção: Steven Spielberg – Elenco:Roy Scheider,Robert Shaw,Richard Dreyfuss.

Um dos melhores filmes de um dos diretores mais famosos e mais queridos de todos os tempos.

Tubarão, pra começar tudo é o filme mais “toma na cara e vira macho” de Spielberg, talvez o único. Mesmo com toda a questão da família e tudo mais, aqui o velhinho simpático não nos obriga a chorar ou ficar tristes ou receosos, ele apenas faz o filme pela gratificação de fazê-lo, nada mais.

A história é bem simples e brusca, se pegarmos que depois dos créditos iniciais vemos uma moça morrer puxada pra baixo da água por alguma “coisa” enquanto um bêbado na encosta, que não sabe nem se está na praia ou em Las Vegas, não a escuta. Depois descobrimos pelos restos destroçados da moça que ela foi atacada por um tubarão dos mais enormes. Daí começa toda a bagaça.

O chefe de policia tem que tomar uma providência quanto a isso certo? Então decide fechar a praia, nada mais lógico. Mas o interessante é ver que o capitalismo decorrente do nosso mundo esta presente ali criticado pelos realizadores da película. Eles jogam como Raimi jogou recentemente em Drag me to hell toda a culpa dos acontecimentos seguintes na ambição exagerada dos personagens em querer mais grana. O prefeito rejeita o pedido do chefe de policia e não deixe que este feche a praia. Até porque, a cidade é uma cidade turística de verão que ganha dinheiro com os turistas que vão pra lá no verão. E fechar a praia é uma loucura mesmo, é melhor algumas pessoas morrerem comidas por um animal enorme do que a cidade perder um ano de dinheiro.

Spilba (vou chamá-lo assim ta, porque só o chamo assim) cria um dos maiores climões de suspense do cinema aqui, e tudo com um grande “nada” aparecendo nas cenas e amedrontando qualquer um. Sim, um nada. O nosso tubarão só vai aparecer realmente lá pra parte final do filme (final mesmo). Fora isso, Spilba cria uma atmosfera de medo e pânico poucas vezes alcançada depois disso. Na época as pessoas ficaram com medo de ir a praias por causa do filme.

Os atores estão arregaçando tudo e é legal comentar um momento de qual não me lembrava (ou talvez a sessão da tarde tenha cortado) no qual, o nosso chefe de policia querido está acabado diante da mesa do jantar e o clima é pesado de mais e nós sentimos toda a culpa que ele sente (afinal, foi esbofeteado na frente de quase toda a cidade por uma mãe que perdeu o filho mesmo com o chefe sabendo). E mesmo assim, mesmo nesse momento cru e triste, o filho mais novo do chefe o imita, sim cada gesto, o que torna a cena ainda mais clássica e honesta. O jovenzinho é todo o símbolo de que Spilba sempre buscou em seu cinema: família. Sim, e apenas com gestos imitando seu pai o jovenzinho consegue transmitir tanto que nem eu aguentei ver a cena toda sem parar um pouco. Carga dramática e humorada ao mesmo tempo transcendendo o normal em um dos primeiros filmes do cara foi foda.

A cenas eternas de mais, desde a primeira morte, passando pelos ataques do tubarão, pela apresentação do Quint, vindo pelas cenas de aventura no barco até chegar na morte clássica e eterna do tubarão com um tremendo “smile, you sun of…”(“sorria, seu filho da…”), seguido da explosão do protagonista.

É folks, o protagonista é o tubarão, querendo ou não.

Mas o filme é tudo o que todos os fãs dizem mesmo, e eu sou um deles, portanto, vão e vejam se é que ainda há alguém vivo que nõ tenha visto. A única coisa ruim foi não ver com a dublagem clássica da sessão da tarde. Se tivesse ela no dvd eu nem fazia questão de ver legendado, sério, traria uma nostalgia da porra. Mas como foi redublado para quem não curte ver legendado e é besta por isso, no dvd não tem mais a versão da sessão da tarde.

Filme foda, um dos melhores do Spilba junto com Jurassic Park e Indiana Jones, e que tem um dos enredos mais fantásticos que já vi. Comentar também sobre a trilha sacana de John Wlliams que com apenas duas notas crescentes faz meu coração vibrar de tensão até hoje. Pois é, da fotografia aos enquadramentos inteligentes e surpreendentes (me espanto com algumas angulações que Spilba filmou no barco) à trilha sonora o filme se dá bem em tudo, inclusive no fazer divertir e ter medo, que é seu maior objetivo, ainda mais sendo o primeiro grande blockbuster que os EUA já viram em seu verão.

5/5

Too…Much…New…Moon…  Saw it twice yesterday. Yes, twice, and loved every frickin’ minute of it. Except the scene where Bella and Edward are tra-la-laing through the forest, but what’s a three second clip in a 2h15m movie?

(Answer: a good laugh.)

It got me thinking. At hour four, this thought crept in: I should bag novel-writing because I will never be able to write something as phenomenomenonallyistically blockbuster as the Twilight saga because, quite frankly, no one can explain what the frickin’ appeal is.

