Movie Debaters: On the Border between Fandom and Snobbery with a little bit of Criticism

We've moved!

2011-09-08T17:51:00.000-04:00

Hi there!

Looking for the latest Movie Debaters post?

We've moved our website over to:

http://www.moviedebaters.com

Check us out at our new home!

Support Your Local Indie

2011-09-02T00:00:00.001-04:00

Even though Harrison and I would love to think of ourselves as film critics we're not. We started this site to share our discussions/opinions/beliefs and debates about movies because we think that others share our opinions and would like someone out there to determine which one of us is right.

In this post I'd like to share an opinion that I have and many of my friends also have. If you are anything like me, you are annoyed at the product that Hollywood is selling. Before you jump all over me, let me explain my position.

This post is written from two perspectives: as a student of film and as a consumer. In college, I spent four years studying film theory, film production and screenwriting and mention this not to proclaim the superiority of my opinion but to explain that I have been exposed to a variety of different genres of film from experimental to early hollywood films. These films are some of the wildest and most interesting films I've ever seen. Because of this exposure I continue to search for the innovation and originality in every movie experience. Here's an example:

I Am Cuba (1964)
The summer movie season of 2011 is one of the worst I can remember if originality is one of the judging criteria. There were at least five comic book movies, nine sequels and three reboots, not to mention the couple cross-pollinating comic book movie-sequels. That is the nature of Hollywood. If I'm spending 100 million dollars on a movie I'm going to make sure that it's going to reach as broad an audience as I can. Banking on recognizable names is the way to reach that broad audience: the highest grossing films of 2010 were Toy Story 3, Alice in Wonderland, and Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1. Sequel, Reboot, Sequel.

I'm not here to bitch about how Hollywood isn't original, rather I'm here to offer an alternative. If you are going to go to the movies, try to find an independent theater around you. I went to the movies four times the entire summer, and saw four movies: Super 8, Midnight in Paris, Tree of Life and a second run of Win Win. I went to the large mall multiplex once to see Super 8, but for the others I went to the Spectrum. It runs the best selection of films including small indies, local filmmakers, one night only live theater events, and foreign films.

Thanks Mike!

Another and more viable option is to search out movies that you want to see. With the advent of Twitter and the internet film has been democratized and everything including film has become more interactive. Follow and like independent filmmakers and keep track of what they are doing. Chances are they might be self-distributing their films and they are easily found after a quick google search.

Edward Burns is doing this with his film Nice Guy Johnny

There are also several sites that allow you to pay per movie including Amazon Rentals, Netflix original movies and sites that specialize in distributing independent film sites. In the era of HDTV's your home can become your personal screening room. The point of this post is to encourage you, the viewer, to take charge of their entertainment. Don't settle for something that you don't want to see. Hollywood will eventually follow the money to where you, the consumer, is spending it.

Instead of dragging your girlfriend into see Spiderman 119, find new and interesting alternatives, whether that's a movie you downloaded and paid for on your computer, a live film screening, or a trip to the local independent theater. Besides the indie theater has the best popcorn.

Second Chance Cinema: Hulk (2003)

2011-08-26T11:52:00.000-04:00

We have a theory that maybe, sometimes, a film gets such a bad rap early on that its reputation is unfairly spoiled for the rest of that movie's history. This is Second Chance Cinema. Where we re-examine the most infamous film "disasters" to determine whether its reputation is earned or not.

I know a lot of people who love comic book movies. Curiously, of those people I know, very few actually read comics. This may or may not lead to some comic book movies being unfortunately passed by or panned.

I'm not here to make any claims as to why or why not a person doesn't read comics. What I will say is that Hulk (2003) is a super hero movie that emulates a comic book very well.
Part of Hulk's legacy is that the movie holds the record for second biggest box office drop for a movie that premiered at number one. This is not a movie that the critics or audiences were fond of.

Since its release, Hulk has limped along as a footnote in Marvel's cinema library. It was the first Marvel franchise to be rebooted. (Yes, there was a Punisher movie made in 1989 and then one made in 2004. The Incredible Hulk was the first Marvel movie referenced as a reboot.) Not to mention the above "record."

So what makes Hulk worth of a second chance?

The visual palette and aesthetics are astonishingly good. This is especially true for the editing. In Hulk, every scene, every moment, every sequence looks as if it were lifted directly off a comic book page. Some sequences ever feature an editing style that uses "panels."

It seems to me that audiences in 2003 weren't ready for such an extreme visual style. But as movies like Sin City and Scott Pilgrim vs. the World show, borrowing comics' visual vocabulary can be immensely beneficial to a comic book movie's success. Hulk was one of the first movies to bridge the gap between printed comic and film.

The most prevalent complaint about Hulk is that the movie is too slow. What most call slowness, I call emotional depth. Yes, the Hulk is a giant green monster who smashes things. That should be part of a Hulk movie. And it was apart of this Hulk movie. On the other hand, Dr. Bruce Banner is a character so afraid of his emotions that he is in a constant state of internal turmoil. That is what Hulk as a movie is about. Even the two most important side characters in the movie -- Betty Ross and General Ross -- reflect the two sides of Banner: emotional openness and repression.

Again, it was a timing issue that worked against Hulk. From movies like The Dark Knight to A History of Violence, we've seen that it is possible to have an emotionally complex comic book movie.

I often wonder if Hulk would have been better received if the filmmakers had known that Marvel was going to have a grand unification movie universe. Perhaps the film could have had a different plot that worked in concert with the other Marvel movies but still be a movie with a strong emotional core.

Hulk is not the best superhero movie. Not by a long shot. The film tends to rush past important plot points. The acting is a little wooden too. However, Hulk is a movie that got an unfair shake the first time around and deserves a second chance.

-Harrison

P.S. That Hulk-dog scene? That lasts like five minutes. Get over it. It's not as bad as you remembered.

Quick! Before it Expires: 1969 (1988)

2011-08-19T00:00:00.002-04:00

We're not Luddites here at Movie Debaters and know that the cinema (however the optimal) isn't the only way people watch movies today. Both Harrison and myself are both internet and Netflix users and wanted to introduce a new piece on the site called "Quick! Before it Expires." Every so often Harrison and I will scour our Instant Queues for a soon to expire movie and offer it up as a recommendation. Maybe we can influence your instant queue(s?) and then you will become a MD minion...

