FilmMonthly » Neal Fischer

Officer Down

Neal Fischer — Tue, 22 Jan 2013 01:40:31 +0000

Available in stores on January 22nd from Anchor Bay Entertainment, Brian A. Miller’s Officer Down boasts an impressive cast of actors including the star, Stephen Dorff. Supporting him are Dominic Purcell (Prison Break), AnnaLynne McCord(90210), David Boreanaz(Bones),Walton Goggins(Justified), Stephen Lang(Avatar), and James Woods.

The film is available in both DVD and Blu-Ray disc on a serviceable but not overly impressive 2:40:1 transfer. It has a 97 minute run time that doesn’t overstay it’s welcome. The Blu-Ray disc does not include any supplemental material.

The story of Officer Down is as follows: One year ago, dirty cop Detective Callahan (Stephen Dorff) was shot in a drug bust gone wrong, and saved by an anonymous stranger who gave him a second chance to clean up his life. But when the stranger finally comes forward, seeking revenge against the men responsible for a string of assaults on young women at a local strip club, Callahan must go rogue to find the attacker, in an effort to hide how his past played a part in these crimes. His desperation to find the attacker, and cover his tracks, takes him down a violent road of deception, cover-ups and fraud. Can he play the “good cop” and track down the assailant, while still keeping his reputation clean? (Courtesy of Anchor Bay Entertainment).

OPINION:

While Officer Down certainly doesn’t reinvent any genres, or turn storylines on its head, it succeeds in telling a by-the-numbers crime story. I don’t think the film would have succeeded without the caliber of cast that Brian A. Miller (House of The Rising Sun) seems to have put together here. Working with a script from John Chase, a mostly unknown writer, Miller took a decent script, threw an A-Level cast on it, and brought the picture up to a flawed but enjoyable crime picture.

One of the best moments of the film was a cameo by the wonderful character actor Walton Goggins, who has been putting in stellar work on such shows as Justified, Sons of Anarchy, and a recent turn in two Oscar Nominated Films Django Unchained, and Lincoln. He seems to really make any cast that much more well-rounded.

Some people are giving a lot of press to the acting debut of rapper Soulja Boy. To be expected, he doesn’t do anything spectacular here. The silver lining was his acting seems to be better than his music, so that’s a plus, right?

Kudos to Stephen Dorff for headlining this film though. He is able to believably pull off the anti-hero cop with a past. Without him the film doesn’t work, even with this cast. The writing is stale at times, but has moments of freshness, which is a good enough credit for writer John Chase, who I’m sure will have a nice home writing procedural cop movies for the under $15 Million straight-to-dvd markets.

Officer Down is a movie for fans of double-crosses, shoot-outs, scenes in strip clubs, revenge, and redemption. It’s a decent offering from Anchor Bay Entertainment that will at least entertain you for the 97 minutes of time it takes to watch it.

Did I enjoy it? Of course I did. The cast was fun, the script did it’s job, and I went in knowing what it was going to be and it delivered Sometimes, you just can’t ask for more than that. And I’m okay with that.

I AM NUMBER FOUR

Neal Fischer — Wed, 01 Jun 2011 02:19:34 +0000

FIRST IMPRESSION:
I went into I AM NUMBER FOUR with low expectations. I had seen a few of the trailers for the film here and there, but had no other information to go on. All I knew going into the film were these facts: D.J. Caruso, director of Disturbia is behind the camera. Check. Hot Australian chick from THE SORCERER’S APPRENTICE and BEDTIME STORIES is a badass chick. Check. Timothy Olyphant has a role. Check.
For those not familiar, I AM NUMBER FOUR was first a Young Adult novel written by an author named Pitticus Lore (obviously a pseudonym).
Now for my actual first impression after finishing the film…
I LOVED IT! Some of the best action sequences I’ve seen in any film, let alone book adaptations, or films for teenagers. At a PG-13, it did quite well with using every set piece imaginable and keeping things crisp, fun and explosive heavy!
PLOT:
Extraordinary teen John Smith (Alex Pettyfer) is a fugitive on the run from ruthless enemies sent to destroy him. Changing his identity, moving from town to town with his guardian Henri (Timothy Olyphant), John is always the new kid with no ties to his past. In the small Ohio town he now calls home, John encounters unexpected, life-changing events-his first love (Diana Agron), powerful new abilities and a connection to the others who share his incredible destiny. Summary by Walt Disney Pictures.
Basic plot: An alien planet is destroyed and only a certain number of inhabitants are alive and well, living on earth. Another race hell-bent on destroying them all are searching for each living alien and destroying them one-by-one. They’ve killed 1, 2, 3 and now we follow number 4 as he tries to survive, with a little help from number 6.
PERFORMANCES (STANDOUTS, FLOPS, THOSE TO REMEMBER)
I actually really enjoyed all the performances in this film. Alex Pettyfer of BEASTLY fame did a great job as leading man. As his love interest, currently popular GLEE cast member Diana Agron brought just the right amount of “girl next door” charm and innocence, providing a sweet connection to the lead character.
Other notable mentions are Teresa Palmer playing the badass, shoot first, take names later Number 6 who comes in to help with extra fire power. She looked good, she fought well, and she rode a Ducati. What more could you ask for?
Finally, Timothy Olyphant provided some solid work as always as Number 4’s handler and father figure. I also want to make a quick mention of “go to bad guy” of the last few years, young actor, Jake Abel. He plays the ex-boyfriend of Diana Agron’s character and Antagonist to Number 4 John Smith. I don’t know if he’s sick of playing the mean guy all the time, but, he’s good at it. So I won’t complain.
DID THE FILM DELIVER THE GOODS?:
I think the film delivered the goods. When a person can go into a film with no expectations, perhaps even low expectations and come out with a big smile on their face, I would say it did it’s job. The directing is top-notch from D.J. Caruso who I think redeems himself from his missteps in the recent film EAGLE EYE. He does really well with teen angst, and high school relationships as we saw in DISTURBIA. To see him back in this territory is a welcomed return.
The only criticism I would have of this film would be the Mogadorian’s. They are the race of people trying to kill all the “Number’s.” Outfitted with shaved heads, tattoo’s, fish scales by their noses and sharp teeth, they blur the line between crazy and intimidating, and comic relief. I didn’t really care for the make-up job, or some of their lines and how they were used, but perhaps a second watch will change that.
SPECIAL FEATURES, EXTRAS, THE WHOLE KIT & KABOODLE:
I was disappointed in the amount of extras on this film. I WANTED MORE! I wanted to hear D.J. Caruso talk about directing more. All we get is:
Deleted Scenes: They really didn’t need to show us any of these, they don’t help the film.
Becoming Number Six: This is a short, behind the scenes segment following Teresa Palmer as she does stunts for the film. I liked this feature a lot, just wished it was longer and included all of the cast and more stunts.
Blooper reel: Somewhat funny, but not enough to really sustain my interest.
FEATURE RUN TIME: 109 Minutes
ASPECT RATION: 1.85:1 High Def *The Blu-Ray had a nice transfer
SOUND: Dolby DTS Surround in English. Subtitled in English, French and Spanish
————-FINAL RATING—————-
MOVIE: 7.5 out of 10 DVD: 6 out of 10
Neal Fischer is an independent film critic and filmmaker in Chicago.

STEP UP 3… Without the D

Neal Fischer — Thu, 23 Dec 2010 01:07:32 +0000

FIRST IMPRESSION:
I saw STEP UP 3D in theaters and actually had a good experience. If you go into the film knowing it’s going to be a cheese fest, with obvious attempts at utilizing the 3D, then you will have fun. The acting is pretty sub-par minus a few performances. The dancing, well, it’s a dancing movie so it’s top-notch. Unfortunately, the copy I reviewed wasn’t in 3D so I couldn’t tell you how it looked on a TV, but without 3D, it’s not the same.
PLOT:
A tight-knit group of New York City street dancers, including Luke (Malambri) and Natalie (Vinson), team up with NYU freshman Moose (Sevani), and find themselves pitted against the world’s best hip hop dancers in a high-stakes showdown that will change their lives forever. (taken from Walt Disney summary on IMDB)
Basically, two dance groups battle it out for $100,000 cash, so that the main character can keep his “dance studio/apartment/dorm” open. Apparently dancers can’t get other jobs AND dance, so all bets are on them winning this contest.
PERFORMANCES (STANDOUTS, FLOPS, THOSE TO REMEMBER)
The real star of this film is Adam G. Sevani, who plays MOOSE, the character who first appeared in Step Up 2: The Streets. The kid can act, he can dance, and he has presence on the big screen. He was one of my favorite parts of the second film, and he is definitely the reason I enjoyed this film.
The only crime of this movie is that MOOSE wasn’t the main character. I feel like the producers came in and said “No one will watch a movie with a skinny jewish dancer as the lead….let’s throw in two models, write them a love story, and keep the skinny kid as the B story.” I would have LOVED this movie, if it was about MOOSE….but alas, sometimes what we want isn’t in the cards.
Rick Malambri, who plays Luke, the main character, was just….bad. I don’t know why they cast him. I won’t knock his other work, because I haven’t seen it, but first of all, this is a DANCING movie and he CAN’T DANCE! Why did they cast him. The lead in the second film, Robert Hoffman, is an award winning dancer, and a charming actor…couldn’t they have written him in? It didn’t make sense. He was awkward to watch.
Finally, I appreciate that they casted real dancers as the supporting roles, but other than the twins in the film, some of them came across as acting too hard. No one stood out but Moose, and Camille played by Alison Stoner, who you might remember from the first film.
DID THE FILM DELIVER THE GOODS?:
For being a dancing movie, YES, the film delivered the goods. It kept my interest. Sometimes, the interest was me laughing at the cheesiness of the whole thing, but, that counts for something. If you are a fan of musicals, or dancing, I would recommend this as a rent. If you are a fan of the Step Up series…I think number 2 still wins for best film, but this film is very close.
SPECIAL FEATURES, EXTRAS, THE WHOLE KIT & KABOODLE:
The film had a decent amount of extras.
Extra Moves (More dancing)
8 music videos
Making of the music videos
Born from a Boom Box: A Luke Katcher Film (I don’t know why)
Deleted scenes with intros by director Jon M. Chu
You also get a digital copy of the film.
FEATURE RUN TIME: 107 Minutes
ASPECT RATION: 1:85:1
SOUND: Dolby Digital 7.1 Surround Sound ( I was a little disappointed with the sound. Perhaps if I had the surround sound on it would have been better. I felt the music didn’t PUMP as much as it did in the theater.
The picture was very crisp, almost too crisp at times making it look fake.
————-FINAL RATING—————-
MOVIE: 6 out of 10 DVD: 7 out of 10

