The Hot Blog

This blog is quickly turning into Wonkaland.

The Shark Has Been Jumped.

Uh... do you have anything to add? Any insight about what you'd like to be discussing in a dead news cycle?

The Tyger represents terrorism, doesn't it?

At the risk of undercutting another whiny snarkfest in comments, I say whenever you want to share something that piques your interest (especially a piece this brilliant), POST AWAY!

I kinda liked it, although the puppeteers being in the frame was distracting. The music was sweet though.

See, and I thought the Tyger was Mel Gibson, and the shadow people manipulating him were the Jews.

But then again, I liked RICKY BOBBY, so what do I know?

David, how about starting a discussion about Snakes on a Plane? For all the hype and ballyhoo, it seems to be tracking for shit... wonder how people feel about it and who here plans to see it this weekend. I have my prediction already set in stone, but i'm curious what the mindset is out there because it seems to be all over the place. (Didn't help doing the junket today either cause everyone seems optimistic...but don't they always?)

There might not be news to talk about, so you could go the other route and, you know, actually talk about movies for a change. The deeper meaning of Miami Vice or World Trade Center or hell, Little Miss Sunshine.

Going back to Miami Vice for a moment then, why was it perceived by so many critics to be confusing?

Honestly, it hit me as the most streamlined plot Mann has handled since Last of the Mohicans. Not interested in another bout of critic bashing here, but I had deluded myself into the thinking that the majority of these writers represented a more, how do you say, recognition enabled base?

I'll answer that: (A) critics are indeed mostly idiots, and (B) the movie was boring so that's how they translated it.

ED, if Snakes really hits with the audience they're expecting it to, it's going to be driven by that segment hardest to reach with tracking. Most of the young buzz titles this summer that worked haven't had that reflected in their tracking.

Still, we'll see.

Crow's topic de jour:

So I was watching the original Back to The Future yesterday on AMC and it occured to me that in just 9 years the movie will be 30 years old. Recall that 30 years is the span of time contrasted in the first film (1955 & 1985).

So my question is, if they remake the film in 2015 where a teen travels back to 1985! to make sure his parents couple, what kind of cultural differences do you think the filmmakers would poke fun at? In what way is 1985 gradually becoming "1955" to our generation?

I've been thinking about this all day but if the Delorean of 2015 runs on Bio-Ethanol instead of Plutonium, would Marty McFly still have a hard time getting home in 1985?

Crow, you just made my head explode a little bit.

Miami Vice is considered confusing because it is a movie of actions. Maybe it's because of the theater I went to, but outside of the first conversation with the FBI guy, the dialogue was said in either mumbles or indecipherable accents. As much as film is a visual medium, sometimes you don't realize how much people rely on what's being said in a movie to follow it. It wasn't so much of a problem as the problem of me NOT GIVING A DAMN. The only thing that gave me any kind of emotional rise was rather brief and brutal execution of the two undercover FBI agents at the beginning of the movie. The rest, I don't care, and the movie never gives me any reason to care. Many parts of it look great, but I'm sorry, having a relationship-building scene with Crockett and Isabella in a power boat where I can barely understand a damn word they're saying to each other just doesn't do it for me.

I hardly think bio-ethanol could generate the one twenty one gigawatts of electricity needed to power the flux capacitor. *geek sigh*

Back to the Future is an absolutely classic film where unbelievably almost every detail of the production has a small, but satisfying payoff. It is still Zemeckis' best film.

Crow, we are currently in a 80s nostalgia period that will quickly turn into 90s nostalgia. I think it has to do with kids becoming young adults and trying not to let go of a not too distant childhood.

one POINT twenty one gigawatts...excuse me!

If you really want your mind blown, check out the two dozen photos of Eric Stoltz at Marty before the recast...

http://www.bttf.com/cgi-bin/ImageFolio3/imageFolio.cgi?direct=Eric_Stoltz_as_Marty_McFly

Well no wonder the movie is so good... Zemeckis got to shoot it twice! Just... Wow... Recasting after five weeks of shooting!? Did they ever bother to tell Stoltz about his performance before letting him go? Must've been oddly painful.

"So I was watching the original Back to The Future yesterday on AMC and it occured to me that in just 9 years the movie will be 30 years old. Recall that 30 years is the span of time contrasted in the first film (1955 & 1985). "

Absolutely amazing, seems like only yesterday I saw the film at the Empire in London.

30 years...damn.

I can't even imagine Stoltz as Marty. That's totally weird, and I like him!

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: