Cinematic Central

FILM 2011 Video

Thu, 20 Jan 2011 02:30:31 -0500

FILM 2011 Video:

Created by David Edwards, a member of the Cinematic Central Staff.

TIFF Review: The Way

Fri, 10 Sep 2010 23:23:00 -0400

Today I had the awesome privalege of seeing a screening of the Emilio Estevez film The Way. The story follows a father (Martin Sheen) who gets word of his only sons death who had been doing an 500 Mile spirtual walk to cathedral of Santiago de Compostela. His father then decides to do the walk and scatter the ashes of his son on his journey.

The film was a pleasure to watch and great way to kick off TIFF 2010. Everything about the movie was enjoyable from the beautiful cinematography to the amazing and powerful performance put on by Martin Sheen and the supporting cast. It was an emotional treak with a few lighthearted moments placed at just the right time. The movie gave the audience the feeling that they too were walking this epic voyage because connecting to the characters was just so easy. A big applause followed the screening and a Q and A with Estevez and Sheen took place after. Hopefully this film gets a wide release as currently it has no distribution.

-Dave

James Cameron: Leader of a revolution, or egotistical director?

Thu, 09 Sep 2010 17:50:00 -0400

By the time this article comes out, this would already be old news. However this is a topic that I wish to discuss because of my strong feelings towards the subject, but also because this topic will inevitably be brought up anytime a similar incident occurs. It’s a long one.

For those that don’t know, James Cameron did an interview with Vanity Fair, in which he voiced some strong opinions about Piranha 3D. It goes without saying that he doesn’t like the film, but his reasons for it are a little bit peculiar. His main complaint is that this is 3D done wrong (as opposed to his Conan complex, in which he was fired as director of Piranhas 2, and now 20 years later he can get his revenge on the whole Piranha series). By that I don’t mean 3D graphics that have been done poorly, but rather 3D being used in the wrong type of movie. To him he sees this movie as nothing more than a cash-cow with its main feature being 3D. This upsets James because if anyone were to look at how he talks about 3D, one could easily argue that James sees 3D as his child, which for the purpose of this analogy is an 18 year old daughter, who is being used (in James/the father’s eyes) like a 15 dollar whore, raking in customers because of its appeal, and only leaving both the customer and the daughter (and from there the father) with a sense of guilt and shame. Now, perhaps this argument could be true, if it weren’t for two things. First, James failed to realize that the movie (and every component about it) was not trying to take itself seriously. Now maybe that would still upset James, but it goes without saying that the movie wasn’t using 3D as a cash-in, but rather a part of the comedy seen in the movie, the joke being that 3D isn’t actually that spectacular and is rather kind of pointless. The second reason however is actually more disturbing, as while the first showed that James Cameron doesn’t have a sense of analytical humour, the second reason shows that James Cameron is just as evil as the people he claims to hate. Try as he may, he cannot defend his statement on how “this film is a cash-cow because it’s in 3D” when he himself is rereleasing Avatar in theatres, with an extra 30 minutes of 3D images of Pandora (brief aside here, this hypocrisy is only more disturbing when considering that we have established that 3D is James Cameron’s 18 year old daughter, especially with the whole cash-cow thing…..just think about that one for a second).

Statement aside, the release of this film just shows how egotistical James has gotten. Avatar was an okay film, but it certainly wasn’t good enough to warrant a re-release with extra scenes, especially if all these extra scenes do is show off the 3D rather than add to the story, which would real help this film. Yes, this film has a clichéd story, but not because it’s simply “Dances with Wolves except it’s with Smurfs”, that doesn’t make the film clichéd….well it sort of does, but that wasn’t the most clichéd part of that story. The clichéd part is that since this is a James Cameron film, we already know right off the bat who’s going to live, who’s going to die, who’s going to be good, who’s going to be evil, and who’s going to act evil at first but then switch to good.