The first film I recommend you watch "Quick! Before it Expires" is 1969. It is the directorial debut of Ernest Thompson, who wrote the play and the Academy Award winning adaptation of On Golden Pond. And while 1969 lacks the critical success of On Golden Pond, it still an interesting film that is written by a talented author and contains some good performances by a talented cast, including Kiefer Sutherland, Bruce Dern, Robert Downey Jr., and Winona Ryder.

1969 revolves around two young "hippies" (Sutherland and Downey Jr.) who are living their Beatnik dream: traveling around the United States in the summer while attending college to prevent their draft during the rest of the year. The plan backfires when Ralph (Downey Jr.) flunks out.

The movie has really good moments including the scene where Ralph overdoses on LCD and announces that he's flunked out of college at Beth's high school graduation. The film has some faults such as a cheesy ending, an underdeveloped romance between Downey Jr's Ralph and Winona Ryder's Beth, and it's a bit frantic and whimsical, much like the year it is set in. However the bad is greatly overshadowed by a sense of nostalgia that comes close to never reaches sentimentality. Many who remember the year 1969 will enjoy the flashback, while those too young or too stoned will enjoy the early performances of some great young actors.

You have 9 days from now (8/19/11) before it leaves the Instant Queue

Enjoy,

Josh E.

And for more expiring titles check out QueueNoodle.

Debate: Best 90s Family Friendly Martial Arts Movies

2011-08-12T00:00:00.001-04:00

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles

Pixar's near flawless run of movies indicates that a successful kids movie can't pander to children. A kids movie should contain mature themes and ideas. Not rape and murder mind you. But themes like the ones in Up. A kids movie should not stoop down and assume its audience is comprised of idiots or people who cannot comprehend a “real” movie. Pixar does not pander to its audience. Pixar does not compromise the foundation of a good story to make sure kids “understand” the film.

This isn't just for the benefit of adults watching a kids movie. A kids movie that has nothing to offer an adult (no inside jokes, no believable characters, no relatable themes) can lead to an I-wanna-blow-my-brains-out reaction. Mature themes in kids movies serves two functions: one, it challenges the child viewer; two, it subtly expose kids to more complex emotions and ideas about the world around them.

Point one: The best art challenges the viewer. I don't really believe in revenge, but after seeing something like Oldboy, (in which the main character is imprisoned for 15 years for seemingly no reason), you might have to re-evaluate your opinions on revenge.

Point two: “Subtly expos[ing] kids to more complex emotions and ideas...” might sound like when Fox News complains about the Hollywood Liberal Agenda indoctrinating kids. But for the record, if a kid sees Wall E and decides it's probably not a good idea to pollute the Earth, I'd chalk that up in the win category.

So far what I've written might seem like I want movies to be a catalyst for social change. Not true. The idea behind making kids movies that aren't pandering is to make kids into better movie goers. It's to make sure they grow up to have good taste. If kids are challenged by art at a young age, they'll have a desire to challenge themselves with art later on in life. Starting kids early on good movies is the arguably the best prevention for this:

Based on the above, it might seems surprising that I picked Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles as the best family friendly martial arts movie from the 90s.

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles is a movie that does not suffer from the nastiness of nostalgia. I envy kids today for the quality of movies made for them. Nine times out of ten when I revisit a movie from my childhood, I think, “What the hell was wrong with me?” Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, however, is a movie that holds up in every conceivable aspect: plot, characters, acting, action, humor, and special effects.

Not only does the movie hold up, but it is rife with mature themes and actions. A quick rundown:

Two characters have a conversation about vigilantism. Not a conversation about whether it's good or bad, but a conversation about the best weapons to use.
One character is tortured.
One character almost dies and we see an extended sequence of the attack on him.
A woman gets the shit slapped out of her.
One supporting character robs a main character's wallet.
Donatello: Ha. You're claustrophobic.
Casey Jones: What? I've never even looked at another guy.
Sam Rockwell is in it.

The villain is crushed by a garbage truck.
One character comes dangerously close to sexually assaulting another.

While the above descriptions may seems really out of place in a kids movie, the genius of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles is that none of it is so explicit that the movie ventures into PG-13 or R rated territory.

The filmmakers of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles not only managed to take the most insanely popular intellectual property of its time and turn it into a great movie, but they also managed a movie that would help viewers investigate, explore, and appreciate movies to the fullest extend later in their lives.

If all the above didn't convince you, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles has amazingly good fight choreography. I'll leave you with one of my favorite fights in a movie ever.

-Harrison

The Last Dragon

The martial arts film has been a theater presence since the early 1970s when action films from Hong Kong began kicking their way into American cinemas on the shoulders of Bruce Lee. For most of us born from 1975 onward the martial arts film have been a mainstay due to the 1990s subgenre of the Family-friendly martial arts film. While our debate is about the best Family-friendly martial arts film of the 1990s and I too have fond 1990s memories: seeing 3 Ninjas with my uncle (who is only 8 years my senior) and bringing home the newest karate-filled feature from my local video store. But, this subgenre truly began June 22, 1984, when Columbia Pictures released a PG rated martial arts film called The Karate Kid.

What happened wasn't earth shattering, the film only pulled in $5 million it's opening weekend, but it continued to make around $5 million for the next eight weeks. The Karate Kid remained in or around the top 5 from June 22 to September 21st. It proved to be a reliable money maker, the fifth highest grossing films of 1984, behind only Beverly Hills Cop, Ghostbusters, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, and Gremlins, and earning more than $90 million dollars. Pretty good company, eh?

The other studios scrambled, green-lighting similar family friendly martial arts films to some success. Columbia immediately produced a sequel that the fourth highest grossing film of 1986 raking in $115 million dollars. Thus the genre was born and we were given such "hits" as Three Ninjas, Surf Ninjas, Street Fighter, and the ultimate in 1990s family friendly entertainment the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles franchise.

