Reasons to be excited for "Lockout"

So, if you don't pay attention, you're probably not even aware that it exists, but a little sci-fi thriller by the name of "Lockout" is coming out in just a couple of weeks. Yeah, it really hasn't had a marketing push, and most people don't even know it's a thing, but I still figured I'd let you know why you should probably at least pay attention to the reviews it gets.

And before anyone mentions it: No, I don't think that Lockout is going to be a great film. I think it'll be a fun B-movie that probably will be enjoyable because it won't take itself too seriously. A good popcorn flick that's too cheap to afford good special effects that has the potential to wind up as a cult classic.

1) The Cast

Okay, so while these actors aren't exactly A-listers, they're still fairly big names, especially if you pay attention. Guy Pearce has the lead, having previously starred in movies like Memento and The King's Speech. Okay, there are a couple of dozen others, but those are the ones you'll probably recognize. The romantic lead/MacGuffin that needs to be rescued is Maggie Grace, the daughter in Taken. The supporting roles go to veteran actors Peter Stormare (Minority Report), and Lennie James (Columbiana and TV's underrated Jericho).

2) The Producer/Writer

Now, Luc Besson might not be a household name, but he's done some good work on films like The Fifth Element, Leon: The Professional, and Nikita, among many others. While he doesn't direct as often as he used to, he produces a ton, and he's one of the more hands-on producers from the accounts I've read. If you're watching a film produced by Luc Besson, he'll have been involved more than your average producer. He does good work, and if nothing else, you won't be bored while watching a film he's been attached to.

3) The Trailer

That's all I have to say about that.

Ciao,

Marter

Another Year

Like a baseball player considering retirement, the last couple of days have led me to thinking about leaving The Escapist. There are a lot of reasons to, not the least of which being the slander that occurs in the backrooms/off-site, but I've decided to give it another year of time. That means that my reviews will continue to be posted daily, that I will continue moderating, and that I'll probably post some amount as well.

I know that the fact that I got this close to leaving might actually be a surprise to some people, but considering I thought about it just about a year ago as well leads me to believe that this might end up being a early occurrence.

Anyway, I've decided to give the site at least another year, so let's strap on the party hats and get ready for a bumpy road.

Ciao,
Marter

Soccer Inter-Cities

We finished 3rd.

That's a lot better than I thought we'd do, considering I didn't see us winning a single game. We ended up beating Forza, which makes them fourth place. They were the other Calgary team, so we're actually the top Calgary team in our group.

Unfortunately, with three minutes left in the final game, my sister, our goalie, broke her wrist. Really too bad.

And now the season is over, and I'm really upset about that. I'll miss these players, and the few parents that I got to know.

Ciao,
Marter

The Reason I Don't Do Math

So, soccer inter-cities begin tomorrow. We made it, somehow, despite a terrible, terrible start to the season. We finished second in our group, meaning that tomorrow, we get to take on one Edmonton team, and one Calgary team. Sunday is against the final Edmonton team. It's a round-robin tournament. I decided to do some stat calculations about the other teams, and the results do not look good for us. In fact, how we got to the inter-cities in the first place is beyond me.

Here is what the stats look like:

We're Valencia, if you're wondering. That's right, we're the only team with a negative +/- rating, as well as the only team to lose more games total than they won. But, we'll try our best and I'll let y'all know how it goes once the tourney is over.

Ciao,

Marter

Advance Screenings

I've recently discovered just how much I love going to advance screenings of movies. Sure, they're often at not-terribly-convenient times, and sure, it takes me a long time to get to the theaters that they're at, but they're just so much fun. I get to go out and do something meaningful, while also getting to see a free movie early. What's better than that.