Sorry, I got off track there, but it had to be said. There was another part of the interview I wanted to talk about, and that was James’ comment towards the end, in which he describes 3D as the renaissance of film-making, and how every film this year released in 3D has been amazing. This shows us two things about Mr. Cameron, that a) the only 3D movie he’s seen is Avatar (which even then wasn’t terrific) and b) that Mr. Cameron doesn’t understand what a renaissance in film-making means. A renaissance implies that the idea in question is good enough that it’s expected in all movies, but also good enough to change the way one can truly see a movie (not physically, but emotionally). Adding voice to movies could be considered one, as this gave each of the characters a little bit more humanity and character, as through their voice not only do we have a sense of familiarity as someone we’ve heard before, but the tone of the voice as well as how one pronounces words shows what type of person the character is. Color in movies could also be considered a renaissance, if a small one, as the color adds both a little bit of familiarity of things we’ve seen, but also because different colors can evoke different emotions, which shows us what type of tone the movie (or each scene for that matter) is trying to go for. The advancement in both special make-up effects and CGI could be even considered a renaissance, as this allowed us too truly see what type of image or creature the director wanted to create, which in turn shows us how the director’s mind works in these regards. But what of 3D? Does it hold any unique attribute that truly adds to the whole experience of watching movies? One could argue that depth is a feature, and while it’s true this could be used to make us see movies differently, I have yet to actually see a movie that uses 3D effectively (even Avatar’s 3D graphics weren’t that impressive). Perhaps one day someone can find the winning formula for making 3D movies, but this still doesn’t bypass the one problem we have with 3D, and that’s immersion. We can judge how much we enjoy a movie both by its quality as a movie when compared to other movies and also through how immersed we feel when watching the movie. Those movies where we feel like a true part of it can evoke some of the most awe inspiring and meaningful moments we have when looking back at film as a medium for art. If at any point this immersion breaks, then we as the audience member will no longer feel like we have experienced something new (in terms of how meaningful it was) and our general experience with the movie is not going to be that good. When you consider some of the pains one feels when watching 3D (headaches, eye-strain, uncomfortable glasses) then that person may take off those glasses for a second just to orient themselves, and when they catch a glimpse of what the 3D effect really looks like to the human eye, they see how fake and unnecessary it really is.

So, what’s the conclusion I’m trying to get at? Simple, while I have enjoyed most of James Cameron’s films, I still see his interview as a way to simply protect his beloved film-effect, and that his remarks later on was a simple attempt to try to boast the ability and necessity of something that even Cameron himself has yet to truly understand. Maybe a few years from now when 3D has the potential to actually make something of itself then James may indeed seem like the leader of a new wave of film-making, but until then we can see him for what he truly is- a child whose trying to seem tough by saying “Oh yeah? Well, my way of film-making is ten times as strong as your way of film-making!”

-Charles

TIFF Day To Day Coverage

Thu, 09 Sep 2010 17:47:40 -0400

Starting tomorrow I’ll be covering the festivties that TIFF (Toronto International Film Festival) has to offer. I’ll be serving up reviews on the films I see everyday, so be sure to keep reading. Expect lots of pictures and video coverage.

FanExpo Day 1

Sat, 28 Aug 2010 00:15:51 -0400

So day 1 has come and went for FanExpo in Toronto. The first day went quite smoothly with all the booths and merchants up and running. Also autograph floor was filled with people the instant we got in. Pictures up tomorrow.

Hatchet Unrated To Be Screened

Thu, 26 Aug 2010 14:31:38 -0400

Hatchet Unrated To Be Screened

FanExpo Tomorrow

Thu, 26 Aug 2010 14:13:44 -0400

Hey readers, just letting everyone know that tomorrow is the first day of FanExpo Canada. Gonna be doing vlogging and videos from the event, so stay posted for those.

Hatchet 2 Trailer Drops

Sat, 21 Aug 2010 01:13:43 -0400

The Hatchet 2 trailer arrived over at Yahoo, and it looks awesome. Link below.