Camp Rock 2 The Final Jam: Extended Edition

Neal Fischer — Tue, 21 Sep 2010 12:18:45 +0000

FIRST IMPRESSION:
Camp Rock 2 The Final Jam: Extended Edition, is everything you would expect from a TV movie musical pumped out by Disney. BIG Disney stars, BIG musical numbers, BIG dance breaks, and BIG acting. The key word here is BIG. Is that a good thing, well, I’ll let you be the judge. Where the first film had an earnest budget, smaller story, and focused on the music, this film seems to have taken a few shots of Disney Steroids and become what they must feel is “Bigger, Better and Brigther.” It’s all about preference really. Do you like hearing your artists acoustically, on a small stage in a coffee shop where they look you in the eye? Or do you like the gigantic arena events, with fireworks, explosions and highly choreographed popping and locking?
Camp Rock 2 follows the same character from the first film, Mitchie, played by Demi Lovato. If I can sidetrack here a bit, I want to talk about Demi Lovato. She is something special. You can put me in the same group of people who once made fun of the kids movie musical craze to a point. It seems they are all the rage with the High School Musical trilogy, GLEE and a host of other options for youngsters.
I do want to point out that Demi Lovato SOARS above the rest of Disney’s family. She is by far the best singer that Disney has come out with since Justin Timberlake and Christina Aguilera. Miley Cyrus is constantly in auto-tune and most of the time can’t seem to find the right key. Selena Gomez is still just starting out, and the Jonas Brothers, well, they are real musicians and I’ll get to them later.
In the first film and this film, Demi seems to be finding her acting chops, probably with help from “Sonny with a Chance” her television show on Disney. At times, she does over act a bit, but her performances help the awkward pauses. She said in an interview that this was a fun film for her to make simply because she got to dance more. This film has A LOT of dancing. Some good, some bad, some nods to old 40′s musicals, some nods to the STEP UP films and street dancing. Okay, enough about Demi…
PLOT:
Mitchie (Lovato) can’t wait to return to Camp Rock to meet up with friends, sing songs and see her crush Shane (Joe Jonas). Joined by Shane’s musical group brothers Nate(Nick Jonas) and Jason(Kevin Jonas) the 4 embark on what they hope is a summer to remember. Things get complicated, like they always do, when across the river a new camp, CAMP STAR has opened up and is taking the spotlight away from the kids at Camp Rock who just want to sing, dance and have fun. A subplot involving the head of Camp Rock and the head of Camp Star drives the film (they were bandmates who had a falling out, now they compete against each other), but ultimately people tune in to see Lovato, The Jonas Brothers and singing and dancing.
PERFORMANCES (STANDOUTS, FLOPS, THOSE TO REMEMBER):
Like I said above, Demi Lovato was wonderful. She needs to branch out and do something other than Disney, in my opinion. Lovato is a STAR in every sense of the word.
The Jonas Brothers came in and did their thing. They are good performers, no doubt about it. Some people hate their music, but let’s face it, Nick Jonas, the prodigy of the group who writes all the music, has to get credit for providing them with the ammo that got them grammy nominated and world famous. As far as acting, Nick and Joe were good and someone needs to tell Kevin to tone it down a bit. He might be better for stage.
Disney introduced two new performers: Mathhew Mdot Finley and Chloe Bridges. The former seemed to fall in love with his voice being digitized, or perhaps the producers did. He is a good dancer, but I don’t know how he’ll last with Lovato around.
Bridges is a funny find. It seems they wanted Angelina Jolie at age 18. She didn’t sing much, but her acting was fair and all I could think about was her resemblance to Jolie.
DID THE FILM DELIVER THE GOODS?:
Let me start by saying that I deal with kids aged 5-13 every day. I teach them drama. Basically, how to act, get out of their shell, learn lines and perform. Since they are the ones this film is targeted for, it is great to hear their opinions.
Most of the KIDS loved the film. I can see why. Most of the acting is over-the-top and the dancing and singing just comes at you out of nowhere. Kids love to get up and dance when a song comes on, and this film gives them chance after chance.
If you want YOUR KID to watch this, then YES this film is PERFECT for them. You will be able to watch it with them and laugh at the scenes that are over done and enjoy watching your child dance and sing to the likes of the Jonas Brothers.
As far as a film goes, you could tell they tried to make it bigger and better. The first film was more enjoyable because it didn’t try to be High School Musical, it was CAMP ROCK, but this time it seems the HSM mentality snuck in.
SPECIAL FEATURES, EXTRAS, THE WHOLE KIT & KABOODLE:
***Disney is the best at releasing BLU-RAY discs. You get the film on BLU-RAY, a DVD Copy, and a DIGITAL COPY. So many options, I love it.***
STANDARD DVD BONUS FEATURES:
Rock Along – Sing with the numbers
Extended Version of the Film – including TWO additional music sequences: “Walking in My Shoes” and “Different Summers”
BLU RAY EXCLUSIVE BONUS FEATURES:
Everything on the DVD plus…
Getting to know Camp Star’s Newest Stars
Music Videos from Camp Rockers around the World
**I was hoping for more features but what they had wasn’t bad.**
FEATURE RUN TIME: 104 Minutes
ASPECT RATION: 1:78:1
SOUND: Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround Sound
———FINAL RATING———–
ADULT RATING: 5 out of 10 KIDS RATING: 8 out of 10

Exclusive “Princess and The Frog” Virtual Roundtable with Writer-Directors; Ron Clements and John Musker

Neal Fischer — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 22:16:58 +0000

