Posted by Audiegrl

Duo join forces to bring series to screen

Variety/Cynthia Littleton—It’s a potent combination: Stephen + Steven

Stephen King and Steven Spielberg are joining forces to develop a limited series based on King’s just-released supernatural thriller “Under the Dome.” DreamWorks TV has optioned the book and is looking to set it up as an event series, likely for cable. DreamWorks principal Stacey Snider was key in bringing the project to the company. Spielberg, King and Snider will exec produce along with DreamWorks TV chiefs Darryl Frank and Justin Falvey. The book, which has earned strong reviews as a return to form for the prolific author, revolves around the drama that unfolds after an invisible force field suddenly descends on a small vacation town in Maine. As the locals fight for their survival, the town descends into warring factions led by enigmatic characters.

DreamWorks is starting to meet with writers for the project. The plan is to set a writer before shopping the skein to prospective buyers.

Spielberg and King have worked together in the past, developing a screen adaptation of King’s 1984 novel “The Talisman,” on which Spielberg has had the option for more than 20 years. That project has been developed as a feature, and it came close to being done as a mini for TNT a few years ago until it was tabled for budgetary reasons.

The “Dome” deal continues a burst of activity on the smallscreen side for Spielberg and DreamWorks TV. Among the high-profile projects in the works is a series about the development of a fictional Broadway tuner for Showtime. Another Showtime contender is a costume-drama revolving around the Borgia clan, penned by Neil Jordan and with Robert Zemeckis also producing.

More @

Visit: stephenking.com

Related Articles

44-D’s Book Diaries: Stephen King’s Under the Dome

L’inedita accoppiata si prepara a conquistare il mercato televisivo con una serie per la tv tratta dall’ultimo romanzo del re del brivido e diretta da quello del cinema di fantascienza.

Spielberg sta lavorando con lo scrittore americano alla trasposizione per la tv di «Dome», il libro uscito da poche settimane che racconta la storia di una cittadina del Maine che si ritrova improvvisamente rinchiusa sotto una campana di vetro.

La storia ha tutti i presupposti per una serie tv che racconti gli incubi e le avventure dei cittadini che cercheranno in ogni modo di uscire dalla cupola.

King e Spielberg hanno tenuto nel cassetto per un ventennio il progetto di un programma televisivo tratto dal romanzo del 1984 «Il talismano», che però non è mai arrivato in fase di lavorazione.

Fonte:
http://www.lastampa.it/redazione/cmsSezioni/spettacoli/200911articoli/49592girata.asp

Eric Hunt is suing [see PDF of complaint] über-Holohoaxers Irene Weisberg Zisblatt (Chana Seigelstein; actually, she’s more of a sad old lady who just needs attention; perhaps her family treats her like an oxygen thief and are just waiting for her to die so they can grab her royalties, so she needs attention … I really don’t know; but what kind of sickos would use this poor old lady’s delusions for profit?) and Stevie “Schwindler’s Mist” Spielberg, producer of The Plucky Duck Show and director of Hook, for their hate-propaganda.

Elie Wiesel, King of the Holoaxers, who sought refuge from the Red Army with his Nazi protectors, accused Eric Hunt of assault, after Hunt tried to ask Wiesel some embarrassing questions about his infamous atrocity-porn. So Auschwitz inmate Nikolaus Gruner [video] came to Hunt’s defense in the following letter. Since the vermin Wiesel is so close to the grave, I pray that he’ll come clean and atone for his crimes before he has to face the dread judgement seat of Christ. May God have mercy upon him.

ZÜNDEL:

A SKEPTICAL LOOK AT ‘SCHINDLER’S LIST’ | Part 1 | Part 2

From back when Canada was relatively free.

From Dissecting the Holocaust:

Feature films such as Holocaust, Shoah and Schindler’s List…naturally have no evidential value whatsoever, but their psychological impact on the masses is immense and powerful. Even though the establishment historians’ assessment of the movie Holocaust – namely, that it is factually untenable – applies equally to the other movies as well, they are nevertheless gladly received for the welcome effect they have on “public education and opinion steering”! One example shall suffice to demonstrate the historically unacceptable nature of such movies. Illustration 19 shows a scene from Schindler’s List where Camp Commandant Göth, standing on the balcony of his house, takes random potshots at the inmates of the Plaszow Camp. Air photos from that time, however, reveal that the Commandant’s house was located at the foot of a hill, while the camp itself was on top of that hill. The scene shown in the movie…was thus impossible, if only for geographical reasons. And this is certainly not Steven Spielberg’s sole forgery.

Schindler’s List, which is based on a novel going back to historical events, was deliberately filmed in black-and-white and with unsteady camera work in order to convey to the audience the false impression that the film is a documentary; contributors to the movie have freely admitted this. This clearly shows the intentions of the film-makers and of those who take school classes and even entire schools to see this movie, and not only in Germany and Austria. What is particularly perfidious about this film is that whenever German soldiers or SS-men give orders, yell and scream and engage in any kind of violence, this is not shown in English or in whichever other language the film is dubbed, but in German. In this way the entire world is made to feel that German is the language of cruel subhumans. And the German viewing public is the only one not to notice this, because in Germany, Schindler’s List is dubbed entirely in German. In this way, underhanded psychological tricks incite the peoples of the world against the Germans, their language and their culture, and the Germans themselves never even notice what is going on.

Besides of this, Spielberg is hiding the fact that the commander from Plaszow concentration camp was prosecuted by the SS:

“Individual criminal acts – in these cases having broad implications – included: the assumption of a license to kill by commandants and subordinates concealed through falsification of medical death certificates.

“Arbitrary conduct, chicanery, unlawful corporal punishments, acts of brutality and sadism, liquidation of no-longer-convenient accomplices, theft and black-market profiteering.

“All of these offenses were committed both alone by prisoners as well as by personnel of the SS, most however in conspiracy between SS personnel with Kapos (Jewish concentration camp guards).

“The intervention of SS jurisdiction in the concentration camps commenced with the initiation of my investigations in July 1943 and lasted until the conclusion of the war. It could not have started sooner, because there were no suspicions in this regard.

“Arrested were the commandants of Buchenwald, Lublin, Warschau, Herzogenbosch, Krakau-Plaszow.”

“Spielberg certainly wished to conceal these investigations and punishment of perpetrators from his gullible movie audience since he was and is not interested in an historically accurate film, but rather in molding public opinion to accept the establishment Holocaust ideology. Audiences may be gullible and dumb, but Spielberg is a deceiver and denier of historical reality.”

[Affidavit SS-65 by SS Judge Konrad Morgen, IMT, vol. 42, p. 556. -Udo Walendy]

Wiesel: “Don’t fuck with us! We got all these niggaz in line.”

The Mercy Seat by Nick Cave

It began when they come took me from my home

And put me in Dead Row,

Of which I am nearly wholly innocent, you know.

And I’ll say it again

I..am..not..afraid..to..die.

I began to warm and chill

To objects and their fields,

A ragged cup, a twisted mop

The face of Jesus in my soup

Those sinister dinner meals

The meal trolley’s wicked wheels

A hooked bone rising from my food

All things either good or ungood.

And the mercy seat is waiting

And I think my head is burning

And in a way I’m yearning

To be done with all this measuring of truth.

An eye for an eye

A tooth for a tooth

And anyway I told the truth

And I’m not afraid to die.

Interpret signs and catalogue

A blackened tooth, a scarlet fog.

The walls are bad. Black. Bottom kind.

They are sick breath at my hind

They are sick breath at my hind

They are sick breath at my hind

They are sick breath gathering at my hind

I hear stories from the chamber

How Christ was born into a manger

And like some ragged stranger

Died upon the cross

And might I say it seems so fitting in its way

He was a carpenter by trade

Or at least that’s what I’m told

Like my good hand I tatooed E.V.I.L. across it’s brother’s fist

That filthy five! They did nothing to challenge or resist.

In Heaven His throne is made of gold

The ark of his Testament is stowed

A throne from which I’m told

All history does unfold.

Down here it’s made of wood and wire

And my body is on fire

And God is never far away.

Into the mercy seat I climb

My head is shaved, my head is wired

And like a moth that tries

To enter the bright eye

I go shuffling out of life

Just to hide in death awhile

And anyway I never lied.

My kill-hand is called E.V.I.L.

Wears a wedding band that’s G.O.O.D.

‘Tis a long-suffering shackle

Collaring all that rebel blood.

And the mercy seat is waiting

And I think my head is burning

And in a way I’m yearning

To be done with all this measuring of truth.

An eye for an eye

And a tooth for a tooth

And anyway I told the truth

And I’m not afraid to die.

And the mercy seat is burning

And I think my head is glowing

And in a way I’m hoping

To be done with all this weighing up of truth.

An eye for an eye

And a tooth for a tooth

And I’ve got nothing left to lose

And I’m not afraid to die.

And the mercy seat is glowing

And I think my head is smoking

And in a way I’m hoping

To be done with all this looks of disbelief.

An eye for an eye

And a tooth for a tooth

And anyway there was no proof

Nor a motive why.

And the mercy seat is smoking

And I think my head is melting

And in a way I’m helping

To be done with all this twisted of the truth.

A lie for a lie

And a truth for a truth

And I’ve got nothing left to lose

And I’m not afraid to die.

And the mercy seat is melting

And I think my blood is boiling

And in a way I’m spoiling

All the fun with all this truth and consequence.

An eye for an eye

And a truth for a truth

And anyway I told the truth

And I’m not afraid to die.

And the mercy seat is waiting

And I think my head is burning

And in a way I’m yearning

To be done with all this measuring of proof.

A life for a life

And a truth for a truth

And anyway there was no proof

But I’m not afraid to tell a lie.

And the mercy seat is waiting

And I think my head is burning

And in a way I’m yearning

To be done with all this measuring of truth.

An eye for an eye

And a truth for a truth

And anyway I told the truth

But I’m afraid I told a lie.

Miracles

For 15 months Chana re-swallowed and re-defecated her diamonds over and over again. She was a favorite of Dr Josef Mengele, who performed experiments and surgeries on her and other prisoners without anesthesia. Mengele injected chemicals into her eyes in an attempt to change their color. He removed the ID-number-tattoo on her to find a way to remove the numbers tattooed on her arm. He ordered a nurse to administer a lethal injection, but the nurse worked for the underground and was able to free her. She survived the gas chamber, and just missed being turned into a lampshade.

“Mengele was the most good-looking man,” she said. “He could have been the one scientist in the world who could have developed extraordinary things for humanity, but he became a murderer. He would look at me and smile and at times I could not believe this man could ever hurt me, he could be so charming. But the next minute, he was cutting me up into little pieces.”

Mengele had given her watery soup filled with chemicals to destroy her reproductive organs, but she miraculously gave birth to a son and a daughter in the 1960s.

She vowed that if she survived, she would be a voice for her fellow prisoners. “For 50 years, I didn’t say a word.” she said.

Michael A. Hoffman, from “The Psychology and Epistemology of ‘Holocaust’ Newspeak”

“It is not a matter for the public to debate the literal truth of Jewish beliefs. Every religion has a right to its own story. It only becomes a public matter when Jews attempt to establish as criteria for human decency, good citizenship and public morals, the demand that non-Jews must believe Jewish fables and accept them as a matter of scientific historiography.

“It is a telling commentary on the modern era that the apocryphal and expiational langauge and agenda of partisan religious dogma has been enthusiastically embraced as the objective description of an entire epoch of world history in public newspapers and airwaves and the lecture halls of secular universities.

“It is an apparent, though not widely admitted fact, that Judaism, through the “Holocaust” cult, has become the informal state religion of the West, with the distinction of being the last truly believed religion in the otherwise agnostic West; the end-result of this reactionary hegemony being the same as that of the Big Brother party in Orwell’s 1984, “to extinguish once and for all the possibility of independent thought.”"

Holoco$t Accounting

Regarding the Holohoax profits that Wiesel claimed fellow Jew Madoff scammed off of him: were these funds he’d collected “on behalf of” H-Survivors, and then allowed Madoff to launder, and then they split the proceeds?

Wiesel Fraud

By Nikolaus Gruner in Sweden

In 1958 history tells us, that 50 years ago in Paris, the writer and Nobel Laurate Francois Mauriac, discovered a Jewish survivor’s autobiography, written in Yiddish and entitled ‘Un di velt hat gesvign’, copyright 1955, Paris.

He decided to get into the Holocaust business by using this story, written from the beginning by survivor Lazar (Eliezer) Wiesel. Mauriac translated the book into French between 1955 and 1958, making substantial alterations to it and created a new book called ‘Le Nuit’.

The alterations were in order to introduce Christian theology into the narrative. The book, called ‘Night’ in English, was then given to his partner, a new persona called “Elie Wiesel”. They kept the second name Wiesel, but were forced to change the first name from Eliezer, the Yiddish for Lazar, for copyright reasons and in 1958 invented the new name “Elie Wiesel”.

Now, in the year of 2008, the same man who advanced to Nobel [Peace] Prize Laureate, “Elie Wiesel”, has been exposed by the under signed survivor, A-11104, from the former labor camp “Buna” (a sub-camp to Auschwitz), I claim that “Elie Wiesel” has never been a prisoner of Auschwitz. Further I the undersigned A-11104, claim that they stole Lazar Wiesel´s manuscript with Lazar’s identity A-7713, in order to change the message by mixing in Christian theology, in order to suit his own and Mauriac’s purposes. This was to convert young Jewish survivors coming from the camps into good Catholic souls.