Hatchet 2 Trailer

Trailer: My Soul To Take

Wed, 18 Aug 2010 23:16:57 -0400

From writer/director Wes Craven comes his latest horror film entitled “My Soul To Take”. The trailer was recently released and after viewing it i’m feeling a little conflicted. To me it seems like your normal, run of the mill slasher/horror movie. But I have to think that this is Wes Craven, the director of quite possibly the 2 biggest horror franchises (Nightmare On Elm Street, Scream). Here’s the link to the trailer.

http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1810022027/video/21450179

How The "movie" Movies Destoyed Cinema

Sun, 15 Aug 2010 23:21:00 -0400

Epic Movie, Date Movie, Disaster Movie. What do these movies have in common? They’re written and directed by Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer and they all suck. It all started with Scary Movie, a funny and respectable script. Yes a part of it was written by these 2 directors, but a majority of it wasn’t and that’s why the film worked. Then came the release of “Date Movie” panned by pretty much everyone but somehow made double its budget back. Thats fair maybe people walked into it not knowing of its poor quality. So upon the release of “Epic Movie” I thought we would see numbers decline and not see another “movie” movie again. WHAT!? Epic Movie made back double its budget again despite all the extremely negative reviews it recieved from almost everyone. Finally when “Meet The Spartans” was released all the negative buzz surounding it was well known. Somehow it managed to make back its budget and a little extra. For some reason these movies are widely hated yet somehow make back a ton of money! Finally “Disaster Movie” was released and failed to even make back it’s budget. People had started to realize that these movies we’re not creative and just easy moneymakers exploiting the audience. These movies preyed on the casual movie goer and got them to watch 90 minutes of, and i use this term loosely, “Comedy”. This was until people realized they were being exploited and ripped off of their 12 dollars. The team of Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer are now releasing a new “film” entitled “Vampires Suck”. How witty…

Review: Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World (Charles' Take)

Sun, 15 Aug 2010 22:03:12 -0400

I wrote a little while ago about how it seems games that are considered cinematic are regarded as masterpieces, while movies that are considered gamey are terrible. Well, after watching Scott Pilgrim vs. The World, we finally have a movie that is both gamey and good! If you’re wondering what type of game Scott Pilgrim is supposed to be, it all depends on perspective. Most people will get a Legend of Zelda vibe from the soundtrack and progression, while more intense gamers may feel something more like Devil May Cry and No More Heroes.

Scott Pilgrim is a movie adaption of a comic book series of the same name (which interestingly enough isn’t actually finished yet), brought to us by Edgar Wright, director of both Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz, both of which are I liked. Now I was a little bit skeptical when I first saw the trailer, because a) it featured Michael Cera and therefore made me think of another socially awkward teen flick, and b) because it looked like a hipster film (on reflection, when there is Michael Cera, there is a hipster film, and vice versa). I was however thankfully proven wrong as the film actually makes fun of hipsters and Michael Cera seems to have grown some balls for once! It wouldn’t be a stretch to say that the role of Scott Pilgrim is Michael Cera’s best role to date. Speaking of acting, all of the acting in this film is top-notch. I loved everything about it, from Mary Elizabeth Winstead as Scott’s girlfriend Ramona Flowers, Kieran Culkin as Scott’s sarcastic and gay roommate Wallace Wells, Ellen Wong as Scott’s obsessive ex-girlfriend Knives Chau, to even Mark Webber, Alison Pill, and Johnny Simmons as members of the band Sex Bob-omb (a nice little reference for all those gamers out there). After seeing them play their roles so well, I seriously can’t think of anyone else who could’ve done a better job than these guys.

The terrific special effects and the plot of Scott fighting Ramona’s seven evil ex’s all help with the gamey feel, especially the special effects. Things such as Scott accumulating points from battle, people exploding into coins when killed, 8-bit soundtracks, power-ups, and even a pee meter all add to this idea of a world run by video game logic, sort of like the T.V. show Code Monkeys, which also ran on video game logic and including a pee meter (amongst other things). This use of special effects is not only a terrific way to do a video game movie, but also a terrific way to do a comic book movie! This especially true when sounds effects or dialogue appears on screen with the appropriate text, which is reminiscent of the old days of Batman and Robin where POW! Would replace or accompany someone getting punched in the face.

Part of my excitement may be because this was filmed in my hometown of Toronto. That’s actually another thing that I like, that this movie actually shows what Toronto…hell, this movie actually shows what Canada is really like! No things like “Eh” or “Aboot”, no tagging as simply a copycat version of the U.S., and no Mounties and poutine (although for the record, poutine is awesome). Rather, this movie shows what modern-Canadian culture is really like, which makes it all the better for me. I can safely say that everyone in the theatre cheered when the movie mentioned that this was taking place in Toronto.

