silversolitaire: (hehehe)
Okay... THIS? Has made me laugh so hard I couldn't calm down for like 10 mins afterwards. This is brilliant.

Star Wars: Retold (by someone who hasn't seen it) from Joe Nicolosi on Vimeo.

And this is for bonus lulz:
silversolitaire: (Eleven)
So, when I was looking through my box of old letters, I found a reply from a TV station from 1997 or so where I complained about a cartoon. This actually both amused and intrigued me. I actually still remember said cartoon and why I complained about it. As a matter of fact, I've tried since then and the dawn of YouTube to dig it up again and verify my slightly dodgy memory. So, in this letter they happened to mention the title of the cartoon I complained about, so now I know it again! *squee* Of course, my first stop was YouTube and lo and behold, there it was. I watched it... and all the things that annoyed me were still there. I mean, of course they were, but I still find them annoying and inacceptable. So I'm content *g*.

Now, I realize how this sounds. Like one of those nutjobs who complain about some kiddy cartoon which might not be 100% PC but hey, it's a kid's show, so loosen up. But really, it was more than that. Allow me to elaborate. The cartoon in question was "Who Killed Cock Robin?" by Silly Symphony short by Walt Disney himself from 1935. From what I've learnt now it was even nominated for an Academy Award for Best Short Subject, Cartoons and actually won a Special Recommendation at the Venice Film Festival in 1936. So it's not just some neglectible throw-away cartoon.

Now, in order to understand what I'm talking about, you probably need to watch the cartoon in question.


The plot is quickly told. Cock Robin serenades his lady, Jenny, a Mae West stand-in of the avian variety, and is prompty shot into the chest with an arrow and falls down dead. Jenny's scream startles the neighbors and they watch poor Robin in his throes of death. The cops arrive and all but 60 seconds later the trial commences, discussing the question "Who killed Cock Robin?". I don't know about you, but in my world the trial shouldn't serve to figure out the culprit in the first place, but never mind that.

The cartoon is only 8 minutes long but if this is too much for your attention span at the moment, just check out, say, 3:00. Here, we have the first witness, no wait, suspect (who btw was rather randomly picked and dragged out of some bar along with two other guys, eh birds, while the coppers beat rhythmically on their heads with their batons) who's being questioned by the D.A. If you don't see the racial stereotype right there, allow me to enlighten you: here we have a blackbird, black, got it? He talks in the typical drawl and simpleton language usually associated with the stereotype of the black man, wears the stereotypical outfit. He turns white when scared, his gestures and stance is submissive and servile. Then there's the jury-choir reciting his testimony, adding the "No, sir"... I think it's rather obvious and quite racist. That was one of my complaints.

The other reason for complaint I've already hinted at earlier. It's this blatant use of police violence against the suspects. I realize this is just a cartoon, but i still can't stand watching the blackbird professing his innocence with the cop replying sardonically "Tell it to the judge, tell it to the judge," before beating around on his head without him putting up any form of resistance (2:30). I find that, frankly, quite disgusting. This just isn't funny.

And then, of course, there's the real kicker. Direct your attention to 6:40. When no verdict can be reached, neither the coon, nor the thug, nor the loon can be pinpointed as the culprit, Jenny demands "Someone ought to be hung!" and the judge, completely smitted by her presence, casually decides to hang them all, barely capable of lifting his eyes out of Jenny's cleavage. The jury breaks out into ecstatic singing and dancing: "We're gonna hang them all, we're gonna hang them all! We don't know who is guilty, so we're gonna hang them all!" ... Need I say more? This sentence alone, in my opinion, makes the entire cartoon inacceptable. They admit to not being able to prove any of the suspects guilty, so they're just going to give the death penalty to all of them? And I thought Phoenix Wright had a fucked up legal system.

To round it all off, the ending graces us with yet another stereotype. This time it's cupid-bird who really comes across as a total pansy, being delightfully pink, speaking with a lisp while waving around with his limp wrists. He confesses the "crime", but of course he didn't actually shoot Robin dead, he made him fall in love (wasn't he already in love before?). Robin and Jenny kiss (although he kinda seems to miss her mouth and hit some area between her chin and stomach, ehem), the jury breaks out into yet another song and everyone's happy. Or something.

Now, my problem isn't the mere existence of this cartoon. I'm not saying "BURN IT ALL!!!!! Hide it away, never to be found!!!!!". No, not at all. I just think this doesn't belong into the Sunday morning cartoons and this is why I complained. This is not a children's cartoon by any standards anymore. It shouldn't be aired anymore without reflection and commentary. It's just not funny anymore and it shouldn't be treated as such. That's my opinion.

While I was researching this, I looked at some of the comments on IMDB and people praise it for its "radical vision of The System", call it a "legal system at high speed". Thing is, I don't really think it is! I really don't think it's poking fun at the legal system and its convuluted ways, I think, despite being funny, they're being perfectly serious. Or rather, they're not reflecting such topics at all. Because otherwise we'd never have gotten such results, because despite everything, Disney usually really tries to do better. This cartoon merely is a sympton of its time, 1935, tail end of the Prohibition, rise of organized crime, at the brink of another World War. It really seemed okay then to portray minorities like that, to show them being treated in such a fashion, trivialize police violence. It was no big deal then. And this is exactly why it's so outdated now and why we can't just continue using it like it was as good as the next Spongebob Squarepants episode. It just isn't.
silversolitaire: (Stop! Yoda-Time!)
Just came back from seeing Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. I thought it was pretty cool. Definitely a worthy part of the Indiana Jones franchise. I loved the little details here and there that they added to evoke the spirit of the former movies. I also felt like the character of Mutt worked and wasn't annoying or anything. Cate Blanchett as Soviet dominatrix is made of sex. Yes, the plot was a little spaced out (ehem), but aren't they all? >.>; I mean Indy has always been dabbling with paranormal forces, so that was okay IMO. For the first half of the movie, possibly longer, I had this stupid grin on my face *g*. So that's a good thing! Hehehe... the scenic depth of the movie was amazing, too. Many times you stop looking at what's right in front of you, because there's so much going on in the background! You'd probably need to watch it a dozen times to catch all the little details. Some critics have said that the movie has its lengths. I didn't really feel that was true. Maybe the jungle chase could have been just a tad bit shorter, but it wasn't really bad yet.

I didn't anticipate that the theater would be so full in the afternoon. Guess I was a bit naive ^^;. As a result, we had awful seats. Booo... but it could have been worse. I might write something deeper about it later, but for now I just want to record that I've seen it.
silversolitaire: (huggle)
In other news, I've finally gotten around watching Iron Man on Monday. I loved it. It was most excellent. There's really nothing to complain about it. Except perhaps the changes they made in Stark's personality that bothered me a slight bit. I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but in the comics Stark is pretty much unapologetic about his weaponmaking business. He does have some moral concerns occasionally, but most of the time Iron Man just beats the shit out of baddies, takes out competitors and then uses the research for himself. But I can see why they made that change. I'm also not too hot on spoilers )

So, overall it it was a very enjoyable experience. Now we just have to wait for the sequels to fuck it all up.
silversolitaire: (Eleven)
A movie with Montgomery Clift (Lonelyhearts, 1958) is on TV. All those post-accident movies just kill me. I just can't get over how a person's face can change like that. I know I'm probably looking at faces differently than most people, but to me the post-accident Clift is a completely different person. I can't recognize him anymore, at all. Sure, it's the way he walks and talks, but even that has changed. He's lost his boyish charm, the carefreeness. I can't reconcile the images and I certainly can't get over how someone so pretty, so youthful, so smooth could just lose his face like that.