(Answer: teenage angst.)

So, I decided to dissect it and see what makes Twilight such a hot trend. 

(Answer: lots of naked male torsos.)

• The protagonists have noble traits and gifts.  They are social outsiders who have intelligence, sex appeal, and headstrongness among other special abilities or uniqueness.
• Your basic good versus evil battle includes action-adventure, mystery-suspense, and lots&lots of life-altering or life-threatening high-stakes conflicts and complications.
• Through the characters, one explores the positive and negative emotions of relationships, including romance/marriage/sex.
• The protagonists’ experience more loss than gain, but they are stubbornly determined to overcome loss/obstacles to gain what they desire most.

So, there you have it, the keys to writing a phenomenomenonallyistically blockbuster novel like those in the Twilight saga.

Oh, wait.  There’s one more itty-bitty key:

• Tap into the vein of cultural consciousness.  To the point where readers/viewers can’t even express WHY they are even REMOTELY interested in a series of average quality YA books they just HAVE to read then watch a series of book-based B-movie flicks with so-so actors they just HAVE to watch as soon as it comes out — TWICE IN ONE DAY!

Yeah.  Good luck with that part of it.

(Answer: don’t give up the day job.)

Para todas las fanaticas obesas de la porqueria Luna Nueva, les dejo estas fotos de los actores por los que ustedes babean y se mojan XD, Kellan Lutz, Robert Apestoso Patterson y el que los reina a todos Taylor Lautner, fanatic@s babeen sus teclados y disfruten!

click en las pics para agrandar

Com a estreia do mega sucesso Lua Nova, a segunda parte da saga Crepúsculo, nos cinemas nesta sexta, dia 20, os multiplex’s por todo o Brasil estão dominados por dois blockbusters: além do longa de Robert e Bella, o apocalipse de 2012.

Juntos representam, em alguns complexos, 80% das salas de cinema. Além do forte apelo comercial, os dois filmes contam ainda com cópias dubladas e legendadas, o que exige no mínimo, duas salas para exibição.

Exemplos: pela cadeia dos cinemas Severiano Ribeiro temos as 15 salas do Kinoplex Dom Pedro em Campinas – 2012 está em exibição em 5 salas; Lua Nova ocupa outras 5. (500) Dias com Ela, Besouro, Código de Conduta, Jogos Mortais 6, as animações Tá Chovendo Hamburguer e Up – Altas Aventuras (excluindo as diversas pré-estreias) dividem as outras cinco salas restantes.

Em São Paulo, a rede Cinemark no shopping Interlar Aricanduva divide suas 14 salas com 2012 em quatro e Lua Nova em outras cinco salas, restando cinco salas para a exibição de outros seis filmes.

Cinemas pequenos também sofrem com esse duelo de gigantes: o Cinemark presente na cidade de Jacareí conta com cinco salas. 2012 e Lua Nova estão, juntos, presentes em todas elas – o primeiro em duas e o último nas outras três. A versão dublada de Lua Nova (com dois horários) divide a sala com a exibição do documentário Hebert de Perto (duas sessões) e os curtas O Balão Vermelho / O Cavalo Branco com exibição única.

Situação semelhante ocorreu durante o mês de maio de 2007, quando Homem-Aranha 3, já em cartaz, passou a dividir, literalmente, os cinemas com a estreia da terceira parte de Piratas do Caribe – num cinema de 15 salas, por exemplo, havia na época a exibição de apenas cinco filmes. Treze salas eram ocupadas pelos blockbusters e outras duas se revezavam com a exibição de três longas.

O próximo filme a dominar as salas de nossos cinemas será Avatar de James Cameron. Quando estrear em 18 de dezembro, 2012 e Lua Nova já terão perdido bastante do fôlego de agora!

from March 17, 2009

2009: 2012 di Roland Emmerich

Sta battendo tutti i record di incasso in ogni parte del mondo questo ultimo film del regista di grandi successi come Independence Day, Godzilla, The Day after Tomorrow…

Coloro che amano i giocattoloni hollywoodiani, coloro che amano rimanere a bocca aperta di fronte ai miracoli raggiunti dalla tecnologia cinematografica avranno pane per i loro denti. Due ore e mezza di mirabolanti effetti speciali, insuperabili per spettacolarità e impatto visivo, uno più prodigioso dell’altro: un blockbuster che sarà difficile da superare per magnificenza e sapiente dosaggio di suspense. Non banale, con una certa cura delle psicologie dei vari personaggi, con qualche accenno a tematiche importanti, 2012 si fa apprezzare anche per l’assoluta mancanza di trash e di cattivo gusto, di violenza gratuita e di ripetitività.