So I decided to look around and see how many I could try to win. Here's what I'm currently in the running for:

2 Hunger Games passes
3 21 Jump Street passes
3 Silent House passes
1 A Thousand Words pass
1 Friends with Kids pass (and I turned one down because it's during one of my classes)
1 John Carter pass

And that's about all I could find. But considering I entered all of these, there's a good chance I'll win some of 'em. And, I can usually get something from the school's newspaper, and all I have to do in return is write a review (that I'd write anyway).

Ciao,
Marter

Hospital

So, my sister's been admitted to the local children's hospital. Dunno why, exactly.

Ciao,
Marter

"Influential" and "Good"

I read something on a comment on an Alien review that got me a little riled up. For the record, it wasn't on my own review of it, and I never read the review, but the comment. It read something like this: "Thank you for recognizing true brilliance. Alien was great because it, like Star Wars, was more of a dirty sci-fi, not showing a picturesque future but a less-than-perfect one. It was also great because it featured a strong woman character, and that was influential."

The gist of it is that it's great because (1) it reinforced the fact that sci-fi movies didn't have to be overly positive, and (2) because it had a strong female character and that idea has been influential in movies nowadays.

Ignoring the fact that the first point isn't really something to praise of criticize (it's just there), let's move onto the second point. While having a strong female character is something to praise, especially for a 1970s flick, the addition that it was "influential" is what I take issue with, largely because I don't believe that films suddenly become "good" if enough movies use some of its elements. They're either always good, or contained one good idea but overall don't become classics because they've helped influence other movies. If that were the case, only a few movies ever would be great, while all others would be ripoffs. Citizen Kane isn't a great movie because its non-linear storytelling (among many other things) was used after it -- it's just great because it was well-made and engaging. Sure, it was innovative, but that just goes into how well-made it is. Innovation in and of itself isn't a big deal. I could shoot a film that's entirely upside down and call it "innovative." But would it be good? And if it were copied, would it retroactively become "good"?

I don't think so. A good movie is a good movie, and whatever comes after it will not change that for better or for worse.

Ciao,
Marter

Movies and Their Sources

I posted my review of Troy earlier today -- earlier than usual, in fact, as I was watching the Superbowl when I normally would be posting a review. So far, it has gotten three comments, two of which disagreed with my assessment (extremely positive), while the final one agreed. I have no qualms about that. Everyone is, after all, entitled to their opinion. I actually don't even have any issues or disagreements about the reasoning behind the complaints about the film. Both comments have claimed that it wasn't a good film because of the differences to its source material, namely Homer's Iliad.

Like I said, I have no problem with that. If you're promised an adaptation of a book, and the film doesn't deliver on how "epic" the book is or whatever, then by all means, go ahead and hate it. Maybe you had certain expectations, and the film didn't match them. That's fine. I like judging the films based on its own merits, but that's very difficult to do and I know I fall into the trap of comparing them if I read the book beforehand. It happens.

However, what I don't understand is the idea that if something is explained in the book, then it automatically holds true for the film. For instance, in Troy, I made an offhand comment about Achilles' disdain for not wearing armor during the battle scenes. I didn't make a big issue of it, but his reasoning didn't make a lot of sense to me. In one of the comments, I had it all explained to me:

As for the not wearing armour thing - A major point in the Iliad was that Patroklos scared the Trojans shitless wearing Achilleus' armour, until he wound up dead - the reason Achilleus came back into the fight and had a grudge against Hektor.

I'll leave spelling mistakes there, because far be it for me to alter someone else's writing.

Now, and maybe I'm crazy for thinking this, but if this isn't explained in the film, then you can't use it in assuming that this is what's motivating the character. A great deal of other things were changed from The Iliad, so explain to me exactly why we're taking that book's explanation when a lot of it has otherwise been disregarded. If it's not in the film, it doesn't count.

When fans of a film try to use non-film material to try to defend it, it bothers me. The same thing happened, if I'm remembering correctly, with American Psycho. I was "wrong" in criticizing its non-existent point because, in the book, it's totally clear. How does that make any sense? If the film doesn't do a good enough of bringing something across, then that's the film's fault. (And the filmmakers', I suppose.) If it's in the book, then that's all good and dandy, but the book isn't what we're watching on-screen. It is a separate entity and if it's not translated properly, then it's not the audience's fault for not picking up on something they're not being exposed to.