It is of historical evidence that should be mentioned here, that the Nobel Peace Prize winner “Elie Wiesel”, was honored with the “Great Cross of Hungary”, in New York in 2004 (probably for being a self-appointed spokesperson and spinner of tales about the extermination camps), and even dared to maintain in public that he is the original owner of the tattooed number A-7713. However the evidence shows, that neither in the archives of Auschwitz, nor in Buchenwald, has the name “Elie Wiesel” any connection what so ever to Lazar Wiesel´s tattooed number A-7713. Regarding his identity, I can vouch for his own privately produced DVD, entitled “Elie Wiesel Goes Home”. The movie was filmed in Maramorossziget and Auschwitz-Birkenau, reveals that on his left lower arm, there is no trace of the tattooed number he claims to have, namely A-7713. If he did have one, then it would cover approx. 9 cms in length, and 10 millimeter in height on the surface of his skin. In the film his arm has nothing on it.

When it comes to “Elie Wiesel´s” birth date, he has three, and the fourth one is known only to himself. The archives of Buchenwald confirm that: Lazar Wiesel who was born on the 4th of Sept.1913, left Buchenwald for Paris with the HIAS transport S-414, carrying 675 Children on the 19th of July 1945. On his transport document he appears under the running number 405 named Wiesel Lazar, born 4.10.1928 Maramorossziget. He is the same Lazar Wiesel who is registered at Yad Vashem as an inmate of Buchenwald, who perished in the Shoah. Regardless of his death, he is still on the lists of the perished at Yad Vashem, though his details have been altered illegally recently.

Perjury: Elie Wiesel appeared as plaintiff on Monday July 7, 2008, in the Court of San Francisco, USA, Department No. 23. Court No. 2315810. He lied when he gave his testimony under oath. He alleged that his original tattooed number on his left lower arm was A-7713 and that his father’s was A-7712. I here state that all my accusations against “Elie Wiesel”, are based on my personal contact with my old friend Lazar Wiesel, from the former labor camp “Buna” and are from verified official documents, from the state archives of both Auschwitz and Buchenwald concentration camps.

With the evidence above, I represent myself as being a heavily affected and racially abused survivor A-11104. My last wish in life is to present the truth, including my bitter past to those who want to listen and to learn about the cannibalized and exterminated Jewish brothers, likewise the 6 million martyrs, who were slaughtered with modern efficiency and bestial cruelty. With the evidence in my possession, I am able to prove, that “Elie Wiesel’s” crime against my friend Lazar Wiesel (4. 9.1913), to whom I have an eternal debt for protecting me from a certain death, most likely occurred in Europe. Therefore I demand for myself, and for all of us survivors and martyrs, that the European Court of Human Rights, without pity, malicious interest, nor political profit, should examine the case of “Elie Wiesel’s” real identity and if possible his supposed religious leanings.

posted by: pol

Hombres y “Dibus”

Cuando la premisa de una historia es brillante, lo más importante está hecho. Es cierto que el desarrollo puede ser peor o mejor, pero por lo menos, se ha plantado una buena semilla. Pensé en esto después de ver Who framed Roger Rabbit (Robert Zemeckis, 1988). El punto de partida es Los Ángeles, California. Pero con algunas diferencias: porque hay hombres, que trabajan en Hollywood, y “dibus” -¡sí, dibujos animados!- que trabajan, claro está, en Toontown (“dibullywood”, en la traducción española).

El desarrollo posterior de la historia es discutible, aunque hay que reconocerle la virtud de saber retorcer y adaptar las convenciones propias del cine policíaco, de intriga o incluso del thriller, a un género (¿o es sólo una técnica?) hasta entonces inexistente: el mixto de animación e imagen real. Eso es obra del guionista Jeffrey Price (conocido por su colaboración en otros títulos menos honrosos): aquí queda su tercer borrador.

Y una palabra para la técnica: es de reconocer un trabajo sensacional de animación; y más aún de interpretación. Aquí, un vídeo que lo explica de maravilla:

Actividad Paranormal

Terror. Sobrenatural / SINOPSIS: Una joven pareja feliz de clase media es atormentada por un espíritu demoníaco. Micah y Katie son una pareja de jóvenes de vida normal. Ella es una estudiante próxima a graduarse de profesora, y él es un corredor de bolsa que trabaja desde su casa. Llevan tres años viviendo juntos en una casa que hasta ahora parecía que era todo normal, hasta que comienzan a aparecer fenómenos extraños paranormales… Film casero de bajísimo presupuesto -apenas 11.000 dólares- que consiguió casi 8 millones de dólares de recaudación en su primer fin de semana en USA, superando los 84 millones hasta la fecha -y poniéndose líder de taquilla en su 5ª semana-. Tras visionarla Steven Spielberg, su productora Dreamworks accedió a distribuirla, y por su parte la Paramount realizó una campaña online en la que prometía estrenarla en más cines si así lo pedían los internautas, llegando a firmar cientos de miles de usuarios. Por si fuera poco ha conseguido buenas críticas de los medios. El resultado es ya la película más rentable de la historia del cine, y otro éxito de márketing viral sobre un film de terror de bajo presupuesto -véase “Halloween” o “El proyecto de la bruja de Blair”- (FILMAFFINITY)

Las cosas se ponen bien pesadas al saber de que Steven Spielberg y Stephen King van a producir la serie para la televisión llamada “Under the Dome”.

Esta serie suena bien interesante ya que va a basarse en el éxito que es el libro y que trata de un pueblito bicicletero en Maine que se pone de cabeza cuando un misterioso campo de fuerza rodea a la comunidad y hace que la población se divida.

Dream Works estará a cargo de la producción (esto significa que veremos buenos efectos especiales) y por el momento andan buscando escritores para que adapten la novela. Lo que no quedó muy en claro es cuando va a estar listo el piloto pero yo me atrevo a echarle la apuesta de que lo veremos en el siguiente otoño a más tardar.

Forleden aften så jeg en film, der er stort set umulig at anmelde på normal vis. Det var nemlig ikke så meget en film, som det var en begivenhed. Der er tale om lavbudget-gyseren Paranormal Activity, årets sensation i filmverdenen; ikke på grund af dens kunstneriske kvaliteter, men fordi den på rekordtid har skudt sig ind som filmhistoriens måske mest indbringende produktion.