Diretto con maestria dal tedesco (ormai hollywoodiano a tutti gli effetti) Roland Emmerich, interpretato con impegno da noti e bravi attori (Amanda Peet, John Cusack, Thandie Newton, Danny Glover, Oliver Platt, Woody Harrelson, George Segal…), un film mai noioso, avvincente e suggestivo, che coinvolge al massimo. Certo la sceneggiatura non fa a meno degli stereotipi di questo genere di film (il profeta inascoltato, lo scienziato buono e retto, il ricco cattivo, il politico arrogante, la real politik da condannare, il bravo giovane che salva patria e famiglia, il presidente degli Stati Uniti che eroicamente si sacrifica, la famiglia disastrata che si ricompone…) ma il tutto è talmente ben inserito e amalgamato che non infastidisce più di tanto e non impedisce allo spettatore di godersi appieno uno dei più grandi spettacoli che il cinema americano abbia mai realizzato.

2012 è stato positivamente accolto dalla maggioranza dei critici:  “Bravo Emmerich. E’ il suo miglior film” (Il Messaggero), “…confessiamo che il divertimento c’ è” (Il Corriere della Sera), “Soluzioni narrative ottenute con mezzi imponenti” (Avvenire), “…puntuali all’appuntamento con la nostra catastrofe periodica. Emmerich esaudisce i nostri desideri con rigore, fedeltà assoluta al genere e un pizzico di ironia europea… Con ‘2012′ la soddisfazione per noi appassionati è massima” (Liberazione), “Emmerich annuncia di voler cambiare genere. Peccato, questo gli viene così bene” (La Stampa), “…è divertente, esagerato, spiazzante” (Il Manifesto), “’2012′ conferma l’attenzione del regista a certi temi ed un utilizzo intelligente e funzionale degli effetti speciali, qui particolarmente affascinanti, al pari di certe immagini volutamente emblematiche” (35mm).

scheda
sito italiano sito ufficiale

Today, as I pound out some more pages for “The Crow and the Kinnebeck,”* I just want to throw out a blog entry chock full of agent and author advice. 

For example:

Nathan Bransford explains how watching “reality” television can teach you about publishing.

Janet Reid tells frustrated writers how they can avoid ever getting another depressing rejection letter.

Jane at Dystel & Goderich posted a complaint about publishers that made me cringe to think that the people I may have to do business with might not have a clue what they’re doing.

As Jane puts it:

I don’t know why I still find it astonishing when publishers tell me they are “only looking for big books,” that mid-list titles aren’t on their radar. How do they know what’s going to be a big book? … there are literally hundreds of books that were seriously underestimated by publishers but that turned into huge bestsellers.

On the other hand, agent Kristin Nelson confesses to turning down a good manuscript from a published author because “really good might not be good enough.”

Jennifer Jackson brings more “Letters from the Query Wars” with a list of query letter superstitions held by writers and agents.

Jenny Bent (why do so many of these have “J” names?) launches from praise for Jane Austen to advice for writers to pump their stories full of plot.

Eric at Pimp My Novel reveals the sad truth about remaindered books.

And finally, Rachel Gardner offers up some (possibly) bad advice.

_

* UPDATE @0900: at 3000 words and not quite one quarter done, TCATK is threatening to burst the bonds of a short-storyhood and become the dreaded “novelette.” :-\

Wanted – ein unterhaltsamer, aber völlig unrealistischer Film. Die Story ist schon dreimal an den Haaren herbeigezogen: eine “Bruderschaft” die seit Jahrtausenden Menschen umbringt, damit die Welt besser wird. Wer umgebracht werden soll, wird von einem Webstuhl und dessen Webfehlern bestimmt.

Wer die Tricks, die James Bond drauf hat, schon nicht glaubt, der wird hier noch mehr strapaziert .  Menschen, die 50 m weit von einem Hochhaus zum anderen springen, andere, die einer Fliege die Flügel abschießen können, usw. Pistolen – Kugeln, die im Bogen fliegen und das Schulen der angeblichen “Technik” die das möglich macht gehört zu einem roten Faden, der sich durch den ganzen Film zieht. Als i – Tüpfelchen gibt es eine Szene in der mit einer einzigen Kugel 6 Personen erschossen werden, die in einem Kreis stehen, der ~20 m Durchmesser hat. Inklusive der Person, die die Kugel abgefeuert hat. Die Kugel hat einen kompletten Kreis geflogen! Wow! Kugeln, zerlegen sich im Flug in Stufen wie eine Rakete (wozu eigentlich?) usw…. Fahrer, die mit Autos Kunstflug – Figuren vorführen, bei denen jedes Akrobatik-Flugzeug vor Neid erblassen würde, runden das Bild ab.

Wer sich an so etwas nicht stört und solche Filme mit einem Schmunzeln gucken kann, der wird einen sehr unterhaltsamen Abend mit tollen Effekten erleben.

It’s the end of the world as we know it, and I feel…

Roland Emerich is fast becoming Hollywood’s go to guy for destruction, let’s call it a very large niche. Emerich’s right hand of God is at work again in his latest outing, which promises no less than the end of the world, 2012. The film is based on the varied and sketchy mythological concept that the world will end in 2012, giving Nostradamus and the Bible a rest, Hollywood has turned to ancient Mayan civilisation for its prophecies of doom. As always at the end of the world, the crazies on the street with cardboard signs are right, and tidal wave after tidal wave of destruction sweeps the earth. There is of course plenty of scientific explanation and justification, but not only would I be un-able to judge its merit (although I hear it’s pretty shaky), it’s of little importance to this kind of film.