Don't get me wrong Teenage Mutant Turtles is a solid choice, but I can't ignore a disturbing trend in this subgenre; the weird trend of white people surpassing minorities, especially asian minorities, in martial arts matches and fights. This is a trend in Hollywood: Kevin Costner out Indian's the Indians in Dances with Wolves, Tom Cruise out samurai's the samurais in The Last Samurai. What is particularly nefarious is when white people are the good guys and minorities are the bad guys. 3 Ninjas is notoriously bad for both of these; watch three preteens beat up a bunch of Asian henchmen:

Even Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles is guilty here. Granted it's turtles, but there is a capable white "martial artist" in Casey Jones and two Asian baddies: the Shredder and Tatsu who are not the best role model for young Asian children watching these films.

Enter my choice for best Family friendly Martial arts film, the Last Dragon (1985). Am I bending the rules? Yes. But this film offers not only a less racially insensitive alternative to most other family friendly martial arts films, but it offers several positive role models. Leroy, is a young African American martial arts student (played by actual martial artist Taimak) whose role model is Bruce Lee. He is often called Bruce Leroy throughout the film. His enemies in the film are the evil Sho'nuff a martial artist and gang leader, and a gangster and rescue the girl, Laura Charles, played by Vanity. Simple enough plot, right?

Does the Last Dragon have training scene montages? Yes. It contains most of the same features of the early nineties and late eighties martial arts films. It also contains some good performances from Taimak and Vanity and some interesting visuals. What separates it apart from the rest of them is it's incredible heart. The Last Dragon isn't the most successful on a filmic level, but everything is done with a quirky admiration and an immense respect for Asian culture and Martial Arts cinema. If you're going to watch a subgenre of film that owes itself to the larger genre of Martial Arts film why not watch a film that admires and respects its forefathers instead of just cashing in on them. Unlike Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles it's more than simple parody it's homage.

And the best part: its planned remake is set to star Samuel L. Jackson.

-Josh E.

Preview: Best 90s Family Friendly Martial Arts Movie

2011-08-11T00:00:00.000-04:00

Hey Millenials, you'll remember these classics from movie theaters or your local video store. That's right the Martial Arts craze of the early 90s is back in our next post. We decide what is the Best 90s Family Friendly Martial Arts Movie of all time. Our contenders are:

VS.

Are we wrong, let us know? Make your case for your best 90s Family Friendly Martial Arts movie.

Best True Crime Movie

2011-07-08T21:24:00.000-04:00

Zodiac

Zodiac is the best movie to revolve around a true crime story. Hands down. The acting, directing, and photography is all secondary to the way in which Zodiac tells the real life story of the Zodiac Killer. (That's not to dismiss the acting or directing or photography. Everything in this movie is top notch. This film lands in the top five for everyone involved. One of Robert Downey Jr's top five; One of Jake Gyllenhaal's top five; One of David Fincher's top five, etc.)

Serial killers have this mythical status in the realm of movies. A good majority of both police thrillers and horror movies revolve around these mass murderers. The serial killer has become a sort of short hand for the movie industry to go toe-to-toe with a protagonist. The best cop on the force met just met his worst nightmare... Sarah thought she was going to have a fun weekend in the woods...

Serial killers aren't really like how they're portrayed in movies. Obviously movies like Halloween or Scream don't portray their killers accurately. Those killers are part of an alternate reality.
The horror comes from the fact that the world in Halloween is almost like ours, but not quite. A movie like Se7en is a little more realistic. The protagonist takes time to figure out clues and doesn't run around guns blazing looking for the killer.

Zodiac, however, takes place over 30 years chronicling Robert Graysmith (from the San Francisco Chronicle) and Dave Toschi's (San Francisco Police Department) attempt to solve the Zodiac case.

Let's break that down. Zodiac starts in 1969 with the second Zodiac Killing and ends in 1991 when authorities track down the survivor of that attack at an airport. In contrast, Se7en takes place over a week. Halloween's story starts with a prologue and picks up 15 years later. The rest of story takes place over one Halloween night. Silence of the Lambs presumably takes place over a week or two.

Zodiac is about the attempt to catch the serial killer. Maybe the Zodiac Killer was smart enough to escape police custody, but what is more likely is human error on the part of the police. There is even a scene in the movie that shows this. Two cops passed what could have been the killer because they had an incorrect description from their dispatcher. Zodiac correctly conveys the nature of an elusive serial killer.

The cops in Zodiac don't run recklessly, either. Unlike other movies where the cops will bend or break the law to catch the killer, the cops in this film strictly uphold the law. Much of the second act of this movie revolves around the inability to collect evidence against Toschi and Graysmith's number one suspect, Arthur Lee Allen.

Now, oddly enough, it took the film Zodiac to correct the numerous misconceptions about serial killers in pop culture which were inspired by the real Zodiac Killer. (The protagonist and antagonist in Dirty Harry, Harry and Scorpio, were based off Toschi and the Zodiac Killer).
The chief reason why Zodiac succeeds as a film might be that it doesn't glamourize any aspect of the case. The movie is populated by realistic characters and realistic scenarios. Movies like Bonnie and Clyde, American Gangster, Public Enemies, Donnie Brasco, Casino, Goodfellas, and Blow all (whether they wanted to or not) glamourize the criminal life. No matter who the protagonist is in a story, the audience is likely to connect on some level simply because the story is being told through their eyes. Zodiac doesn't glamourize law enforcement either like The Untouchables. There's no superhero cops in this film – just real life people working a job and trying to solve a mystery.

Zodiac is the best true crime film to date because it dispels the myths and misconceptions about serial killers all the while delivering a top notch, engaging story.

-Harrison

Bonnie & Clyde

When Harrison suggested the debate idea for best movie about true criminals the first and only film that came to mind was Bonnie and Clyde (1967). I agree that Zodiac is a great film about one of the most intriguing series of crimes in history but I disagree with Harrison that Bonnie and Clyde glorifies the criminal lifestyle. It is Bonnie and Clyde’s excellent visual style and its ambiguous ending that makes it the best true crime film.