Paranormal Activity kommer først ud i de danske biografer 4. december, men jeg var så “heldig” (tvivlsomt!) at se filmen ved en snigpremiere i Grand tirsdag aften arrangeret af det anbefalelsesværdige filmmagasin Ekko. Til at introducere fænomenet havde Ekko inviteret selveste Jacob Stegelmann, dette fyrtårn af viden ud i populærkulturens afkroge, hvilket han gjorde på særdeles veloplagt og inspirerende vis med masser af syrlige glimt i øjet. “I er blevet snydt og bedraget!” som han provokerende lagde ud med at fortælle os, hvorpå han berettede om exploitation-filmens spraglede historie. Paranormal Activity udspringer nemlig af en lang og herligt lurvet tradition, hvor spekulation og købmandskab går forud for alt andet. Det handler om at tjene flest mulig penge ved at holde produktionsomkostningerne på et absolut minimum og dernæst på opfindsom vis vække publikums opsigt. En form for markedsgøgl, som Stegelmann kaldte det.

Det anslås, at Paranormal Activity er lavet for det latterligt lave beløb af 15.000 $ (eller “4 kroner”, som Stegelmann formulerede det), men til dato har den skrabet omkring 100 mio. $ ind i de amerikanske biografer, hvilket enhver kan sige sig selv er en bragende god forretning. Til sammenligning har Sam Raimis særdeles fremragende og fornøjelige Drag Me to Hell kostet 30 mio. $ at producere og indtjent 42 mio. $ på samme marked. Hvilket blot understreger, at der sjældent er retfærdighed til i denne verden, men lad os nu ikke blive hellige. I profitmæssig henseende må Paranormal Activity kaldes en ualmindeligt fed fidus, ingen tvivl om det!

Filmen er lavet af den ukendte Oren Peli, som har filmet historien med to af sine venner i de altdominerende hovedroller i sit eget hus ved brug af ét eneste håndholdt kamera. Handlingen er simpel og skåret over en klassisk læst; det er kendetegnende for exploitation, at der netop appelleres til publikum med velprøvede genreklichéer. Kvinden Katie påstår, at hun har været (for)fulgt af overnaturlige hændelser, siden hun var 8 år, men selvom deres hus plages af uforklarlige lyde, stiller hendes kæreste Micah sig noget skeptisk. Han går dog med til at forsøge at dokumentere ’spøgeriet’ ved hjælp af et filmkamera, som bliver vores (publikums) eneste holdepunkt igennem hele filmen. Filmens claim to fame har været, at folkene bag via sociale netværk – nutidens mund-til-mund-metode – har ladet sive, at den er en af alle tiders uhyggeligste film. I lighed med den 10 år gamle Blair Witch Project har det været hævdet, at filmens materiale og historie var ægte. Det har desuden forlydt, at selveste Steven Spielberg (som har hjulpet filmen frem) efter at have set Paranormal Activity fragtede sin kopi rundt i en plasticpose, fordi han mente, at filmen var så uhyggelig, at den måtte være forbandet. Ja, da! Sammenholdt med en særdeles effektiv markedsføringskampagne, hvor en trailer bl.a. har vist et angiveligt biografpublikums rædselsslagne reaktion på en visning af filmen, har det skabt den overvældende succés.

Men hvor Paranormal Activity scorer topkarakter, når det kommer til promovering, kan dens filmiske værdi ligge på et meget lille sted. Handlingen er temmelig dum og bravt kedsommelig og i mine øjne kun lettere uhyggelig henimod slutningen, hvilket på ingen måde er nok til at retfærdiggøre den megen hype. Som Jacob Stegelmann føler jeg også en forpligtelse til at modsige de røster, der har sammenlignet filmen med mesteren Alfred Hitchcock, blot fordi den baserer sin uhygge på suspense. Det er komplet misforstået – på samme måde som Stegelmann påpegede det absurde i, at dette stykke markedsgøgl ved tirsdagens snigpremiere blev vist i filmkunstens højborg, Grand, når tvivlsomt repertoire som Paranormal Activity retteligen hører hjemme i snuskede små sidegadebiografer.

Oren Pelis fupnummer er talk of the town lige nu, men jeg spår, at hvor føromtalte Drag Me to Hell vil få et langt og rigt liv i filmsamlinger verden over, vil Paranormal Activity som den dårlige vittighed, den er, være lykkelig glemt om et par måneder. Jeg vil blive meget forbløffet, hvis filmen kommer til at få et salg af betydning på dvd og blu-ray, da vi har at gøre med et fænomæn, hvis eneste raison d’être består i, at den via snedig markedsføring har formået at blive giraffen, som alle vil se i øjeblikket. Men i virkeligheden har giraffen slet ikke noget tøj på. Verden vil bedrages. Jeg lod mig bedrage, men fortryder ikke, da jeg holder min faglige nysgerrighed ansvarlig.

Så meget klogere kan jeg nu fundere over filmens danske motto: ‘Se den ikke alene’. Det kan snildt ændres til: SE DEN IKKE! Den har tjent mere end nok allerede uden din hjælp…

A few weeks ago I attended the Motion ‘09 animation conference in New Mexico where I gave two presentations on character design. One of the mainstays of the conference is animator Phil Nibbelink. Last year he taught at least three sessions relating to animation and this year I think he gave about a half-dozen presentations including a panel discussion with three other long-time Disney animators. Phil really knows his stuff and I’ve learned a lot from listening to him expound on various aspects of filmmaking.

Phil worked for ten years at Disney and was a directing animator on Who Framed Roger Rabbit? Then he spent another ten years working under Steven Spielberg as an animation director, working on such films as Fivel Goes West (which he directed) and Casper. In recent years Phil has turned his attention to independent filmmaking, cranking out not just one but three full-length animated features single-handedly.

Phil does a lot of freelance work these days. He’s an experienced animation pro who really knows the ins and outs of the business. Give his website a looksee.

Close Encounters of the Third Kind is a 1977 science fiction film written and directed by Steven Spielberg. The film stars Richard Dreyfuss, François Truffaut, Melinda Dillon, Teri Garr, Bob Balaban and Cary Guffey. It tells the story of Roy Neary, an Indiana electrical lineman, whose life changes after he has an encounter with an unidentified flying object. However, the United States government is also aware of the UFOs as is a team of international scientific researchers.

Close Encounters was a long-cherished project for Spielberg. In late 1973, he developed a deal with Columbia Pictures for a science fiction film. Though Spielberg receives sole credit for the script, he was assisted by Paul Schrader, John Hill, David Giler, Hal Barwood, Matthew Robbins and Jerry Belson, all of whom contributed to the screenplay in varying degrees.

The title is derived from astronomer/ufologist J. Allen Hynek’s classification of close encounters with aliens, in which the third kind denotes human observations of actual aliens or “animate beings”.