Wrapped up in the apocalypse is down on his luck writer and divorced father Jackson Curtis (John Cusack), who must try and save his kids, ex-wife (Amanda Peet) and her new husband (Thomas McCarthy). Parallel to this is the story of desperate governments trying to tackle the disaster the best way they can, with bleeding heart scientist Adrian (Chiwetel Ejiofor) leading the way. The plot boils down to a race against the elements where every second counts and the threat is always more amazing than the last.

Emerich often receives a lot of flack for his films relying on visuals rather than story (or compelling characters). His better films (Independence Day, The Day After Tomorrow, Stargate) show that this can be an unfair claim, while his lesser films (10,000 BC, Godzilla) support it. Like most of his efforts, 2012 tries very hard to immerse the personal struggle into the plot, which in itself is little more than a vehicle for action sequences. Various families racing for survival should provide the sort of character attraction that compels the audience, but the more intimate scenes are handled with such ham that they fail to incite much sympathy. What becomes increasingly infuriating are characters stopping to talk deeply, at the highest moments of threat when every second is supposed to be important. At nearly two and a half hours, 2012 could  be trimmed of some emotional fat.

2012 is so driven by its visuals that at certain points it reminds one of a virtual roller coaster ride, and I mean that quite literally. Often the film will take the viewpoint of a plane or other vehicle, making it feel like you are on a ride through the destruction. The computer-generated effects can often be breathtaking, however the artists seemed to have made sure larger set pieces were done well, at the expense of smaller action sequences. Although awe-inspiring I still found the implementation of effects in The Day After Tomorrow to be more effective. Perhaps 2012 is just to big, giving us no mental reference frame for what we’re seeing. The digital cameras used on 2012 give a gritty feel to many of the darker scenes, making it reminiscent of cheap 70’s disaster films. Many people may find it irritating that some shots look a little “home video”, but in this setting it works.

The acting is fair for this sort of action movie, however you will cringe at the poorly executed accents. Emerich has crafted a film which sits somewhere between his better and lesser films. By no means his best, 2012 succeeds in creating an entertaining ride that definitely lets the audience know they’re in a cinema. 2012 offers a return to spectacle, and there’s nothing wrong with paying $13 dollars to see what the end of the world might look like. Just don’t expect much else.

Click for movie review:  HW DESIGN INC. REVIEW of INK

Click for story:  INK’s run in LA

In September, HW Design Inc. attended a screening of the moving and visually stunning independent film, INK.  You can read our review of the film above.  This week, we were excited and intrigued to hear some fascinating news from director/writer Jamin Winans. 

On November 5th, INK was uploaded to a number of pirate websites.  During the following 72 hours, it was downloaded over 150,000 times!  On November 7th, INK was the most downloaded film on Pirate Bay. 

This activity boosted INK to #16 on the IMDb MovieMeter.  Ink jumped from a position of 12,991 on IMDB to #16, moving it ahead of major studio films like, SAW IV, WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE and the breakout indie hit, PRECIOUS.  Currently, the film has been downloaded over a half a million times.

The surge in exposure brings up all sorts of questions about internet piracy and the ups and downs of being an independent film producer in today’s down economy.

Here is a quote by INK’s creators:
For the record, we do not condone piracy nor do we ever download any music, films or TV shows for free. Artists should be paid for their hard work. That said, it is possible that the exposure Ink has just gotten across free download sites has catapulted the film into an entirely new realm. Remember that Wolverine, a franchise film with a budget of $130 million, got leaked via bit torrent before its release and got 100,000 hits in 24 hours. Ink managed to do half that in downloads, and was number 1 on Pirate Bay yesterday with more hits than Paranormal Activity, Surrogates and Julie and Julia. Again, all of these films have had the help of the studio system’s multi-million dollar marketing campaigns. Ink has had Jamin and myself, two laptops and an Army of fierce supporters grown out of our own hard-fought theatrical screenings – nothing more.

Here is a great article, written by Kiowa, on the thoughts of these recent events and the pros and cons of internet piracy.  360 Degree View Of Internet Piracy

You can also rent INK at Blockbuster and Netflix.  It is now available on Amazon and ITunes.

The INK blog :  http://doubleedgefilms.blogspot.com/

Purchase INK on DVD or BLUERAY

Until the summer I’d never really considered watching a Bollywood movie.  Having worked in a cinema I’d seen snippets of some of the epics produced by the east, but I’d never fancied sitting through a mushy three-hour love story and tolerating either the bad dubbing or the eyeball-sapping subtitles.

The closest I had got was, like most of the rest of the world, watching Danny Boyle’s fantastic Slumdog Millionaire, though even that hadn’t piqued my interest sufficiently to explore the scene further.

But, as the saying goes, “When in Rome…”  So when in Jaipur in August I went to Raj Mandir, widely described as India’s best cinema, to see Love Aaj Kal.  The whole experience was a delightful coalescence of East and West – after four weeks of parathas and rice and a vegetarian diet I tucked into a McDonald’s chicken burger and followed it up with an ice-cream with some gusto, before crossing the road and going back into the Raj Mandir.