It's the stuff that cheap soap opera story arcs are made of, you know? A character is written out of the show by horrible accident. Seven months later the character returns with a completely different actor and they come up with some lame story about an accident and reconstructive facial surgery and you just want to roll your eyes at it at how dumb it all is. But then I look at Montgomery Clift and it's all true. I just want to rub my eyes and go "No way!".

Please tell me I'm not the only one who thinks so!

Montgomery Clift pre-accident and post-accident

[Poll #1141207]


Feb. 16th, 2008 03:22 pm
silversolitaire: (huggle)
Was everyone but my aware of the fact that Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom is a prequel to Raiders of the Lost Ark?? I was just researching the term "prequel", foolishly assuming it was coined by Lucas for his Star Wars prequels. That's certainly when I first noticed such a term. But of course that's all wrong and apparently the OED sources its earliest usage to 1958. Nevertheless, Lucas has coined the term in a way since it fully came into public view for Godfather II and according to Coppola, Lucas and Spielberg helped him come up with that term and they later used it for their own prequel, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.

Insert wtf-moment.

I've watched that movie more times than I can count, but I just never ever questioned the timeline. I mean sure, he doesn't actually refer to anything that happened in the first movie, but when does he ever? It's not like he's constantly narrating his adventures in the Temple of Doom while he's searching for the Holy Grail, is he? *scratches head* I'm feeling rather stupid now. So, hit me. Was it all that obvious and I'm just really daft?

In other, but definitely related news, I've seen the trailer for Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull yesterday. ZOMG it's gonna be awesome! *salivates* I'm especially pleased that Harrison Ford has dropped quite a lot of weight. I know, that is terribly superficial of me, but I've never really warmed to the love handles he'd developed over the years and it was something that made me angst about the prospective Indiana Jones sequel for years. I mean, we all have our vision of Indiana Jones and I just couldn't reconcile it with the wrinkled, beer bellied Harrison Ford we've seen in recent movies.

So imagine my relief when I saw the first images of the production and saw that he looked exactly like the Indy we know and love. Sure, he's older, a bit more rugged and weathered, but it fits perfectly. And finally they're getting rid of the Nazi theme... and introducing the brandnew Cold War Russian one! Yay! XD
silversolitaire: (hehehe)
I've been collecting these news bits for half a year now since I've been waiting for the shit to hit the fan. It never happened, so I never posted it. It still hasn't, but I just thought today's news bit was the perfect closure for the entire saga of "Cruise vs. Germany". Here it goes:

26 June 2007
Germany To Limit Cruise Filming -- Because He's a Scientologist

In an ironic act that some commentators said revealed yet another display of German religious intolerance, the German Defense Ministry has barred the producers of a film about the World War II "generals' plot" to assassinate Hitler from using German military sites because it stars Tom Cruise, a Scientologist. Cruise portrays the leader of the plot, Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg. In a statement, Harald Kammerbauer, a spokesman for the Defense Ministry, said that United Artists, which is producing the film and which is headed by Cruise, "will not be allowed to film at German military sites if Count Stauffenberg is played by Tom Cruise, who has publicly professed to being a member of the Scientology cult. ... The [Federal Armed Forces have] a special interest in the serious and authentic portrayal of the events of July 20, 1944 and Stauffenberg's person." Cruise's partner, Paula Wagner, issued a statement saying that the movie, titled Valkyrie after the plot's codename, depicts Stauffenberg as a "heroic and principled figure" and will remind "the world that even within the ranks of the German military, there was real resistance to the Nazi regime." She said that Cruise's "personal beliefs have absolutely no bearing on the movie's plot, themes or content."

