Quick clips for Thursday April 30

Why I can't trust Steven Soderbergh

By now, it has been repeated through the blogosphere: Steven Soderbergh was eye raped by what he saw of Avatar. His exact quote was "Oh, sweet Jesus. Take me now. Dear Lord in heaven it is as though I have made love to an angel and produced a baby made of pure joy." Okay, it was "I've seen some stuff and holy shit, it's the craziest shit ever." He had been discussing how modern movies haven't been able to have the same cultural impact as older films, like say The Godfather, before adding that he thought Cameron's latest would be the exception, insofar as it will make sterile women fertile again, allow the crippled to walk, and give sci-fi enthusiast virgins the sexual experience they had been so long denied. Bullshit. Bullshit on both counts. First off, modern movies HAVE had that kind of "cultural impact." My God, you're practically a leper these days if you haven't seen certain movies. As far as them being remembered and lasting, we are now in an era of perpetual capture. We can actively watch movies on tons of channels, the Internet, or home video without ever losing them. They will stay in our memories because they never have to leave. And as far as Avatar goes, I don't believe you. Not just because we heard the same sort of thing from Steven Spielberg (...SS as well, coincidence? I THINK NOT) about The Phantom Menace. You, of all people, should know the difference between final product and promise. The damn thing isn't wrapped yet, you aren't seeing edited footage, so how the hell do you know that it's got a chance to have lasting cultural impact. Prediction: It will be good, but we'll go right on living our lives. It WON'T redefine movies for the new millennium. I don't see how it can. Sure, it can have some kick ass effects, but there has been by my count three sci-fi endeavors that have had ANY significant cultural impact (Star Wars, 2001, and Star Trek). Others may have been popular, but most people barely remember them. It's in the wrong genre for the type of effusive praise you're heaping, Steve. Besides, YOU'RE NOT DOING HIM ANY FAVORS. James Cameron does a great job as his own hype man, he doesn't need you. Plus, it only sets people up for disappointment. I am excited for Avatar, I will see Avatar, I will likely enjoy Avatar. It will not turn me into a real boy. Sorry.

Somewhere, Snap.com and Pop.com are crying

Sony is hardcore pimping their Crackle.com site. See, as it turns out, when the producers were all bitch bitch during the negotiations with the writers and actors, they apparently intend on making some money from this IN-TER-NET thing. I know, shocking. The latest grab for your eyeballs and thus marketing dollars, Sony's site has a few interesting things of note, so I will note them on this slow news day: (1) Some good movies. Not a lot, but some. For example, Spiderman 2 (not 3...interesting), Stripes, a bunch of Godzilla movies, and Wild Things (as if you can't find those images elsewhere); (2) Some interesting original programming. You put Katee Sackoff in something, I will watch it (damn you Bionic Woman!). There's also a new series from comic-writing badass Ed Brubaker called "Angel of Death" and a few others of note. Again, interesting; and (3) Some kind of interest cinema game thingie. Haven't tried it, but sounds okay. Again, I'm a big picture guy. More interesting to me than this whole thing is the trend it may portend. Is every studio going to do this soon? Are we going to see more and more online repositories of movies? Think about it, the last news about DVD sales were glum. Why NOT put out some kind of place where people can go watch your old shit for free and you make a buck off it (somehow...not quite sure how their revenue stream works on this yet)? I'll be curious if this somehow sparks a wave of other studio sites. If not, I'll likely forget it exists entirely.

Lost Recap: It's getting cold, mom. Hold me.

Now that's what I'm talkin' about. Blending good acting, interesting character beats based on years of knowing certain individuals, kick ass sci-fi mind tomfoolery, and a few well-timed surprises, "The Variable" wasn't as good as "The Constant," but it wasn't for lack of trying...nor was it THAT far off. I liked "The Constant" better because it had a better emotional core and the time travel stuff was new, so it had the element of surprise. Here...well, raise your hand if you hadn't already figured out Widmore was Dan's poppa (I actually had forgotten we didn't ALREADY have that confirmed or I would have included it in my predictions). Raise your hand if you didn't know dude was rat bait after saying "Any one of us can die." Oh, and quick side note of bitching before we recap: NOBODY IS CONFUSED ABOUT THEM BEING IN THEIR "PRESENT." WE GET IT. Please, writers, take this one note from us. You don't have to have Hurley or Dan or Miles or Jack or whoever point out that, even though they are in the past, they aren't in THEIR OWN PAST. We get it. Bitching over, now to dive into the season's best episode:

1.) Flashbacks deal with Dan this week, obviously. First one has him playing the piano, only to be told by his mom that he doesn't have much time. He has to stop being a teen kid and start being a scientist. She pushes him to use his "special gift" (there we go again with the special stuff) and he does, graduating college early and getting a grant from the Widmore foundation to pursue "research" that we all know has to do with time. It's also revealed that circa 2003, he has a mind issue where he can't make memories. Widmore promises to help him with that by sending him to the island, which he agrees to in order to make his moms proud. Awww.

2.) On the island in 1977, Dan freaks out. He tells Dr. Chang that Miles is his son, tries to get everyone to evacuate the island because "the incident" is going to happen (which we're led to believe is the explosion of electromagnetic energy from the drilling but is likely the thing that the Losties are going to do to try and stop it), and eventually tells Charlotte that she can't come back...or does he. In an interesting twist, we don't actually hear Dan say the words that Charlotte remembered hearing as she was dying. Oh sure, it doesn't look good, as the "chocolate" babble she was spewing was obviously from that conversation, but I found it interesting that we didn't hear officially that he said that.

3.) Okay, moving on. Jack, Sawyer, and the whole gang realize the jig is up. Half want to go to the beach, half want to follow Dan to talk with the others. Juliet has the best moment of the night when she gives Kate the code, showing to Sawyer she don't want that bitch around no more. Kate, Jack, and Dan go to the others. Along the way they get into a shootout with some Dharma folks, and Dan reveals his plan: Use the hydrogen bomb to stop the electromagnetic "incident" from happening. Yeah, not sure how that works exactly. When they get to the others, we see the big twist. Dan is killed by his own mom. Wowza.

Okay, several things: First, the real question here is whether Dan was right about the whole "variable" thing. On the one hand, his theory that things can be changed seems to die with him. He can't fix things now, he's all dead and such. On the other, it sure does seem like everybody (meaning Eloise and Widmore) KNOW what to do and are CHOOSING to do it. The sacrifice she makes in sending Dan back to be killed by her own hand is awful. Then again, when Desmond is in the hospital she says "I honestly don't know what's going to happen." Okay, so to me, Widmore and Eloise are the good guys right now. They've sent back Jack and the others as "variables." More or less, because they were sucked out of time by the electrowhatsit, they are not factored into time's equation. Thus, they are "special" and are the only ones who can change things. Interesting at any rate. Probably wrong, but interesting. What I love right now is that I have no idea where to go from here. Jack and the gang will obviously try to stop things from happening, but my bet is that will cost Hurley his life. The stakes are getting raised here, and I like that. I feel like we're about to see something awesome happen. I hope I'm right!