Ciao,
Marter

"The Informers" and "American Psycho"

After not being able to decide what movie to watch tonight, I took to Twitter. I asked whether I should watch 2009's Cracks or 2008's The Informers. General audience members will be unfamiliar with both, but I got a response. I ended up watching The Informers. It was only after that I remembered it was written by the same guy who wrote American Psycho.

In case you can't remember, my thoughts on American Psycho can be summarized by one sentence: I didn't like that movie. And that's putting it gently. I remember taking a lambasting once I posted that review; people were outraged that I didn't like their little satire of 1980s Yuppie culture. I know it wasn't a universally lauded film, but that didn't matter: I was wrong for not liking their movie.

What strikes me as odd is not that, but that The Informers -- a film set in the 80s involving a bunch of unhappy people having sex and doing drugs -- is perfectly okay to hate. Tonally, the films are similar, and I suspect that some sort of social commentary was intended with both. After watching them, I think I liked Psycho more if only because Christian Bale's performance was better than anyone in The Informers by a long shot. But the films are so similar that it makes it hard for me to grasp the idea that one could be so loved, while the other was perfectly okay to dislike.

I would love for someone to explain this disparity to me, but I doubt that'll happen any time soon.

Ciao,
Marter

Tomorrow

Tomorrow will be awesome. I went in today to get the pass for an advanced critic screening for Big Miracle. Tomorrow, I get to go to that. I am, let's say, super pumped. I'll then come home and write my review, send that off, and then go to soccer. We finally won our first game last time out, and I'm looking forward to seeing what we'll do tomorrow.

Should be a super fun day!

Unfollow Me

I have two reasons for saying this (and neither is particularly serious).

(1) For whatever reason, I've started to listen to Britney Spears. It was the song called "I Wanna Go" that got me listening to her, and now I'm actually starting to kind of enjoy some (many) of her songs. You may also kill me. I'm okay with that.

(2) I realize I don't use this blog much. I should, but I don't. I apologize for that, but I probably won't end up posting much regardless of the fact that I acknowledge it.

PS: Starting to write for the university paper soon. Should be fun. I get to go to press screenings for movies! =D

Ciao,
Marter

A plan

So, I'm about 30 or so reviews away from 500. I have all of those 30, and then some, written, but only 467 are currently posted.

I decided I'm going to do something big for #500. Not just the film or review itself, but I'm going to do something fun: Release all 500 as an ebook.

More details coming soon. Work is being done to convert all of the reviews into one, readable, ebook. It will hopefully be available on the iBook store.

Ciao,
Marter

A Question

Something I was wondering, and something I'll probably write more on when it's not 12:04AM: Does starring consistently in bad movies make you a bad actor?

"Sucker Punch"

I lied. Well, I didn't intend to lie, but it turn out that way. After my post on New Year's, I claimed that Sucker Punch would be on TV and that I was going to go watch it. My Blu-ray hadn't arrived yet, and I was going to compare the theatrical and extended cuts anyway, so that seemed like a good idea.

Then, Movie Channel happened. For some unexplained reason, they decided to crop the HD feed of Sucker Punch. They made its aspect ratio 1.77:1, despite Sucker Punch being filmed at 2.40:1. That's a big difference. I hate that, and I refuse to watch movies when that type of thing happens. So, I didn't watch it. I spent New Year's doing nothing, going to be early, and then being woken up at both 12:00AM and 1:00AM thanks to "Happy New Year's" texts on my phone. I forgot to put it on vibrate.

Anyway, I did say this next post would be happy. I got my Blu-ray today. That made me happy. Gonna be watching it tonight. Should be fun.

Ciao,
Marter