Got shouted at for taking this picture...

The inside is deliciously opulent, with sweeping stairways and big chandeliers.  I was admonished for taking photographs by a woman dressed like a maharani, so I went and explored the food offerings – the usual popcorn and confectionery, but also a range of Indian snacks like samosas and pakoras.

Tickets come in three different bands; I was automatically given the diamond rate as a tourist, which meant I was sat in a balcony on a very comfy reclining seat rather than sat on the harder seats down below.  It was a Tuesday night but it was still packed; cinema is big business in India. 

The audience cheered and whooped along as the on-screen frissons developed into relationships, break-ups and then ultimately a nicely tied-up wedding; pretty conventional stuff, but it was high on entertainment and dancing.  One especially memorable scene took place in London and saw a dancing beefeater emerge from a red phone box and end up in a nightclub (check his moves in the song link below).

It was very easy to follow what was going on as there were occasional words and conversations in English, and the plot wasn’t exactly deep.  The soundtrack was much more heavily integrated into the film than in Hollywood movies, with frequent song-and-dance routines performed by the characters.

The film was a Bollywood blockbuster, and the song Twist was playing everywhere (as was Jai Ho from Slumdog) – I managed to pick up a copy of the soundtrack for less than a quid in Kathmandu’s equivalent of HMV, and still haven’t tired of it.  Now the challenge is to find the DVD in time for Christmas…

You know, a long time ago, Roland Emmerich directed good movies. A long time ago, I predicted 2012 to be just outside the top-10 list for the entire year of movies. But like the Mayans who predicted the end of the world ever so wrongly (at least I hope), those predictions and thoughts seem like jokes now. And for this movie “based” on that end of the world plot line, it’s not really the end of the world that’s disappointing, but rather the final nail in the coffin for Roland Emmerich. His previous efforts seem like ones from a previous life; as 2012 is a loud, repetitive, boring movie. It hardly got anything right.

Just for the sake of comparison, I want to talk a little about what Emmerich did in the past, his track record, per say. In the very start of his career, he headed Stargate and Universal Soldier – two movies that didn’t make much noise but weren’t received or reviewed as too awful either. Then came his breakout performance in Independence Day – the first ever “summer blockbuster” and a launching pad for Will Smith. ID4 is one of the more fun movies you’ll see. He followed that with Godzilla, which I thought was pretty fun as well, The Patriot, and The Day After Tomorrow: another fun ride. But nothing was comparing to Independence Day at this point, and my hope was dwindling. Last year came 10,000 B.C. which I believe received a 9 on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 100). If that was what put Emmerich on the ropes after a short lived career as a good director, 2012 surely knocked him out. Hope for his career is gone.

Oh, Roland Emmerich...why even try with a plot or story? It turned out oh so awful. (Columbia Pictures/aceshowbiz.com)

One thing I don’t quite understand about this over-sized, overdone, ridiculous movie is the running time. It’s over two and a half hours long and feels a lot longer. When you really think about the movie itself though, and granted that creates a slight headache, it could have been cut down to two hours easily. But it was stretched out to full capacity, or full boredom, to include every stupid cliche and every awful attempt at a story. Let’s face it: it’s about the world ending. It’s about special effects. Show me that stuff, not John Cusack moping over his divorced wife’s feelings.

I mentioned cliches and quotes that are so, so bad they make you laugh or just shake your head wondering how a movie executive allowed that after the table read. Imagine every bad cliché you’ve heard, every one-liner that’s used far too much – they’re all stuffed into 2012. If that didn’t start to drag down the movie already, there’s other things that just leave you baffled. Woody Harrelson’s character was unbelievably stupid and unnecessary. The governor on television, with that awesome Austrian accent, was beyond bad. The movie was littered with little things here and there that would have been better if they weren’t used at all.

But you can’t just drop the story or the plot, unfortunately. I really wish they had, and just left Emmerich to focus on special effects alone. The idea itself isn’t that bad: people have been intrigued by the Mayan end of the world thing for years, and it’s a nice thought for a film. But that one aspect got turned and twisted into something that doesn’t resemble the end of the world, as much as it does a bad soap opera episode mixed in with a lousy episode of the West Wing. You, as an audience member, feel no emotional attachment to any of these characters, making the “tender” scenes quite useless and often hilarious unintentionally.

The calling card for 2012 were the special effects, and after a while, they got quite boring as well. (Columbia Pictures/aceshowbiz.com)

The last thing to be noted should be the special effects because after all, that’s what the movie is essentially about. There is no doubt that parts of this film looked pretty darn cool. The detail in the massive destruction scenes was fun to watch as well. But truth be told, after a few hits on the Earth, it actually got kind of tiring and repetitive. Large amount of water + ancient or historic structure = fun to watch. Not so much. The formula got used up quickly, and like the movie itself, I just kind of grew tired of all the action sequences.