Quick clips for Wednesday April 29

Because W was a big W, I'll give Stone a sequel

On a gray, dull Wednesday, this is the best I can do to heat things up: Oliver Stone is directing Wall Street 2. Feeling hot and bothered yet? No? What if I throw in a little Shia LaBeouf? No? Okay, don't blame you. We all know that this economic downturn is going to get chopped up and fed to screenwriters from everything including television shows (no less than three pilots next year are based on "person X gets fired and has to do [fill in the blank]") to movies, but this one actually sort of holds water with me...I don't get that cliche, by the way, are things that don't hold water inherently bad? I like tacos. Tacos don't hold water. Anyway, the first film came out during the 1980s and was a reflection on greed. To pick up something decades later and see how that mentality has resulted in what we see now doesn't just seem plausible, it seems necessary. In fact, I would argue that there are few artistic opportunities to comment on this situation as palpable and important as this. Honest. Besides, I'm getting a real vibe of The Hustler/Color of Money here. Michael Douglas is a good actor who has been put out to an early pasture. The dude still bangs Catherine Zeta Jones as regularly as his pharmacist will allow, and yet we put him as a minor player in the new Matthew McConaughey movie? Where's the decency in that. Plus, Stone has never directed a sequel, so there's a bit of interest in that for me too. After W, I no longer believe that Stone is relegated to just one brand of boring crazy. He's a technicolor coat of crazy. I'm a little leery of the LaBeouf casting, I'd go with someone more gifted like Ryan Gosling, but that's nitpicking. I'm really, truly interested in this one.

"That's Sex"

If you thought that yesterday's Dolph Lundgren story was going to be the only Expendables commentary of the week, you are a giant pansy. Much as ancient gods needed human sacrifice to continue, so does this film need the effusive praise and salivation of bloggers to exist. If I don't talk as often as possible about the sea of rippling man boobs and veiny, gross muscles we're about to see flopping and flexing around the jungles of South America, the film may cease to exist. Like Tinkerbell on methamphetamine and steroids, the movie will only come to live if we want it bad enough. In that spirit, I give you what was given unto me by Chud.com which was given unto them by Empire Magazine.



First, you can count on your hand the number of directors able to secure incredible performances from the repeated reproduction of gun noises. Second, if the phrase "that's sex" does not become the most quoted catchphrase of the year, I will take my own life on the end of a sword. Third, even though it appears that the photo was deceiving and Eric Roberts and Stone Cold Steve Austen do not hold hands while jumping, they do love each other in a biblical way. Fourth, SPOILER ALERT, it appears people will be shot in this film. Fifth, when this movie finally comes out, I will lose at least 1-2 posts a week of automatic content and will be very, very sad.

Lost Predictions for "The Variable"

Tonight's 100th episode of "Lost" has prompted people everywhere to do retrospectives on the series, highlighting their favorite episodes...thankfully, I'm terrible unoriginal and will do the same thing before giving a brief look at what I think should be an incredible episode tonight. Now, instead of just doing the best episodes overall, I'm going to do my favorite one from each season (and yes, that includes season 2). I encourage you to discuss your own faves but that would mean acknowledging that you read this site, which I know is a deterrent.

Here's the best episodes of the show from each season and why:

Season One: "Deus Ex Machina"

Now, I could have gone with the season finale (seriously, "Thing is, we're gonna have to take the boy" still gives me chills), "Walkabout" (the first real sign that Locke was going to wreck your mind with coolness), or even the Pilot, which never gets as much run for as good as it is. But I chose this one because it was the moment this show went from "it's good" to "ohmygod I can't live without it." Seriously, when that light turned on from inside the hatch, I may have peed a little (meaning, a lot).

Season Two: "Two for the Road"

The only other choice would have been the introduction of Ben in "One of Them," as he single-handedly turned the show into something different just by showing up. Still, tell me you don't still flashback to the final moment of this episode. Totally ballsy, totally unexpected. The Ana Lucia thing was crazy. The Libby thing, now that's awesome.

Season Three: "Through the Looking Glass"

Again, the main competition here was "Flashes Before Your Eyes," which really was incredible. That one made me love Desmond, but this season finale was the single best season finale I've ever seen. Talk about twisting the knife in you for an entire summer. The moment it dawns on you that Kate is in the car and what that means...seriously, that was the instant this became the best show on television.

Season Four: "The Constant"

The single best episode of "Lost" ever. The single best hour of television ever. I actually cried. It was a brilliant blend of moving emotion and plot-advancing craziness. I can't say enough about it. It's why I'm looking so forward to tonight's "The Variable."

Season Five: "LaFleur"

This one isn't going to make a lot of people's "best" list, but Sawyer needed a bit of love. Plus, it really was a beautiful, well-written episode that managed to advance relationships in a non-insulting way. I loved how each character had transformed and it just seemed to set the new status quo so well. Great episode when you rewatch it (which I have).

Okay, on to tonight, since I'm running out of time here:

1.) Farraday is back and that means time-travel reveals. Let's start with the big "rule" change: Farraday will reveal you CAN change historical events. More specifically, that CERTAIN people can change events. We'll find out that one of those people is Hurley.

2.) We're going to see some Back to the Future style changing of the future. I'm guessing they do something in the past and Sun, Jin, and Locke experience a change of some kind. I don't know what though.

3.) Somebody dies tonight. Somebody big. I'm going to go with Juliet. Much like "The Constant" ripped us open with a beautiful reunion, this will rip us apart with a terrible departure.

4.) We're going to hear more about Alvar Hanso. He's the guy funding the Dharma initiative. I'll go one further: Hanso is someone we know!

5.) Sayid will reappear towards the end, possibly connecting with The Others.

I actually don't want to guess more. First off, I know these are mostly wrong/crazy. I liked Doc Jensen's theory that Hurley is responsible for the impending "incident," which will be prompted by him trying to destroy the hatch. I also agree that the whole purpose of this season was to acclimate us to time travel and then set up the final three hours of "can they change time and if so, should they?" I think we're going to see how responsible for all of the madness these people are. God, I can't wait. Happy 100 everybody!

Quick clips for Tuesday April 28

In space, no one can hear a reboot

Anyone who doesn't think Aliens is one of the finest sci-fi movies ever should be receiving the business end of a shovel 24/7. Don't worry, it won't hurt them, they're already brain dead. Thanks to the glorious Alien vs Predator franchise, I have had any desire to see more nasty, drooling xenomorphs on screen stomped from my mind grapes beneath the heel of corporate greed and Paul WS Anderson. The only way I'd even consider another Aliens movie is if Ridley Scott were somehow involved. IESB is reporting that Ridley Scott is involved. Okay, fine, you got me. Now, the discussion seems to be whether to prequel or reboot, on account of the giant mess they've made of the series (whoever designed an alien/predator baby should be disemboweled with a slinky). My vote? Go with neither. What I mean is, don't cut up our food for us and tell us, just make a kick ass Alien movie. Part of what was awesome about the first film was that odd sense of mystery when they found those pods in whatever alien ship it was they found them in. That kicked ass. Why not set it somewhere in space, come up with some really creepy set pieces and story, and then not give a shit how it fits into the larger mythos. Look, these evil, double-mouthed bastards don't have an origin story to tell. They are creatures that eat and kill. They don't have motivation to explore. One shot of their planet would be okay, but you don't have to detail how they got off of it or anything, you pretty much just have to make a good movie (in my opinion, without Ripley, who I love but got ruined over the series). I know that Ridley Scott religiously reads this, and that all Fox producers (the wise, intelligent lot that they are) listen to every thought I have, so consider just making a good movie and not giving a poo where it fits. That sentence is really funny. I don't care if you don't agree.

Up until right now, I thought I had made up Drop Dead Fred

My sister and I watched this half-stillborn "comedy" when I was younger. I thought we had made it up. Nope, turns out it's very real...real enough to be remade by Russell Brand. Now, what would possess a guy to remake a movie that made less than $15 million and was generally laughed at (not with), I have no bloomin' clue. For those of you who weren't a part of that colossal domestic take, the film was about a girl's imaginary friend who comes back. Or something. Honestly, I just remember thinking that the friend was all weird and stupid and reminded me of Yahoo Serious. The guy's name was Rik Mayall and he was a quirky British comedian whose film career never took off after the film. Russell, this isn't a remake opportunity, this is a cautionary tale! Your hair is already trying to jump ship, why would you let your career follow it? Run, run, Russell! Do not remake a 1991 Phoebe Cates movie! Her last movie I enjoyed was Gremlins 2 (oh, screw you, it was zany fun). I just want to point out something; we're likely going to get this movie before we get an adaptation of "A Confederacy of Dunces" or "The Adventures of Kavalier and Clay." We're going to have two Drop Dead Fred movies before we have one Green Lantern movie. Why? What possibly happens inside of Hollywood that allows this? When madness overtakes us, it won't be swine flu-related, it will be self-induced mutilation based on crap like this.

I don't care if this is true or not

According to some wacky Brit newsthingie, three burglars broke into a home in Spain. They tied up the woman in the house, scared her, and then began looting...until they saw a picture of Dolph Lundgren among the family photos. Then they ran. How. Cool. Is. That? Now, I can't speak to the truth behind this tale, whether or not it's total bullshit, but let us not forget that this man is in The Expendables, and he did not earn that invitation due to his talent or prowess, he earned his place through sheer testosteronicity. Tell your old ass Chuck Norris jokes, DOLPH LUNDGREN'S PICTURE scared away burglars and protected his wife. From now on, when my wife goes out at night, she's keeping a Dolph Lundgren picture in her purse. When fathers are concerned about their young daughter's chastity, they should affix a picture of Dolph Lundgren to her undergarments. Swine flu got you down? Scare away influenza H1N1 with a picture of Dolph Lundgren. Dude is 52-years-old and hasn't made a good movie since, good Lord perhaps ever, but it doesn't matter because his mere image is enough to scare criminals straight. I'm just going to make up the rest of this probably ridiculously untrue story: The burglars are all now priests who cater to homeless people. One of them actually killed himself just to be an organ donor (he jellyfished himself). I can't believe this story (because it's likely malarkey) but I LOVE that it exists. I bet on the set of The Expendables, Lundgren just told Jason Statham and Jet Li "Your move, bitches."

Quick clips for Monday April 27

I suppose YOU can think of a better director than the guy who remade Texas Chainsaw Massacre?

To quote Tracy Morgan, "I love The Odyssey so much, I want to take it behind the middle school and get it pregnant." I love it so much that I took an entire Greek class just to study that and the "Iliad," and risked the shame associated with doing so. It was the first thing I studied at college and I love, love, love it. I have never, not one time ever, thought to myself "If only I could see a new version of it on the big screen as envisioned by the guy who remade Texas Chainsaw Massacre." In a move akin to asking your finger-painting four-year-old to go ahead and start smearing away on the Mona Lisa, Jonathan Liebesman is going to helm a version, according to Variety, that he describes as "300 meets Taken." Now, Liebesman may be a great guy, and I may one day love this movie. However, for the purposes of the rest of this blurb, Liebesman is an asshole and I hate him and his stupid film. Were it not enough that he described his film as a mix between buttered topless assholes slow-motion dancing and a Liam Neeson movie that had no right to be popular, they're DITCHING THE BEST PART. They're going to focus on the part where he returns home and kicks the shit out of the people trying to bone his wife. They basically are making the Odyssey without, you know, THE ODYSSEY! I don't even know how this can function. The charming, snaky, intelligent character of Odysseus could be the quintessential rogue, a smarter version of Han Solo with more wit and less gruff. Instead, they're going to make him some violent, angry cuckold who comes home and starts killin' people. What, do we get the story of the Odyssey in a FLASHBACK?! Only two things have my approval to flashback, "Lost" and Vietnam vets. This is a stupid idea that appears to be directed by a stupid man greenlit by a stupid studio and sure to be loved by stupid people. Happy Monday!

Terror in the editing bay

Slashfilm.com has a truly awesome and depressing look at what's happening with Kenneth Lonergan's Margaret, which should have been a triumphant second film for the writer/director. Don't believe me? Well, eff you too. Okay, fine, here's some proof. Martin Scorsese called the cut he saw of the film "a masterpiece," and it stars Matt Damon, Mark Ruffalo, and Anna Paquin, three good actors. Things apparently unraveled well after filming, when Lonergan got into the editing room and lost it. Flat out panicked. See, this was four years ago that filming was complete. Four. Years. Since then, the man has been unable to complete the film and, because he has final cut approval, it may never be done. Ever. The article goes through the different steps taken to assist him, from having other directors come in and help look, and guesses that one of the final hangups may be the run time (it's only contractually allowed to be 150 minutes, a reasonable length for a drama). I find this whole thing fascinating, because the crippling power of the editing process has claimed so many victims over the years, and this is one of the more promising ones. I didn't love You Can Count on Me, the auteur's first film, but I did like it. Mostly, I thought he would be a real talent if he could continue as a director. Clearly, as a playwright, he's gifted enough with writing. The problem seems to be with having this much control over performance. As a writer of some plays and spoken performances, I get it. The thought of being able to tinker with how things appear after the fact can be almost too much power to wield. I'm now insanely curious to see this (even though we may not) and hope against hope that this man doesn't stay locked inside forever. Wowza. Happy Swine Flu Monday!

Weekend Box Office Results: I'm willing to leave this planet if you want me to, as Beyonce's movie seems to indicate

Once more with feeling, what is wrong with this country? Perhaps Swine Flu is our punishment for making hits out of Taken, Paul Blart, and now Obsessed and Fighting, two generic-sounding movies with generic titles, generic plots, and generic actors. It's not supposed to be this easy for studios to make crap and get away with it. If you are to believe the results at the box office, Lifetime TV Movies should be the highest watched programs on television, because millions upon millions of you went to see one in the theater. And Fighting, are you kidding me? ARGH! I have no solace to take in this madness. The only thing this tells me is that Fox is going to have a good week next week, despite buzz, because everyone will go see Wolverine whether it's good or not.

Here are the results:

1.) Obsessed - $28.5 million (Accuracy of prediction - 78%)

Beyonce (pronounced Bee-Yon-Kee, now to be spelled that way) should not be encouraged to keep acting. This is your fault. Also, this means that Ali Larter is going to keep making movies. Also not good. I don't know how else to deal with this, other than to move on as quickly as possible before crying.

2.) 17 Again - $11.5 million (Accuracy of prediction - 90%)

At least this isn't a runaway hit, just a modest one. I don't mean to sound so negative, but this is SUPPOSED to be the negative time. We're SUPPOSED to be having bad movies now and you guys are SUPPOSED to keep your money in your pockets to save for later. I don't get it anymore.

3.) Fighting - $11 million (Accuracy of prediction - 0%)

I don't know who Tatum Channing or Channing Tatum or Tanning Chatum or whoever is, but apparently a large group of you love him. Why? He seems so generic looking. Is it because he can do high kicks? Because I can do high kicks. Okay, I can't, but I can learn for $11 million.

4.) The Soloist - $10 million (Accuracy of prediction - 100%)

It's okay, Robert, your next two movies are going to be colossal to the Nth degree. You're Sherlock Holmes and Iron Man, you don't need this shit. Jamie Foxx, now you can go back to making fun of tween idols on whatever weird radio station it is you do your thing on. Point is, you can just go. Wherever you want, but away from me is necessary.

5.) Earth - $9 million (Accuracy of prediction - 49%)

Great, so now you hate the planet. I don't get it. How does cute, cuddly baby animals not rate above Beyonkee and a movie with Chandler Tating (no...um, Stockard Channing?) fighting? I don't get it.

Overall accuracy of prediction - 64%

I won't say I'm happy about this, but this is expected. I need to find a way to get into the 70% range. Okay, so I'm going to institute a new policy, I'll unveil it on Friday. Oooh, foreshadowing and previewing! Avoid Pig Influenza! Happy Monday!