Q: This is a return to 2-D animation for Disney. Is there anything new with the technology this time around?
John Musker: Our “ink and paint” system was different. We used “Harmony” instead of CAPS, our old system that had been mothballed. With this new system we were able to evaluate scenes in full color and do paint adjustments to the characters without having to repaint the entire scenes. We also were able to evaluate all elements “in continuity” which was something new. Our character animation was done on paper just as Snow White was. Our effects animation, i.e., the water ripples, magic, shadows, etc. for the first time was done without paper. Those elements were drawn on a pressure sensitive tablet with a stylus.
Q: What were some of your biggest influences on this film? Did you look back to your past movies at all for guidance?
John Musker: Bambi and Lady and the Tramp were two big influences in terms of background styling. The painterly lush look of Bambi influenced our bayou scenes and our New Orleans French Quarter city-scapes were influenced by Lady and the Tramp. We were also influenced by the great draftsmanship displayed in the character drawing in Lady. The characters were drawn with a great deal of solidity. Later films like Sleeping Beauty got more designy and stylized. We wanted a more dimensionally drawn look.
Ron Clements: In terms of past movies, “Bambi” and “Lady and the Tramp” were the two we looked at the most. “Lady” for the scenes in New Orleans and “Bambi” for the bayou scenes. We also did a lot of research in New Orleans itself. We went to the Jazz Fest, toured the French Quarter and the Garden District, spent a day with a Voodoo priestess and toured the bayou with a Cajun tour guide. We also got to ride a float during Mardi Gras. All of this stuff found its way into the movie.
Q: Being a Louisiana native, it’s eerie how well you got the Cajun Raymond character and extremely entertaining. Was their allot of research involved in the Raymond character and the film as a whole?
John Musker: We wanted to do right by Louisiana and the culture there including the great Cajun populace. John Lasseter really wanted authenticity so we took several trips down there. We met with a number of people including a man named Reggie who was our bayou tour guide. We noted his speech patterns, and picked up more phrases at jazz Fest. We also did research where we read stories written in a “Cajun” voice and found Cajun glossaries online. Best of all though, we cast Jim Cummings as our firefly. When he auditioned he did a great Cajun accent and we learned he had a home there for several years and had worked with Cajuns in the Merchant marines. He was able to improvise in his Cajun speak, so he added a lot of flavor to our gumbo.
Q: The magical elements of this film are decidedly underplayed compared to past Disney fairy tales — Mama Odie did not give our heroes a powerful talisman nor step in to save the day, while Dr. Facilier and his superiors were much less dark and foreboding than their villainous predecessors. How did you set about breaking these story elements?
Ron Clements: Mama Odie was based on Ava Kay Jones, an ordained Voodoo Priestess who we met with in New Orleans. She told us that even though magic is part of the Voodoo religion, when people come to someone like her for help, she advises them to never use magic to solve their problems. That almost always backfires. Rather they should look inside themselves for the answers. Dr. Facilier was based on the New Orleans “Bokur”. People who’ve broken away from the religion, made pacts with dark Voodoo spirits, and sell their magic for money. In terms of scariness, I think Facilier was handled similarly to our other villains like Ursula, Jafar, and Hades. We like scary stuff but don’t want to go too far. Some people thought Facilier was too scary. You think he’s not scary enough? Maybe that means we got it about right.
John Musker: In earlier versions of our story Mama Odie gave our heroine some gris gris, herbal charms that got “energized” in the climax. We wound up rewriting that as our gris gris felt like a bit of a deus ex machina. We do think of Facilier and his shadows as scary and were not trying to soft pedal that. Some of his scariness we thought of as “funhouse” scary and not slasher film scary.
Q: Can you talk about the difficulty of making a fairy tale happy ending feel earned and not contrived?
John Musker: We wanted our ending to be both surprising and satisfying. We hoped that people would believe that Tiana and Naveen, happy to have found and fallen for each other, were willing to accept their “frog” status as long as they had one another. We thought the twist of them turning back into frogs with their kiss, which we first saw in an early treatment by Greg Erb and Jason Oremland, before we ever got on the project, was clever and worked it into our script as well.
Q: In one scene, King Triton rolls past on a Mardi Gras float in an obvious reference to “The Little Mermaid.” There are dozens of less obvious references to other Disney movies like “Aladdin,” “The Lion King,” “Pete’s Dragon,” “The Jungle Book,” and even “Pirates of the Caribbean.” Was this a conscious collective homage, or are those classics so much a part of everyone’s consciousness that they just sort of crept in?
Ron Clements: Almost all this stuff was deliberate and done for our own amusement. Actually most of the Mardi Gras floats are based on movies John and I worked on. Along with the “Mermaid” float, there are brief shots of an “Arabian Nights” float, a Greek mythology float, and a “pirate” float. There are also caricatures of John and I on the mermaid float throwing beads to the crowd. There are many other caricatures of people who worked on the movie that pop up throughout. Many other Disney references as well. We don’t want any of this stuff to be distracting. Just a little something extra for whoever may catch it.
Q: Randy Newman’s score lends itself beautifully to both the location and time period. Was he the first composer you had in mind for the film, and at what point in the production did he begin developing the music?
Ron Clements: We pitched the idea for this movie to John Lasseter in March of 2006. We pitched it as a hand drawn film with an African American heroine, and as a musical with Randy Newman doing the music. John said yes to all those things. We thought of Randy almost immediately because his music is iconic, classic Americana, and we knew he spent his boyhood summers growing up in New Orleans. We met with Randy the following May, took him through the story, and talked about the placement of songs and styles of music. Randy took to the project immediately. He hadn’t written many musicals before but he was a great collaborator and we were thrilled with his brilliant work.
John Musker: Randy was our first and only suggestion to John Lasseter to do the music. His feel for Americana, and in particular the music of New Orleans, a place he spent boyhood summers, made him an ideal choice. We “pitched” the movie to Randy. We had an idea where the songs might come in, in order to tell story points and convey emotions on our characters. We did “idea” storyboards full of visual ideas for Randy to react to. We wrote the script without songs but knowing where they might fall. Randy then wrote songs that in some cases absorbed some of our dialogue. Randy’s writing of Facilier’s song, in which he gave him several sardonic asides, influenced us to try and put that quality and tone into his other non musical scenes as well. He wrote the songs over the course of a year and a half as we animated the movie, although we would always animate the song after he had written and recorded it (in animation voices are recorded before animation, not dubbed in later.) Likewise with the music we animate after the recordings and try and exploit things we hear in the music track.
Q: I had the pleasure of interviewing Mike Surrey a few months back. He said Ray Cummings made his job easy. What made you choose him for Ray? Also, what about Keith David and the relatively unknown Jennifer Cody?
John Musker: Jen Cody we found when we did auditions in NYC. She has done work on Broadway. When we heard her voice we thought she had a very distinctive appealing sound that was part Jean Arthur, part Bernadette Peters, with a nod to Betty Boop. Jim Cummings was a riot to work with, we have worked with in the past but what we didn’t know was that he had spent years in New Orleans where he worked alongside Cajuns whose speech patterns he picked up. He was and is a great improviser and he came up with great lines on the fly as it were. Keith we had worked with on Hercules. We knew he had that amazing speaking voice. We didn’t know he could sing as well, and he auditioned for us and sang like Nat King Cole. He was a joy to work with.
Q: Originally I believe The Princess and the Frog was going to be set in Chicago and be CG, how did the change of setting it in New Orleans and making it hand drawn come about?
Ron Clements: A few years ago, Pixar had explored a version of “The Frog Prince” set in gangland Chicago. John Lasseter wanted to switch the locale to New Orleans, a city he loves, but the project was eventually shelved. Meanwhile Disney had explored various versions of “The Frog Prince” going all the way back to the time of “Beauty and the Beast” In 2006, Disney bought the rights to a book called “The Frog Princess” which was the fairy tale with a twist. When the Princess kissed the frog she turned into a frog as well. When John Lasseter was put in charge of Disney animation, in February 2006, he asked John and me to take a look at all the previous versions and come up with our own. We combined the New Orleans setting with the twist, added some new characters and pitched a take that became the basis for the movie.
Q: How was it to be back at Disney with former colleagues after time away?
John Musker: It was great fun. These artists are the best in the world and we felt privileged to see them do what they do better than anyone else. We also worked with some young kids right out art school and that was fun, too. They had a lot of youthful exuberance and were mentored by the vets.
Q: In talking to Mark Henn, he said an employee at Disney was used as the model for Tiana. Who is she? What can you tell us about her?
John Musker: Jaimie Milner was an intern in post production (she attended USC), a beautiful girl with beautiful hair whom we took some photos of for reference. She was also influenced certainly by Aniki Noni Rose, the voice, who gave Tiana her dimples and her left handedness.
Q: There seem to be a lot of similarities between Ariel in the Little Mermaid and Tiana, in the way that they both want something more with their lives. How do you see the two in comparison?
John Musker: Ariel never lacked for a sense of fun, as she explored sunken ships and collected her artifacts. Tiana’s sense of fun got left behind in her single-minded pursuit of her restaurant.
Q: There’s obviously been films that have covered the same ground before, how do you make sure not to fall into some of those conventions set by those previous films to the point where it feels predictable or formulaic?
Ron Clements: John and I really hadn’t done a fairy tale since “The Little Mermaid” twenty years ago. It was interesting for us to reexamine this stuff from a different perspective. From the beginning, we thought of Tiana as someone who would never have been a big fan of Disney fairy tales. Our attempt was to take a lot of the archetypal elements of these films, (the Prince’s loyal manservant, the fairy Godmother, the wishing star, death and resurrection, etc.) and add some kind of twist to them. But we were always thinking of this as a kind of retro film, trying to recapture a bit of what Disney magic means to us.
Q: What advice could you give students interested in animation?
John Musker: Learn how to draw (even if interested in CG animation.) It’s the basis of what we do. Keep a sketchbook. Try making a very simple little film. Try and tell a story clearly and entertainingly. Study the way people move and animate move. Observe all you can, and try and capture that simply in a few lines on paper.
Q: In the grand Disney tradition, was the multi-plane camera system used to blend the characters into the layered background?
John Musker: Our compositing was done in the computer. Our layout people designed backgrounds to have out of focus foreground elements like the multiplane camera. The opening shot of the mansion had foreground trees that were out of focus. The effect is the same as the multiplane. The establishing shot of Mama Odie’s tree had a multiplane effect.
Q: Given the success you two have had in the past and that this was the first traditional animated feature in five years for Disney, did you feel a great sense of pressure/expectation from John Lasseter or yourselves?
Ron Clements: John Lasseter was always very supportive and never put any extra pressure on us. But yes, we felt a lot of pressure. We knew the stakes were high on this movie in all kinds of ways. We just tried not to think about that too much and attempted to make the best movie we possibly could.
Q: Where do you feel The Princess and the Frog fits into both of your resumes?
John Musker: The return of hand drawn animation, done at the highest level of quality.
Q: Do either of you have a favorite special feature on this DVD or Blu-ray?
John Musker: Viewers can see the entire film in rough animation. I think that’s very special and will be a treat for the consumer to discover. (on the Blu-ray edition under ‘play movie with work in progress’)
Q: Talk about Oscar night. What was that like for you?
John Musker: It was sort of like Sioux City on steroids.
Q: Where did the inspiration for Louis come from?
John Musker: Louis Armstrong the great jazz trumpeter was the inspiration.
Q: “Almost There” was very striking and really stood out. Can you talk about the influences for that sequence?

John Musker: The styling was based on the great Harlem renaissance artist Aaron Douglas. Sue Nichols Maciorowski, a wonderful viz dev artist brought his work to our attention.
Q: Can you explain how the two main characters could talk to animals and humans at the same time while they were frogs?
John Musker: It was our “rule” that since they were transformed humans they could still speak and understand humans. But because they are frogs, they can also understand and be understood by animals. We tried to set this up when after they became frogs, Stella the dog, heretofore heard only as barks, actually spoke.
John Musker: Thanks for so many questions. I just type too #$@% slow! This is because my poor Irish Mom typed all my term papers in high school. Let this be a lesson to all you young people. Learn to type. See you at the movies!!

The Virtual JONATHAN MOSTOW: A Virtual Rountable Interview With ‘SURROGATES’ Director Jonathan Mostow

Neal Fischer — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 10:24:07 +0000