27 June 2007
Cruise Responds to German Filming Ban

Tom Cruise has vowed Scientology will have no impact on his portrayal of a legendary German assassin, after being banned from filming at the country's military bases because of his controversial beliefs. The actor is set to begin shooting Valkyrie in Germany this summer. In the film he plays Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg, leader of an unsuccessful plot to kill Adolf Hitler during World War II. However, permission to film scenes on genuine army sites has been denied by the country's Defense Ministry because Scientology is viewed as a "money-making cult" instead of legitimate church by the German government. However, Cruise is adamant his beliefs have nothing to do with characterization, and is desperate to shoot the movie on location in von Stauffenberg's homeland. His producing partner and United Artists CEO Paula Wagner says, "Aside from his obvious admiration of the man he is portraying, Mr. Cruise's personal beliefs have absolutely no bearing on the movie's plot, themes, or content. And even though we could shoot the movie anywhere in the world, we believe Germany is the only place we can truly do the story justice." Von Stauffenberg's briefcase bomb in 1944 only succeeded in wounding Hitler. He was executed by firing squad for the plot the next morning.

28 June 2007
Controversy Over Cruise Movie Spreads in Germany

Word that Scientologist Tom Cruise will portray the leader of the so-called Generals' Plot to assassinate Adolf Hitler during World War II has touched off an ever-growing political firestorm in Germany, according to an Associated Press report from Berlin. Following a decision by the German military to bar the producers of the film, titled Valkyrie, after the code name used by the plotters, from using military bases as locales, a number of German lawmakers have gone on record to denounce the entire project. Social Democratic lawmaker Klaus Uwe Benneter said that having a Scientologist play Col. Claus Graf Schenk von Stauffenberg, who is now regarded as a national hero, represents "a slap in the face to all upstanding democrats, all resistance fighters during the Third Reich, and all victims of the Scientology sect." But a Scientology spokeswoman in Berlin called the response a call to religious discrimination. And in an interview with the AP, Carl Woebcken, head of Babelsberg studio, which is co-producing the movie with United Artists, commented, "This is not a Scientology film, it is a Bryan Singer film, and Bryan Singer is Jewish ... and they want to make this film to show that during the Nazi regime there was heroic resistance. [Tom Cruise] is one of the best, if not the best, actors in the world for heroic roles and that is why Bryan Singer approached him."

29 June 2007
Germans Relent, Give Cruise a Pass

German military officials are backing off from their earlier remarks that filmmakers would be barred from shooting scenes at military locations for the forthcoming Valkyrie, about the World War II "generals' plot" to assassinate Hitler, because the star, Tom Cruise, is a Scientologist. Producers had indicated that they wanted to shoot several scenes at the Bedlerblock memorial in Berlin where Col. Claus von Stauffenberg, played by Cruise in the film, plotted the assassination. The German Defense Ministry said Thursday that while it shares part of the building with the memorial tenants, the location is actually run by the Finance Ministry and it would be up to them to decide whether to issue a filming permit.

2 July 2007
Cruise Presses Ahead with Film Plans

Tom Cruise's latest movie will go ahead, despite attempts to ban filming on German military sites because of his controversial beliefs. The celebrity Scientologist is set to begin shooting Valkyrie in Germany this summer. In the film he plays Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg, leader of an unsuccessful plot to kill Adolf Hitler during World War II. However, permission to film scenes on genuine army sites was denied last week by the country's Defense Ministry because Scientology is viewed as a "money-making cult" instead of legitimate church by the German government. Despite the opposition, producers of the Cruise movie claim relevant permits needed to film in the country have now been obtained. Carl Woebken, head of Berlin's Babelsberg studios, says, "They have given us permission like they have done for other Stauffenberg films before. From our point of view, everything is ready to go." The locations include the so-called Bendlerblock where Stauffenberg and his co-conspirators were shot after the attempt to kill Hitler failed. The Bendlerblock is located in what is the now the Defense Ministry complex in Berlin. However, part of it is run by the German Resistance Memorial Centre and not the ministry, and Babelsberg Studios says it can shoot there.