Filming began in May 1976. Douglas Trumbull served as the visual effects supervisor, while Carlo Rambaldi designed the aliens. Close Encounters was released in November 1977 and was a critical and financial success. The film was reissued in 1980 as Close Encounters of the Third Kind: The Special Edition, which featured additional scenes. A third cut of the film was released to home video (and later DVD) in 1998. The film received numerous awards and nominations at the 50th Academy Awards, 32nd British Academy Film Awards, the Saturn Awards and has been widely acclaimed by the American Film Institute. In December 2007 it was deemed “culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant” by the United States Library of Congress and selected for preservation in National Film Registry.

I went back to the 90’s and made up a list of the 30 best movies from 1990-1999. Enjoy. I will not take any shit for placing The Godfather part III so high up on the list. It is an excellent motion picture and it makes me cry every time I see it.

1. Schindler’s List (1993) Director: Steven Spielberg
2. Goodfellas (1990) Director: Martin Scorsese
3. The Godfather part III (1990) Director: Francis Ford Coppola
4. In the Name of the Father (1993) Director: Jim Sheridan
5. Silence of the Lambs (1991) Director: Jonathan Demme
6. JFK (1991) Director: Oliver Stone
7. Casino (1995) Director: Martin Scorsese
8. Pulp Fiction (1994) Director: Quentin Tarantino
9. Eyes Wide Shut (1999) Director: Stanley Kubrick
10. The Big Lebowski (1998) Director: Joel Coen
11. Scent of a Woman (1992) Director: Martin Brest
12. Groundhog Day (1993) Director: Harold Ramis
13. As Good As It Gets (1997) Director: James L. Brooks
14. Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991) Director: James Cameron
15. Shine (1996) Director: Scott Hicks
16. Shawshank Redemption (1994) Director: Frank Darabont
17. Leaving Las Vegas (1995) Director: Mike Figgis
18. A Few Good Men (1992) Director: Rob Reiner
19. The Remains of the Day (1993) Director: James Ivory
20. Dances with Wolves (1990) Director: Kevin Costner
21. The English Patient (1996) Director: Anthony Minghella
22. Heat (1995) Director: Michael Mann
23. The Nightmare Before Christmas (1993) Director: Henry Selick
24. American Beauty (1999) Director: Sam Mendes
25. The Fugitive (1993) Director: Andrew Davis
26. Magnolia (1999) Director: Paul Thomas Anderson
27. Donnie Brasco (1997) Director: Mike Newell
28. Misery (1990) Director: Rob Reiner
29. Se7en (1995) Director: David Fincher
30. The Talented Mr. Ripley (1999) Director: Anthony Minghella

THE TRAILERS FOR THE TOP 3 BEST MOVIES OF 1990-1999

[Mais uma resenha. Essa é de um filme: “E.T., o extra-terrestre, de Steven Spielberg”. Foi escrita há uns cinco anos atrás e estava nos meus arquivos. Antes que a perdesse, dei uns retoques, uma atualizada e resolvi postá-la. ]

 (***)

Eu não tinha senão seis anos incompletos. Todo fim de ano a família deixava nossa pequena Cantagalo para passarmos o reveillon com minha avó e meus tios em São Gonçalo. Então, todo ano íamos a Niterói assistir a todos aqueles filmes espetaculares do fim dos 70 e início dos 80 que estreavam nas proximidades do Natal.O cinema americano vivia um boom, o início do que hoje chamamos de “blockbusters”, que deve ter se iniciado com “Tubarão” do próprio Spielberg e se desenvolveu com “Stars Wars” e adentrou os 80 com mega-produções.

Era a primeira vez que eu entrava numa sala de cinema. “E.T., o extra-terrestre” de Spielberg era o filme. E é. Fiquei totalmente deslumbrado com o que vi durante a projeção. Um mundo novo se abriu para mim. Talvez tenha sido o primeiro filme a que assisti conscientemente na vida, pelo menos foi o primeiro que a minha memória afetiva registrou. Aquilo foi um espetáculo grande demais para meu coraçãozinho de menino interiorano. Fantasia, emoção, coração. Não sei por quanto tempo ainda, mas a história da relação do menino Elliot com o E.T. povoa meus sonhos até hoje.

Lembro-me de que saí da sala de projeção planando mais alto que as bicicletas voadoras do filme. Aquele filme criou dentro de mim um espaço para que eu pudesse sonhar acordado. Uma “nova realidade” estava criada. O E.T. era agora meu amigo imaginário e talvez ali começasse a brotar em mim os primeiros lampejos de criatividade artística. Sempre gostei muito de escrever e de desenhar. Lembro-me  de que eu, meu irmão e meus primos chegávamos a encenar o filme, com ensaio e tudo, como numa peça de teatro. O palco era nosso quintal, dividíamos os papéis entre nós e eu era uma espécie de “diretor” (ah! sempre essa mania de querer ir além da superficialidade, ou, de acordo com um “teste”: hiperatividade nerd…).

O fato é que “E. T.” abriu o caminho para que eu pudesse entrar no mundo da arte. Um mundo de sonho, de magia, de emoção. O mundo da imaginação. Talvez por isso dissessem de mim que sempre andava no mundo da lua. Desde esse primeiro contato, arte para mim é aquilo que me fala ao coração. Para mim, os melhores poemas, romances, músicas ou filmes são aqueles que me rasgam as entranhas e se alojam no coração. Sem esse primeiro impacto, talvez eu não passe do primeiro minuto de uma canção, dos primeiros 30 minutos de um filme ou das 50 primeiras páginas de um livro. Talvez este seja mais um defeito meu. Ser “romântico” demais. Mas eu nem mesmo sei o que significa ser romântico. Só sei que conheço este sentimento, ainda hoje, tantos anos depois. A culpa é do Elliot.

Paranormal Activity is one of the worst films I have ever seen in my life. You want scared? Watch Hitchcock. For that matter watch anything on the series: A HAUNTING.

That’ll teach you what’s scary and what’s not!

OREN PELI, first time director of this load of crap was scared of ghosts all his life? Well, maybe he could see them and is a medium and needed to acknowledge their existance instead of being afraid. He states he was even afraid of GHOSTBUSTERS, the movie. This guy is an idiot but he is a ISRAELI IDIOT so in the eyes of a person like Steven Spielberg HE IS GOD.

Spielberg claims when he saw the movie his the room he was in sealed itself up by locking his doors and he couldn’t get out. He returned the DVD in a “garbage  bag” because he said the DVD was “haunted”.

I WILL NEVER WATCH ANOTHER SPIELBERG MOVIE AGAIN – THIS MAN IS CRAZY.