This movie is the complete package. Funny comedy mixed with terrific action scenes, solid acting, great special effects, and a pretty solid story and script (I would talk more about the story, but chances are you already know what it’s about from the trailers). So if you haven’t seen it yet or are on the fence on the subject, I suggest you go see it the next time you’re free, as this truly is one of the greatest films of the year and must be seen.

Review: Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World (2010)

Sat, 14 Aug 2010 23:59:52 -0400

Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World is the new directorial effort from Edgar Wright (Hot Fuzz, Shaun Of The Dead) starring Michael Cera and Mary Elizabeth Winstead. When I first heard Edgar Wright would be releasing a new film I was excited, that is until I saw the trailer. Something about it just didn’t vibe with me and I was starting to doubt the movie. How wrong was I. Within the first five minutes of the film I was laughing and totally enjoying the fun. I started to feel stupid for ever doubting Edgar Wright.

The film was a ton of fun, I was fully entertained from the first second to last. In a nutshell the film is visually stunning and plays much like a video game. From time to time I had flashbacks from the 8-Bit era, from the music to seeing Scott grab that pixelated 1-Up icon. The film is so perfectly edited and I haven’t seen a movie look like this before. The acting in the film was a strong point, it was great to see Michael Cera stray away from his normal “Socially awkward” visage and actually kick some serious ass. As for Mary Elizabeth Winstead, let’s just say a majority of the people in the theatre walked out with a new crush.

Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World is the most fun I’ve had at the theaters in a long time and it easily tops my “Best of the year so far” list. I highly recommend it.

-Dave

Warner Bros. Trying to Kill Fox's 'Deadpool' Movie?

Thu, 12 Aug 2010 21:33:06 -0400

Warner Bros. Trying to Kill Fox's 'Deadpool' Movie?:

Found over at Cinematical

Evil Dead Coming To Blu Ray In August

Thu, 12 Aug 2010 14:28:55 -0400

Evil Dead Coming To Blu Ray In August:

Found over ar Horror Squad . Details on the upcoming blu ray release of Sam Raimi’s The Evil Dead.

FanExpo Canda 2010 Coverage

Wed, 11 Aug 2010 21:50:05 -0400

FanExpo Canada 2010 is steadily approaching and will arrive at the Metro Toronto Convention Centre on the weekend of August 27-29. The Cinematic Central staff will be prodiving day to day coverage of all the events that FanExpo 2010 has to offer. Be sure to stay tuned.

Hey, You Got My Game In Your Movie

Wed, 11 Aug 2010 21:43:00 -0400

One must wonder how long it took for the creator of Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups to perfect the formula. Now, it does go without saying that it isn’t that hard to realize that chocolate with peanut butter is good, but how many other combinations could the person have tried before settling on the current formula? This slightly mediocre metaphor does deal with the issue I’m going to talk about, Videogame Movies. By this I of course mean movies based on a video game/video game series, not movies about video games. I should probably mention now that while I am a big fan of both movies and video games, I am not a fan of Videogame Movies. Now if one notices, this article may seem rather outdated since no Videogame Movie was released recently in the past week or two (assuming this goes up when I think it does), and as such one will wonder why I’m talking about Videogame Movies now instead of later. Well, this has been on my mind ever since I heard the announcement that a Shadow of the Colossus movie was in the works. For those that don’t know what Shadow of the Colossus is and you happen to own a PS3 or even a PS2, I suggest that you go get the game yourself, skip the rest of this paragraph, and enjoy a great game that you should be ashamed for not knowing. For anyone who doesn’t own these systems or doesn’t play video games at all, Shadow of the Colossus is an old PS2 title that has you the player play as a lone man who travels the countryside, destroying sixteen large colossi, all so you can bring an un-named girl back to life. Now as a game this may seem a little underwhelming, but trust me when I say that it is actually one of the best titles for the system to date, but as a movie idea it seems like it would work, except to me that is. Now it does make me excited to see that a good game is recognized enough that someone wants to make a movie out of it, but at the same time I can see why it won’t do so good. I’ll get into why a little bit later, but it all goes back to the Reese’s analogy I used earlier. Is the reason why video games and movies don’t work so well is because the two just aren’t compatible, or is it compatible, but no one has perfected the formula yet? This further led me to the main reasons why Videogame Movies of the past haven’t worked, so without further ado…

Reason #1: Have we met before?