SURROGATES
Virtual Round Table Q&A with Director Jonathan Mostow
By: Neal Fischer
________________________________________
Q: How did you direct your actors to have the ‘surrogates’ effect? What kind of suggestions would you give?
Jonathan Mostow: When I made Terminator 3, I learned something about directing actors to behave like robots. And one of the key things I learned is that if an actor tries to play a robot, he or she risks playing it mechanically in a way that makes the performance uninteresting. So how I approached the issue in that film and in Surrogates was instead to focus on erasing human idiosyncrasies and asymmetries — in posture, facial expressions, gait, etc. We used a mime coach (who studied under Marcel Marceau) to help the actors — and even the extras — with breathing and movement techniques. The actors really enjoyed the challenge.
________________________________________
Q: Do you think that the release of movies will continue to take place in theaters or, as the quality standards is constantly increasing at home with technology; movies might start to be released instantly on different Medias or directly on the internet in the future?
Jonathan Mostow: As you probably know, this is a hot topic of conversation in Hollywood right now. It seems that we’re heading toward the day that films will be released in all platforms simultaneously, albeit with a cost premium to see it at home. But I hope that theater-going doesn’t end — I think that watching movies on the big screen with an audience is still the best format and also an important one for society. Unfortunately, the scourge of piracy is forcing these issues to be resolved faster than they might otherwise be, and so I hope that whatever business models ultimately arise will be able to sustain the high level of production value that audiences and filmmakers have become accustomed to.
________________________________________
Q: Which other features can we find inside the Extras of the DVD and BD?
Jonathan Mostow: The DVD and Blu-ray both have my commentary and the music video by Breaking Benjamin. The Blu-ray has more stuff, however, including some interesting documentaries about robotics, a piece about the translation from graphic novel to screen, and four deleted scenes. (Plus, of course, the Blu-ray looks better!)
________________________________________
Q: What’s your recipe for creating a good action movie?
Jonathan Mostow: I wish there was a recipe! It would make my life so much easier. Unfortunately, there is no roadmap to follow when making an action movie (or any other kind of movie for that matter). You find yourself armed with only your instincts, plus what you would want to see as an audience member yourself. The place I begin is with story. If the audience doesn’t care about that, then it doesn’t matter how amazing the spectacle is. My central philosophy is that people go to the movies to be told a story, not to see stuff blow up.
________________________________________
Q: Do you believe your film made the audiences rethink some aspects of their lives?
Jonathan Mostow: I hope so. Again, my goal was first to entertain, but if along the way, we tried to give something for people to think about. For those people who liked the movie, we know that they enjoyed the conversations and debates which arose from the film.
________________________________________
Q: Are there any sci-fi movies that were inspirational to the tone, look and feel you wanted to strike with Surrogates?
Jonathan Mostow: For the look and feel of this movie, I found inspiration in some black and white films from the 60s — early works of John Frankenheimer — plus the original Twilight Zone TV show. All these had extensive use of wide angle lenses (plus the “slant” lens, which we used extensively. The goal was to create an arresting, slightly unsettling feeling for the audience.
________________________________________
Q: What’s the most rewarding thing you’ve learned or taken from making this movie?
Jonathan Mostow: Making this movie had made me much more conscious of how much time I spend on the computer. Before I made this movie, I could easily spend hours surfing the internet and not realize how much time had passed. Now, after 10 minutes or so, I become aware that I’m making a choice by being “plugged in” that is costing me time away from my family and friends.
________________________________________
Q: Did you read the comics before you started making the movie? If so, what did you like about them the most?
Jonathan Mostow:Yes, it was the graphic novel that inspired me to make the movie. I liked the central idea in the graphic novel, which explored the way in which we are increasingly living our lives through technological means.
________________________________________
Q: What do you personally think of the Blu-ray technology?
Jonathan Mostow: I LOVE Blu-ray. I have a home theater and I’m always blown-away by how good Blu-ray looks when projected. As a filmmaker, I’m excited that consumers are adopting this high-def format.
________________________________________
Q: This world is tech-addicted; do you think it is a plague? Should we could we control this?
Jonathan Mostow: Interesting question — and I speak as someone who is addicted to technology. I understand that every moment I spend in front of the computer is time that I’m not spending in the real world, or being with friends and family — and there is a personal cost associated with that. Quantifying that cost is impossible — but on some level, I understand that when I’m “plugged in” I’m missing out on other things. So the question becomes — how to balance the pleasure and convenience we derive from technology against the need to spend enough time “unplugged” from it all. I don’t know the answer. And as a civilization, I think we’re all struggling to figure it out. We’re still in the infancy of the technological revolution. Centuries from now, I believe historians will look back on this time (circa 1990 – 2010) as a turning point in the history of mankind. Is it a “plague”? No. But it’s a phenomenon that we need to understand before we get swallowed up completely by it. I don’t want to sound like I’m over-hyping the importance of this movie, because after all, Surrogates is first and foremost intended to be a piece of entertainment, but I do think that movies can help play a role in helping society talk about these issues, even if sometimes only tangentially. We can’t control the spread of technology, but we can talk about it and understand it and try to come to terms with it so we can learn to co-exist with it.
________________________________________
Q: In Surrogates every character in the frame looks perfect: was it a big technical problem for you? How did you find a solution?
Jonathan Mostow:I talk about that on the DVD commentary — it was a big challenge. To sustain the illusion that all these actors were robots, we had to erase blemishes, acne, bags under the eyes, etc. In a sense, the actors were the visual effects. As a result, there are more VFX shots than non-VFX shots in the movie.
________________________________________
Q: What is your favorite technical gadget, why?
Jonathan Mostow:Currently, my favorite gadget is the iPhone, but the toy I’m really waiting for is the Apple tablet.
________________________________________
Q: Do you prefer “old-school”, handcrafted SFX or CGI creations?
Jonathan Mostow: I think if you scratch beneath the surface of most filmmakers (myself included); you will find a 12 year old kid who views movie-making akin to playing with a giant electric train set. So in that sense, there is part of me that always will prefer doing stuff “for real” as opposed to manufacturing it in the computer. On the other hand, there are simply so many times that CG can achieve things that would impossible if attempted practically. The great late Stan Winston had a philosophy which I’ve taken to heart, which is to mix ‘n’ match whenever possible. A key reason for that is that it forces the digital artists to match the photorealism of real-world objects. One thing I try to avoid in my films are effects that have a CG “look” to them. The challenge is never let the audience get distracted by thinking that they’re watching something made in a computer.
________________________________________
Q: This is a so-called virtual roundtable interview. Wouldn’t you agree that in the context of “Surrogates” this is quite ironic? However, virtual technique like this is quite practical, isn’t it?
Jonathan Mostow: Great question! However, why do you call it “so-called”? I’d say this is 100% virtual, wouldn’t you? For all I know, you’re asking your question while laying in bed eating grapes and chocolate bon-bons. (Please let me know if I’m correct, BTW.)
________________________________________
Q: How close did you try to keep the film to the graphic novel?
Jonathan Mostow:We talk about that in one of the bonus features on the Blu-ray. The novel was interesting in that it was highly regarded, but not well-known outside a small community of graphic novel enthusiasts. So that meant that we weren’t necessarily beholden to elements in the graphic novel in the way that one might be if adapting a world-renowned piece of literature. Even the author of Surrogates acknowledged that changes were necessary to adapt his novel to the needs of a feature film. Hopefully, we struck the right balance. Certainly, I believe we preserved the central idea — which was to pose some interesting questions to the audience about how we can retain our humanity in this increasingly technological world.
________________________________________
Q: does the rapid technological evolution help making sci-fi movies easier, or harder, because the standards are higher and higher?
Jonathan Mostow: From a practical standpoint, it makes it easier because the digital/CG revolution makes it possible to realize almost anything you can imagine. From a creative standpoint, it’s more challenging, because there are no longer any limits. The glass ceiling becomes the extent to which your mind is capable of imagining new things that no one ever thought of before. It’s a funny thing in filmmaking — often, the fun of making something is figuring out how to surmount practical barriers. As those barriers get erased, then those challenges disappear.
________________________________________
Q: Are you afraid, that the future we see in the movie could be real someday soon?
Jonathan Mostow:Well, in a sense, we’re already at that point. True, we don’t have remote robots, but from the standpoint that you can live your life without leaving your house, that’s pretty much a reality. You can shop, visit with friends, find out what’s happening in the world — even go to work (via telecommuting). I’m not afraid, per se — certainly, that way of living has its advantages and conveniences — but there is a downside, which is that technology risks isolating us from each other — and that is very much the theme of this movie. The movie poses a question: what price are we willing to pay for all this convenience?
________________________________________
Q: Jonathan, you’ve worked with some of the most famous action stars to ever grace the silver screen, Arnold, Bruce, Kurt…when you approach a film or a scene with one of these actors, does your directing change at all?
Jonathan Mostow: I’ve been very lucky to work with some great movie stars of our time. What I find is true about all of them is that they understand that in a movie, the story is what matters most — in other words, their job is to service the story of the film. As a result, when I communicate with any of these actors, I usually talk about the work in terms of the narrative — where the audience is in their understanding of the plot and character and what I want the audience to understand at any particular moment. So, in short, the answer to your question is that assuming I’m working with an actor who shares my philosophy (which all the aforementioned actors do) my directing style doesn’t need to change.
________________________________________
Q: Which aspect of the filmmaking process do you like the most? Directing the actors? Doing research? Editing?
Jonathan Mostow: Each phase has its appeal, but for me personally, I most enjoy post-production. For starters, the hours are civilized. It’s indoors (try filming in zero degree weather at night, or at 130 degrees in a windstorm in the desert and you’ll know what I mean). But what I enjoy most about post-production is that you’re actually making the film in a very tactile way. You see, when you’re finished shooting, you don’t yet have the movie. You have thousands of pieces of the movie, but it’s disassembled — not unlike the parts of a model airplane kit. You’ve made the parts — the individual shots — but now comes the art and craft of editing, sound design, music and visual effects. Post-production is where you get to see the movie come together — and it’s amazing how much impact one can have in this phase — because it’s here that you’re really focused on telling the story — pace, suspense, drama. To me, that’s the essence of the filmmaking experience.
________________________________________
Q: Are any of the props from Surrogates currently on display in your house?
Jonathan Mostow:That question makes me chuckle, because to the chagrin of my family, I’m a bit of a pack rat and I like collecting junk from my films. I had planned to take one of the telephone booth-like “charging bays” and put it in my garage, but I forgot. Thanks for reminding me — I’ll see if it’s still lying around someplace!
________________________________________
Q: What was the most difficult element of the graphic novel to translate to the film?
Jonathan Mostow: I’ll give you a slightly different answer: The most difficult element to translate successfully would have been the distant future, which is why we decided not to do it. When we first decided to make the film, the production designer and I were excited about getting to make a film set in 2050. We planned flying cars, futuristic skyscapes — the whole nine yards. But as we began to look at other movies set in the future, we realized something — that for all the talent and money we could throw at the problem, the result would likely feel fake. Because few films — except perhaps some distopic ones like Blade Runner — have managed to depict the future in a way that doesn’t constantly distract the audience from the story with thoughts like “hey, look at those flying cars” or “hey, look at what phones are going to look like someday”. We wanted the audience thinking only about our core idea — which was robotic surrogates — so we decided to set the movie in a time that looked very much like our own, except for the presence of the surrogate technology.
________________________________________
Q: The film does a magnificent job of portraying the difficulty and anxiety of characters forced to reintroduce themselves to the outside world after their surrogates have experienced it for them, which is certainly relevant in an era where so many communicate so much online. Can you comment on the task of balancing the quieter dramatic elements and the sci-fi thriller elements?
Jonathan Mostow:When I was answering a question earlier about sound, I spoke about “dynamic range”, which is the measure of the difference between the loudest and quietest moments. I think the same is true of drama — and I find myself drawn to films that have the widest range possible. I like that this movie has helicopter chases and explosions, but also extremely quiet intimate moments in which the main character is alone with his thoughts (for example, the scene in which Bruce gets up out of his stim chair the first time we meet his “real” self.) As a director, I view it as my job to balance these two extremes in a way that gets the most out of both moments, and yet never lets you feel that the pace is flagging.
________________________________________
Q: On the movie’s you’ve directed, you have done some rewrites. Was there anything in Surrogates you polished up on, or was it pretty much set by the time pre-production got under way?
Jonathan Mostow: In the past, I’ve typically written my movies (Breakdown and U-571 were “spec” screenplays I wrote on my own and then subsequently sold, and then brought in collaborators once the films headed toward production.) On T3 and Surrogates, I did not work as a writer (both movies were written by the team of John Brancato and Michael Ferris). Surrogates was interesting in that the script was finished only one day before the Writers Guild strike of 2008, so by the time we started filming (which was shortly after the strike ended), there had been far less rewriting than would typically have occurred on a movie by that point.