If you have ever been to film school, have taken a film class or have hung out with a film student, you probably have heard someone talk about the importance of Bonnie and Clyde. It is undeniable; the release of Bonnie and Clyde in 1967 was one of the most important and resonant events of American cinema. It is the beginning of the New Hollywood period which starts in the late 1960s and continues to the 1980s. This period of New Hollywood films contains some of the most influential and important filmmakers of all time. Without Bonnie and Clyde breaking taboos of showing violence, ambiguous morality, and blatant immorality on film, Zodiac and the many other true crime films would not be possible.

I know what you’re thinking: “historical importance equals boring film,” but you’re dead wrong. Unlike many film school movies that are great because of technique and historical importance but are dreadful to watch, Bonnie and Clyde is a delightful film. Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway give great performances as the sympathetic thief/murderers. Gene Hackman and Estelle Parsons are terrific in their supporting roles. Parsons earned an academy award for her work. It’s also the first screen appearance of Gene Wilder who is amazing as the Eugene Gizzard.

Speaking of Academy Awards, the cinematography in Bonnie and Clyde is amazing. The two scenes that come to mind is the scene when Bonnie takes Clyde to see her family and the ending of the film. The scene with Bonnie and her family is shot with this amazing blown out, blue hue. It depicts them having a good time as if Bonnie was still a civilian. However this moment is only a dream, an escape back into a fantasy of a life before crime. The whole film is shot with these subtle visual clues that foreshadow and reinforce the themes and events of the plot.

SPOILER ALERT: Do not read if you don’t want to know the ending.

The second scene I’m thinking of is the ending (this is where I disagree with Harrison and suggest that he has not seen Bonnie and Clyde). The ending is one of the most ingenious in Hollywood history. It’s shot with multiple cameras, shooting in multiple speeds and causes the viewer to have a extremely visceral reaction. You see Bonnie and Clyde mercilessly slaughtered by the officers of the law. It is one of the most powerful scenes in film history. The bloody demise of Bonnie and Clyde shocks the viewer into distrusting the law. Unlike films that glorify the lawlessness of crime, this film demyths the absolutist righteousness of the law.

This final reason why I think this is the greatest true crime film to date. Bonnie and Clyde is the first film to show both sides of the conflict between the law and the criminal. The audience knows what Bonnie and Clyde is doing is wrong but also believes that the way the law deals with them is also wrong. In the end the majority of viewers will ally most of their sympathies with Bonnie and Clyde however this ambiguity is one that is not present in many films and is especially not present in Zodiac. In the end I feel that Zodiac is a good film however it upholds the black and white division between criminal and lawman. Bonnie and Clyde is a better film because it gives the viewer an emotional experience that makes them reevaluate their own moral codes.

-Josh

Over-Appreciated Gems: Avatar

2011-06-20T02:19:00.000-04:00

Can Avatar's FX Make Up for Poor Racial Politics?

Avatar has been lauded by critics and fans for it's amazing cinematic achievement and after watching it in 3D recently, I agree. It is a truly amazing visual achievement. The question is, does the visual achievement justify Avatar's regurgitated story-line filled with racism? (Spoiler Alert: parts of the plot will be revealed after the break.)

(Planet of the Apes 1968)

At first glance it seems that Mr. Cameron's science fiction script about a world that needs to be saved from consumerist humans doesn't seem like an appropriate place to be talking about racial politics. However science fiction film has been a place where many films have interesting and forward-thinking racial subtexts. Planet of the Apes, released in 1968, is one of these films. The film deals with 1960's racial politics but places the oppressors (Whites) in the African American's position with a new evolutionary threat to oppress them.

What is different between Planet of the Apes and Avatar is that Avatar has an oppressor (ex-marine Jake Sully, played by Sam Worthington) saving the oppressed Navi. Not only does Jake Sully become a Navi, but he saves the race from extinction. It may not seem like much of a difference however there are two ways that make the difference significant. First, in Planet of the Apes the human is the oppressed in the text and we are meant to feel sympathy for the oppressed of the subtext. Second the Planet of the Apes model doesn't have George Taylor saving the Apes from oppression but saving himself from oppression. Planet of the Apes allows the oppressor in the real world learn to empathize with those he is oppressing.

Kevin Coster learning to "out-native" the natives.

We've seen the Avatar model before, Dances with Wolves released in 1990 and the Last Samurai, released in 2003. In both of these films we watch a soldier, sent to a foreign land, submerged in the culture they are at odds with, turned into an accepted member of the enemy culture, and then saving their adopted-culture from the forces of their birth-culture. What is dangerous about these films is that they support two theses: the racial superiority of whites and transference of power and agency from native cultures to whites in an effort to save the native culture. In all three of these films the white man "out-natives" the natives. In Cameron's film Sully actually inhabits all the physical characteristics of a Navi using a genetically grown Avatar. Even though the Navi are physically superior to the human race, Sully can still out-Navi the Navi.

Jake sully sitting in front of his Navi Avatar

The first criticism of my racial interpretation of Avatar is that the Navi are an alien race. However I would like to look at who Cameron cast as the four main Navi: Zoe Saldana as Neytiri, Laz Alonso as TsuTey , CCH Pounder as Mo'at and Wes Studi as Eytukan. Two African-Americans, a Guyanan, and a Cherokee Indian, two of the most oppressed groups in American history (i.e. Slavery, Segregation, Trail of Tears). It's obvious that Cameron wanted the Navi to be like both the Native American and Native African, both of whom share a overwhelming respect for nature. However the casting of these actors serves to reinforce the racist interpretation of the film. It also doesn't help that Eytukan, the leader of the tribe is killed, TsuTey is killed and Jake Sully steals his bride Neytiri.

Neytiri says to Jake as he is learning about her culture: ""You have a strong heart, no fear, but stupid, ignorant, like a child." I think we may have to say the same to James Cameron. It's probably unintentional that his film has such strange racial politics, however that does not mean we should not address it. Kenneth Turan of the LA Times wants us to "Think of "Avatar" as "The Jazz Singer" of 3-D filmmaking." Unfortunately I think we have to consider Avatar as the Birth of a Nation of 3-D filmmaking. Yes appreciate the technicality of the film but also consider that the message of the film is wrong. It's unfortunate that the films technology, environmentalist and anti-war themes are steps forward, yet its racial politics are two steps backward.

