The Hot Blog

Couple of GREAT articles on the MCN homepage; the Apatow (although brief, I found it interesting) and the Wes Anderson. While the latter is insightful Anderson once again manages to be enigmatic and elusive even though the writer is the guy who did that great LA Weekly piece 10 years ago where he and Anderson drove to Texas together.

Hey, Guys...working on a project for which I need to tap your collective wisdom: Can you name movies about successful businesses or product inventors, e.g., Coco Before Chanel, September Issue, etc...? Thanks for your help!

HUDSUCKER PROXY!

TUCKER: THE MAN AND HIS DREAM (maybe?)

GHOSTBUSTERS

BACK TO THE FUTURE

PRIMER

The Stuff

i love reading reviews from critics who somehow manage to give New Moon a decent review and instead of pointing out the series obvious shortcomings decide to treat each movie as if they are reviewing a phenomenon to which they have no grasp.

It reminds me of the way critic reviewed Jackson's King Kong and Singer's Superman. Even though the films were horribly flawed, the critics seemed to give extremely favorable reviews.

critics don't matter anymore because they're afraid to say 'this just isn't any good'.

The Star Wars prequels seemed to set the modern tone. No one really liked them, but the critics didn't take the critical stabs they should have because of the phenomenon. But the fans did. Maybe that's why no one cares about critics. They have to play it safe.

Most of the New Moon reviews are soft to the point of flaccid.

Okay, I know it's not scientific, but the Tomatometer has NEW MOON at 31% fresh. This doesn't strike me as giving it a pass.

yancy, you'd have to read the reviews. even the ones that are technically negative are like "some people will really enjoy it". Conceding to the populist rabble rather than just saying "i thought it was poo"

Eh, I've seen New Moon, and it seems to me that most critics this time out simply didn't care to critique the film. Even Ebert wasn't very objective with his review.

JennaB, how about Flash of Genius (although not a "success" story, per se), Fat Man and Little Boy (albeit not a great product), Something the Lord Made (about medical discovery), And the Band Played On (dealt, at some points, about scientific discovery and competition) or Tom Dowd & the Language of music (outstanding and fascinating documentary about the famed Atlantic Records recording engineer and producer whose innovations helped changed modern recorded music).

Thanks, Don & RP! Don, I remember seeing Primer at its Sundance premiere on a Saturday night...very creepy and interesting. What happened to the filmmaker...? RP, will check out the Dowd doc! Again, thanks for your help...

I guess the Vatican does not approve of Twilight:

Monsignor Franco Perazzolo, of the Pontifical Council of Culture, says, "The theme of vampires in 'Twilight' combines a mixture of excesses that as ever is aimed at young people and gives a heavy - esoteric element. It is once again that age-old trick or ideal formula of using extremes to make an impact at the box office. This film is nothing more than a moral vacuum with a deviant message and as such should be of concern."

Was this oddly translated from Latin or something? What does the Vatican consider to be the 'deviant message'? Romantic relationships with the undead?

Good question. Here's where I copied the above from.

People in the News

http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/people/archives/185875.asp

Vatican Slams 'Deviant' Twilight

The Roman Catholic Church has expressed concerns over the growing popularity of the "Twilight" movies - Vatican officials have called the vampire franchise a "moral vacuum with a deviant message".

The second film in the series, "The Twilight Saga: New Moon," hit cinemas this week and the movie's stars, Robert Pattinson, Kristen Stewart and Taylor Lautner, have been traveling the world to promote the release.

But the worldwide hype, along with masses of hysterical teenage fans, has drawn criticism from the Vatican, with officials urging parents to be more vigilant about the type of films their children are watching.

Monsignor Franco Perazzolo, of the Pontifical Council of Culture, says, "The theme of vampires in 'Twilight' combines a mixture of excesses that as ever is aimed at young people and gives a heavy - esoteric element. It is once again that age-old trick or ideal formula of using extremes to make an impact at the box office. This film is nothing more than a moral vacuum with a deviant message and as such should be of concern."

Vatican officials previously criticized the "Harry Potter" film franchise for its themes of magic and wizardry, as well as Dan Brown adaptations "The Da Vinci Code," and "Angels and Demons" for their depiction of the Catholic Church.

I was hoping they would be against the movies for bad writing, but it sounds like it's just the usual anti-occultism.

Just purely as an FYI, the "Vatican" did not issue any statement at all about New Moon or Twilight. There are no encyclicals of condemnation about it and this is merely the opinion of one man on a council who does not speak for every member of the council let alone the Vatican (which is a sovereign state) or all Catholics. It is not a sin to like Twilight ( I am a big fan and look forward to New Moon) nor does this Monsignor's opinion represent anything other than his opinion. It is not Catholic doctrine and the media should not be representing it as such.

That this one man's opinion is seen as a blanket statement by the Vatican and taken as such is exactly why so many call it and ignorant media.

I am trying to use this, as Obama would say, as a teaching moment.

Put in terms you all might understand...Bob Casey is a junior Democrat Senator who is serving with Arlen Specter. He is pro-life. He is on the record as saying such. If he makes such a statement and is caught on tape, is it fair to say that he speaks for the entire Democratic Party as being pro-life?

Of course not. He is just offering one view and is not representing the entire party in his view.

This is why so many people of Catholic faith (and other religions) see the media as biased.

It is not intentional but just a genuine ignorance about how things work and it paints a skewed image.

Think of it how GLAAD condemned Bruno. It does not mean they spoke for ever gay person or gay organization.

This Monsignor's view does not represent official Catholic doctrine, just his own simplistic view. Personally I wish these idgits would keep their mouths shut. They do far more harm than good for Catholics in the arts and just play into every stereotype out there.

He is a dick.

Agreed -- no need for the media to misrepresent the Church's position on a dumb movie when it takes far more ruinous positions, day in and day, out as a matter of policy

Thanks for the info, Nicol. One point I think should be noted, though, is that I think you're drawing an inaccurate comparison between this Monsignor, who (if I have this information correct) was appointed by a Pope, vs. Senator Casey, who was elected by the people of Pennsylvania. As such, they have a different set of responsibilities within their respective hierarchies.

I love the irony here. Nicol, the one who over and over again here has thrown around the word "liberal" to describe millions and millions of people in this country, the one who makes simplistic generalizations over and over again, is asking people to not generalize in this instance. Priceless.

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: