It’s party time, but spare a tot for the independent directors of Sino-Environment.

They are not having a good time. They have gone to court to get orders to hold an EGM to remove the executive directors, and to restrict the EDs’ actions.

If at the EGM the EDs are not removed, the two IDs could find themselves personally  liable for a lot of  legal bills, including the cost of getting the court orders. And looking really dumb. But if they didn’t do anything, they might be sued by some investors or troubled by the authorities.

Already the EDs have complained, “The Independent Directors have apart from legal advice rendered to them by the solicitors to the Company, sought and obtained separate legal advice for themselves in their personal capacities, at the expense of the Company. We have informed them that they should do the right thing by not using Company’s funds to pay their own legal fees.”

“The fees charged by WP to the Company for acting for the IDs from April to date amount to the sum of S$268,946.00.”

And the best film of the decade is...

Check over on the CINEMA page to see the complete list of my 30 favorite films from the 2000’s. There were so many movies I had to leave off even that list, I could have easily expanded to a top 50, 60, even 100. Think of it. Many of us make top 10 lists every year, multiply that by the decade, you’ve got 100 movies. That’s not to mention how many good movies come out that don’t quite make that list, either.

What I’m saying is it’s a very good time for movies. This decade brought some amazing technological advancements, that started at the tail end of the last decade (and century, jeez!) with “The Matrix,” “The Mummy,” and the first “Star Wars” prequel. This decade exploded with droves of computer-animated family films, though the first people to the party are still the best: Pixar. They have evolved, themselves, past telling purely children’s stories. This decade has shown them to be the best story-tellers working in cinema today.

Directors like Steven Soderbergh, Christopher Nolan, and Paul Greengrass (the third of whom, come to think of it, didn’t make my list at all. For shame, me) have emerged as three new auteurs this decade, combining big ideas with great artistic sensibilities. Though they haven’t made as many pictures, three Spanish friends – Guillermo Del Toro, Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu, and Alfonso Cuaron – have brought a new vibrance to film. Directors like Paul Thomas Anderson, Quentin Tarantino, Wes Anderson, and Darren Aronofsky, who were all making films in the 90’s, have continued making brilliant films and have found their audiences growing into mini-movements of support.

The best new directors, for my money, are Jason Reitman, whose 3rd film (“Up in the Air”) is his best yet; and two comedians: Judd Apatow and Edgar Wright. Apatow has led the charge for crass, hilarious comedies about man-children growing up, while Wright, alongside writer/actor Simon Pegg, has cultivated some of the most stylish comic send-ups of classic genre films.

And of course, there is Peter Jackson. He gets the New Spielberg award. This decade sortof belonged to him. 5 films, all of which combine a massive scope, amazing special effects, and brilliantly crafted characters in commercial entertainments.

Many of the greats are still working: Speilberg, Zemeckis, Scorsese, Eastwood, the Coen Brothers, Spike Lee, Ridley Scott, Michael Mann, the list goes on and on forever, and I’ve barely scratched the surface. In the next few weeks, I’ll be writing about my top 10 of the decade, as well as posting my list for the best films of the year. Busy time for movie-lovers.

Merry Christmas all!

Cine Mexicano in Vancouver – February 2010

A major retrospective of classic and contemporary cinema to commemorate the 200th anniversary of Mexican independence and the 100th anniversary of the Mexican Revolution

Presented in conjunction with the Consulate General of Mexico and the Vancouver Latin American Film Festival.Pacific Cinémathèque is pleased to join with the Vancouver Latin American Film Festival and the Consulate General of Mexico in Vancouver in presenting ¡Viva el Cine Mexicano!, a major retrospective of classic and contemporary Mexican cinema.

This 15-film exhibition has been organized to commemorate two major Mexican milestones that will be marked in 2010: the 200th anniversary of Mexican independence, and the 100th anniversary of the Mexican Revolution. The program showcases works spanning 75 years of illustrious Mexican cinema. Included are classics by Emilio Fernández, Fernando de Fuentes, Luis Buñuel, Paul Leduc, and Arturo Ripstein; two celebrated films dramatizing the Revolution, de Fuentes’s El Compadre Mendoza (1934) and Leduc’s Reed: Insurgent Mexico (1973); and key films by some of contemporary Mexican cinema’s most important and acclaimed directors, including Alfonso Cuarón, Guillermo del Toro, Carlos Carrera, Dana Rotberg, Roberto Sneider, María Novaro, and Carlos Bolado. Many of these artists are represented by their debut or breakthrough works.

Five of the films screening here won the Ariel Award (Mexico’s equivalent of the Oscar) for Best First Feature; seven received the Golden Ariel for Best Film. The exhibition opens with Jorge Fons’s multiple-prize-winning Midaq Alley (1995), which may be the most honoured Mexican film in history. They  close with Carlos Reygadas’s extraordinary Silent Light (2008), one of the great films of current world cinema.

As lawyers who are fans of MU should know,when MU (when it was a listed company) became the target of a highly leveraged buy-out offer by the Glazers, the directors sought legal advice on their duties towards shareholders and MU.

They were advised that directors owe a duty to the company and not its individual shareholders. In many instances, the distinction is not significant, since what is good for the corporation will also benefit its shareholders. Maximising the return to shareholders (or creating “shareholder value”), in many cases, does not conflict with the interests of the company.

But there may be situations where the interests of the company and shareholders may conflict.

The interests of shareholders may lie in realizing a short-term gain on their investment, something which the directors may decide is not the in the interest of the company in the long term. For example, the debts that MU incurred in going private, might have prevented the club from buying the players MU needed to win trophies. It didn’t happen at MU; despite its debts MU has the wagga (dosh) to buy players. But the example of Liverpool FC shows that this fear was reasonable and legitimate.

The interests of majority shareholders may not also be the same as the interests of the company. Controlling shareholders may want the corporation to take certain action that may be in its interest, but not necessarily in the best interests of the corporation. Hedge funds, with a controlling stake, may want the company to pay a high dividend because they (the controlling shareholders) want to maximise the returns to their investors. But the company may need the cash to expand its production lines.

The correct answers to these kinds of issues depend very much on the facts of each situation: something the independent directors of Sin0-Environment are finding out the hard way.

With all the hype, I’ll keep this one as brief as I can.

I went to this expecting an experience similar to the second Transformers movie. You go to a movie like that in theaters because, even though everybody knows it’s going to be terrible, if you’re going to see giant robots blow each other up (and we all will see that movie eventually), you might as well see it on as large of a screen as possible, so as to be at least a little amazed. That is to say, if the first time you see it is on a small screen, it’s barely even entertaining. How much does a movie like Independence Day lose from a big screen to a small one? It’s loses most of its wonder and astonishment, and for most of these kinds of movies, that’s really all they have going for them.

So I expected my one-sentence review to be “terrible movie, looks pretty”. I will start by commenting on just how pretty it looks. It’s gorgeous. CGI has reached a point where with enough of a budget (this one and King Kong come to mind), you can manufacture reality, or whatever version of reality you like. In addition, the 3-D is a nice touch. I have seen a few things in this new 3-d, and don’t let it fool you as a gimmick. It’s not stuff-jumping-out-of-the-screen 3-D like the days of old. They edit the film (I believe they simply throw different depths into different focal lengths) to give the extra dimension to it. That is, when you look down a hallway, you actually feel like you are looking down it, and not at a 2-D projection of a hallway. It’s nice. I realize just how far the technology has come because I was guilty of TWICE swatting at the air in front of my face to clear dust. It was in the movie.

So now, the story. It’s great. James Cameron blew my mind. He made a gorgeous movie that was excellent. It was well written, well acted, well directed. I haven’t seen Sigourney Weaver act this well in a very long time (Imaginary Heroes was very good, but not really because of her).

This movie, more than almost any other I have seen in a while, is a theatrical must-see.

One-line review: Go see it, and go see it in 3-D.

Consensus: 87/100

Shakespeare’s Much Ado About Nothing, starring Emma Thompson as Beatrice and Kenneth Branagh as Benedick, among others.  If Kenneth Branagh is involved in a Shakespearean movie, I’m pretty much guaranteed to love it.  I love his performances and his approach as a director.  This movie in particular is one of my favorites.  It is absolutely hilarious — the rivalry between Beatrice and Benedick is highly entertaining, as is the courtship they’re tricked into having.  My favorite scene is when Benedick overhears Don Pedro, Claudio, and Leonato carrying on a false conversation about Beatrice’s affections for Benedick, and how he suddenly goes from being a determined bachelor to being in love with Beatrice.  His happy splashing about in the fountain is just classic.