—Bonju Patten

Il celebre fumetto franco-belga “Tin Tin” trasposto sul grande schermo in una trilogia di animazione 3D diretta da Spielberg e Peter Jackson

Il nuovo film diretto da Steven Spielberg, The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn dopo aver completato la fotografia principale in soli 32 giorni, in cui è stata realizzata la performance-capture lensing del film dalla Weta, è entrato nella fase intensiva della post produzione, a cui subentrerà il produttore Peter Jackson che si occuperà per i prossimi 18 mesi degli effetti speciali della pellicola.

The Secret of the Unicorn sarà il primo film di una trilogia a cui stanno collaborando Spielberg che dirigerà la prima pellicola e Jackson che sarà il regista della seconda e il responsabile degli effetti speciali dell’intera franchise. La seconda pellicola verrà girata probabilmente subito dopo la prima ma lo studios non ha ancora dato il via libera, perché si sta aspettando ancora la sceneggiatura.

È stato invece scelto come responsabile della colonna sonora per il primo film il compositore John Williams (Le due trilogie di Star wars, Lo squalo, Indiana Jones).

Il film racconta le avventure di TinTin (Jamie Bell), un giovane ed intrepido reporter alla ricerca di buone storie da seguire, che lo catapultano in un mondo di avventure. Nel cast Daniel Craig nei panni del nefasto Red Rackham, Andy Serkis interprete del capitano Haddock, Simon Pegg di Thompson e Nick Frost di Thomson.

Il film uscirà nei cinema nel 2011. 

Non vedo l’ora! Mi manca il cartoon di questa serie! EhEh non a caso il mio avatar è TinTin e Milù!

Qui a Latveria, come pure di la a dISPENSER, ci piace interessarci non solo di quelli che sono dei fighi senza se e senza ma, come Galactus o che ne so, Nick Fury. Non siamo così limitati e prevedibili! Cosa credi? Infatti, in barba a quello che credevi tu, ci piace anche porgere la nostra attenzione verso quei personaggi considerati da qualcuno marginali, che però a noi ragazzi ci hanno trasmesso tante gioie, dolori, emoziòni… Che alla fine le emoziòni sono importanti. Mica solo il pim! pum! pam! Per cui per questa volta abbiamo chiesto al nostro lector d’eccezione, Costantino della Gherardesca, di dare vita con la sua profonda voce al fragile animo di…

KAREN PAGE

Cliccare per ascoltare in streaming…

Avete presente il luogo comune dell’uomo che si porta a letto la sua segretaria? Ecco, la storia d’amore tra Matt Murdock e Karen Page inizia proprio così. Lui è un avvocato non vedente. Lei invece una ragazza bella, bionda e fresca di laurea. I due, inevitabilmente, si innamorano. Le cose vanno talmente bene che Murdock decide addirittura di fare uno strappo alle regola numero uno del mondo dei fumetti e rivela alla bellissima ragazza la sua seconda identità. Di notte, si mette una tutina rossa aderente e – grazie ai suoi sensi superpotenziati – si impegna nella lotta contro il crimine. È infatti Devil: L’uomo Senza Paura. La loro storia d’amore andrà avanti anni, fino a quando Karen non lascierà New York alla volta di Holywood per tantare di diventare una stella del Cinema. Ce la farà, ma nei film di Scorsese o Spielberg, ma in squallide vhs pornografiche. Già che c’è, la ragazza decide di darsi anche all’eroina. Devastata da anni di abusi, Karen Page durante una violenta crisi d’astinenza “vende”, in cambio di una dose, la vera identità di Devil a uno spacciatore. Il suo gesto ha delle terribili conseguenze: Matt Murdock viene radiato dall’albo degli avvocati, perde la casa e vede morire molti dei suoi amici. Presa dal rimorso, Karen torna a New York per tentare di salvare Matt, che ovviamente la perdona. I due tornano insieme: lei si disinitossica, organizza campagne per i diritti delle donne e comincia a fare la speaker per un programma radiofonico. La sua carriera decolla e, ancora una volta, lascia Matt per insguire il successo. Ma anche se adesso è una brillante donna in tailleur, gli anni di vizi si pagano: Karen scoper di avere l’AIDS. Poco importa però: poco dopo, per evitare che il suo amore di una vita venga colpito da un micidiale colpo sferrato del cattivone Bullseye, morirà facendogli scudo.

Ah, pare che dopo questa performance Costantino sia stato chiamato a leggere degli audio libri di un certo spessore.
BONUS! Per non farci mancare nulla – soprattutto le foto delle donne nude – in omaggio per Voi una foto simpatica di Ellen Pompeo, ovvero colei che avrebbe dovuto portare su grande schermo Karen Page nel terribile Daredevil. Il film fortunatamente ha poi subito dei tagli e – PUF – Ellen Pompeo nel film non si vede. Un bene? Un male? Chissenefrega?

Today after I picked up kidlet from kindergarten, we jetted down to Ceres for some gloomy day movie cheer. Clue strangely put us to sleep but then Miss D, kidlet, and I watched us the crap out of some Goonies. We watched every single feature it had. Maybe even to our detriment.

One of the features we watched, which I'd never seen before in its … I'm not sure what to call it? totality?, was a two-part music video put together by director Richard Donner, theme songstress and my fantasy fairy godmother Cyndi Lauper, with a cameo by producer Steven Spielberg, to promote the film. I don't even have words for the surreality of watching the video. It was really something. I will not soon forget it. These are my neutral words.

[The video features] World Wrestling Federation pro-wrestlers André the Giant, Captain Lou Albano, Rowdy Roddy Piper, Wendy Richter, The Fabulous Moolah, The Iron Sheik, Nikolai Volkoff, Freddie Blassie; Steven Spielberg; The Goonies cast (except for Kerri Green, Anne Ramsey, Joe Pantoliano, Robert Davi and John Matuszak*); and the relatively unknown Bangles as a group of female pirates. Roseanne Barr appears as the “sea hag”. Lauper’s mother appears as “Cyndi’s mother”, reprising her role from “Girls Just Want to Have Fun”. — (the wiki)

*The lead cast members from the film who do not appear in this video are those playing Andy, Ma Fratelli, and the Fratelli brothers.

The plot runs like this: Cyndi’s folks run a Mom and Pop gas station that is being bought out by villains from the WWF, each attired as a different weird stereotype. Unfortunately, they also have dialogue. Cyndi and her brother? friend? and sister? his wife? are helping Mom and Pop (Cap’n Lou) pack up the ol’ place while the nouveau riche chew up the scenery and generally set up quickie symbols of their wealth such as a Benihana-type joint in the middle of the parking lot, which many consider the international sign of good taste and refinement, some to the point of exclusion. (Do not even try to talk dimsum on rollerskates to them; they will not listen.)

Cyndi discovers a secret cave behind a painting of their grand-ancestor, where she encounters the Goonies, who help her decode a map she lifted off a dead guy — real fuckin’ nice, Cyn — but then some pirates show up, and Roseanne Barr. Oh my god, nightmare combination! The Bangles are there, too, but they do not try to sing. In the chase that ensues, Cyndi stops real quick for some hibachi, creating a prevalent and provocative ongoing theme in the video.

Perhaps this is meant to make us reflect on the marketing of foreign cuisine in America, or on materialism and the ease with which an ordinary item common to one country can acquire peculiar clout in another country. Or perhaps it is merely included in order to set up a joke that is some straight racist garbage: ie, the following picture’s caption.

The pirates and the sea hag enslave the kids at murky tasks like, um, stirring big pots, and force Cyndi to dress like a Floridian prostitute while carrying buckets and singing (they do not allow her to stop singing even once).

Cyndi and her friends manage to overthrow the pirates and get away with some loot from the ship, but the “cheatin’ creditors” will not accept it as payment for Mom and Pop’s debt on the shop. Not even when she repeatedly bites it to prove its value! I know, right? If only she had offered them some fresh, dope funky fun hibachi.

As it is, Cyndi grows weary of attempting to convince the creditors to accept her jewels as payment, and whistles as one only does for a taxicab or deus ex machina. And what is it going to be?

Why, it’s Andre the Giant, and I am pretty sure he is literally still wiping coke from under his nose when he first appears! He beats up and chases away the creditors, which means the debt is legally and officially cleared forever, duh, and the video ends with this triumphant shot.

Oh, my god, I want that to happen to me every day after I die. I believe in an afterlife, unless I am in a particularly foul and doubtful and wobegone mood, and of course Andre the Giant is there waiting for me so we can finally hang out and stuff, and I hope so fervently that every single day when I greet him in Heaven he scoops me up and we cheer and do ’80s fistpumps in the air. It’s gonna be sick.

So here’s the video if after a report on all that insanity you need audiovisual confirmation of its existence.

Finally, my secret crush from this movie may be reported to be Data, because I squeal when he comes on screen, but really deep down it’s actually:

Martha Fuckin’ Plimpton. Her and Jan Brady can come live with me and finally be appreciated the way they deserve.

By Critic Jasper Pennies

So I watched The Fourth Kind with my new girlfriend Pam last night and I just want to start off by saying, “what the hell?!” This movie was a terrible sequel to Close Encounters of the Third Kind. For one thing, it revolved mostly around mysterious owls that hang out at people’s windows and give them nightmares. I do not remember seeing one owl in Close Encounters of the Third Kind. In fact, when I think about it, this movie has more in common with Alfred Hitchcock’s The Birds. Mr. Steven Spielberg, have you lost your frickin’ mind?

Since this is a Spielberg movie, I expected amazing digital special effects but all I got was terrible camera footage. I was really confused why a great director like Spielberg did not produce something neat like Jurassic Park, you know?

I was also completely confused over how people thought this movie was anything like District 9. In the movie District 9, the protagonist gradually turned into an alien. In this movie, the protagonist was an alien in the terrible footage and was a human in the nice footage. Big difference! While, we’re on the subject, why on Earth did they keep alternating between nice footage and terrible footage? Couldn’t they have used good quality film throughout the movie? With all that technology in Hollywood, you think they could have done better!

I’m not sure why The Fourth Kind needed two different actresses to play prominent ornithologist Dr. Abigail Tyler. Is it because they couldn’t decide if they wanted an alien as a protagonist? What’s more is, this movie used two different actors for some of the other characters in the movie. That made even less sense. Doesn’t anyone realize it’s bad directing if you can’t decide on what actor you want to play your characters?

Just when you thought the movie couldn’t get any stupider, you realize just how terrible the whole plot is. For instance, I didn’t really understand why Dr. Tyler and everyone else throughout the movie were having so much trouble with owls since they’re just pests. I mean, the people in this movie were having deep emotional traumatic experiences with owls. Seriously?! Look, if you want an owl to go away, you just call your local pest control center. It’s that simple! It’s nothing too stress out about.

Speaking of owls, this movie for no reason at all gave the impression that the owls spoke in ancient Sumerian. Kinda dumb. Anyway, I am willing to stretch my imagination to accept the premise that owls can be trained to speak ancient Sumerian. However, the idea that the owls can steal Dr. Tyler’s daughter is way too much of a stretch! First, owls cannot carry something so many times their own weight. Second, Dr. Tyler is a space alien, right? So why doesn’t she just use some cool alien technology to hunt down her child and defeat the owls? I just don’t get this movie!

Mr. Spielberg, this movie was probably the most confusing and stupid movie I’ve ever watched!

I give this movie 1 owl pellet out of 10 owl pellets!

☺☺☺☺☺

Eh si quando Steven ci parla di incontri ravvicinati,di dischi volanti e di alienuncoli bitorzoluti non ce ne è per nessuno (Guerra dei Mondi, rimuovere dalla memoria), imprime nella pellicola un nonsochè di romantico che è difficile non cogliere. Portaerei e aeroplani magicamente materializzatesi nel deserto, bagliori ad intermittenza nel cielo che si inseguono a velocità impensabile e lì noi terrestri inermi e spaventati ma affascinati da un incontro inatteso.

Avvertenze:

Quando ancora gli effetti speciali lasciavano molto spazio all’immaginazione ed erano frutto più di capacità tecniche che di una programmazione al computer, oh sì allora li si poteva apprezzare.  Forse un giorno alzando la testa e rimirando le stelle troveremo ragione del fatto per cui l’universo è così grande.

Alla prossima pillola!

Hace una semana vi Julie & Julia, la nueva película de Nora Ephron y que además es la primera “major motion picture” que gira en torno a un blog.

Lo primero que hice, naturalmente, fue recomendársela a quienes habitan y dan forma al espacio murciano y que por esta condición (que puede pasar por gratuita o inofensiva y que en realidad es todo lo contrario) nos hemos hecho muchas de las preguntas que el personaje de Amy Adams se hace con respecto a la labor de dar vida y alimentar un blog: la necesidad, la realidad, el compromiso. Estas preguntas, hay que decirlo, no tienen respuesta. Pero esta falta de salidas (o de salidas fáciles) no afecta a la película que, contra todos los pronósticos, se logra sostener y cerrar después de haberse abierto como cola de globo. Lo que quiero decir es que la película ni sale volando ni se escurre. Más bien como que se congela. Y creo que ésa es su mayor virtud: evitar el hervidero. El entusiasmo que me provocó esa muestra de contención o profesionalidad narrativa me llevó a calificar la dirección de Ephron como “precisa” y al guión como “intimidante”. Ahora, es evidente que exagero.

