Timewaster's Guide Archive

For any and all Utah based timewasters, I'm shooting a 20-minute student film entitled "Underground" over the next three Saturdays. The film is a sort of cross between "The Screwtape Letters" and "The Shawshank Redemption", and takes place in Hell (it actually has a very positive message).

I need more actors in Hell. The shoot will be on Saturday, November 4 from 12:30pm to 6:00 pm at SLCC Redwood Campus. No pay is involved (student film), but lunch is provided. s anywhere.

If anyone is interested, please email me at [email protected], or call Paul at 801-654-0512.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if something more touchy-feely and emotional like "The Queen" won Best Picture, but this is Marty's year as director. Remember, in this decade, it's only been a 50-50 proposition for the Picture and Director to go to the same  film.

It helps that nothing else by a name director seems to be gaining enough momentum. The only possible exceptions are Eastwood's "Flags of Our Fathers" and Mel Gibson's "Apocalypto". They won't give it to Clint over Marty again this soon. And it doesn't matter how good Mel's film is or isn't, I doubt they'll even invite him this year. Olvier Stone's "World Trade Center" was well-recieved, but not really regarded as "An Oliver Stone Film". Perhaps Scorcese's strongest competition is "United 93"'s Paul Greengrass. But I think the sentimental vote will carry Marty over the top.

I've never seen The Village, primarily because I thought that Signs was one of the dumbest movies I've ever seen. I was very excited to hear that Lady in the Water was a break from the formula, but if it's not then that's very disappointing.

As science fiction, "Signs" is idiotic. From a pure science standpoint the idea of aliens who are destroyed by water is a blatant violation of the immutable laws of physics, which are the same on every planet. Any astrophycist who past 5th grade will tell there are two thing necessary to support life: Water, and energy. No, this couldn't be different because it's on a different planet. That's fairy tale thinking, and about as sound as "In Rand McNally they wear shoes on their heads and hamburgers eat people."

That said, as a character study, I thought "Signs" was by far Shyamalan's most compelleing film. It's the only one I've bothered to watch multiple times.

The thing I don't like about the first two X-men is they don't feel like comic book movies, like spiderman does, they feel like art house movies.

To me, the first two films were a brillaint mix of comic book and art house, which is exactly why I loved them.

"Spider-Man" is probably the most perfect realization of the comic book feel on screen, I will admit. And, with only a couple of exceptions ("It's you who is out, Gobby. Out of your mind!"), this is a good thing. But Singer's "X-Men" films are something different, and quite special. The raised the bar for the genre, and demonstrated superhero stories need not just be stories for 12-year olds about guys hitting each other. I can't agree that they're "self-important." There is a difference between self-importance and having something to say. I understand the common argument people have "I go to movies to escape", but for me, every day life is mind numbing that a movie that's actually about something IS an escape. If "X-men: The Last Stand" is more like the comics than Singer's films are, then, in my opinion, Singer's films are better than the comic books. And really, there is just as much pontificating in the third film. It's just not backed up with the thoughtfulness or or emotion of the first two.

I disagree with the idea that there is, or should be, a specific "feel" that inherently goes with all comic book films.

But that is really just one opinion, and while I don't agree with Spriggan, I do see the validity of his point. There is something to be said for goofy fun in comic book movies. This is why I will always have a fondness for "Batman Forever". Hokey as it was, it was the Batman I grew up on, the Batman movie I imagined when I was a kid ("Batman & Robin" was not).

That is why I feel it's best when there is variety in the types of comic book films. I would be miserable if they were all as vacuous and lightweight as "Fantastic Four" (which is actually mildly fun it's own dumb way), but they don't all have to be dark and brooding, either.

Name one Marvel hero or villain that can't either dodge, or, more frequently, simply shrug off Cyclops' "beam of death-lasery goodness."

This is due to what is known as "G.I. Joe Parachute Syndrome", and is not really Cyclops' fault. Though I concede it's an inherent problem with his power.

Two additional points:

First, all multi-powered superheros pale to Superman. The advantage to a single power is you have do ONE thing better than Superman (i.e. The Flash is faster).

Second, there is more to a character than powers. The cinematic Cyclops is a strong leader, and his interaction with Wolverine is the heart and soul of the first film (come on: the way they they establish which is the real Wolverine is one of the best movie moments of the decade). Even though "X2" is the best film of the series, both sequels have been missing something by underusing the Cyclops/Wolverine dynamic. Powers, schmowers. It's about drama, and the drama of the cinematic X-Men needs Cyclops. I mean, Batman has no powers at all, anfd if anyone bad mouths Batman . . .

Plus,  Cyclops got Famke Janssen, which inherently makes him cool.

Sorry about that.  I did in fact change it after I thought to myself, "Why would anyone call a movie a joint?"  It is fixed now.

As I said, perfectly understandable. Spike is a. . . unique guy.

Yes, I believe Skar is right about the point my brother was trying to make about Natalie Portman.  She wowed both of us in "Cold Mountain", and we both frequently find ourselves defending her to those who have only seen her in "Star Wars." But to the average movie goer, and even more so to the average fan of science fiction and genre films, the first image that comes to mind is Padme Amidala. I mean, how many people on this site read "Natalie Portman" and think "Oh yeah, 2005 Oscar Nominee for 'Closer'"? Personally, it makes me crazy when people refer to the great Liam Neeson as "what's his name who played Qui-Gonn Jinn", but  to a lot of people, that's who he is.

Personally, I feel some actors, particularly Ewan McGregor, rose above the material and the CGI better than Portman did. She seems, to me, to be the least sincere of the leads, and her emotions seem too mannered and hollow to me (yes, even by comparison to Hayden Christensen). But when I saw her in "Cold Mountain", I knew that was not due to lack of ability on her part. Sadly, even though I am a lifelong Lucas fan, I must conclude it is largely due to inadequate direction. George is a great many things, but he is no director of actors. Whereas "Cold Mountain" director Anthony Minghella is a lot less exciting and fun, but is superb with actors.

I have not yet seen "V For Vendetta", so I don't have an opinion of her performance there.

No, I'm questioning the commie mutant traitor scum who suggests that there could possibly be improvement to the perfection that was/is/will always be Paranoia.

Excellent use of spurious logic, citizen! Let's kill the commie mutant traitor!