Correction!!!

Please, Ira Glass, love me as I love you

So, the other night I'm watching "The Colbert Report," and Ira Glass is on, being his usual charming, nebbish self. As planned, he and Colbert proceed to have a discussion (one that produced a great quip from Colbert about how doing a live version of a radio show is "like entering a novel in a baking contest" and a joke about how strapping Garrison Keillor looks...which, come on, we've ALL thought before). After a bit, they began specifically conversing about how "This American Life" is NOT an NPR show but is produced and distributed by Public Radio International. Colbert specifically makes fun of NPR stating "You don't want to be one of those NPR people." In that moment, I realize that despite being listed as one of the programs on the NPR Web site and being heard almost exclusively on NPR channels, "This American Life" is NOT an NPR show. Why does this nuance matter? Because in my review of Examined Life, I refer to "NPR's 'This American Life.'" Oh well, I figure, who's going to notice or care. It's not like I'm going to get a call from an angry Ira Glass (can Ira Glass get angry...if he does get angry, does it sound like other people when they are happy?) and have him ream me for this. Fast forward one whole day from the article's posting on the Internet...and lo and behold, we're contacted by a PRI media watcher who informs us of our gaffe. Now, on the one hand, I feel bad, because Glass seems to imply some kind of NPR vs PRI feud during his interview (two well-educated, socially aware, liberal-leaning organizations enter ONE SHALL LEAVE). On the other, the people from PRI read something I wrote and made a comment on it. Given how much I love "This American Life" and all of the people on it (Dan Savage and Sarah Vowell are idols in my shrines), and other shows from PRI ("Studio 360" and "Whadya Know" in particular), I don't know whether to count this as a loss for having slightly misattributed something or a win because they somewhat in some way know who I am. Either way, it's something to talk about...and on a Friday, I'll take it. So, officially, mea culpa, it is PRI's "This American Life" and I shant forget again.

Friday Free-for-all

People care about Predator?

First off, I should like Predator more than I do. Not because it's, you know, good but because it was my first R-rated movie. I remember watching it in the basement of my friend's Chris's house in the rich clarity and definition of VHS, marveling over the prolific use of the F-word and rejoicing over the (even then) cartoonish violence. At the time, I was blown away. How could you not feel the sweet embrace of life after watching a mud-covered Arnie dispatch the extraterrestrial Bob Marley fan. Sadly, this may be the first time I've thought about that movie since then. Yesterday, news came out over every single movie news site I follow via twitter...and via emails...and via conversations...that Robert Rodriguez is done banging Rose McGowan long enough to finally make another movie. That movie will be Machete (a full version of the fake trailer he directed in Grindhouse). Then he's doing some sci-fi movie that sounds generic. Then possibly doing something with Sin City (which rumors have as being shopped around outside of the Weinstein Studios). THEN he's going to do Predators, which is an obvious homage to Aliens in that multiple otherworldly beings are clearly implied. Aintitcool.com pointed out that Rodriguez, in his pre-"I'm going to bang Rose McGowan and announce a Barbarella remake that won't happen" days, wrote a draft called "Predators" that followed Dutch (which was apparently Arnie's character's name in the original movie...who remembers that shit) to the Predator homeworld where he would be pit against other aliens that defeated Predators. Okay (A) that's just effing awesome. (B) It probably has changed since then and will now feature more humans and be some kind of ridiculous remake/reboot/origin story where we find out the Predators were really simple farmers until some terrible tragedy made them turn to a life of dreadlocks and high explosives. If that ends up being the plot, you read it here first and I want my cut. At any rate, if you love Predator, get ready for multiple Predators at some point (provided Rodriguez doesn't start banging Danny Trejo or something).

Weekend battle plan: How to decide between an environmental documentary and a Beyonce Knowles movie

I think we all know I'm not going to recommend the Beyonce movie (which Ben pronounces "Be-yonk" or "Be-yonk-ee"). Nobody would recommend the Beyonkee movie. I'm also not going to recommend Fighting because I can't support that degree of laziness. "Hey, this movie has action stuff in it, let's call it Action Stuff" or "Hey, this movie has girls in love in it, let's call it Romance" or "Hey, this movie's got Renee Zellweger in it, let's call it Squinty Face's Squinty Adventures." Just like women with large fake breasts, if you're that obvious, I don't have an interest in you. The issue of The Soloist is much trickier because I'm forced to weigh my desire to punch Jamie Foxx (who, admittedly, would then work me overtime like a Taco Bell employee) versus my desire to be best friends in the world with Robert Downey Jr (we could talk about whatever he wants anytime he wants and it would just be magical). Oh, and then there's the whole stupid, schmaltzy nature of the movie itself...and the fact that it's based on a true story. I mentioned on the Radio Show today that I am advocating a new stance: If you're thinking of making a movie based on a true story, make a documentary. If not, you'd best be embellishing enough to make it fiction. As in, the difference between "inspired by" and "based on." I'm suspicious of both, but I'll deal with the former. Anyway, a movie that moves from November (Oscars here we come!) to April (People's Choice? No? Okay, well, thanks anyway) is what it is. See it if you want. Oh, and be prepared for old people in your family to tell you how awesome it is. Earth is basically just a nature documentary narrated by James Earl Jones. You should see that, because it's a documentary about Earth, narrated by James Earl Jones. You can't really have a bad time and for every ticket sold they give a rare endangered koala/penguin (pengoala) a tummy rub or something.

That's my recommendation: See Earth because your other choices suck and you want to give a pengoala a tummy rub.

On DVD: Frost/Nixon kind of kicked my ass. I know, I know, it seems like it should be one of those movies I'd advocate a documentary on, but it wasn't. It was this awesome, rich character piece that really tackled the PEOPLE in the situation and gave me goosebumps during that last hour. I saw it thinking it would be okay and came away thinking it was incredible. See it, honest, it's worth it.

Fearless, Flawless Box Office Predictions

My prediction is this week we're all losers, because the top spot will probably go to a pop star, Zack Effron will have a second week in the top 5, and the best movie available doesn't feature any human beings. So really, everybody loses. I know that this seems odd that I keep doing these predictions when I'm so, so frequently wrong...but I enjoy it even when it seems like I don't. See, back when there weren't two blogs for every independent thought, I used to read any movie site that I could. Each of them did a little something for the box office and I was always interested. Plus, I think denying that this matters is like saying points aren't really the focus of a basketball game. Movies are made to make money AND to make art. To argue otherwise is to deny things like how much Picassos are sold for now. In the end, we live in a world where dollars matter, and so this is my touchstone to that idea and to the things I used to read. In other words, I know I suck at this and bitch a lot, but the same can be said for most golfers and they keep doing it.

Here's my predictions:

1.) Obsessed - $16 million

I just can't believe this is going to be bigger than this. I mean, it could be, people are still going to see a movie this weekend and this IS the highest profile and widest release but...COME ON have you seen the previews? Ali Larter is going to do the thing she always does, show off her incredible gams and tummy, because that's all she's got. Beyonky can't act to save her life. And, worst of all, this is ANOTHER version of the obsessed chick movie. Modern feminism should mean noticing a woman's sexuality as empowering. It should NOT mean reducing them to male-obsessed stalkers who fight one another.

2.) Earth - $13 million

I'm going to go out on a limb here (partially inspired by Slashfilm.com and the opening numbers for the first day of the film) and guess that the documentary is going to be more March of the Penguins than it is 11th Hour. I could be wrong, and likely am, but everybody has a green chubby these days.

3.) 17 Again - $11.5 million

I think that this redundant piece of crap will likely peter out below $60 million, which is nice. If Effron really wants to make a move, he should do something a little edgier. Can he play some kind of gay porn star in his next film? Isn't High School Musical already pretty much in that genre?