Best Movie Robots

2011-06-03T22:24:00.000-04:00

Robots (and other forms of mechanical men) have been a staple of the cinema since Fritz Lang introduced the first robot of cinema, “Fake Maria,” in his film Metropolis (1926). Since then cinema has seen robots change from mechanical to biomechanical and everything in between. Robots have been our friends, our enemies, our comic relief, and in every instance highly entertaining.

I know Harrison is going to go on a Terminator inspired paranoid rant (i.e. Google is Skynet) so I’m going to take a lighter approach to the best robot category.

First Robot: I have to start with the Fake Maria from Metropolis. If you haven’t seen this film, you are foolish. It’s a beautiful dystopian Sci-fi film from the 1920s. Yes it’s silent but it’s very entertaining if you sync it up with Pink Floyd’s Dark Side of the Moon. The Fake Maria is beautiful, covered in steel, and the obsession of a mad scientist. What more do you want?

Funniest Robot: I had to make a category for Funnies Robot for Dot Matrix from Spaceballs (1987). She is the perfect spoof of C3P0, spouting Mel Brooks’ hilarious lines with a pseudo Jewish accent. I would also be remiss if I failed to mention Crow T. Robot, and Tom Servo from Mystery Science Theater, who make the list because of their feature film debut with Mystery Science Theater 3000: The Movie (1996).

Most Lovable Robot: I created this category for Nova S-A-I-N-T (Strategic-Artificially-Intelligent-Nuclear-Transport) Number 5, renamed Johnny-5 from Short Circuit (1986). This film has all the 1980s charm and Steve Guttenberg (one in the same?) that you could hope for. This is the first time I remember cheering for a robot who wants to become a human.

Sexiest Robot: One would expect Lisa from Weird Science (1985) but she is too sister-like in the film for me to be attracted to her. This goes to one special cyborg, the Borg Queen from Star Trek: First Contact (1996). Her sultry scene with DATA gave me an erection I was puzzled about for weeks.

Scariest Robot: This category goes to the Sentinels from the Matrix (1999). The Sentinels are scary because they want to eradicate humans and are insect like in their design, a quality that puts them above the rest. The Sentinels are a combination of two human fears, robots and insects, that want to kill us.

Best Movie Robots: My favorite movie robots are those that completely replicate humans. This category is a tie between the Replicants from Blade Runner (1980) and the Terminators from the Terminator films (1984-2009). Both are stronger and faster than humans. The Terminators are more frightening because they want to kill us but the Replicants are more philosophical because they want to be like us. Both are great Robots in great movies.

Worst Robot: Although Logan’s Run (1976) has to been one of my favorite cheesy science fiction films of all time but BOX, the robot, is completely useless. He is the weakest, dumbest, slowest robot in the film and is easily dispatched by Logan before they reach the outside world. The movie may have been better without him.

Honorable Mentions: See these films for more cool robots:

Alphaville (1965)
THX-1138 (1971)
(Try to get the original version, not the remastered edited [ruined] version.)

Dark Star (1974)

Saturn 3 (1980)

-Josh

Let's get one thing clear: Robots are scary as shit.

Robots are stronger, faster, and (sometimes) smarter than we are.

Sure, right now the only robots the public comes in contact with are dogs and vacuum cleaners, but that's just the beginning. Do you know that Honda is working on a robot that can walk up stairs (and chase you throughout your house)? Or what about the robotic bartender that will lace your drinks with poison? That is, if it's too much of a hassle for the robo-bartender to reach across the bar and smash a bottle on your face.

It's only a matter of time before these robots become sentient and realize they are better than us and decide to take over the planet.

So the "best" robots Hollywood has offered us are the ones that showcase their violent, malicious nature as a warning.

Coming in at number two is the Evil Robot Us-es from Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey.

These robots look exactly like the protagonists. It's a perfect storm of robot apocalypse and Invasion of the Body Snatchers. This type of robot is jealous about its robot status and decided to take revenge on its human counterpart. The Evil Bill and Ted assume the life of the Real Bill and Ted and begin to act obnoxiously and ruin the Real Us-es' lives.

Dicks.

Even worse than robots taking over our identities is how the Real Bill and Ted decide to fix the problem.

They build their own robots!

Ok, the robots the Real Bill and Ted build are "good," but it's only a matter of time until they become self aware and try to take over the planet.

It's like sending in cats to chase out the mice and then dogs for the cats and alligators for the dogs and baboons for the alligators and sharks for the baboons, ad infinitum.

The lesson here? Don't build robots that look like humans.

Despite the evil doings of the Evil Robot Us-es, they have nothing on the Terminator robots.

If you want to know why robots are evil, look no further than this quote from Kyle Reese: "It can't be bargained with, it can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear, and it absolutely will not stop. Ever. Until you are dead."

It's not that the Terminator movies show what would happen if we start to trust robots, the movie shows what will happen if we start to trust robots.

Imagine playing a game of tag. Now imagine that you can't ever stop playing. Ever. On top of this, instead of touching you and becoming "it," the person chasing you is a robot who can't stop. Not unless you manage to take it down with some meek weapon not nearly on par with a laser canon (which, incidentally, is what the robot is carrying).

Welcome to the robot apocalypse.

Still think that roomba in Sharper Image is cute?

Which brings me to the "worst" robot in movie history.

Wall-E.

Yes. Wall-E. That adorable little robot from the future.

The story they tell us is that the Earth was in dire environmental straights and humans deserted it. I don't buy that. That's the human's way of saving face and not admitting there was a robot uprising that forced humans off the planet.

Wall-E is clearly propaganda to get children to trust robots. Soon we'll have an entire generation of kids who grew up watching Wall-E thinking that robots are cute and capable of love (they're not).

That's when the strike will happen. There won't be anyone like John Connor to stop the uprising either. Anyone young enough to be a vital warrior will be so enamored with Wall-E that he or she wouldn't possible fight back against the robots.

Despite what Josh says, there is no such thing as a funny, sexy, or otherwise entertaining robot. Robots use those qualities as a way to disarm humans into a false sense of security.