________________________________________
Q: Do you have a preference in home audio: Dolby Digital or DTS? And are you pleased with Blu-ray’s ability to have lossless audio?
Jonathan Mostow: Personally, I prefer Dolby Digital, but only because my home theater is optimized for it. Obviously DTS is also a great format. I am thrilled with all the advances in Blu-ray audio.
________________________________________
Q: Boston’s mix of old architecture and new, sleek buildings works wonderfully well for “Surrogates.” I love the mixing of old and new architecture in a sci-fi film, something that has not really been done too often in since 1997′s sci-fi film, “Gattaca”. Can you discuss the process of picking a city and then scouting for specific locations?
Jonathan Mostow:Thank you — I talk about that in my DVD commentary. Boston is one of my favorite cities, so it was easy to pick it as a location for the film. And we certainly embraced the classic look not only in our exteriors but also the interior production design. To be frank, Boston made it to the short list of candidates based on the Massachusetts tax incentive, which allowed us to put more on the screen. Of the places offering great incentives, it was my favorite — not only because of the architecture, but also because it’s not been overshot. Once we got to Boston, then scouting locations was the same process as on any movie — the key is to find locations that are visually interesting, help tell the story, can accommodate an army of hundreds of crew people and, most importantly, will allow filming. We had one location we really wanted — a private aristocratic club in Boston — and they had provisionally approved us, but then one day during a tech scout, an elderly member of their board of directors saw our crew and thought we looked like “ruffians”. Our permission was revoked and we had to find another location. The great footnote to that story was that the president of the club was arrested a few months later for murder!
________________________________________
Q: I imagine that before writing and creating the world of Surrogates you studied the topic. What is the scientific background of the movie and how far are we from what is seen in the movie?
Jonathan Mostow: I did a fair amount of research for the movie, but really, what I discovered is that the best research was simply being a member of society in 2009. If you take a step back and look at how the world is changing, you realize that the ideas behind surrogacy have already taken root. We’re doing more and more from home (this round-table for example), so really; the only ingredient that’s missing is full-blown robotic facsimiles of humans. Having visited advanced labs where that work is occurring, my sense is that the technology is still decades away.
________________________________________
Q: As far as I know in the movie there was some digital rejuvenation of Bruce Willis for his role as a robot. How did you do it and what do you foresee for this technique? Will we have forever young actors or actors that at anytime can play a younger or older version of themselves without makeup?
Jonathan Mostow: For Bruce, we approached his surrogate look with a combination of traditional and digital techniques. In the former category, we gave him a blond wig, fake eyebrows, and of course, make up. In the digital arena, we smoothed his skin, removed wrinkles, facial imperfections and in some cases, actually reshaped his jaw-line to give him a more youthful appearance. Could this be done for other actors? Sure. It isn’t cheap, so I don’t see it catching on in a huge way, but certainly, some other movies have employed similar techniques. Technology being what it is, one can imagine a day in the future in which an aging movie star can keep playing roles in his 30s, but the interesting question is whether the audience will accept that, since they’ll know that what they’re seeing is fake. In the case of Surrogates, we discovered with test audiences that if we went too far with Bruce’s look, it was too distracting, so in certain cases, we had to pull back a bit.
________________________________________
Q: Do you supervise aspects (video transfer, extras or other elements) of the home video (DVD/Blu-ray) release for your films?
Jonathan Mostow: Yes. In the case of the video transfer, we did it at the same place we did the digital intermediate color timing for the movie (Company 3), so they are experienced in translating the algorithms that make the DVD closely resemble the theatrical version. I am deeply involved in that process, as is my cinematographer. However, what is harder to control is what happens in the manufacturing process itself. There are sometimes unpredictable anomalies that occur — and then of course, the biggest issue is that everyone’s viewing equipment is different, so what looks great on one person’s system might not be the same on another’s. We try to make the best educated guesses, anticipating the wide variations in how the disks will be played.
________________________________________
Q: Mr. Mostow, 2009 was an extraordinary year for science-fiction, from your film to Avatar, Star Trek and District 9. Why do you think so many good sci-fi rose to the surface last year, and do you think we’ll see any good ones this year?
Jonathan Mostow: First of all, thank you for mentioning our film in the same breath as those other movies — all of which I loved. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that 2009 was a good year for sci-fi. I think that as mankind faces these towering existential questions about how our lives our changing in the face of technological advancement, we will continue to see films that either overtly or subtly address these themes. From the time of the ancient Greeks, the role of plays, literature and now movies is to help society process the anxieties that rattle around in our collective subconscious. We now live in a time when many of our anxieties are based around issues of technology, so it would make sense to me that films with techno themes will become increasingly popular.
________________________________________
Q: Was there ever a discussion to create a SURROGATES-themed video game? The plot lends itself to a decent companion game.
Jonathan Mostow: There are no discussions that I know of, but I agree, it would make the basis for a cool game.
________________________________________
Q: Each of your films has boasted sound mixes that many have considered classic examples of sound design. Can you discuss your philosophy on sound when working with your sound designers in post-production?
Jonathan Mostow:I really appreciate this question because sound is something I care deeply about and I believe that mixers I’ve worked with will probably tell you that few directors get as involved with sound as I do. Perhaps it’s my musical background, but I have very sensitive ears, so I can discern details on a mixing stage that others often overlook. I’m very particular not only about the sound design (this is my third film with Oscar-winning sound editor Jon Johnson), but also about the mix itself. I think a good soundtrack helps immerse the audience in the movie. Ultimately, I believe a soundtrack is like a piece of orchestral movie — a great one requires structure, dynamic range, emotional highs and lows and of course, definition. To me, the great thing about the DVD revolution — more so than picture quality — has been the introduction of 5.1 surround sound to the home.
________________________________________
Q: How involved was KNB Effects? What did they bring, if anything, to the films effects designs?
Jonathan Mostow:KNB is a top-flight company that specializes in prosthetic devices for movies and creature design. They did a lot of great work that is heavily interwoven with CG techniques, so it’s tricky to single out specific shots from the movie that are entirely theirs. They were great to work with.
________________________________________
Q: “Surrogates” plot revolves around an important issue in the current times – the growing need of anonymity and increasing loss of real human contact. Do you think we’re going in the way you’ve portrayed in “Surrogates”?
Jonathan Mostow:I think I answered this question earlier, but I’m re-addressing it here because I like your reference to the “growing need of anonymity”. That’s a big sub textual theme in Surrogates and also a pretty fascinating aspect the internet. Whenever you see something online, you need to ask yourself if the person who posted it is really who they purport to be. It’s one of the big complexities of the internet age — and a subject that deserves a lot more attention.
________________________________________
Q: I really enjoyed listening to your audio commentary on the DVD. Talk about your approach to it. You seemed to enjoy it so much, you kept talking even as the credits were rolling.
Jonathan Mostow:Thanks for the compliment. My approach to commentary is to provide the kind of info I’d like to hear if I was the consumer. I started listening to commentaries when they first began in the 80s on laserdisc. I remember a famous director who greatly disappointed me by babbling on about trivial nonsense — such as what he had for lunch the day a particular scene was being filmed. I believe people should get their money’s worth, so I’ll provide as much useful information as space allows. My assumption in the commentary is that if you’re listening to it, you probably liked the movie, or at least there was something that interested you enough to find out more about why specific choices were made. So I try to tailor my comments for that audience. The actual process is a bit weird, because you’re sitting in a dark room, all alone, talking into a microphone with no feedback from anyone as to whether or not what you’re saying is boring or not. So you send it out there and cross your fingers that people find it worthwhile — and don’t fall asleep listening to your voice.
________________________________________
Q: How do you approach the promotional campaign for a film and in what way do you enjoy participating most in promoting one of your films?
Jonathan Mostow:I greatly enjoy the press phase of the film — but not for reasons you might expect. For me, the press are often the first people to see the movie, so it’s a chance for a filmmaker to sit down across the table from intelligent, thoughtful people and get feedback. (Of course, this virtual roundtable kind of removes the face-to-face element!) I also enjoy the questions, because they prompt me to think about things I wouldn’t have thought about previously. For example, someone today asked about the thematic connections between T3 and Surrogates. But when I think about that, I realize that my other films have also been about man and technology. Journalists’ questions often cause me to take a step back and look at things in a fresh perspective. Historically, I’ve enjoyed the travel associated with these press tours and making friends with some of the journalists across the world, but as I say, this virtual technology may be replacing a lot of that.
________________________________________
Q: I found the distinction between the surrogates and their human handlers interesting. Can you expound upon why such a drastic difference?
Jonathan Mostow:The difference was logical. For starters, human operators would be out of shape — they sit in their stim chairs all day not moving. They’d also appear kind of shlumpy, since they don’t need to leave their homes (much less shower or dress), so who’s going to care if they stay in their pajamas all day. On the surrogate side of the equation, we imagined that based on human nature, in most cases, people would opt to operate idealized versions of themselves — so if their surrogate looked in a mirror, for example, they’d see this fantastic-looking version of themselves. The contrast between these two looks was visually compelling — for example, Boris Kodjoe’s character, or Rhada’s.
________________________________________
Q: One of the deleted scenes shows the surrogates’ prejudice towards a human being among them. Why was this particular element cut?
Jonathan Mostow: The scene you reference (Bruce and Radha in a bar) was cut, but the underlying idea is still in the movie — although admittedly not as strongly as had we kept the scene. (There are references in the movie to “meatbags” and other moments that indicate a hostility and prejudice toward those who reject the surrogate way of life.) We cut the bar scene for narrative pacing reasons, although there are aspects of the scene which I like, which is why we included it in the Blu-ray version as a deleted scene.
________________________________________
Q: This isn’t your first time dealing with a high concept of man versus machine. Can you talk about why this concept intrigues you?
Jonathan Mostow: It’s true that I’ve touched on this thematic material before — in fact, I think all my films in some way have dealt with the relationship between man and technology, so apparently, it’s an idea that fascinates me. I assume your question implies a relationship between the ideas in Terminator and Surrogates, so I’ll answer accordingly… Whereas T3 posed technology as a direct threat to mankind, I see Surrogates more as a movie that poses a question about technology — specifically, what does it cost us — in human terms — to be able to have all this advanced technology in our lives. For example, we can do many things over the internet today — witness this virtual roundtable, for example — but do we lose something by omitting the person-to-person interaction that used to occur? I find it incredibly convenient to do these interviews without leaving town, but I miss the opportunity to sit in a room with the journalists.
________________________________________
Q: Can you explain the casting choices in Surrogates? Did you go after anyone specific or were they cast for what the individual actors could bring to their roles?
Jonathan Mostow:The interesting thing about casting this movie is that for the surrogates, we needed terrific actors who also looked physically perfect. Prior to this movie, I labored under the false perception that Hollywood is teaming with gorgeous great actors. Not necessarily so. Yes, there are many wonderful actors. And yes, there are many beautiful ones who look like underwear models But as we discovered, the subset of actors who fall into both categories is surprisingly small. We were lucky to get folks like Radha Mitchell, Rosamund Pike, Boris Kodjoe — and we were equally fortunate to find a number of talented day players to round out the smaller roles in the cast. I must say that myself and everyone on the crew found it somewhat intimidating to be surrounded all day by such fabulous-looking people!
________________________________________
Q: You’ve worked with special effects a lot prior to Surrogates. Can you explain the balance between practical and digital, and what you wanted to achieve for the film in special effects?
Jonathan Mostow:My goal for the effects in this film was to make them invisible. There are over 800 vfx shots in Surrogates, but hopefully you’ll be able to identify only a few of them. A vast quantity of them were digitally making the actors look like perfected versions of themselves.
________________________________________
Q: One of your film’s themes is the fears of technology. What are some of your own fears about technology and the future?
Jonathan Mostow:Some people have labeled this film as anti-technology. But I don’t see it that way. In fact, I love technology. I love using computers and gadgets. I love strolling through Best Buy and the Apple Store to see what’s new. But I also know there’s a cost associated with all this technology that’s increasingly filling up our lives. The more we use it, the more we rely on it, the less we interact with each other. Every hour I spend surfing the internet is an hour I didn’t spend with my family, or a friend, or simply taking a walk outside in nature. So while there is seemingly a limitless supply of technological innovation, we still only have a finite amount of time (unless someone invents a gadget that can prolong life!) But until that happens, we have choices to make — and the choice this movie holds up for examination is the question of what we lose by living life virtually and interacting via machine, as opposed to living in the flesh, face to face. I hope that’s a conversation that will arise for people who watch Surrogates.
________________________________________
Q: When directing do you take the approach of Hitchcock and storyboard every angle, or do you like to get to the set and let the shots come organically? Maybe in between?