I read a review of this one that called it something along the lines of “a great rugby movie, an ok Nelson Mandela biopic”. I would be hard pressed to think of many things more backwards. The rugby is pretty good. Entertaining, exciting, etc. That being said, this movie is NOT about rugby. Rugby is the backdrop; it would be like saying that Grey’s Anatomy is about medicine. This movie is about Mandela, and the end of apartheid in South Africa. This is a true cinematic achievement in that the right actor was alive at the right time to play the right person. It’s a very happy coincidence, for I fear that this movie would never work in another time, place, or with another person.

That being said, the movie is pretty good. Not excellent, but pretty good. The acting is tremendous. Morgan Freeman is tremendous. Matt Damon is pretty good. He holds his own against Freeman, but I would say barely so. Unfortunately, I can think of an actor better suited to play the role, and even more unfortunately, that actor is dead. Everything in Damon’s performance screams Heath Ledger. His accent, his walk, his demeanor. Everything. It is almost as if Clint Eastwood said “act just like Heath Ledger would have”. To his credit, he does. I like Matt Damon a lot, and he certainly seems to be channeling Ledger quite well, but I hate knowing that he would likely not have been cast a few years ago. But alas, as I said, this movie might not have worked a few years ago, leaving us in a bizarre quandary.

This is definitely not my favorite Clint Eastwood movie (that would be Gran Torino). It is about as good as Million Dollar Baby. In 2004, this movie would have trounced every other at the Academy Awards (meaning people would have rioted if Crash had pulled off an upset). This year, not so much. The competition’s too good, and this movie is too… ok. If you like Clint Eastwood, you’ll like it. Hell, you’ll probably all like it. But don’t be too surprised if it goes a bit quietly into the good night.

One-line review: Entertaining and endearing, and an enjoyable viewing.

Consensus: 75/100

Cheating the Meeting Reaper: Avoiding Death by Meeting II

Meeting attendees sit around a table, still doodling on their pads. They’re wondering why they were invited. Is there a diplomatic way to depart? You’ve already planned this as an important meeting, so there must be some other problem. One strong possibility is that you didn’t think about the invitation list.

Once you’ve decided that you need a meeting, the next step is to consider who should be there. This is just as important as the agenda. Having the right people at your meeting makes it much more productive, your staff is happier, and your volunteers are more enthusiastic.

Time is your most valuable asset. In any service business, and especially nonprofits, payroll is your most costly expense. Every hour a person spends in a meeting is an hour that is not being spent elsewhere. If you ask staff to step away from their work and come to a meeting, it should be worthwhile. Otherwise, you are wasting your agency’s resources.

Volunteers are also agency resources. Consider your Board of Directors. Of course, the entire Board should be at full board meetings. But committee meetings and ad hoc meetings are a different story. Inviting an important board member to a meeting to which he has little to contribute is a sure way to diminish his enthusiasm. Caring about the mission may not change, but if he sits there wondering if it is worth his time, he may think twice about coming to the next meeting.

Make sure that every person invited to a meeting is invited for a reason, and you know what that reason is.

Decisionmaker – someone who has to be fully informed to make a good decision on behalf of your agency
Opinionmaker – someone who has insight and opinions that will be beneficial to the decisionmakers
Information provider – someone who has factual information or experience that will be beneficial to the decisionmakers

I’ve been in organizations where everyone was invited to every meeting. Needless to say, after a while, they started coming late or leaving early….if they came at all. It’s like crying “WOLF!” Sooner or later the villagers stop coming to the aid of the little shepherd, and even the people who should be at your meetings will not be there. You’ve lost your willing workers.

Who should be at a meeting? People who will have to make a decision based on the discussion, and people who have information to contribute to the discussion. That’s it. Don’t leave out someone with extensive front line experience just because he’s a lowly staff member. Conversely, don’t invite someone just because she believes she should be there. There may be extenuating circumstances, but carefully consider the pros and cons.

True, an important board member may be offended not to be invited to a committee meeting; yet that same board member may stifle discussion, have the reputation of not being discrete, or have a hard time thinking beyond personal self-interest. Not inviting him may create ill will, even if the discussion is more robust. Similarly, inviting a really great person but whose input is minimal is also wasteful. Inviting a valuable board member to a meeting where she will have minimal input risks losing her enthusiasm.

In these cases, finesse the situation. Plan the meeting with the people you need, and if these upper echelon individuals might be offended to not be included, take them into your confidence. Let them know that you are having this meeting, but didn’t want to waste their time since there are other things that only they can do. They may still want to come, but at least they are the ones who made that decision.

Good luck! As a leader, you have to husband the resources of the organizations, and use them wisely. When it comes to attendees at a meeting, the most important thing to remember is that extraneous people is wasteful of time and talent.

In the words of Robert Burns, “The best laid plans of mice and men go aft agley”  Since  plans can and do go awry, you still have a few more tools available. Timed agendas and meeting management techniques will help corral overbearing speakers and keep the meeting moving. More on these in subsequent posts.

Note – My colleague, Susan Sherk, and I will be presenting Cheating the Meeting Reaper at the 47th annual international conference of the Association of Fundraising Professionals, April 2010. Join us!

‘What about Postal or BloodRayne?’ he wonders

With nearly 30 films under his belt, writer-director Uwe Boll is prolific by any standard. He’s also known for being the biggest hack in the industry, so when only three of his films appeared on Metacritic’s “Worst Movies of the Decade” list, Boll was understandably upset.

“Each movie I make is another chance to cement my spot as the worst auteur in Hollywood. I take that very seriously,” he said. “At first glance, yes, more of my movies made the list than anyone else’s, but only three? There could have been a dozen, at least.”

Boll’s trio of films deemed horrendous enough to warrant “worst” status were House of the Dead, In The Name of The King and Alone In The Dark, with miserable scores of 30, 15 and 9, respectively.

“On top of the fact that they didn’t even include my other works like Postal, BloodRayne and Blackwoods, I also had just one film with a single digit score,” he complained. “It’s bullshit.”

But it isn’t all bad, says Boll. According to the German-born director, Metacritic has basically issued him a challenge, and it’s one he intends to meet with his entire arsenal of bad storylines, terrible direction and objectionable themes.

“This next decade will be my worst yet,” said Boll. “I guarantee it.”

“Everything is backwards now, like out there is the true world and in here is the dream.”

And in this quote is presented everything about my feelings for Avatar. Jake Sully (played by blockbuster newcomer Sam Worthington), a paraplegic Marine, is called in to Pandora, a planet chock full of biotic and abiotic wonders, to fill in for his brother. His brother had spent many years training in the Avatar program, a US military program designed to allow Marines and scientists to inhabit the bodies of Na’vi, the indigenous beings of Pandora. The program is used to study and interact with the Na’vi, in order to relocate them to allow the US to gain access to a copious supply of Unobtainium, a mineral that is extremely valuable for some reason. Jake “gets lost in the woods,” or “twitterpated,” falling in love with Neytiri (well portrayed by Zoe Saldana, who made her debut earlier this year in Star Trek), the daughter of the Na’vi chief. And so we see the unfolding of faith and flesh versus greed and iron.

James Cameron stays true to his reputation, bringing us a pretentious film that presents a LOT of wonders to discuss, but leaves us hanging as far as story goes. Really, a robot traveling through time in order to kill the mother of the future leader of revolution is ingenious… but why not travel back right as the boy is being born? And why not send the shapeshifting Terminator first? And why does a movie about a sinking ship need to be over an hour and a half? I’ll be sincere: Avatar is a spectacle. It really is. You know how science fiction/space movies show us completely new planets but then populate them with only one specific type of species and they all act the same (the Star Wars prequels and later episodes of Star Trek are particularly sadly guilty of this)? Yeah Avatar does nothing of that. Cameron takes the Tolkien route and completely creates a new world. The Na’vi coexist with six-legged horses, six-legged panthers, six-legged rhinoceros type beasts (yeah, they are six-legged, which would actually make sense from an evolutionary point of view), dragon-like beasts of burden, and monstrous hammer-headed leather-bodied eagle things. There’s also a nifty chameleon/dragonfly creature that flies on multi-colored whirligig wings. That aspect of the movie is certainly not lacking; Cameron really does show you a new world, as predicted.