Lo que es cierto es que la película de Ephron revela una forma muy particular, que además me gusta mucho, de hacer cine y coloca definitivamente a Ephron en el equipo de Spielberg. Es una forma que recuerda más a un campo de refugiados o a un campamento de sobrevivientes o a un grupo de soldados rasos que se juntaba en la noche a contar historias mientras esperaban el amanecer y que, al final, terminaron hablando en un código que fue producto del aislamiento. Un día estos sobrevivientes regresaron a sus países y fueron recibidos como héroes y la reintegración fue feliz. Entre ellos están o Giuseppe Tornatore o Billy Wilder o Guy Ritchie, y es ahí en donde Spielberg es la gran ballena blanca y en donde Scorsese se mueve como un submarino y en donde David Fincher es un buzo a la deriva y en donde Christopher Nolan o Jean-Pierre Jeunet amenazan con convertirse en huracán. También aquí está Alfonso Cuarón. No hay tiburones.

Por otra parte, están los directores que siguen en el campo de batalla. Ellos, salvo algunas excepciones, nunca saldrán de ahí. Tampoco tienen un código sino que aprendieron a vivir en soledad. Unos viven huyendo constantemente. Otros, como Fellini, se revuelven y saltan en el lodo frente al enemigo porque saben que son inmortales. Lars von Trier, en cambio, está herido y sus últimas fuerzas están destinadas a acribillar a quien se acerque, ya sea por traidor o por cobarde o porque sí. Hitchcock entendió el secreto de esta guerra eterna y Kubrick lo reformó. Kurosawa fue un suicida nato. Lo que más hay son fantasmas, pero con una particularidad: estos fantasmas primero fueron fantasmas y después, a fuerza del horror, se convirtieron en personas (o en algo que simulaba personas; nunca lograron perder su calidad espectral). Entre ellos están Bergman, Welles o Jean Renoir.

Todo esto, claro, es a grandes rasgos y no es verdad.

Dom Mingo

I just saw the new Star Trek movie at the IMAX in Manc. It was bloody good fun I must say. A ‘rollicking good yarn’ to quote my father. I do have two minor and admittedly geeky gripes.
The first is Simon Pegg. Not sure why I’ve just gone off him. Maybe its because he merely played Tim Bisley in Shaun of the Dead. And a strict Tim Bisley in Hot Fuzz. And Tim Bisley again in MI:III. And now plays Tim Bisley with a scottish accent. Overrated and the joke has worn thin I think. Ex-sitcom luvvies aside my major gripe is techy/nerdy one. I have never liked Star Trek until this point so it has nothing to do with the ‘Kobayashi test’ or any other Trek fan nonsense.
The retro-future is a very cool bit of production design they use well in the film and there are some great set pieces and action sequences. These are ruined, however, by the efforts of a certain Dan Mindel’s involvement in the film. I don’t know why JJ Abrams loves ’shaky-cam’ so much but its pissing me off. And other directors seem to be following suit, which pisses me off further. It worked in Cloverfield for obvious reasons, but for christ sake! I want to SEE a film! Hand-held, unstable and jerky camera work, to me, smacks of a lack of professionalism and a failure in the director’s ability to relay a story via the screen. There are moments on the Romulan ship, I kid you not, the camera completely dips out of view of the action, missing what sounds like a really cool moment. The scenes in space are gracefully more meditive, the CG for once amplifying the film not dominating it (Lucas take note). Also the sodding ‘beautiful lens flare’ effect! Once they are on the Enterprise, I still do not jest, there is a blue line of light burning across the screen every few seconds from then till the screen goes dark for the credits. It’s not pretty, its distracting and superfluous. Gahh!! I blame Spielberg.
Steven Spielberg, when Dougie Slocombe retired, went through a couple of DOP’s (Director’s of Photography) until he settled on Janus Kiminsky for Saving Private Ryan. Kiminsky developed the idea for a very new and realistic style of photography. He made the camera operators all hand carry the cameras, even strapping them to knees and arms to create human movement. He also developed a lens with panavision (the only film lens maker) with no central lenses. Okay bare with me, this gets technical. The glass in the middle of a lens absorbs a lot of the light coming through the front lens. They are normally coated so by the time it goes through the final lens to the celluloid any ‘noise’ or colour distortion is removed, essentially like putting glasses on. Kiminsky removed these which meant the light went in and bounced around and burnt straight into the film. This created a very sharp (the less lenses the more pure the image) and very bright, high contrast image. A style pretty much every review described as a ‘documentary feeling’. It worked brilliantly. You were plunged into the action and thrown around, those horrific beach landing images bright and sharp burning into your eyes. The beautiful sunsets and rain in the ruined villages displayed in all their gritty glory. Gorgeous. After that, with the exception of Minority Report I have not liked a Steven Spielberg film much. Kiminsky has worked with him since and by and large it has worked very well for him largely because I think Spielberg, while reusing boring and well trodden plots/drama, is incapable of making an Ugly film. Catch me if you Can and Crystal Skull whilst being cack films looked gorgeous with their 50’s/60’s pastoral colour and bright sharp, high contrast visuals. This works for Spielberg and Kiminsky, its stylistic, but not for anyone else.
Dan Mindel uses exactly the same technique. The Documentary Syle. It’s fucking Star Trek!! Don’t dress it down. A character in the film even says “this requires more Pomp and Circumstance”. It does! Put the steady cam on and put the lenses back in. One of the benefits of the lens removal is for natural light. Private Ryan has no sound stages in it so no studio lighting. Star Trek is almost ALL studio lighting. Very controlled which means all this shit isn’t just deliberate its actively encouraged. Why? Why, Why,Why,Why,Why,Why,Why, WHY!? Its sacchrine, disorientating, nauseating and as apposed to “bringing the audience in” as directors love to say, it means you blink a lot and try to step back, detatching yourself from the film.
I site precedence, your honour, in The Dark Knight. There is some substantial hand-held work in that film but none of it ’shaky’ except the Joker’s home videos. Watch the Hong Kong scrap. Very quick, hard, fast, you feel the punches but more importantly you SEE them. The car chase. All natural light. No lens flare. Still looks beauuuutiful.
I realise no one is interested and has probably stopped reading a long time ago but I really think its an ugly and unescessary route to go down. Style over content. Having said all this, it was a bloody good film and JJ Abrams has done a bang up job of opening Star Trek’s fanbase to include more than just 30 year old pasty white virgins still living with their mother. Though I am pasty white and Nerd I never counted myself as a fan of the originals and I still don’t but if the franchise continues (which of course it will) I could become one.
Anyway, back to why Simon Pegg has turned rubbish…