Jonathan Mostow: I’d say in between. Action needs to be carefully planned and boarded. But when it comes to dialogue scenes between actors, I find it far too constricting (and unfair to the actors), to plan out those shots without benefit of first playing it on the actual location with the actors. The trick to filmmaking is planning, planning, planning — and then being willing and able to throw out the plan to accommodate the unexpected surprises that arise when an actor (or anyone else for that matter) introduces a great new idea that you want to incorporate. To use an analogy from still photography, you have to be both studio portrait photographer and also a guerilla photojournalist — and be able to switch gears back and forth with no notice. At least, that’s my approach. Others may work differently.
________________________________________
Q: The scene shot in downtown Boston was great and the fact that the city allowed it was pretty cool. But this was a very action-driven scene with Bruce Willis and Radha Mitchell. Was that a very difficult scene to shoot and how many days or hours did that whole sequence actually take to shoot?
Jonathan Mostow: If you’re referring to the chase with Bruce and Radha, here’s a great irony — that sequence was one of the few not shot in Boston — in fact, it was shot almost entirely on the Paramount backlot (to my knowledge, it’s the largest and most complex chase scene ever shot on their backlot, which if you saw it, you’d realize how tiny an amount of real estate it is, and so pulling off a chase of that scope was quite a tricky bit of business).
________________________________________
Q: When looking for scripts to direct, what absolutely needs to be in there for you to say, “This is a story I want to tell?”
Jonathan Mostow:For me, the story must compel me and have dramatic tension. As you know from watching movies, that’s hard to find.
________________________________________
Q: Could you tell me something about the experience of having obtained an Academy Award for your movie U-571?
Jonathan Mostow:The Oscar we received for U-571 was for sound editing (we were also nominated for sound mixing). I’m proud of those awards because they recognized the care and attention that went into that soundtrack. I employed the same sound editing team on Surrogates, and so I hope the DVD and Blu-ray audience who have good 5.1 sound systems will enjoy the fruits of our labors. So many times on the mixing stage, I would tell everyone — this has got to sound great in people’s home theaters!
________________________________________
Q: Do you think we are heading down the road to a version of human surrogacy with the advances in technology, or do you think direct human-to-human interaction will always be a part of life?
Jonathan Mostow: Do I believe that someday Surrogate robots will exist? Yes. Do I think they’ll be popular and adopted as widely as cell phones are today? Perhaps. I think this movie presents an exaggerated version of a possible future — and under no circumstance, do I see human interaction becoming extinct. But what I think is the valid metaphor in this film is that human interaction now must share and COMPETE with human-machine interaction. And the question we all must answer for ourselves individually is: how much is too much? No one has the answers… at least yet. Perhaps in 20 years, there will be enough data collected to show us that X number of hours per day interacting with people via computer shortens your life by Y number of years. But for now, it’s all unknown territory to us. All we can do is ask ourselves these questions. And at its core, that’s what this movie is doing — asking questions.
________________________________________
Q: There’s this very surreal feeling to the world and your direction with all the dutch angles add even more to that sense. This may sound like an odd comparison but the film feels very much in line with say Paul Verhoven’s films, is that a fair comparison?
Jonathan Mostow: It’s true that we did apply a heavy style to underline the oddness of the world and give the film a different, arresting feel — but I’ll leave the comparisons to others. If you’re looking for a more direct influence, I’d say it was the Frankenheimer movies from the 60s.
________________________________________
Q: Is this the real Jonathan Mostow, or am I interviewing… a surrogate?
Jonathan Mostow: I’m the real me. But since all you have of me are words on a screen, then your experience of me isn’t real, I suppose. Ah, the irony of it all…
________________________________________
Q: Is doing an audio commentary a painful experience where you spot errors or ‘what might have beens’ or is it an interesting trip down memory lane, where each shot conjures up a day on the set?
Jonathan Mostow: Very much the latter. Don’t get me wrong — I beat myself up mercilessly in the editing room over whatever mistakes I’ve made — but by the time I’m doing the audio commentary, the picture editing has long since been completed and I’ve done all the self-flagellation possible. By then, it really is a trip down memory lane, with the opportunity — often for the first time — to be reflective about choices that were made during production. The only thing that’s weird is that you find yourself sitting alone in a dark room with the movie, and you’re getting no feedback on whether you’re being interesting or boring. So I hope people like the commentary. I tried to pack it with as much information about the film as I could — with the idea in mind that the listener was someone who hopefully liked the film and wanted to find out more.
________________________________________
Q: Ever have any plans to shoot a film digitally in Hi-Def as opposed to using the traditional 35mm film approach? Namely what do you think about the Red One camera?
Jonathan Mostow: Although I’ve never used it, from what I understand, the Red is a great camera — although, like anything it has its plusses and minuses, which are too technical to get into here. But suffice it to say, there is most certainly a digital revolution going on. Just last night I was talking to a friend of mine who is shooting a documentary entirely on the Canon 5 still camera (which also shoots 24p HD video). I’ve seen some of what he’s done and the stuff looks gorgeous. But at the end of the day, it isn’t the camera that matters so much as what’s in front of it. Surrogates was shot in 35mm for a variety of technical reasons. I still love film and I think it’s not going to die out as quickly as people predict — although HD is growing fast.
________________________________________
Q: How involved was Robert Venditti with the film? Did he tell you any key themes that absolutely had to be in the film?
Jonathan Mostow: Venditti was great. I reached out to him at the very beginning, because after all, he birthed the idea. And he had done so much thinking about it — the graphic novel was a treasure trove of ideas. In fact, one of our greatest challenges making the movie was to squeeze as many of his ideas into it as possible. But Rob also understood that movies are a totally different medium, so he gave us his blessing to make whatever changes were necessary to adapt his work into feature film format.
________________________________________
Q: Some directors describe their films like children, and they love them all…so this is a difficult question: If only one film you’ve made was able to be preserved in a time capsule, which would you choose to include?
Jonathan Mostow: In some aspect or another, I’ve enjoyed making all my films, but my personal favorite remains Breakdown because that was my purest and most satisfying creative experience. On that film, I worked totally from instinct. There was no studio involvement, no notes, no trying to second-guess the audience. I just made the movie I saw in my head. Looking back, I see how lucky I was to be able to work like that.
________________________________________
Q: Do you have a favorite filmmaking technique that you like to use in your films?
Jonathan Mostow: I have a few little signature tricks, but really, I try not to impose any signature style on a movie, because ultimately, I believe that the story is king, and everything must serve the king. So, if you’ve seen Surrogates and my other films, you’ll see that that the style of Surrogates, which is very formalistic and slightly arch, is much different than any feature I’ve done previously.
________________________________________
Q: Is it ever daunting when making a “futuristic” film to avoid the traps of becoming dated too quickly? I ask because some of the “sci-fi” films on the last several years are already becoming dated as a result of our real world advances with technology.
Jonathan Mostow:A great question and one that hopefully we correctly anticipated before we started the movie. Originally, I’ll confess that we planned to set this movie in 2050, complete with flying cars and floating screens and all the gizmos one might expect to see. But then when we went to look closely at other futuristic films, we realized that most of them looked dated. And there was a ‘fakeness’ factor to them that distracted from the story. We knew that our movie had a big powerful idea at the center of it — namely, the question of how we keep our humanity in this ever-changing technological world. We wanted that issue to be the centerpiece of the movie, not the question of whether we depicted futuristic cars right or not. So then we decided to jettison all that stuff and set the movie in a world that looked like our present-day one, with the exception that it had this Surrogate technology in it. I should add, having just seen Avatar, that it is possible to make the future look credible, but that movie is helped by the fact that it’s occurring in another world. Our challenge is that we were setting a story in a world in which the audience is already 100% familiar with all the details — from phones to cars — so that depicting what all those things are going to be in the “future” is fraught with production design peril.
________________________________________
Q: It is mentioned in the bonus features that the makeup effects and visual effects basically worked hand-in-hand in the smoothing look of the robotic surrogate characters; was this perfection that is seen in the final product more challenging than in past productions you have worked on, being that this film was coming to Blu-ray?
Jonathan Mostow: Well certainly Blu-ray has raised the bar for make-up because high-def shows every facial imperfection, skin pore, etc. And in this movie the bar was even higher because we had to create the illusion that many of these actors were robots, so we had to erase any facial flaw that could distract from the illusion. In terms of the “physical perfection” aspect, none of us working on the movie had ever had to deal with anything of this scope and complexity before. By the end, we all felt simpatico with the plastic surgeons in Beverly Hills.
________________________________________
Q: What’s a good Sci Fi film that you’d recommend to someone who says ‘I hate Sci Fi’?
Jonathan Mostow:Well, just this year there were so many…. District 9, Star Trek, Avatar were all standouts. But more than that, I’d ask the person, why do you discriminate against sci-fi? Because, when you think about it, the term “sci fi” is a bit of a misnomer. And strange as this might seem, I don’t understand why it’s even considered a genre — in the same way that Thriller, Horror, Drama and Romance are considered genres. Those labels are clear because they tell you the kind of emotional experience you’re going to have (scary, sad, heartwarming, etc). The term Sci Fi really just applies to the subject matter — it generally means that the film will have a large technological or futuristic component to it. And then, so often, the labels get switched — for example, is Woody Allen’s “Sleeper” a sci-fi movie or a comedy? Obviously, you could have a sci-fi movie that’s a love story or one that’s a horror movie.
________________________________________
Q: You seem to have a strong connection (or should I say gift) when it comes to sci-fi. I feel like you really “get” that realm. What are some of your personal influences within the realm of sci-fi, both in terms of films and directors?
Jonathan Mostow: More so than sci-fi, I’m interested in dramatic tension, so the filmmakers who influence me most are the ones who are masters at creating suspense and tension… Hitchcock, Spielberg and Frankenheimer are three that come to mind.
________________________________________
Q: A lot of science fiction films have to balance being informative about their worlds while also not being pandering or relying to heavy on exposition, how do you walk that fine line?
Jonathan Mostow: That’s a very insightful question — you’re right — so often in sci fi films the pacing tends to collapse under the weight of the filmmakers feeling the need to convey a lot of exposition. A classic example is Blade Runner. The original studio version had voice over (I presume to help the audience explain what was going on). Ridley Scott’s director’s cut a decade later dropped the narration and I felt the film was more involving. In Surrogates, we initially didn’t have any exposition. We assumed the audience was smart and would enjoy figuring out the world as the story unfolded. But when we showed the film to the studio for the first time, they had an interesting reaction — they said “we don’t want to be distracted by wondering who is a surrogate and who isn’t, and what the rules of the world are”, so we came up with the idea of the opening 3 minute piece that explains the world. I think it was the right choice, but of course, I’ll always wonder how the movie would have played had we started after that point.
________________________________________
Q: Although you’ve of course directed thrillers (BREAKDOWN) and WW2 dramas (U-571), you’ve now helmed two sci-fi movies. Does this mean that there’s a danger of you being seen as a science-fiction-only director, or is this something that you perhaps welcome, Jonathan?
Jonathan Mostow: I’ve tried to resist labels, because I don’t want to be categorized into a box. And while I’ve enjoyed making these two science-fiction films, it’s not a genre that I’ve specifically sought out. If I had to guess, I’d predict that my next film will be a thriller. That’s the genre I’ve most enjoyed.
________________________________________
Q: In terms of stunts, how much did Bruce do himself? He has said before that people think he’s “too old to do stunts?”
Jonathan Mostow:Bruce is a very fit guy — he’s in great shape and works out every day. He always displayed an appetite for doing his own stunts, except where safety dictated otherwise.
________________________________________
Q: In your opinion, what should we expect to see from robot technology in the next ten years?
Jonathan Mostow:I think 10 years is too short a period to see anything that approaches what’s in this film — I think that’s 30 years away. 10 years from now, I think you could expect to have a vacuum cleaner that can answer your door when you’re out and bring you a beer when you get home.
________________________________________
Q: Curious, was there ever a plan for an alternate ending for the film?
Jonathan Mostow:The only other versions of the end we discussed involved the circumstances in which Bruce and Radha’s characters were reunited.
________________________________________
Q: The concept of what was featured in “Surrogates” is so fascinating. Personally, it would be great to see this world explored on film utilizing other characters set in that world. Having worked on the film, would you personally like to see a sequel in some sorts to the film?
Jonathan Mostow: I think that the concept of Surrogates offers a world that could lend itself to other stories. Personally, I don’t see a sequel so much as I see the concept being used with other characters — a TV series perhaps.
________________________________________
Q: All your movies put their main characters in the edge, with a lot of action sequences and a plot holding some twists towards the end. Is this your signature or just a coincidence?
Jonathan Mostow: Personally, I enjoy movies that are visceral — that provide an experience that can quicken your pulse and give you sweaty palms — as opposed to movies that you sit back and watch in a more passive way. That said, while the story of Surrogates may not be as visceral as my other films, I still tried to inject my approach into it to a degree.
________________________________________
Q: What do you think the Surrogates Blu-ray experience can offer viewers as opposed to the standard DVD format?
Jonathan Mostow:Blu-ray is obviously higher quality and I’m glad to see that consumers are adopting it rapidly. The Blu-ray also has additional features.

YES MAN

Neal Fischer — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 12:29:21 +0000

YES MAN is a welcomed return to classic Jim Carrey comedies. With the release of FUN WITH DICK AND JANE it seemed as if Carrey’s antics became old hat and he was no longer a powerhouse in the funny business. YES MAN mostly succeeds in giving us the old Carrey we know and love. Several comparisons to this film and LIAR, LIAR have been made. I believe that the similarities end with the premise alone. This film is about Carl Allen, a banker who says NO to life. He has shut out his friends, he hates his job and his overall outlook on life is grim to say the least. An old acquaintance takes him to a seminar about saying “Yes to Life” run by the brilliant Terrence Stamp. Stamp himself singles out Carrey and makes a covenant with him, to say YES to life. At first apprehensive, Carrey follows this plan and a string of hilarious situations ensue. One of them being a romance with Zooey Deschanel, who does a nice job here as the romantic lead AND rock star. Her character is in a band called “Munchausen by Proxy”. I just want to say the supporting cast was what made this movie a great Jim Carrey vehicle. Bradley Cooper continues to do great work as Carrey’s best friend. Rhys Darby (Flight of the Conchords) is hilarious as Carrey’s boss. Along with Zooey Deschanel, Terrence Stamp and small role by the great John Michael Higgins, this film had a worthy cast and the film excels because of it.
Now to the DVD!
As far as sound and picture goes, everything was top notch. The film looked great in 2.40:1 Widescreen.
SPECIAL FEATURES:
If you are a Jim Carrey fan, these are all features that were made for you. To be honest I could have used more featurettes and behind the scenes. BE CAREFUL though! There are several versions of this film: A Single Disc; Double Disc Special Edition including Digital Copy; Blu Ray with Digital Copy.
Some extra features are on the Blu Ray edition that are not on the Double Disc: Special Edition. I will list those that are omitted.
Down Time on the Set (3:59): Jim Carrey being himself and entertaining the crew. Fun times.
Jim Carrey: Extreme Yes Man (11:52): This deals with Jim doing a ton of his own stunts. Includes footage of the highly publicized bungee jump that Carrey did do in the film.
On set with Danny Wallace (8:32): NOT ON REGULAR VERSION* Danny Wallace is the author of the memoir “Yes Man” that the film is based on. He walks us around and gives us a tour.
Future Sounds (5:28): The fictional band “Munchausen by Proxy” actually did their own music and are lead by real life singer/artist Zooey Deschanel. This is a faux “Behind the Music” type documentary.
Say yes to Red Bull (2:06):NOT ON REGULAR VERSION* You would think Jim Carrey is always on Red Bull, well he had never had one before filming the scene in the movie. Here it shows that in detail.
Gag Reel (5:35): Fun moments with the cast.
Yes, Man Party Central (2:16): NOT IN REGULAR VERSION* Rhys Darby provides a hilarious look at his apartment, in character as Norman.
Additional Scenes (7:31): NOT IN REGULAR VERSION Some extra scenes not in the film.
Depending on which edition you get, there are also 5 Music Videos to the songs in the film by Munchausen By Proxy.
In Conclusion, whether you are a moderate or die hard Jim Carrey fan, this is a fun outing. Not only is it a funny movie, but it really does have a good message. Sometimes we all need to get out of are shell and say YES to life. With three different versions of this film on DVD the price ranges from $16.99 to $24.99.
This film is also available on demand and for download here: http://click.linksynergy.com/fs-bin/stat?id=If/6vWDVyVQ&offerid=146261&type=3&subid=0&tmpid=1826&RD_PARM1=http%253A%252F%252Fitunes.apple.com%252FWebObjects%252FMZStore.woa%252Fwa%252FviewMovie%253Fid%253D303680748%2526s%253D143441%2526partnerId%253D30&u1=YesManADS