Like Roland Emmerich’s career, this movie tumbled downward at remarkable speed. With a back story that was as cheesy as it was uninspiring, it left nothing for an audience to feel or care about. Cliches, bad acting, and other miscues made you laugh when you weren’t supposed to. But after two and half hours of well, boredom, I was glad 2012 came to an end. I can only wonder what way Emmerich will make the world end next time. It can’t be much worse than this.

2012: (out of 4)

En Harry Potter y El Misterio del Principe… fines de semana flojos XD

“Cinemão” de primeira ao melhor estilo Transformes 2.

Que dia é hoje? Sexta. Que data é hoje? 13. Juntando os dois dá? Sexta-feira 13. O que provavelmente fez com que você pelo menos pensasse que hoje seria o dia para fugir do gato preto, não passar em baixo de escada e no fim, ficar sabendo que aproveitaram a superstição para lançar mais uma versão de Jason, em sua interminável “Sexta-Feira 13”. O único detalhe é que Hollywood não é mais tão previsível como você pensa (há controversas). Por isso ao invés da zica de sempre com algum psicopata sobrenatural esfolando adolescentes gostosas de shortinho, bosque afora, o lançamento deste dia (que na verdade não tem nada demais), é “2012”.

E é ae que aproveito para explicar o porquê do subtítulo: “ Cinemão de primeira ao melhor estilo Transformes 2”. O caso é que “2012” é um “filmaço” no que diz respeito a cinema catástrofe e efeitos especiais. A produção dirigida por Roland Emmerich e  encabeçada por John Cusack (que entra para a galeria de personagens principais que perdem a atenção para o “coadjuvante”, assistindo o filme você entende), compensa cada centavo gasto e cada boato que colocou o filme nas fileiras da observação mundial. E falo sério, esse sim é blockbuster, na literalidade total da palavra, porém assim como Transformes – A Vingança dos Derrotados, “2012” é um cinemão que caso você não assista, não fará falta nenhuma na sua vida de apreciador da sétima arte.

O filme com certeza é a demonstração de que Emmerich (o diretor), pegou a manha para filmes grandiosos onde o planeta vai pro saco. Isso porque independente da encheção de linguiça, Roland Emmerich comanda o filme com maestria, coloca os efeitos especiais no lugar dos efeitos especiais, a ação no lugar da ação e a narrativa fácil no lugar onde a difícil só iria frustar o público. Porém a coisa para por ai e não consegue – nem mesmo se arrisca -  a apresentar algo novo neste gênero, ficando centrado em tudo que você já viu no cinema. Principalmente se você já assistiu “O Dia Depois de Amanhã”.

A história é a básica e conhecida. Um cientista “Zé ninguém”, que descobre uma catástrofe de proporções monumentais a caminho, avisa os amigos, avisa o governo, avisa o John Cusack e depois assiste de camarote a destruição global enquanto luta pela própria vida. E assiste mesmo, porque onde a coisa é feia, lá está o elenco com seu aviãozinho de computação gráfica tentando sobreviver. Até que chega ao ponto em que você olha e diz: Bom como já sei que eles vão sobreviver. Vou aproveitar pra ir pegar mais pipoca.

No mais “2012” é blockbuster e se não virar sucesso eu não vou saber explicar o porque. Excelente entretenimento para fãs de efeitos especiais, de filme catástrofe e de gente que gosta de ter a sensação de que o cinema vai desmoronar com o barulho dos alto falantes combinados aos efeitos sonoros (um dica: se possível assista no cinema, porque isso vale a pena, agora caso você tenha um puta home theater e uma puta tela de LCD em casa, ai é outra história). Já os que gostam, de tramas, roteiros, atores no auge de suas interpretações e um resultado mais relax e cabeça, eu aconselho que você consulte a programação de cinema de sua cidade e faça da sua ida ao cinema, uma experiência mais feliz pelo menos pra você.

P.S.: O Cristo Redentor tá lá também. Mas na boa, no meio de tanta coisa explodindo, desmoronando e ficando embaixo da água, o nosso Cristo, é só mais um na multidão.

« 2012 », le film qui ne recule devant rien

Basé sur un scénario de fin du monde et à grand renfort d’effets spéciaux, «2012 », qui sort en salles aujourd’hui, frappe fort… et fait débat.

Un article du site web du quotidien payant Le Parisien.fr/Aujourd’hui-en-france.fr à lire et/ou relire en vous rendant ICI !

Et si la fin du monde était proche ? Alors que certains scientifiques annoncent que la Terre va subir des événements cataclysmiques lors des prochaines années, arrive aujourd’hui dans 700 salles françaises, en avant-première mondiale, le « 2012 » du réalisateur allemand Roland Emmerich. Avec son scénariste Harald Kloser, le metteur en scène d’« Independence Day », « Godzilla » ou encore « le Jour d’après » est parti d’une prophétie du calendrier de la civilisation des Mayas (voir ci-contre) pour imaginer que la fin du monde aurait lieu le 21 décembre 2012.