And yet, the story feels… somewhat recycled. Is this not what Spanish conquistadors did to Aztecs? Didn’t American cowboys fight this one out with Native Indians? Is this not… what we are doing now to rainforests etc? Naturally, 14% of the earth’s surface is rainforest. We’ve cut that down to 7%. And it could be argued that what conquistadors and cowboys did to Aztecs and Indians was wrong. While these could be virtuous ideas (we are stewards), Avatar is a different beast.

Pantheistic beliefs run rampant. The Tree of Souls, the primary place of worship for the Na’vi, is linked by root systems to all the other trees, and they are sentient ala Grandmother Willow. The Na’vi chant and sing to the trees. They can even attach their tails to the trees and hear the voices of the ancestors. Neytiri even sings “Can You Paint With All the Colors of the Wind” to Jake. (Alright, well I made that one up.) But it wouldn’t be amiss. It’s the same idea. Gold is hard to get, somewhat ‘unobtainable,’ right? Yep.

Avatar does not suffer from stereotypes, as some would have you believe. And yet, its story is fairly old. So while the effects are amazing, groundbreaking, even, and the score is one of the absolute best I’ve heard in a long time, agendas, political correctness, and recycled storylines are truly present in this film. Three out of five stars.

However, I would love to see Jake descending upon that red bird one more time.

Oscar-winning Mexican director Guillermo del Toro, known for making films like “Pan’s Labyrinth” and “Hellboy”, is all ready to spook the audience, but this time he is using his pen instead of the camera with his book on vampires “The Strain”. But he has no plans to make a movie on the subject.

Guillermo del Toro @ latin american film

“No, it is not a film. Cinema is far too compressed a form … I believe it would be ideal to create a limited cable series out of it and not to extend it into a network run, where characters die only when the ratings do,” Guillermo del Toro told IANS in an e-mail interview from Hollywood.

Del Toro has co-authored a vampire trilogy with acclaimed crime fiction writer and Hammett award winner Chuck Hogan of the “The Standoff” fame. “The Strain”, first of the widely publicised three-book series, was published in India by HarperCollins-India in November.

“All my life, I have been fascinated by vampires, but always from a naturalist’s point of view. When I was a kid, I loved the ‘Night Stalker’ and I fell in love with the idea writers of the book Richard Matheson and Jeff Rice posited in the novel of exploring a creature of such powerful stature through the point of view of a common worker, a man used to dealing with things in a procedural way.

“Just another day at the job … Since then, I was inspired to write one,” said Del Toro.

The second book is titled the “The Fall” and the third “The Night Eternal”, Del Toro said.

The series begins with a slice out of Bram Stoker’s “Dracula”. A Boeing 777 lands at JFK International Airport. It stops on the tarmac. The aeroplane is full of dead corpses and a strange coffin filled with dirt is found in the cargo hold. It ferries in Jusef Sardu, a vampire known as the “Master” to the US from the old world.

A doctor investigates the “virus” that killed them and in the process is introduced to another V word: Vampire.

What ensues is a clash between the old world and the new world vampires. Three vampires – dating back to the ancient era – inhabit the new world (US) while four stay in old worlds of Europe and Asia. Together they make up the “seven ancients”.

“This dramatic novel, you may say, grew out of appetite and scope. I love the short story form as a reader, but if a novel has a terse structure, I find it far more immersive and fulfilling,” DelToro said.

Comparing his book with his movies, he said: ” ‘Cronos’, my first movie, was meant to be a rephrasing of the genre. I love the rephrasing of an old myth. When I tackled ‘Blade II’, I approached it with a myriad of ideas about vampire biology, but only a few of those made it into thefilm. Tonally, the movie needed to be an action film and some of the biological stuff was too disturbing already…

“I love the idea of the biological, the divine and the evolutionary angles to explain the origin and function of the vampire genus,” del Toro said.

Outlining the plot of the second novel, the filmmaker said: “The second novel is rather crepuscular. Mankind loses its advantage and we see what the future holds for the vampiric race while tracking the mythical origins of it all.

“We revisit familiar memories and learn more about characters that leads us to an unexpected alliance. New York is under martial law and finding a way out of it becomes a major subplot. The third novel is absolutely enormous both in its implications and its reach. It rephrases vampirism in a completely fresh way. Only a trilogy could do justice to it.”