4.) The Soloist - $10 million

Old people will see this. Old people only count for about $10 million. That's it. See Duplicity and State of Play (which got a bump for Rachel McAdams hotness).

5.) State of Play - $8.5 million

Watch, this will likely go to Monsters vs Aliens, but hear me out. Families may siphon off and go to Earth and this one SHOULD hold pretty strong due to word of mouth. I'll be eating these words come Monday, but like I said, I'll be enjoying it.

Quick clips for Thursday April 23

Spiderman is going to rob you

As he is prone to doing, Devin at Chud.com sparked my interest in his latest missive regarding the decision by the asshats at Sony to make Spiderman 4 in 3D STRICTLY FOR THE MONEY. You know it's just for the money, because the guy who is producing them SAID it was strictly for the money. Then again, I'm not sure there's ever a motivating story reason to need a third visual dimension. I'm going to set aside my Kirsten Dunst rant for a moment (seriously, it's time to let little teeth go...replace her with a well-endowed lamp, I don't care) and focus on Devin's quickly passed over point: Is 3D bad for dramas and other non-shit-blowing-up fare? As he astutely points out, the technology is an excuse to charge us more money (as much as $3-4 a ticket), which means people will do one of three things (A) not change moviegoing habits at all, which is possible, (B) avoid the 3D movies because they cost more, which is highly unlikely because these are the EVENT movies...Spiderman 3 made more than $300 million domestically while sucking and deceiving me, if you needed more evidence, or worst of all (C) they'll pay for the event movies and skip the dramas and whatnot. Now, we're already at a crossroads for indie movies and smaller fare (evolve or die bitches, meaning finding alternative means of distribution, marketing, and platforms such as direct-to-video or direct-to-pay per view), but if this obsession with 3D starts ruining the chances for good dramas to be profitable (and thus damning them to never be made) we're in trouble. Understand something, I'm actually LESS worried about the indie movies, which are usually made by passionate people who care about art and WILL find their way to get the movies made. I'm concerned about big studios saying "hell no, Mr. Scorsese, you can't have your budget." It's the big studio dramas that are going to suffer (potentially), and that scares me quite a bit. So, here's hoping Spiderman doesn't turn out to be a potential villain. Oh, and I can't help myself, operation Replace Kirsten Dunst with a Voluptuous Lampshade is in full effect (seriously, I want names of people who can replace that increasingly decrepit-looking, talentless ditz immediately).

Can I get a "what what" for my amphibians named after painters?!

How do you celebrate the most respected shell-wearers in the history of ninja-hood turning 25 years old? Why, with a new movie that will see the TMNT clan once more step out of the animated world and into the live-action one. I know that this news makes at least one of my friends very, very (almost disturbingly) happy. But aside from Cameron celebrating in his TMNT underoos, how will the rest of the world react? Will the turtles be CGI (one images, given the debacle of the full-suits)? Will this be another boring origin retelling (they're effing turtles that get crap spilled on them and become ninjas...that's one sentence dammit)? More importantly, can they make the turtles relevant again? Let's face it, the gang has fallen off lately and they were, at their peak, kind of a joke. Don't believe me, the Chud gang pointed this out:


EMBED-TMHT - Teenage Mutant Hardcore Turtles - Watch more free videos

Yeah, that shit actually happened. Now, being that the suits in LA want to make serious money, they should listen to the following: Don't worry about getting the super young kids hooked on this. Worry about making it cool enough that teenagers like it. See, many grown-ups have fond memories of this (I'd say, anyone aged 32-40 were prime age when the turtles came up). And many impressionable teens will go see a movie with wicked ninja-fighting action. So, come up with something non-goofy, slenderize the turtles and make them conceptually cool to look at, get a few big names in the cast (seriously, cast Will Smith as Shredder), and you'll make bank. In the meantime, I'm going to go fondly recollect about how much money I spent on the Turtles arcade game.

We can rebuild him, we can give him man teets

Arnie is in T4. Sorry if that ruins anything for you, but you should really figure by now that you can't make a Terminator movie without him. Word has it that the tech that allowed the Gov to get up in that shit is actually based on the full body cast that they took of him (ewww) years back. See, he can't ACTUALLY appear in it by shooting new scenes because (A) his constituents are likely going to riot if he does, (B) he's flabtastical now, and (C) he doesn't want to shoot outside of California, again because of potential riot causing. So, the alternative was to have tech design some way to work him in. The continuity nerd in me loves this...just loves it. Even more than I love Sarah Conner getting back in there somehow. I love the Terminator series. T2 was one of my favorite movies I ever went to see just me and dad. I love the sci-fi aspect of it (that Harlan Ellison swears was his) and love the whole feel of the apocalyptic world. I just love it. Now, when McG was announced I got nervous...when the ending was revealed I got more nervous. But the truth is, with each passing trailer, with each revealed new Terminator design, and with these two key cameos, they've pretty much won me over. This could be a really fun summer sci-fi flick (it's going heads-up with Star Trek though...and between that and Wolverine, one of these three movies is not making it's money all the way), and I am excited to be excited about it!

Quick clips for Wednesday April 22

Sony fears the Reds

Judge me all you want to film community (who largely doesn't know I exist), specifically all of the guys I now follow on Twitter (by the way...you should totally follow us on Twitter, we're @thereaderfilm) ... but I don't have a Blu-Ray player. Why? Well, because I don't want a PS3 (barely having time to play the Wii and X-Box 360 is enough, thanks), and because the damn things are to expensive for my cheap ass. I'm trying to buy a house, and dropping serious coin to see every nostril hair in Jake Gyllenhaal's schnoz isn't a priority. Okay, so it is, but I was hoping to hold out until it got more affordable. Well, well, well...we all know that technology has a douchebag of a mark-up (second only to fine jewelry, which is why she gets none of that and I don't get none of the former), and the Blu-Ray makers whose names you know (Sony, por ejemplo) have tried to keep that profit margin high. Until now. Gizmodo has revealed that the Red Army is going to change everything, as Chinese makers are going to unveil a $99 Blu-Ray. Now we're talking. Oh, I'm not going to buy one of those, but the fact that they're hitting THAT price mark, means I can buy a good name brand one for around $120 or so at Christmas time. See, it turns out that if you're willing to look the other way on basic humanitarian rights and state-funded genocide, you get some kick-ass electronics at reasonable prices. It's just like Jesus would have wanted, and how I'll be celebrating his birthday.

Muppet boner

My wife turns to me the other day and says "You've been talking about the Muppets a lot." (A) What the sweet, dripping hell is wrong with that? (B) There is no limit to the amount one can talk about the Muppets. Their complex social commentary, insightful and whimsical embrace of all that is right in the world, and blistering wit represent every bit of progress we've made as humans. (C) Say one bad word about Fozzie Bear and it's over. I don't know what's given me my sudden Muppet boner (which, by the way, should be trademarked), but I'm riding it for all it's worth...wait. Anyway, the latest joy brought into my life was buy some guy who mashed the Muppets and Ocean's 11, something that brings me far more joy than it should.



Now, if you haven't heard, Jason Segal has been entrusted with bringing these lovable rugs back to the big screen in style. He certainly has the passion and love to do it, which is good, but he also shows his penis on screen a lot, which is bad. Point is, look at what joy someone can create with used footage and a separate soundtrack. Do us proud, young Jason, do us proud.