//

Appuyé par un budget exceptionnel permettant une débauche d’effets spéciaux et lancé par une campagne de marketing évaluée environ à 50 millions de dollars, le long-métrage a provoqué un véritable buzz sur Internet à propos de l’éventuelle destruction de la Terre avant même sa sortie. Voici « 2012 », le film qui n’a peur de rien.

Un blockbuster à 200 millions de dollars. Habitué aux gros budgets depuis « Independence Day », Roland Emmerich a disposé d’un énorme investissement pour réaliser « 2012 ». Pas une exception à Hollywood, où « Terminator : Renaissance » et « Transformers 2 » ont eux aussi atteint les 200 millions de dollars, le record appartenant à « Avatar », de James Cameron, et ses 260 millions de dollars, dont la sortie est prévue le 16 décembre.

Quels effets spéciaux ! L’un des temps forts de « 2012 », ce sont les tremblements de terre, et en particulier la destruction de Los Angeles, séquence d’un réalisme étonnant. Mike Vezina, superviseur des effets spéciaux, raconte : « Nous avons fabriqué les plus grosses machineries que j’aie jamais vues, avec 500 000 t d’acier pour monter des décors mobiles, ces grandes plates-formes que l’on pouvait secouer et faire trembler. On a mis dessus des voitures, des camions et des avions. Tout bougeait en même temps ! Du coup, les acteurs avaient vraiment l’impression de vivre pour de bon un tremblement de terre. »

Des destructions massives. La Californie engloutie dans le Pacifique, la destruction de New York, de la Maison-Blanche, du Vatican et de la tour Eiffel, un immense tsunami en Asie et des inondations qui submergent l’Himalaya : Roland Emmerich s’est tout permis dans « 2012 ». Seul tabou que le réalisateur n’a pas voulu franchir : la destruction de La Mecque par une vague géante. Il l’avait pourtant bel et bien tournée… Mais a finalement préféré l’éliminer au montage.

Frick, Frack and Mad Dog are all home with me. Frick because it’s his day to be home, Frack because of his projectile vomiting last night and Mad Dog because he is taking a work-cation day (he’s home but has to take a couple calls).

Big brother Frack woke up in an excellent mood and seems to have completely recovered. He has a fantastic appetite and is playfully energetic. He told me that he does feel better but will only be able to go back to school by next Thursday. He’s quite serious. I’m quite serious that he will be back at school tomorrow and not six days from now.

We decided to run some errands and then pick up lunch (are you sensing my lack of cooking motivation in recent posts?). Blockbuster was the first stop. Mad Dog and I thought the boys could pick out something to help entertain them for the day. As we enter the doors Frack announces, “I’m sick!” Not great timing I must say and Mad Dog and I pretend he isn’t talking while quietly chuckling to ourselves.

As with all outings, it rapidly turns into a frenzied whirlwind of ‘don’t touch that’, ‘please put that down’, and ‘where did your brother go’? Frick and Frack are touching everything at their eye-level. Finally after much calamity, they both reach a decision and walk to the front of the store with their chosen movies in hand. When we take the DVDs and place them up on the counter, Frick loses it. He can’t believe the cashier would take it from him. I try to tell him that she will hand it back as soon as we pay for it. He can’t hear me over his wailing and moaning. I sigh a deep sigh and wish I was somewhere else.

After Frick has his ‘Thomas the Train’ DVD safely returned to his clutches, we pile back in the truck and head to Wendy’s (no Chick-Fil-A for Frack). As we pull up to order, Frack declares that he is never eating a chicken nugget again for the rest of his life. That’s fine by me, especially after yesterday’s unfortunate incident. We order him a cheeseburger and then nuggets for little brother Frick (chicken nuggets are still the bread and butter of Frick’s life).

On the drive home, Mad Dog is feeling his work-cation day. He is hyper and full of energy (you can see where my boys get it from). The boys are feeding off his crazy energy and I am on edge. I am not a happy camper when I’m hungry and I’m already at my limit after our outing to Blockbuster. I asked Mad Dog to take it down a notch hoping that will shift the whole energy in the vehicle. Instead of calming down, he starts talking in an obnoxiously low-toned voice. He keeps talking like that and I’m ready to smack him. “You are hysterical, keep it up,” I say through gritted teeth. I eventually laugh despite myself. He thinks he’s the cat’s meow because now I’m laughing. The energy never subsides. I can’t win today.

Once home and the food is spread before us, big brother Frack looks at his cheeseburger and then at his little brother’s chicken nuggets. “Can I have one of Frick’s nuggets?” Is this coming from the same boy who moments prior proclaimed his lifetime ban of all things nuggets? High, low or indifferent, the tone of my voice matters little. “No,” is all I say and that says it all.

In an attempt to increase profits from the already declining DVD sales, Hollywood studios are planning to keep new DVD releases away from movie rental services like Netflix, Redbox and Blockbuster as many as 30 days. By doing so, studios are expecting that people would buy more DVDs instead of renting them (at least in that 30 day period). While Blockbuster and Netflix seem to be agreeing to this new mandate from Hollywood studios, Redbox is fighting the proposal as it would negatively impact their business model. Redbox has a reason to oppose this proposal more than Netflix or Blockbuster as majority of it’s revenues come from new DVD releases. Netflix and Blockbuster seem to agree to this proposal as most of their revenues come from old DVD rentals and Hollywood studios are willing to offer them huge discounts on new DVD releases.