3 July 2007
German Ministry Denies "Crucial" Filming Location for Cruise Film

Germany's Finance Ministry has banned Tom Cruise from filming his forthcoming movie at the Bendlerblock memorial site, despite pleas from the studio the location is "crucial" to the film. Cruise is playing World War II hero Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg - who lead an unsuccessful plot to assassinate Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler - in new film Valkyrie. Despite the Defense Ministry's claims last month they would not permit Cruise to film at any of the country's military sites, the Finance Ministry - who oversee the properties in question - said the star was welcome to film in Germany - the only exception being Bendlerblock. Bendlerblock is a military building, which includes a memorial to Von Stauffenberg, who was executed at the site in July 1944. The Defense Ministry announced they wouldn't allow Cruise to film Valkyrie on any of its sites, because they objected to his controversial Scientology religion, which is regarded as a money-making cult by German authorities - but the Finance Department denies their decision is related to Cruise's Scientologist beliefs. Spokesman Stefan Olbermann says, "They will not be permitted to film at the Bendlerblock but this has nothing to do with (Scientology). We welcome the fact that such a film is being made. We don't think it would be appropriate to film there." Von Stauffenberg's eldest son Berthold von Stauffenberg has publicly denounced the casting of Cruise, saying, "He should keep his hands off my father."

5 July 2007
Russell Defends Cruise Movie

Veteran British director Ken Russell is the latest moviemaker to leap to the defence of Tom Cruise, insisting Germany's Defense Ministry is wrong to ban filming on military sites because of the actor's controversial Scientology beliefs. Cruise is playing World War II hero Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg - who lead an unsuccessful plot to assassinate Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler - in new film Valkyrie. However, permission to shoot scenes on genuine army sites was denied last week by the country's Defense Ministry - allegedly because Scientology is viewed as a "money-making cult" instead of legitimate church by the German government. On Tuesday German director Florian Henckel Von Donnersmarck waded into the debate, urging his government to be more tolerant and reverse the ban - and Russell agrees. Writing in British newspaper The Times he says, "It seems stretching it to make Cruise take the flak for his philosophy of choice while he seeks, with all sincerity and a huge amount of resources, to promote Germany's favorite son. Give the guy a break. Everybody knows Hollywood types are eccentric and daredevil weirdos, don't they? Where's the news in that?"

6 July 2007
Germany Blasts Cruise Flick, Then Gives It $6.5 Million

In an action that appeared politically schizophrenic, the German Federal Film Fund agreed on Thursday to contribute $6.5 million to the funding of Tom Cruise's Valkyrie, just one day after the German Finance Ministry turned down an application by the production company to shoot key scenes of the film at a historic location. In the movie, Cruise plays Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg, who headed the so-called Generals' Plot to assassinate Hitler during World War II, but some German politicians -- and the son of von Stauffenberg -- have objected to Cruise portraying von Stauffenberg because of the actor's association with Scientology. A spokesperson for the film fund said Thursday that it granted the subsidy because "the criteria for the grant were fulfilled." Production is scheduled to begin in Berlin on July 18.

23 July 2007
German Protestants Condemn Cruise

The German Protestant Church has added its voice to the chorus of German critics who have objected to Tom Cruise portraying a German hero in the forthcoming film Valkyrie, currently being shot in Berlin. Thomas Gandow, chief spokesman on religious cults for the church, charged Sunday that Cruise plans to turn the film into "propaganda for Scientology" and compared it with filmmaker Leni Riefenstahl's documentary about the 1936 Berlin Olympics. "This film will have the same propaganda advantages," he said. Gandow called Scientology, of which Cruise may be its most prominent member, a "totalitarian organization" for which Cruise is its "Goebbels," referring to Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi's minister of propaganda.

14 September 2007
Extras Ruled To Have Caused Accident on 'Valkyrie' Set

Extras hurt on Tom Cruise's new movie Valkyrie have been told the production company was not responsible for the accident. Eleven extras were injured when they fell off a driving truck last month. Authorities for occupational health and safety insist no major safety defects were found on the vehicle - contrary to the claims of some extras. An inspection had shown the truck was safe. It is claimed the extras failed to close the truck's side covering properly, causing it to open in transit - absolving the production company of any blame. Filming will now have to be controlled by a safety manager at all times.