Look me in the eye and tell me this is good

Several people I know, respect, and even love have told me they like the "Twilight" book series, even if they are a bit suspect on the movie. After fighting the urge to both vomit and run (at the same time...which isn't as fun as it sounds0, I usually slowly forgive them. Really, they're just into vampires and romance. I get it. I happen to like both things too, just done well. You know, it's like I enjoy hamburger and pudding, but not together. At any rate, I need to be specific, because while I'm willing to forgive people who like the books (hell, reading IS fun-damental), I will not forgive those who love the movies. I won't. I can't. Why? Well, although I'm not reposting this photo, you should check it out. Now, tell me that looks intriguing or appealing to you. If it does you are (A) a pedophile, (B) recently cured of blindness and just happy to be seeing anything, (C) a relative of one of these poor, unfortunate souls, or (D) too busy eating paste to explain why. The true, honest reason why this shit offends me to my core of hate is because of how much I love sci-fi/fantasy/horror related stuff. See, when there's shit like this that's widely consumed by the masses, it BECOMES people's perceptions of what ALL of this is like. So, my Grandma and my cousins and strangers I meet at the store while wearing some nerd-related item look at me and think "I bet he likes that Twilight movie." This happens, it really does. So, you see, much like when "Heroes" went from "okay, but fun" to "sweet Jesus the writers for this show have started eating their own poop," it took a bunch of mainstream Americans down with them, leading them to believe ALL superhero stuff is like that. Anyway, go back, look at the picture and tell me you don't get my hate. THEY SPRAY PAINTED ABS ON 17-YEAR OLDS. Blerg.

Quick clips for Tuesday April 21

OMG, Twitter works?!

First and foremost, in the interest of having ONE technological advancement that "The Reader" isn't the last to adopt (example discussion at the office: "What's a facebook?" "The new website will roll out in May of '04...er...May of '06...er...May of '07...er...May of '08...er...May of '09...er...okay, fine, you got me, what's a website?"), the Film Section is on Twitter. Check us out, we're @thereaderfilm. If you start following us (btw, love the stalker-ish way that sounds), we may start updating more often. Anyhoo, this new technology has actually already yielded cool information. @davidwain, one of the founding members of the single greatest sketch comedy group since Kids in the Hall, has finally revealed that THE STATE COMPLETE SERIES WILL BE RELEASED ON DVD JULY 19. For realz. No lies this time. After screaming until my lungs were raw for such a delicious treat, I had scoured all of the internets to find sketches from the group. I was able to secure 5 episodes on iTunes, which reminded me how exceptional the show was. The brilliance of the show, which blended sketches into one another a la Monty Python and Mr. Show, was the brevity of it. Most sketches last maybe 2-3 minutes, often less. The result is a unique barrage of humor, not an over-exploration of one funny idea until the oil well pumps out air. I've been walking around saying things like "Call me old fashioned, but I believe there's just one god...and he lives in that lake" for weeks now since I've seen it and I need more people to laugh with me. So this actually represents two big pieces of news (1) The State is coming (5 discs of joy) and (2) Twitter works for news collection (I was also informed about Kevin Smith's spousal oral sex antics...nope, not kidding, ain't technology grand?!).

Babes hate Watchmen

So...Zack Snyder can pretend that this has nothing to do with Watchmen generally disappointing laypeople, but it does. According to Chud.com, who likely got it somewhere else but I couldn't find where, more smokin' hot hotties have dropped out of Snyder's "Hot chicks in an insane asylum...with violence" movie Sucker Punch. In this case it was Evan Rachel Wood (who is set to play MJ in Broadway's Spiderman musical...yes, that still feels weird to type) and Emma Stone (who I love and am the most sad to see leave). They are replaced by Jenna Malone (okay, I can dig it) and Jamie Chung (sorry, who?). So this means you lost Amanda Seyfried ("Big Love" and Mamma Mia!), Stone (Superbad), and Wood (The Wrestler) and got Malone (um, I guess Donnie Darko about 8 years ago), Chung (sorry, still don't know), and Emily Browning as your lead (um, she was apparently Lemony Snickett...which I'm told is a movie and not a candy). Oh, and your highest profile remaining "original" cast member, is the chick from High School Musical who took her clothes off and sent pictures of herself across the world (well, likely just to one person, but that's just as stupid). Point is, this just became a collection of question-mark actresses and not higher profile young starlets. Now, Zackie baby, you can still make this work to your advantage. If you can produce an awesome, balls-out movie that ISN'T degrading but somehow both sexy and kick-ass empowering, you're going to endear yourself to a lot of young actress (particularly if a few get MORE famous from the movie) and prove that you're no one-trick pony. Do that, and the world is your oyster. Also, hopefully this downgrade in talent gave you a few more sheckels to use on effects and whatnot. Surprisingly still looking forward to this (in part because I want to see Malone look saucy...I'll admit it).

Robocop-blocked

The Fighter was, at one point, the next Darren Aronofsky movie. Now, according to Variety, it's the next David O Russell movie. So, we're never going to see The Fighter, featuring Christian Bale and Mark Wahlberg, who would play "Irish" Mickey Ward. I suppose that isn't fair, but come on, Russell isn't known for being able to actually complete movies easily (still no clue what's up with Nailed), and this project was too tough for Aronofsky to finish and he made The Fountain and The Wrestler. Seriously. Although, to keep the streak going, Aronofsky will now have to call his next film The Robocop, which I'm okay with. Also, interesting point, the battle for best innovative director who is artistically on top may be tilting toward Aronofsky for me, solely because of productivity. If somehow The Robocop manages to be incredible, he'll pull into a tie with his main rival, Paul Thomas Anderson. By my count, Anderson has Hard Eight, Boogie Nights, Punch Drunk Love, Magnolia, and There Will Be Blood. Aronofsky has Pi, Requiem for a Dream, The Fountain, and The Wrestler and now The Robocop. Plus, Aronofsky has the edge in hot wife (Rachel Weisz, although Anderson either did date or is dating Fiona Apple, so points there) and has a sweet porn stache. Until I hear otherwise, things are looking up for Mr. A.

Quick clips for Monday April 20

For those who long suspected the sentience of stuffed animals...

The Hollywood Reporter kicks off our Monday with news that the market on comic books being optioned for movies has not yet bottomed out. "Lions, Tigers, and Bears," which is not about a reformed NFC North that would include the Cincinnati Bengals, uses the simple premise that stuffed animals are actually alive and protect children from monsters, which is something that any 4-year-old could have told you if you were willing to ask. Now, while this is based on a comic, it's one that I've never heard of or seen, which doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, just that I don't care if it does. That said, yeah, this is going to make a billion dollars for somebody. I mean, it's basically a fluffier Toy Story, only with monsters and undoubtedly worse writing. The question becomes: Is this going to be an entirely CGI animated movie or a halfsie endeavor that has CGI stuffed animals and real people (although, if they had balls, they'd do real stuffed animals and CGI people)? Again, while the answer is an almost disturbingly loud "I DON'T CARE," it's Monday, and I have to talk about something. I tell you what, though, this is the sort of material that, if handled with a darker, cooler lens, could be really interesting. Oooooh, what if they did it all Muppet-like? Sort of like a new-school Labyrinth. And instead of David Bowie they could use somebody like the douche lead singer for Maroon 5 or something! I'm on to something huge here.

Robin Hoodwinked

Russ Fischer at Chud.com was quick to point out that the following picture of Russell Crowe as Robin Hood is a little on the underwhelming side (which is nice for Crowe these days, as he's used to things being "over"...as in overweight, overrated, overpaid, etc...more fat jokes later).