While this apparent decision by Netflix and Blockbuster may boost their profits in short-term it would affect their business model in long-term as people would try to avoid this moratorium by waiting 30 more days for the DVDs to be available for rental or Looking for ways to download/watch illegal copies of movies.With an average period of 3-5 months between theatrical release and DVD release, people may decide to wait 30 more days to rent the DVDs instead of shelling out $20 or so to buy them when they are available. Also, penalizing movie rental customers to wait while making DVDs available for sale will make more people to look for options like illegal downloading. 

As digital download/online rental  is becoming more popular, studios and movie rental services should find ways to make them more mainstream and affordable instead of forcing customers to pay more for their movie watching experience at home.

Last week in a workshop I was asked the question about Environmental Scans and Strategy Management.  The challenge was probably long overdue.  When I was first drawing up my framework on Performance Management, I specifically wanted to call out questions about how we look at the market.  I felt I had seen too much insular thinking within companies with the risk being much too high.  We need to be looking at the market on a regular basis, perhaps not with high frequency.

Let’s roll back the clock on the movie rental business to 1990.  In almost every suburban strip mall was a mom and pop, or small chain movie rental store.  We were able to rent a movies and watch them in the comfort of our on home.  There was no DVR (though if we could figure out the VCR we could have taped movies), there were not 427 premium movie channels, and cable was still in its infancy.  Over the next decade, Blockbuster moved in and wiped out almost everyone else in the industry – “opening one store every seventeen hours” (Wikipedia – no reference).  We loved the new model, and the fact that our membership card worked even when we were on vacation.  If we went back and looked at the analyst reviews, I am sure they had glowing views of how this was the model for the future.  Viacom jumped in and bought the business for $8.4 billion in 1994.

Oh, how internet time flies.  NetFlix with no brick and mortar costs jumps into the game (not to mention DVR, Pay-for-View, TiVO, etc) and what was once valued as a $8.4 billion dollar business was spun back off for a fraction of its original purchase price.  Today Blockbusters market cap is ~$160 million (compared to NetFlix $3.2 billion) and it continues to loose money.

What happened…you can spin this a number of ways:

• They were too tied to their infrastructure
• They were slow to react, or never really understood the threat before it was too late
• They thought they were too big to fail

They were a great business model, let’s take a cottage industry and scale it.  And it worked great for a decade.  How do you think they would answer the question about the relevance to a more rigorous environmental scanning process?

Just think, perhaps even one conversation about “what would happen if someone figures out how to deliver movies via the internet” might have saved Blockbuster.  I know, I know, this could never happen to you as this was an isolated incident.  Think of the travel industry, General Motors, Enron, Compaq, CompUSA, TWA – and I am sure you could add 20 more…

Companies, like the products they often make, have shelf lives.  If we are not thinking of new ways to reinvent ourselves, it is highly likely someday we will become a “where are they now” business case.

• What do you specifically do to challenge status quo?
• When was the last time you had your best minds come up with the next generation business models?
• When was the last time you identified the 3 largest threats to your business?
• When was the last time you had a 3rd party provide a critique of the market you are in?

It’s a big week for Tenerife. It seems our little island in the sun is making headline web news, some of it exciting and some of it, well…embarrassing.

There’s been a buzz about the place over Google’s launch of its new street map which enables you to see places up close and personal. It’s a fabulous little toy and extremely useful if you want to check out directions to a place or get a look at your holiday accommodation before you book or just show friends who haven’t visited what your house looks like.
But it seems that the Google camera vans have also been capturing some rather unexpected ‘extras’ on their exploration and one of them has apparently made it to viral status all over the world. The offending extra is a man seen quite clearly having a pee up the side of a rubbish dumpster at the back of Las Teresitas beach in Santa Cruz.

What struck me most about the captured incident (apart obviously from the central character) was how ugly the particular spot looked with its shitty graffiti and barren scrubland. Hardly representative of the beauty of Las Teresitas. But there you are, sod’s law, Tenerife gets International fame in a shot that equates to a very bad hair day indeed.

However, yin and yang being what they are, this week has also seen the preview release of Warner Brothers’ hotly awaited blockbuster ‘Clash of the Titans’ which is scheduled to hit screens in the first half of 2010. And guess what…Tenerife looks AMAZING! The scenes in the crater are spectacular, as indeed is the forest scene with the sea of clouds beyond the precipice which I’m guessing was shot at Las Raices.

My money’s on Tenerife soon becoming known as ‘the place where they shot Clash of the Titans’ and I predict a glut of film-makers following suit and huge offshoots in tourism. Well take a look for yourself and tell me if you wouldn’t want to visit this incredible landscape?

Incidentally, if anyone has any insider info’ on where exactly scenes were shot (other than the crater – we’ve already got that one, ta) I’d be very pleased to hear from you…strictly on the QT of course!