Talking about his co-author Hogan, Del Toro said that “it was a true collaboration”.

“I once created a ‘bible’ for the book. It contained most of the structural ideas and characters. Chuck (Hogan) then took his pass on it and invented new characters and ideas. Fet (one of my favourite characters in the book) was completely invented by him,” he said.

Ghost Story is a 1981 American horror film based on the book of the same name by Peter Straub. It is directed by John Irvin and it stars Fred Astaire, Melvyn Douglas, Douglas Fairbanks Jr., John Houseman and Craig Wasson (in a dual role). It was the last film to feature Astaire, Fairbanks, and Douglas, and the first film to feature Michael O’Neill.

Directed by
  John Irvin

Writers
  Lawrence D. Cohen Writer
  Peter Straub Novel

Producers
  Douglas Green … co-producer
  Ronald G. Smith … associate producer
  Burt Weissbourd … producer

Cast
  Fred Astaire … Ricky Hawthorne
  Melvyn Douglas … Dr. John Jaffrey
  Douglas Fairbanks Jr. … Edward Charles Wanderley
  John Houseman … Sears James
  Craig Wasson … Don Wanderley/David Wanderley
  Patricia Neal … Stella Hawthorne
  Alice Krige … Eva Galli/Alma Mobley
  Jacqueline Brookes … Milly
  Miguel Fernandes … Gregory Bate
  Lance Holcomb … Fenny Bate
  Mark Chamberlin … Young Jaffrey
  Tim Choate … Young Hawthorne
  Kurt Johnson … Young Wanderley
  Ken Olin … Young James

Make Up Department
  Irving Buchman … makeup artist
  Albert Jeyte … makeup artist
  Robert Jiras … makeup artist
  Philip Leto … hair stylist
  Rick Sharp … makeup artist
  Dick Smith … special makeup

Special Effects Department
  Henry Millar Jr. … special effects

Visual Effects Department
  Syd Dutton … matte artist
  Dennis Glouner … matte photography
  Bill Taylor … matte photography
  Albert Whitlock … special visual effects
  Henry Schoessler … matte crew

Trivia:

• The last feature film for veteran actors Melvyn Douglas, Fred Astaire, and Douglas Fairbanks Jr..
• Melvyn Douglas (Dr. John Jaffery) is actually mentioned in the novel on which the movie is based.
• Fred Astaire (Ricky Hawthorne) is actually mentioned in the novel on which the movie is based.
• Young Ricky Hawthorne says, “I can’t dance.” Old Ricky Hawthorne is played by Fred Astaire. This line wasn’t in the novel.
• Searching for someone qualified to score a story dealing with elderly people, the production team was reminded of Le chat (1971), a French film about a bitter old couple spending time arguing. That’s how Philippe Sarde was hired and why some of the main theme of that precise film is repeatedly used in the score of “Ghost Story.”
• Robin Curtis’ film debut.
• The pipe organ used is the same organ that was used by Lon Chaney in The Phantom of the Opera (1925).
• Interiors were constructed inside the abandoned Union Station, the former New York Central Railroad’s passenger train station on Broadway in Albany, NY and included a two story set. The murder or death scene was filmed on the second floor of that set. Scenes were filmed in sequence and the two story set was significantly aged after the death scene so that it later appeared as the derelict house. After the movie, the old station was refurbished and restored to its former grandeur and served as office space for Fleet Bank and now Bank of America.

Sorry MG Readers, things here at MG have been up in the sky for a while now; it’s just now trying to settle. Still more to do to get back on track but we are trying to move things along as fast as we can, to make up for the time lost. We are archiving now and omitting things that are not working out…out with the old and in with the new…new and improved! The forum is the first on the list. Over the weekend, you will notice several categories gone, in their place; is going to be a new idea that we had a few years ago that we never got started; called “The Writer’s Pub”. This will be a place for screenplay writers, poets, and authors… We are hoping this will bring two popular worlds (movies and music) together…in view of the fact that movies and music do go together like peanut and jelly.

So, that is what we are working on for the time being; more to come. Thank you all for your thoughts and prayers and of course, your suggestions; please keep them coming.