9 October 2007
Cruise Film Reshoots Unusable Bendlerblock Footage

Tom Cruise's latest movie Valkyrie has suffered a setback - after finally having a ban on filming inside an important German historical location overturned, the footage shot there has turned out to be unusable. Crucial scenes filmed at the Bendlerblock in Berlin, where a number of German officers were executed after an abortive attempt to assassinate Nazi leader Adolf Hitler in 1944, will now have to be reshot by director Bryan Singer. A spokeswoman for the production company tells German newspaper Bild, "A majority of the film material is unusable. We have to film it again." Colin Ullman, a representative for the firm that delivered the footage shot to a post-production studio in Munich, adds, "The production company told us that there were problems with the negative development in Arri Munich, one of the top post-production companies in Germany. The images were wiped away." Fortunately for Singer and Cruise, the German government has agreed to allow them further access to the Bendlerblock. They had previously been banned from filming at there because officials did not want the "dignity of the place" to be violated. In the movie, Cruise portrays Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg, who was put to death after plotting to blow-up Hitler.

30 November 2007
Cruise Honored in Germany

Hollywood actor Tom Cruise will be honored for his "willingness to take risks in his movies" at an awards ceremony in Germany. The Magnolia star will be awarded the courage prize for pursuing "brave projects" at the 59th annual Bambi Awards in Dusseldorf on Thursday night. The prize committee say Cruise has pursued brave projects that otherwise would not have been made, including his under-fire movie Valkyrie. Last month, Cruise was banned from shooting the movie - about a colonel who led an unsuccessful plot to assassinate Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler - in Bendlerblock in Berlin. The decision was later overturned.
silversolitaire: (Eleven)
Just read this article on Entertainment Weekly and I must say I'm mightly impressed. I've always taken a keen interest in ratings and movie censorship issues. I always valued to great achievement of Jack Valenti when he finally abandoned the goddamn Code of Decency and actually introduced a ratings system. However, it is critically flawed as Mark Harris points out. Go ahead and read it! It has some minor spoilers for Hostel II I suppose if you don't like gory scenes to be spoiled.

NC-17: Fatally Flawed
When a film as violent as ''Hostel: Part II'' can get an R -- that is, it's deemed okay for kids to see with an adult -- it's obvious the ratings system is in serious need of reform

By Mark Harris

Jack Valenti has gone to that great screening room in the sky, but his legacy persists — for better and for worse — in the form of the movie ratings system. Back in 1968, Valenti's ratings replaced a capricious code of self-censorship with labels designed to help parents make choices. That's still a worthy idea — at least, it would be if it were applied with anything resembling sanity.

article )

Now, I must say I've always been bothered about this particular aspect. What the hell is the MPAA trying to do? Their self-professed aim is to provide guidelines for parents. As a matter of fact, a prerequirement to get on the MPAA board is to be a parent. I've liked when the MPAA started explaining just why they've awarded a movie with a certain rating. As a matter of fact, it's what I try to adopt for my own writing. I don't just go "adulz only lawl" but I explain why I gave that rating. I think that's important. Is it not suitable for kids because they're shagging like rabbits or because limbs get cut off gorily? That's important!

However, what is it that the MPAA really wants to do? Guidelines or protecting the innocent? Hm? It doesn't work in a country with a constitution like the US. I'm sure as soon as you actively start keeping kids out of movies that aren't suitable for their age, someone is going to sue somewhere for violation of their First Amendment Rights. Should they though?

I really do think they need to make up their fucking minds. And like Harris suggests, they should just make do with being advisors, and being good ones. I would totally love the idea of a comprehensive website where concerned parents (and queasy moviegoers) can check beforehand whether they'll like a movie or not. Take me. I like horror. I don't mind gore as long as it's clearly fake. I do however hate violence against animals. And zombies. God, can't stand them. Would be good to have a site that warns me about that.