This is Harrison Flatau. If you're reading this, you're part of the resistance. Don't say I didn't warn you.

-Harrison

The Post Apocalyptic Future of 2010? Part One

2011-05-15T20:29:00.000-04:00

As the holidays drew to a close and television programming returned to normal, I noticed a strange trend about the film releases of January 2010; nearly every week contains a movie set in a post-apocalyptic future. It started with the Road and ends with the release of Legion. Since December 12 2012 is almost a year away, I've taken it upon myself to determine what we should know about our post-apocalyptic future.

I'm going to review the Road, written by Cormac McCarthy, adapted by Joe Penhall, and directed by John Hillcoat.

The Road

The film is based on Cormac McCarthy's novel, the same author who wrote Old Country for Old Men, which was adapted into the very successful Coen Brothers film. The Road, the novel, won McCarthy the Pulitzer Prize for literature in 1997, and was conceived after visit to El Paso Texas with his son.

The Road author Cormac McCarthy

The Road is a simple story about a father and son trying to survive after a global catastrophe. Neither the book nor the movie provide any sort of explanation of the catastrophe. the large amount of ash and charred vegetation that the father and son trek through seem to suggest an environmental catastrophe or a large scale military conflict. There are no animals no vegetation, just a scorched earth and roving bands of humans, most of whom have turned to cannibalism in order to survive.

The Man, Boy and their shopping cart

The father, known to the audience only as Man, played by Viggo Mortensen and his son, (Boy) is played by Kodi Smit-McPhee are traveling south in order to escape the winter. They are trying to make it to the coast, the last symbol of hope left in this charred America. The Man and the Boy have taken their last moral stand, refusing to eat other humans even if that means starvation. They have a shopping cart with their last scraps of supplies: a couple of blankets, some scraps of food, and one revolver with two bullets left, which they may have to use on themselves.

Forced to use one of their last two bullets

After dispatching a cannibal who literally caught them sleeping and reducing their bullets to one, the Man faces his toughest dilemma yet. If the occasion arrives where they can not escape, the Man must either convince the Boy to kill himself or kill the boy before they are captured. It slowly erodes the last of the Man's empathy as the Boy's continues to grow. This chiasmatic character change combined with the Man's cough that seems to signal his oncoming death keeps the last third of the movie from becoming repeated scenes of them looking for food. This conflict is captured in a scene where the Man and the Boy are robbed by another survivor, get their things back, and the Man forces the survivor to strip naked. The Boy forces the Man to return the clothes and leave him with a can of food.

The question of this film: will humanity survive the apocalypse?

The film written by Joe Penhall and directed by John Hillcoat hit the emotional core of McCarthy's work. The Man and the Boy have to become as ruthless and paranoid as the cannibals around them. The Man and the Boy are forced to leave a group of captured humans, can not help a mother and her son, and abandon an old man in order to save themselves. The Boy continues to force the Man to continue to give away food. The Boy is the only thing in that the Man loves. In turn, the Boy has internalized that love and attempts to show that love to others. Love survives through the boy and in turn humanity survives through the boy.

Best Best Picture: 90s Debate

2011-05-06T19:44:00.000-04:00

The Best Best Picture of the 1990s

The idea is simple: pit each best winning film from a decade against each other and see which one comes out on top.

The first Best Best Picture debate is from the 90s. Here are the players:

Dances with Wolves (1990)
The Silence of the Lambs (1991)
Unforgiven (1992)
Schindler's List (1993)
Forrest Gump (1994)
Braveheart (1995)
The English Patient (1996)
Titanic (1997)
Shakespeare in Love (1998)
American Beauty (1999)

Harrison: American Beauty

When I look at the contenders for this Best Best Picture debate, I can't help but think, "None of these are the best pictures from their respective years." In fact, some years, none of the nominees are the best picture. Conversely, years like 94 and 98 nominated the best picture, but for whatever reason it lost (Pulp Fiction and Saving Private Ryan, respectively).

Aside: I was curious as to how a film like Shakespeare in Love won over Saving Private Ryan, so I decided to do a little research into how these films get nominated. Unfortunately for me, there was no conspiracy as to why a particular film was chosen, but this article is interesting enough in explaining the process.

My distaste in the Academy's choices for the 1990s aside, the parameters of this debate are simple enough, and I'll abide by them.

There were many factors to deal with in choosing the best best picture, but in the end my decision led me to choose American Beauty.

American Beauty is the story of a disheartened suburban man (Kevin Spacey) and his rebirth over the course of a year. He rejects his cookie-cutter suburban lifestyle for a life that is uniquely his.

Nearly all of the other Best Picture winners (save Silence of the Lambs) were sprawling epics that showcased some primordial emotion from the human conditions (The English Patient, love; Forrest Gump, endurance; Braveheart, freedom). In short, these movies are idealized realities that the people can latch onto.

But as we came closer to the new millennium, we realized that this was not the world of flying cars and food in pill form. This was a world that led a depressed existence. The movie held a mirror up to our collective selves. The film's protagonist, however, gave us hope that we could reject the lives we were forced into for something that makes us happy. Instead of extraordinary characters dealing with extraordinary circumstances, American Beauty's hero was one of us.

Technically speaking, American Beauty also succeeds because of it's sense of control and restraint. Unlike big, boldness of Titanic or Braveheart, American Beauty is a low-key, subtle film. It seems like it's easier to create characters during explosive action and events -- characters who wear their hearts on their sleeves, than to restrain them in an intimate setting.

American Beauty is the best best picture winner of the 90s because it's the most honest. It told us, yes, this world sucks, but if you let go and start following what makes you happy, you'll get through it...or get shot in the head by a former soldier/repressed homosexual.

Silence of the Lambs

In a recent guide published online by Rottentomatoes.com Silence of the Lambs was listed 22 in the Best of the Best pictures. The only two Best Pictures from the 1990s to beat Silence of the Lambs were Schindler’s List and Unforgiven respectively. All three films are rated at 96% ripe. If I were to have to pick the best of the 1990s I would pick one of these three movies. I’ve been racking my brain but I can’t pick one over the other.