This particular reason isn’t inherent in all video games and Videogame Movies subsequently; it is definitely a reason that can hamper the movie. Anyways, to do a little history lesson here, when some of the first video games came out, some of them where sort of inspired by movies of the time. This isn’t true for all video games, in fact this style of video game is a small minority of games released, but these games still exist. It makes sense from a financial perspective. After all, if you want to sell something in a format that is only starting to gain popularity, make the product similar to another product in a much more popular format. To give an example of how this works, take a look at both Tomb Raider and even Uncharted. Both games were made for a system as a semi launch title (the first for the original PlayStation, the second for the PS3) for systems only starting to get the public’s eye, and both games take queues from a popular movie series, Indiana Jones. Now these game aren’t ripping off the movie, but rather just taking inspiration from it. The problem with this however is that when a movie on the game is eventually made, there is that underline feeling that it is simply an altered copy of the movie that the game was trying to emulate. This leads to the problem that even though the movie may be good or alright, it will still seem lesser than the original movie, leading to the question “Why would I watch an altered Indiana Jones movie when I can just watch an Indiana Jones movie?” Now this isn’t to say this aspect makes the movie outright bad, but it does mean it is going to be poorly received, especially amongst critics who weren’t interested in the source material before the movie even came out. Even a fan of the source material may find it lacking if they knew what the inspiration for the material was. From my own experience I can say that even though I’m a fan of the Uncharted series, I at least recognize that watching an Uncharted movie would be like watching an Indiana Jones movie, because the one thing that was on my mind the entire time I played the games was “I can actually picture Indiana Jones here and it wouldn’t seem that much different.” Again, this doesn’t make the movie bad; it just means that it won’t be well received by critics who aren’t familiar with the games.

Reason #2: Wait a minute, I don’t remember that happening.

Probably one of the most common reasons Videogame Movies don’t work is how the story is told, as well as what the story is. Which problem it is depends on the game, whether it is the only one in a series or if it is a series of games. Assuming that it is the solitary one, then how the story is told is the problem. To use an example from movies such as the Harry Potter series or The Lord of the Rings, those movies were based off of some fairly long books. Now the movies did include the important parts as to what each individual book was all about, but a lot of stuff was cut out for the sake of time. Some of it wouldn’t have mattered, but some of it did. Now, if you consider the fact that the same could be said of a video game, which can last anywhere from ten to sixty hours in length, that’s going to be a lot of cut material. It may include the main point of the story, but there’s a good chance that a lot of what made the story meaningful to the gamer will be gone, and to the non-gamer the story will seem kind of lacklustre. After all, there is a reason why games are as long as they are, with one reason being that it just takes that long to understand the full scope of the story. It in turn creates a story that disappoints the gamer, while at the same time also not making the non-gamer interested in the source material. Now, assuming that it is a series of games rather than a single game, there arises the problem of what the story is. The problem isn’t so much how the story is told, but where it fits in the universe of the game. The Resident Evil series is a perfect example of this. The events that happen in the movies are only slightly related to the Resident Evil series by both location and terms, so the movie series seems like a loose adaption, even possibly a reimagining, of the series. That doesn’t seem so bad, except the series is neither of these things. Both certain events in the movies and promotions allude to past events in the Resident Evil series, which creates this bizarre scenario of a possible time anomaly abruptly occurring, and if a movie has to resort to that in order to make it seem interesting then it is not going to be a good movie, as fans won’t like to see their beloved series change the way it has, and critics won’t get any of the references or elements from the source material that the movie references. Some game series can easily avoid this by creating a series that while linear can allow for sudden stories between games, as long as obvious element aren’t changed. The two game series I can think of that easily bypass this are the Tomb Raider and Uncharted game series, which ironically are game series plagued for the first reason why Videogame Movies usually don’t work. The one Videogame Movie that I can that I can think of that nearly bypassed this problem was the Silent Hill movie. Now, it didn’t completely bypass it since it used themes and elements from the games that didn’t work for what the movie was going for, but anyone who has played the Silent Hill games knows you can create any type of movie in that universe, just because of how that universe works. Perhaps such a movie can be made, but how long that takes all depends on whether or not people want such a movie.