Now, as Russ points out, it's not a bad shot, until you consider the quote that accompanies it in the USA Today from Brian Grazer: "He doesn't have the old Robin Hood tights. He's got armor. He's very medieval. He looks, if anything, more like he did in Gladiator than anything we're used to seeing with Robin Hood."Um, well, notsomuch really there Brian. He looks EXACTLY like old Robin Hood. Perhaps what they meant by "armor" is "girdle" and by "medieval" he means "chubby" and by "more like Gladiator" he means "nothing like Gladiator." Now, I love me some Robin Hood, enough so that one of my favorite theatrical experiences as a preteen was seeing the Kevin Costner version...and that version had KEVIN COSTNER in it. I love the myth, I love the arrows, I love the merry men, I love all of it. It's pretty much second to King Arthur in terms of inherent coolness. And yet, they keep making shitty movies of both mythic properties. So, despite the rather blah image, my hopes are still high for this one, especially given the fact that Maid Marion is Cate Blanchett, who shot an arrow into my heart long ago. Get it? Because it's a blurb about Robin Hood and because I love her! Happy Monday!

Weekend Box Office Report: You guys pick NOW to start seeing the good movies?

In this, the year of our Blart, you would think that America would follow up a Hannah Montana triumph in style. Sure, they did at the top spot, taking Zack Effron to heights he won't reach again despite his insistence to his agent that his role as a gay gigolo in Giggle Me Tender will be the key to his being taken seriously as an actor (side note, begin discussion about Effron's career arc and the similarity to Lindsay Lohan's). But there, right at the second spot is State of Play, which is by all accounts "good" and "smart." With a weak advertising campaign and modest buzz, all the film had going for it was good actors, an interesting plot, and great reviews. Since when is that enough for you people?! You can't go changing behaviors now on me?!

Here's the results:

1.) 17 Again - $24 Million (Accuracy of predictions - 94%)

Dear everyone who saw this movie, I'm in the process of writing a movie you're going to love. It's about this streetwise kid who sneaks on to a large boat and falls in love with a girl engaged to an aristocrat. In the end, the boat sinks and their love endures. It's going to be my follow-up to my first endeavor: Space Battles.

2.) State of Play - $14 million (Accuracy of prediction - 0%)

You know, I usually don't miss by hitting zero on one that appears in the top 2. I figured, at best, this would creep into the five hole, but I forgot the public's love of Ben Affleck. My bad. Actually, I'm giving this one's success entirely to Rachel McAdam's dimples. They deserve it.

3.) Monsters vs Aliens - $13 million (Accuracy of prediction - 86%)

Keeps on chugging along. Probably won't have competition until Up destroys it in late May. Actually, it may make more money than Up, but that's not what matters to those of us who don't have yachts to pay for.

4.) Hanna Montana - $12.5 million (Accuracy of prediction - 62%)

Oh Miley Cyrus, when will you leave? Seriously, feel free to drop me a line and let me know.

5.) Fast and Furious - $12 million (Accuracy of prediction - 96%)

Hey, Vin Diesel was just beat by a girl! That's hilarious! Oh, gender-based humor, will you ever get old?!

Overall accuracy of prediction - 68%

This is sad. I think I've come to realize this is about what I can do, I can predict at about a 68% level. That's not good. Oh well, I'm still in a good mood and there's nothing you or Miley Cyrus can do about that.

Friday-free-for-all

Twitwar 2009

And so it was that on Thursday, the sixteenth of April, in the year of our Lord (okay, fine, your Lord too) two-thousand-and-nine, a great battle began. Spreading across the three great movie-blog nations (Aintitcool.com, Slashfilm.com, and Chud.com), the verbal mayhem and type-written violence was launched, not with an arrow or gunshot, but a tweet. Basically, a group of comedians, The Human Giant, decided they would twitter (tweet, twat, twote, whatever) during the premiere of Crank 2: High Voltage, perhaps the only movie that could be summarized (or written) in less than 200 characters. This shot across the bow of people who hate the dipshits who ALREADY have invented enough stupid horseplay to do in theaters to distract people actually watching the movies caused quite an online ruckus. Harry, the head geek at Aintitcool.com, and Devin, one of the heads of Chud.com, agreed that this action (while presumably funny) could have some actual shitty consequences. Basically, if people find this amusing that these comedians did it, they'll start doing it themselves. Don't believe them? How many Borat impressions have you heard recently? Meanwhile Peter Sciretta at Slashfilm.com took the opposite view, that we need to chill out, basically asking "if nobody cares, is it that big of a deal." Much like Devin pointed out yesterday when he bitch-slapped Slash for their "Top 10 Influential Movies of the Last 10 Years" post (mostly because it was terrible), I need to mention that I think Slash rules. I read it every day, they have great insights, find stuff that nobody else does, and have a great spirit about them. In Twitwar, however, they are totally, colossally moronic and wrong. They physically could not be more incorrect if they tried. First of all, people were bothered. I know this, because people get bothered in a movie theater if someone shakes their popcorn too much. This isn't reasonable, but it is true. People don't always SAY that they're bothered, but they are. So the idea that you know that everyone in the theater was cool with it is bullshit. Second, it isn't about this ONE case. It's about the people who see Jackass and light themselves on fire. Some halfwit is going to read about this, think it's funny, and tweet his way through a showing of a movie I want to see and pay attention to while sitting next to or in front of me. This was going to happen soon enough anyway, we didn't need press releases helping it to happen. Watching movies in a theater gets less and less appealing to people by the second, we really don't need to help them along. Thankfully, I have a solution that is equally as amusing as having everyone twitter during a movie. If you see someone twittering in a movie, punch them in the goddamn face and put the video on youtube. It will be hilarious and still uses technology. Everybody wins.

Weekend Battle Plan: Save a newspaper, watch a movie

So, Russell Fatty Crowe may be the the final thespian to portray a modern newspaperman. Okay, that's stretching it a bit, but State of Play is clearly going to be one of the final entries in the once thriving genre of newspaper journalists who expose a conspiracy that goes ALL THE WAY TO THE TOP! It's hard to imagine someone making a movie about a blogger who ALMOST GETS ALL THE FACTS RIGHT! Although the movie sounds like it would have been far better with the original Brad Pitt/Ed Norton casting, it's worth heading to an intrigue movie with good actors about an interesting subject every once and awhile. Oh, and Rachel McAdams is in it. That should be enough for anyone to see it. Seriously, how is this girl not everywhere doing all of the movies? I like Amy Adams, but how is it McAdams isn't the new "It" actress? She's stunning, charismatic, and talented. If you're thinking about casting Anne Hathaway, see if McAdams is available (unless it's a generic rom com, then call Kate Hudson). Other movies opening include the aforementioned twitter-magnet Crank 2, which seems to be rabidly insane, and 17 Again, which isn't appropriate for human consumption.

My recommendation: Go see State of Play. Support newspapers at least spiritually, since you won't support them monetarily.

On DVD: Okay, when I say you should rent The Spirit, you have to remember two things: (1) I HAVE to recommend any Scarlett Johansson movie, especially one in which she wears ridiculous outfits. (2) It's really funny if you let it be. See, it's an awful, awful, awful movie made by a guy who is about 1/80th as intelligent and talented as he thinks he is. Oh, he's still more talented than most, but just not anywhere near as much as he thinks. I had the same reaction to the opening of this movie (hell, from the first trailer) as I did to his reboot of "Batman and Robin," which was anger and confusion. But then, when you realize it's okay to laugh AT him and AT the project, not with it, it becomes okay again. So either rent it to mock or rent it to Scarlett ogle, I don't care.