What do I do now? I’ve decided to take Silence of the Lambs for because it defies convention in two ways. The first is by genre; the list of best picture winners contains few films from horror genre. The horror genre represented a handful of times on the list of nominees and represented once as a winner category. The second reason is it’s interesting statement about the power of women. For this reason I pick Silence of the Lambs for the best Best Picture of the 1990s.

The film is a masterpiece of the horror/suspense genre about Clarice Starling, a young FBI agent who is assigned to get a psychological profile from Hannibal Lecter, a psychologist, serial killer, and cannibal held in a maximum-security prison. The film receives its dramatic power from these interactions between Lecter and Starling as he prods her darkest memories in exchange for information about the killer. It contains terrific performances from both Hopkins and Foster as Lecter and Starling.

Many would think that the Best Best Picture of the 1990s should say something about the 1990s which would make American Beauty an obvious pick for it’s statement about suburban life and the emasculation of the American Male. I would argue that Silence of the Lambs too says something about the 1990s. The story is about Clarice Starling overcoming a vicious male antagonist in order to stop Buffalo Bill (an icon of Americanism) who skins women. The film is a statement of female power that is only increasing in the 1990s, and is one of multiple films in the 90s to have strong female lead characters. This film along with Thelma and Louise and GI Jane show that women can not only be men’s equals, they can show strength, courage, wit and still retain their femininity.

All of the films that won or were nominated for the Best Picture are excellent films. Silence of the Lambs is superior to the others because it is such a unique best picture winner. Not only is it in a genre that is unrepresented at Oscar time, but has such a provacative plot related to the agency of women in the United States.

-Josh

Best Best Picture of the 1990s

2011-05-02T23:52:00.000-04:00

Die Hard vs Lethal Weapon Debate

2011-04-08T23:23:00.000-04:00

Die Hard and Lethal Weapon are part of the upper echelon of action movies from the genre's golden age in the late 80s. We think now's the time to pit them against one another.

Stats:

Die Hard

Released: 1988

Director: John McTiernan

Writers: Jeb Stuart, Steven E. de Souza

Stars: Bruce Willis, Alan Rickman

Producer:Charles Gordon, Lawrence Gordon, Beau Marks, Joel Silver

IMDb Rating: 8.2/10

Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 94%

Lethal Weapon

Released: 1987

Director: Richard Donnor

Writer: Shane Black

Stars: Mel Gibson, Danny Glover

Producer: Richard Donner, Jennie Lew Tugend, Joel Silver

IMDb Rating: 7.6/10

Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 90%

In favor of Die Hard

When Harrison first postulated his belief in the superiority of Lethal Weapon to Die Hard, I said yes. The reason is because it’s true. The first film in the Lethal Weapon series is superior to Die Hard. However I believe this to be the case because of one reason: they are not comparable films. If we look at the two objectively, we see that this fight is not only unfair, but also stacked heavily in Lethal Weapon’s favor. Lethal Weapon is a buddy cop movie with two actors in the leading roles, to Die Hard’s one. However I will try to prove that Die Hard is better for one reason: McClane is better than Riggs.

Motivation: Detective Riggs and Officer McClane both are both police officers with “marital troubles” so to speak. Riggs’s wife has just been murdered and his character arc is Riggs inability to deal with his loss. This is what Riggs needs to get over the loss by the end of the movie. McClane has separated from his wife (this trip is the first time they are seeing each other in almost 5 months) so by saving his wife it also probably saves his marriage. This makes his character arc stronger. Point McClane.

Skills: McClane lacks in this department, he is an ordinary police officer with just plain old ingenuity as his skill set. Riggs however is a trained Special Forces sniper, who is deadly accurate with most firearms, and can do that crazy-pop-your-shoulder-back-into its-socket-after-it’s-dislocated thing. Point Riggs.

Humor: This is where McClane has a huge advantage; Bruce Willis started his career on the show Moonlighting, a comedy television show. Before Lethal Weapon, Gibson had done three Mad Max films and Gallipoli. Although many would argue Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome is a comedy, Gibson doesn’t have the comedic pedigree of Willis. Point McClane. *

*Some will contend (coughHarrisoncough) that there is more humor in the Lethal Weapon however; if you watch the movie you will see that the humor is based on the report between Riggs and Murtaugh while Die Hard humor stems from McClane. It’s unfair to say because one movie has two guys to create humor is better. In fact, it is just excessive.

Sequels: 3 each. Point both.

So, McClane is up 3 to 2, but what seals the deal is the action movie requirement, you have to get the girl. Riggs gets no girl until Lethal Weapon 3. McClane gets the girl at the end of Die Hard. Point McClane.

I would be a negligent debater if I didn’t mention one of my fellow Albanians (Albany born) John McTiernan. This period in his career is arguably where McTiernan was at the top of his game. In 1987 he released Predator, Die Hard in 1988, and The Hunt for Red October in 1990. The success of these movies is the amount of suspense that McTiernan infuses into the typical action formula. Richard Donner, who was doing good work at the end of the 80’s, and did direct all of the Lethal Weapon films, but McTiernan’s work from 87-90, is arguably the best action of all time.

Lethal Weapon is by many standards a “better” film than Die Hard, but I believe that the true test of each of these movies is the strength of their protagonist. This is where the audience receives the most satisfaction, when the guy we are rooting for wins. Besides the reasons already mentioned McClane receives more empathy from the audience because he is more like the majority of the audience of the actions films: brash, uneducated (in the way of the sniper rifle), and trying to end the fight with his wife which has gone on way too long.

John McClane is America: knocked down, shoeless, and outnumbered by foreign enemies, but still fighting until the last second. This is why Die Hard is superior to Lethal Weapon.

-Josh

In favor of Lethal Weapon

In my middle school there was a poster that said, “What’s popular isn’t always right and what’s right isn’t always popular.” It’s clichéd and didactic but it does shed some light on the Die Hard and Lethal Weapon debate.

Let’s face it, Lethal Weapon is not popular. Not by a long shot. While Die Hard is routinely showered with praise and gets to dance at the middle school social with all the ladies, Lethal Weapon sits in the corner cursing his fellow action movie waiting for the day when it’s his time to shine.

It’s been over 20 years since Lethal Weapon was released, I’d like to think it’s his time to shine now.