Reason #3: If only I were playing this movie.

Perhaps the biggest problem as to why Videogame Movies don’t work is because a game isn’t only meant to be watched, but to be played as well. That is what defines a game as a game, and is also one of the things looked at in reviews to see if the game is good. There have been some poorly rated games because the game play was not only bad, but how it the game play affected the story was also bad. On the reverse of that, there have been games that were praised for their combination of game play and how it affects the story. I mentioned Shadow of the Colossus earlier in this article and said that a movie version wouldn’t be good, and here’s why. While playing the game, I found the story to be both deep and captivating, but part of that wasn’t because of just the story, but how my interaction with the world gave me reason to enjoy it more. It isn’t to say that movies can’t captivate audiences; in fact it’s the opposite. What I’m saying though is that movies can’t captivate audiences the way a game can, not to say one is better than the other, but just that the two are very different. So while a movie version of Shadow of the Colossus may be captivating as a movie, it won’t captivate me the same way the game did, mostly because my involvement in the movie is to sit and watch rather than to sit and control. This means that rather than getting excited about riding my trusty horse each time to all of the different colossi that await me, I must instead watch someone else ride their horse, which just isn’t the same. It’s also part of the reason why movie adaptations of horror games don’t do so well, because part of the horror in playing horror games is the knowledge that you’re controlling the character rather than someone else. The worst part about this is that the movie can be extremely well done, but that my previous experience of the game will get in the way of my enjoyment of the movie. It will all come down to someone saying “Hey, I own the game; the game is much more interactive, so why don’t I play the game instead?” which is something I wouldn’t want to say if the movie is good. At least if it’s bad you have a justifiable excuse, but if it’s truly good then the problem isn’t the movie, it’s you the audience member, which is a pain for a person like me to know that my love for games and my love for movies is being tested like that.

Is there a root of evil?

All the reasons I have listed here as to why Videogame Movies aren’t that good can be explained by one reason: the movies try to satisfy two different types of audiences. The movie starts off by interesting gamers by taking everything they love about a game and putting it on the big screen. But somewhere in the time that the movie was announced and when it is released, it has gone through some changes so that the movie is much more accessible to non-gamers. In doing so, the movie has forsaken or at least irritated its original audience by changing or removing things in the movie that made them love the game. Yet in its attempt to interest the non-gamer it fails as well since if the non-gamer wasn’t interested in the movie in the first place, then they are most likely not going to see it unless it’s recommended by a friend, which means all its changes to make it more understandable or accessible have gone to waste, and the movie ends up pleasing almost no one. It isn’t to say people won’t go see it, but its a safe bet they won’t walk out of that theatre happy. The most obvious answer would be to only make the movie appeal to and be enjoyed by gamers. Some movies do this, and some are better for it, the only problem though is that these movies don’t usually get any theatrical debut, meaning it is possible for the movie to slip right over your head if you’re not paying attention. This isn’t all any one person’s fault; it’s just the different tastes amongst audiences really, which I can really blame. I suppose it irks me to know that a game that is called “cinematic” is going to be declared a masterpiece or must buy, yet a movie that is called “gamey” is going to be met with backlash from both sides. Is it too much to ask for the best of both worlds?

-Charles

Green Hornet

Tue, 10 Aug 2010 21:38:48 -0400

Upon the release of the trailer for the new Green Hornet film (Directed by Michael Gondry) I have heard mixed reviews from fans and non-fans a like. The most common criticism seems to be the idea that Seth Rogen, known for his comedic roles, won’t be apply to portray the character of Britt Reid, and the very fact that there is comedic bits ruins the movie. I say bring it on. The Green Hornet series was made so long ago and the idea of it being remade into something different is actually smart. The Green Hornet series is appreciated by a certain bunch but almost unknown to the general public. Having watched multiple re-runs of The Green Hornet I personally think that the fact that Seth Rogen is portraying the title character is actually genius. Judging from the trailer, I welcome this remake/reboot/re-whatever. The Green Hornet is set for release on January 14th, 2011. Down below is the trailer.

http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1808411967/trailer