Fearless, Flawless Box Office Predictions

Well, well, well, here we are again. Once more looking down the barrel of a hazy week destined to give me fits. But you know what, I don't care. The weather is beautiful today, the weekend is upon us, I'm beginning to relax for the first time in weeks, so I'm not going to freak out about a little thing like having no idea how the movies are going to shake out this week. Instead, I'm going to rejoice in the little things, like not watching "Howie Do That" or hoping that the Cubs finally scratch out a win (or show some life). So here's your sunny movie predictions for this weekend:

1.) 17 Again - $21 million

See, I'm not even letting it bother me that a plot more used up than Pamela Anderson is going to be the top movie of the week just because the main star has silky hair and appeals to tween girls and some males of all ages. Nope, I'm just going to note that it's nice Matthew Perry was able to scrape a few bucks up for the sale of his final amount of dignity.

2.) Hannah Montana - $17 million

Sure, I could be really upset about the fact that the horse-toothed, talentless teen bimbo is going to rake in another hefty sum this weekend, but no sir. I'm happy. I'm just going to note that it's nice Billy Ray's breeding was more successful than his singing.

3.) Crank: High Voltage - $15 million

Sure, the first movie should have prevented any sequel and this is really just as stupid as Shoot 'Em Up. But you have to just let these things roll off your back. I'm just going to note that Amy Smart has nice hooters.

4.) Monsters vs Aliens - $14 million

Sure, I could note that this is blocking out that newspaper movie I talked to you about earlier or that it's on pace to be so successful that Dreamworks animation will never feel the need to add quality writing to their process. I'm just going to note that 3D is the coolest, non-addictive way to have shapes fly at your face when they aren't really.

5.) Fast and Furious - $13 million

Oh, who am I kidding? I don't have anything bad to say about such a quality franchise. You go Vin Diesel. No seriously. Go.

Quick clips for Thursday April 16

We need more commies

I'm not saying that we need a new Red Dawn. What C. Thomas Howell hath created, no man should ever remake. Still, if you're going to do it, you're going to be forced to consider the international ramifications of who you make the villains. More specifically, according to Latino Review (a Web site I don't pimp enough), the remakers just pissed off billions of people. In the in-depth script review, it is revealed that the American insurgents will be fighting against the invading Chinese army (helped out by the Russkies, and thank Jesus, I was afraid we left those bastards off the hook). The Wolverines (by the way, sidetrack here, do you think the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan call themselves things like "The Foxes" or "The Whale Riders" or something) will be similar in terms of the number of them and their names, but their stories have all been updated. Most notably, there's going to be some racial diversity! One of them is going to be Asian...I wonder if we'll have the moment when they turn on her for helping her ancestors and then she reveals that she's actually Korean, assholes. Speaking of Koreans...why not make this a Korean invading force? The world hates North Korea. Their leader is an asshat with a global domination boner. Sure, China has the means to actually invade us, but not the motivation right now, which makes the whole thing silly...okay, sillier. The other problem is that they apparently don't focus too much on the struggle of the main character, who is an Iraq war vet and now finds HIMSELF to be an insurgent. I know the obvious reason: They don't want audiences to question the morality of the situation so much as they want them watching stuff explode. I, for one, hope this angle gets played up and it takes on a whole subversive position. If not, I'm going to tell C. Thomas Howell what they've done here. The wrath of the Chinese might isn't as formidable as a Howell's rage.

A sequel to Blade Runner that isn't a sequel to Blade Runner and really doesn't have much to do with Blade Runner...Blade Runner

Okay, so I haven't seen Duncan Jones's upcoming Moon, but I know I'm going to like it. How do I know this? Well, from all accounts, it's intelligent science fiction, which I love on screen. It's a sparse movie with just Sam Rockwell doing the acting and has some clever twists. Also, I loved Solaris, the remake with George Clooney, so you know I'm coo-coo for Coco Puffs when it comes down to this kind of sci-fi (I also loved Sunshine...seriously, I'm stupid for this stuff). So it excites me that Jones has gone around talking about his next project, which will actually be in my favorite, favorite subgenre: Sci-film noir. He's going to do a mystery set in a futuristic Berlin in a film he's describing as "inspired by Blade Runner." His roundabout way of introducing this project made it sound like it is a kind of sequel. It isn't. That's good because we don't need a sequel to that perfect, perfect movie. What we need is more movies LIKE that movie, more that explore the whole feel of film noir mashed with sci-fi. I don't care that this is all total bullshit speculation at this point, that we don't have a title or cast, or even know that this is going to be made. I just like that the idea is out there, with someone potentially wicked cool. I can't wait to see Moon and I really, REALLY can't wait to see whatever this next film is called. Of course, I say all this now and he'll go and cast Jessica Alba and Kevin Costner. Just watch.

Lost recap: Chang-a-lang-a-ding-dead

Okay, so let's just start right off with what was most obvious: We all knew that Pierre Chang, AKA Marvin Candle, was the proud papa of undead peeper Miles Straum. No surprise there. What remains to be seen is exactly HOW he does see the undead and WHY he's able to do that. I was hoping this would be the episode to explain that, lest the show run out of time to tell us those answers, but alas...all we got was a charming little ditty involving Hurley and Miles and loads more daddy issues.

Here's what happened:

1.) Hopping around in Miles's life, we see him as a kid finding dead bodies in an apartment complex. We see him having problems with his mom's refusal to acknowledge his abilities and disclose his father's identity as he becomes an adult. We see Miles scamming a father by claiming to talk to a son he didn't talk to (we'll come back to this one). Finally, we see Miles being taken by Naomi to check his talent and getting drawn up into Widmore's freighter assault squad.

2.) In 1977, Miles gets brought into "the circle of trust" (anybody having a harder and harder time buying Horace as a leader?) and being told to take a body that was killed by electromagnetism to Dr. Chang, who happens to be his dad. Hurley joins along and, in between writing the script for Empire Strikes Back to send to George Lucas "with a few improvements," helps encourage Miles to get in touch with his paternal loss.

3.) The real interesting moments were quick, but nuanced, so we'll break them down here:

A - Miles revealed that he CAN'T talk to a dead person that has had their body destroyed. In the show's best scene (although, by the way, I love the actor who plays Miles...he's quite good and should get more work in the future), Miles reveals to the father he scammed that he couldn't talk to his son. Interesting. Combine that with the conversation he had with Hurley explaining that he can't CONVERSE with any of the dead people, he just sees flashes and hears things, and you get my theory for Miles's powers: it IS time-travel related in that he is able to see the past of a deceased person. Obviously, his ability has something to do with being born on the island (or perhaps his interference with his own past...something we see happening already through his interaction with his father) and has something to do with the energy contained by or released by a body, even after it's death (hence, no body, no info).

B - We found out there's potentially another group. Follow me here: We've got the Dharma people (which I'm going to include our castaways other than Sun and Locke in right now, even though Sayid is not with them), we've got the Widmore group (the freighter asshats and others), we've got "the others," and now we've got the Shadow of the Statue people (who include the chick who snagged Sayid and the guy who jacked up Miles last night and made it clear they are NOT with Widmore). That last group COULD be a part of "the others." In fact, I'm going to make a prediction: They work for Ben. When all things are equal, I use my "Alias" rule. In "Alias," it was always Irena Derevko. In "Lost," it's always Ben. Ben wanted Sayid to come back to the island, which the one chick did. Ben doesn't want Widmore messing with him, so he wouldn't want Miles to go. Now, they could be an offshoot of "The Others," which would be cool. In fact, we forget all the time issues to the point where those guys could be descendants or disciples of Locke's band of "others." Who knows? Point is, we KNOW now that they aren't Widmore's people, and that's cool.

C - Farraday is back and was in Ann Arbor doing God knows what scientific research for Dharma. As it turns out (or will turn out), a lot of this is going to end up being his fault. That's cool.

Really, it sets us up for two weeks from now with "The Variant," the episode with the most promise. Although, man, all the next episodes are going to rule. You've got a Richard Alpert episode coming and a finale called "The Incident." It's a good time to be a Lostie.