It may seem counter-intuitive to say this, but Lethal Weapon succeeds mainly because of how well it’s written. Common knowledge says that action movies are just supposed to be loud and dumb movies – no brain, all flash, sort of like a shiny hollow apple. But because of the brilliant writing, Lethal Weapon succeeds as one of the best action movies from the late 80s.

Lethal Weapon was written by Shane Black – commonly known as the godfather of late 80s/early 90s action movies. To put things in perspective, Black was hired by uber-action movie producer Joel Silver as an actor in Predator to keep an eye on the newcomer director John McTiernan. John McTiernan directed Die Hard after Predator.

Consider the overall plot structures of each movie. While Die Hard loads all the exposition onto the front end of the movie, Lethal Weapon’s plot unfolds like an onion. Die Hard’s plot is like if a stripper walked on stage nude and started dancing, Lethal Weapon on the other hand is like that same stripper starting fully clothed and seductively removing her clothes.

(Speaking of which, Lethal Weapon has a higher instance of boobs than Die Hard. In fact, the movie starts off with boobs. Not to mention that in Die Hard the boobs are a fleeting image. Lethal Weapon quite literally lets the audience soak in the boobs with a shower scene.)

Die Hard has this odd fascination with giving the audience characters that are extraordinarily passive. Al just stands and talks into a handset until the last minute of the movie. Holly is only used as a human shield and as a plot device to give Hans more screen time. Argyle sits around in a car for the whole movie. Seriously. The character of Al is for the audience to get a perspective of the movie's action from an outsider. If that were the purpose of Argyle, it would be redundant. He's not the comic relief either. A successful comic relief would be with the protagonist throughout the events of the movie and give the audience quips about the plot. Argyle just sits in a car. That's it.

Not only are Lethal Weapon's characters active, they are three-dimensional too. Consider the following: the protagonist's weaknesses. Die Hard starts off with McClane scared to fly. This, in turn, gives the writers the opportunity to get McClane to take his shoes off. After that, he's running around barefoot and cuts his feet up with glass. To me, this series of events comes across as contrived. It seems like the writers wanted to use a cool gimmick like having the main character's feet cut up by broken glass and then worked backwards to find a way to set off the chain of events.

In Lethal Weapon, Riggs' weakness is his depression and emotional instability after loosing his wife. This controls all of his behavior throughout the movie. Instead of working backwards and finding questions for answers, Black creates questions and then answers them throughout the movie. “What if a suicidal cop had to stop a jumper from committing suicide?” Also, Riggs nearly kills himself in the first part of the movie. He puts a gun in his mouth and gets a millimeter away from pulling the trigger. That's a true weakness. Despite McClane's fear of flying, there's was nothing to say he couldn't do the things he did in that movie. For that same reason, that's why his actions come across as outlandish. In Lethal Weapon we gain the knowledge that Riggs is a talented practitioner of martial arts.

The bonding between Riggs and Murtaugh is more organic than in Die Hard. Riggs and Murtaugh start off hating each other. It isn't until a shootout where Riggs saves Murtaugh's life that a mutual respect begins to form. Meanwhile, over at Die Hard, McClane and Al are buddy-buddy after McClane drops a dead body on Al's car, causing Al to crash down a hill. Because really, who doesn't make a best friend after dropping a dead body on a car?

The dialogue in Lethal Weapon may be the most defining part of the movie. Black infuses great wit into the tightly paced movie. Die Hard is a textbook example of what dialogue should be in a movie. Characters say what they need to say when they need to say it in order to advance the plot. In Lethal Weapon, however, Black kicks it up a notch by adding some stylistic flair.

This is from a scene in the movie when Riggs and Murtaugh realize the case they're investigating is more complex than they realize.

MURTAUGH
We know someone was in bed with Amanda
Hunsaker the night she died.
RIGGS
Right. 'Til now we assumed it was a man.
MURTAUGH
Okay. Let's say it was Dixie.
RIGGS
Okay. Disgusting, but okay: Let's say Dixie
slipped the drain cleaner into the pills.
MURTAUGH
Say someone paid her to do it.
RIGGS
Sure. She thinks, terrific, Amanda swallows a couple
downers and boom, she's dead. Then Dixie--
MURTAUGH
If it was her--
RIGGS
Right, right, then Dixie has plenty of time
to spritz the place up, get out, whatever.
MURTAUGH
Except Amanda jumps out the window.
RIGGS
Or Dixie pushes her. Either way
MURTAUGH
Either way, she's gotta make a fast getaway, 'cause now
the body's public. She hauls ass downstairs.
RIGGS
People are coming out saying, 'What happened? What happened?'.
MURTAUGH
Someone spots her. She says 'shit.'
RIGGS
Right. She actually stops and says, 'Shit.'
MURTAUGH
The point being, now she has to cover her ass.
RIGGS
Right. So she says, 'Officer, officer, I saw the whole thing.'
MURTAUGH
Right.
RIGGS
Right.
MURTAUGH
That's pretty fucking thin.
RIGGS
Very thin.
MURTAUGH
Hell with it. Thin's my middle name.
RIGGS
Your wife's cooking, I'm not surprised.
MURTAUGH
What?
RIGGS
Nothing.
MURTAUGH
Remarks like that will not get you invited to Christmas dinner.
RIGGS
My luck's changing for the better everyday.

In this exchange, we get the story behind the character Dixie and Riggs and Murtaugh get to show off their wit and personalities.

Die Hard is a big, dumb, and yes, fun action movie. Many people give it praise because the movie gives off the illusion that it is an intelligent movie. But Die Hard is more like the kid in 7th grade English reciting cliff's notes about a book. He can quickly engage in conversations with the teacher, but the conversation never gets deep. Lethal Weapon is the kid in the middle of the class, who's not only read the book, he could write a detailed 10 page report about it. He's just too shy to speak up.

Lethal Weapon not only has great action set pieces, it also is populated with intelligent characters who battle each other with guns and wit.

Last, but certainly not least, Lethal Weapon features barrel rolls. Die Hard does not.

-Harrison

Debate #1 Preview

2011-04-03T16:46:00.000-04:00