YES MAN

Neal Fischer — Sun, 28 Dec 2008 18:19:41 +0000

YES MAN
by Neal Fischer
The film YES MAN is credited with being based on the memoir of the same name by writer Danny Wallace. The basic concept of the film is about a man who says ‘no’ to life. Jim Carrey plays Carl Allen, a man who is recently single and has been working the same boring job for years on end. He doesn’t embrace anything new and exciting and the result of this is him saying ‘no’ to everything. His best friends played by Bradley Cooper (Alias, Wedding Crashers) and Danny Masterson (That 70’s Show) begin to resent Carl because he never wants to go out. After dealing with the way Carl is acting, his friends decide to not try anymore, and to just give up on Carl. A chance encounter with an old acquaintance (John Michael Higgins) thrusts Carl into a self-help seminar with the covenant of saying ‘yes’ to every opportunity that is thrown his way. Carl reluctantly agrees and from that point on his life changes completely. Many good things come from saying ‘yes’ to everything. Of course, the old saying rings true, “Sometimes things are just too good to be true”.
First and foremost, let’s talk about Jim Carrey. Some people love him and some people hate him. One thing you can’t argue is that he is an artist. For an actor to completely immerse himself into roles such as “The Grinch” and “The Mask”, and then turn to full on drama in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and Man on the Moon is pretty impressive. Known as the actor with the rubber face, Jim Carrey has proven he can do anything he puts his mind to. Does this mean that every film he is in is a good film? No it doesn’t. Do I think YES MAN is a good film? I think it is a decent film, with lots of laughs. Do I think YES MAN is a good Jim Carrey film? Absolutely. What I am trying to say here, is that fans of Jim Carrey are going to get everything they want in this film. People, who are just going into the movie looking for something inspiring, or for a laugh, will get most of what they want. It is not a perfect film by any means.
What makes this film such a strong comedy is the wonderful supporting cast. Most notably for me is actor Rhys Darby. He is most famous in the states for his role of Murray on Flight of the Conchords. He is also a very funny stand up comedian. I believe he adds a smarter, wittier type of humor that balances well with Jim Carrey’s physical humor. Along with Darby, the performance by actress Zooey Deschanel is also one I enjoyed quite a bit. I have noticed in a lot of comedy films with a male star that the female lead is just there to tell the audience when it’s ok to laugh. Deschanel however, took what was an underwritten female character and brought to life a unique individual that the audience could believe was real. The chemistry between Carrey and Deschanel was believable and enjoyable to watch. Supporting turns by Christopher Guest vet John Michael Higgins, Bradley Cooper and the always great Terence Stamp really brought something to an otherwise generic comedy. I am so glad Jim Carrey redeemed himself after the disaster that was Fun with Dick and Jane. As a Carrey fan, it was hard for me to dismiss a few of his films, but this film reminded me of Liar Liar which is one of my favorite Carrey films.
Even if you don’t like this film, or don’t laugh at all (seriously see a doctor about that), at least you will start a debate with friends about trying to say ‘Yes’ to everything. It would be an interesting experiment I think all of us should try for at least a week. Just remember that the whole covenant is about being ‘open’ to saying yes, and you don’t necessarily have to agree to everything. Otherwise, you would be getting into too much trouble.

Hitman

Neal Fischer — Sun, 25 Nov 2007 00:00:00 +0000

Is it honestly that hard to make a decent fucking movie about a hit man who kills people? That’s all you have to do! All it needs are some decent actors, a comprehensible script, some sweet kills and BAM. You’ve got yourself a good movie. But for some odd reason, Hollywood tends to fuck up even the simplest of ideas- especially when they’re based on video games.
Hitman had all the right elements going for it, but they all went in the wrong directions. First off, this movie completes actor Timothy Olyphant’s “shitty hat trick” of the year, turning in his third bad performance in 2007 (the first two were Catch & Release and Live Free or Die Hard). There’s just something about that dude that bothers me and I can’t put my finger on it. Either he’s a shitty actor, or he just brings too much of his weird real life persona to the screen. Regardless I dig him in his earlier works like Scream 2 and The Girl Next Door. Anyway, he was terribly miscast as Agent 47. Though granted, just about any actor could play this role as long as they beefed up and didn’t talk a lot, right? Unfortunately, Agent 47 talks a shit ton in this movie which not only is out of character for the video game, but for real life badass assassins in general. They don’t make jokes, they don’t crack cheesy one-liners and they certainly don’t just walk in to bad guy hideouts with guns blazin. This flick is similar to watching a retarded screenwriter taking a literal dump all over Luc Besson’s classic The Professional. They just got it all wrong. And next up is the director.
Who the fuck is Xavier Gens and why on EARTH would the studio get an uknown to helm a high budget action flick with franchise potential? Hell, let’s just get my mother to adapt The Hobbit while we’re at it. And what little material this dude does have on his resume could be interpreted as numerous red flags. He was assistant director on such Van Damme classics as Double Team and Maximum Risk. Training with the best, eh guy? Speaking of which, the writer has no reputation either except scripting Swordfish which was a decent enough flick. But now he’s ruined Hitman for all of us (note: he’ll be ruining G.I. Joe next year) with an incoherent script that forces you to tune out everything that’s happening. The last thirty minutes are a complete blur to me, as I found myself counting the number of pieces of chewing gum stuck underneath my seat. And of course the director and writer team up to make some sort of bullshit noir piece and make it look and sound all artsy. IT’S A FUCKING VIDEOGAME, MAN! This is the same type of crap that fucked up Aeon Flux and Ultraviolet. Stop attempting to make videogames art. All you have to do is shoot it straight. Hell, you could even take the scripts from the videogame and use those instead. Anything would be better than the shit I saw in this movie.
And the acting is absolutely dreadful. The terribly spoken Dougray Scott (the annoying dude from M:I 2) does his worst as the Interpol agent after Agent 47. And yeah, there’s a whore love interest in the movie. Sure, she’s hot, and we get a couple nifty nude scenes but she’s ultimately dull and pointless to the story. And what’s with Agent 47 anyway? Throughout the movie, gorgeous women offer themselves to him and he awkwardly turns them down. Should this have been called Homo-Hitman or something? And even though we get some ridiculous flashbacks, we really don’t get much backstory as to who this dude is and where exactly he’s coming from. However, the only light shed on this movie acting-wise comes from the brilliant Robert Knepper as a double-crossing agent (widely known as T-Bag on Prison Break). This dude can act his ass off, and he was the only one that had a believable Russian accent throughout the flick.
Before I wrap this up, I have to give credit where credit is due. There are a couple nifty action scenes hidden in this monstrosity of a film. So I give thanks to the studio who hated the director’s initial cut and paid for some re-shoots to add more action. The scenes certainly weren’t enough to bring it out of B-movie Hell, but it was a step in the right direction. And this was originally intended to be a Vin Diesel movie. So the next time The Pacifier guy passes on a script… DON’T FUCKING MAKE IT!
Grade: D+

Superbad

Neal Fischer — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0000

I am just going to start by saying that Superbad is one of the funniest films of the last ten years. Yes I said it. Some will disagree with me but I think the film will stand on its own as the Fast Times at Ridgemont High of the 21st Century. The last three decades have bred what could be considered the epitome of High School comedies. The eighties of course had Fast Times, the nineties had American Pie and now we have Superbad.
I had the fortune of seeing an early screening but wanted to see it one more time to make sure I felt the same way. The advanced screening was an interesting experience, because the projectionist put the reels in the wrong order. The film jumped to a whole different level after about 30 minutes and everyone was confused for a moment. The great thing is that the movie didn’t suffer. Seeing the movie in the wrong order was just as fun as seeing it as how it should be.
Seth Rogen, star of this summers Knocked Up, co-wrote this film with friend Adam Goldberg. According to Rogen this script was first written when he was 13 years old, and they tweaked it until its current state. He also co-stars with SNL star Bill Hader as one half of the worst police duo of all time. I haven’t written what this film is about yet, simply because I think that the film is great and you should see it, but also because it is a pretty simple plot. Jonah Hill (Knocked Up, Accepted) and Michael Cera (Arrested Development) star as best friends who are starting to suffer from separation anxiety after learning they wont be attending the same college. They have one more night to party and possibly get laid, and this sets the groundwork for the adventure that is Superbad. I will mention the great character that we all know from the trailer as “McLovin.” He is played by Christopher Mintz-Plasse, and is such a treat to watch. I don’t want to give away any of his scenes but if you don’t like him, I would think you entered the wrong movie.
In conclusion, the script is top-notch, the soundtrack is incredibly funky, the actors are all on the top of their game, and when can you go wrong with over 35 different descriptions of genitalia? Stay during the credits for a few minutes for a little extra surprise.