That actually brings up long forgotten childhood dreams... When I was a teen I wanted to invent this all new movie rating system, giving points for ick-factors, boo-factors, smooch-factors and what not... LOL. I would love to have that. Rate every movie reliably for content. Don't attach censorship or a ban to it. Just say it like it is. "This movie contains explicit violence, sudden shock killings and zombies". That would be a wonderful rating for me. Hah...

Of course I realize that this is near impossible to achieve. Even moreso, the movie industry would oppose it violently. They'd fear viewing figures going down with people being scared of, or maybe spoiled. So, too bad.

Even more so, why don't we have a rating system for books? I've been wondering about that ever since. In fanfiction we always meticulously rate our fics, warn for any kind of matter that could arouse the slightest bit of issue. Yet, when you buy a book it's often a stab into the dark. When I was 13 I accidentally read a horror story collection that dealt with zombies in a way that is still inconceiveable to me how anyone would ever write that. I still remember every detail and could puke when I think about it. How come I was able to buy that, nobody even asked me if I really wanted that, and I was totally blindsided, thinking I'd read something along the lines of Stephen King! Some romance novels are extremely raunchy, borderlining porn. Yet it's open for sale.

I think there needs to be a rating for books too. Not one that actually prevents a mature, informed 13 year old from reading the book he or she wants, but one that will ensure that they know what they're getting into. It wouldn't even need to be as anal and inclusive as we fanficcers do, but would it be too much asked to just print on the back "violence", "sex", "intense horror" or whatever? I really wonder why nobody's thought about that yet. Everybody's bludgeoning the movie and gaming industry over this, but why does nobody bother with fiction? From personal experience, I've found fiction a lot more terrifying and impressive than the worst movies. But that might just be me...
silversolitaire: (Guh)
I was just in the process of attempting to convince [ profile] krss to watch Casino Royale by dispersing her fears about the torture scene and baiting her with the slashiness of it. I described the scene to her and then I did some screenies to drive my point home. Since I kinda enjoyed doing that I'm going to repost it here in my LJ to keep! (hope you don't mind, Krss)

description of the torture scene, spoilers for that of course, but no major plot points revealed )

screenies with (hopefully) witty comments )

zomg tease! )
silversolitaire: (Default)
Aw, Jack Valenti, R.I.P. You did a lot for the movie industry and we love you for it!
silversolitaire: (love!) - The Complex and Terrifying Reality of Star Wars Fandom
written by: Andrey Summers
written on: 05/31/2005

My girlfriend doesn’t understand what I see in Star Wars. We’ve had several soul-crushing arguments about what exactly makes this series so important to me, and every time I have found it more and more difficult to argue my case. As the maddening years have wound on, I think I finally understand the reason for this crippling handicap.

There is a diabolical twist to Star Wars fandom, you see, that defies comprehension, and yet is the life-blood of all Star Wars fans. It is this:

Star Wars fans hate Star Wars.

reposted to keep )

There's a certain truth in this, don't you think? Kinda weird, isn't it, that we always end up hating what we love... and vice versa! I know some of my hottest and most loved fandoms have started out exactly like that! *g* I was all ranty about it, telling everyone about how bad it was and what sucked about it and the more I ranted, the more heated I got the more I realized how much I really liked it! So strange...

OMG yay!

Apr. 25th, 2007 11:40 pm
silversolitaire: (Eleven)
Spinal Tap Lives!

The seminal spoof rock band Spinal Tap is due to make a reunion appearance at the Tribeca Film Festival in New York tonight (Wednesday) with a new 15-minute film describing their lives since the original This Is Spinal Tap mockumentary was released in 1984. The Associated Press reported on Tuesday that the original band members, guitarist Nigel Tufnel (played by Christopher Guest), singer David St. Hubbins (Michael McKean) and bassist Derek Smalls (Harry Shearer), are also due to perform at Wembley Stadium in England as part of the Live Earth concerts on July 7. In an interview, director Marty DeBergi (Rob Reiner) said, "They're not that environmentally conscious, but they've heard of global warming. ... Nigel thought it was just because he was wearing too much clothing that if he just took his jacket off it would be cooler."

I can't wait!!!!!!!!!! *dances excitedly*

And this looks interesting, too! hehehe

'Star Wars': The Animated Spoof

George Lucas has agreed to participate in a 30-minute animated spoof of Star Wars, Comedy Central announced today (Wednesday). Robot Chicken: Star Wars will feature spoofs of key scenes and characters in Lucas's Star Wars films. Lucas will provide the voice for an animated version of himself. Also appearing in the voice cast will be Mark Hamill, reprising his role as Luke Skywalker. An all-star cast also includes: Conan O'Brien, Seth MacFarlane, Robert Smigel, Malcolm McDowell, and Hulk Hogan. The special is scheduled to air on June 17.
silversolitaire: (eh?)
Or doesn't Simon Cowell make any sense here?

Cowell Blasts Hudson for 'Stepping Stone' Comment

Simon Cowell has blasted Oscar winner Jennifer Hudson after she called American Idol "a stepping stone" - insisting she wouldn't have been cast in Dreamgirls without the talent show. Hudson was a contestant on Idol in 2004, but was voted off before the final. Over a year later, she auditioned for the role of Effie White in the big screen version of the musical Dreamgirls and was cast. When Hudson accepted her Best Supporting Actress Oscar for Dreamgirls last month, Cowell was disappointed she declined to mention the show. He says, "Jennifer Hudson said American Idol was a 'stepping stone' for her. Stepping stone? It was her big opportunity to become noticed and she got noticed and she got Dreamgirls. "Singers like her deliberately turn against the show that made them successful. The reason (people) come on the show is because all the doors had been slammed in their face."

I get the feeling he's complaining about her calling the show exactly what it was and he's even insisting that it was! Especially this: "Jennifer Hudson said American Idol was a 'stepping stone' for her. Stepping stone? It was her big opportunity to become noticed and she got noticed and she got Dreamgirls." Uh, isn't that exactly what a stepping stone is...? *scratches head in confusion*
silversolitaire: (bushed)
Yeah, it's that time of year again. I'm bored, so I'm grabbing the list from over there (as of Feb. 27th 2007) and bolding all the movies I've seen... I wonder when I'll finally manage to fill the list. Probably when I stop refusing to watch Amelie! XD

cut for list )

End tally: (86/100)

Not bad! I just checked around a bit and found this list when I did it last time. Not sure if that really is the last time I did it... I did a meme kind of thing a year later, too. It's funny, I'm not really sure about some movies whether I've seen them or not! hahaha... Sometimes I read so much about movies that I have no idea whether I've actually seen them or just think I have XD.

Hmmm... lemme add some interview typed questions, just for the hell of it.

Movie that shouldn't be on this list: Honestly? LotR. I mean, they were good, yes, but not really Top 100 material. I smell fandom activity.
Movie that should be on this list: I'm a little surprised Capote isn't on it, not even in the Top 250.
Movie on this list that surprises you: Monty Python and the Holy Grail. It's awesome, but I wouldn't have expected it here. But I guess it's because it's a highly subjective list.

Okay, can't think of anthing else now so I'm gonna go ahead and post.
silversolitaire: (Merry Xmas!)
(Since the link in the subject didn't work, here it is: LINK!!!!)

Oh boy, so excited! Haha... lots of nominations for The Departed, as expected. Double nomination for Clint Eastwood as Best Director, what gives? Need to peruse the list properly first.

And Hugh Laurie received a nomination for "Best Performance by an Actor in a Television Series - Drama", going toe to toe with Patrick Dempsey for "Grey's Anatomy", Michael C. Hall for "Dexter", Bill Paxton for "Big Love" and Kiefer Sutherland for "24"!

That's going to be a tough choice though! Michael C. Hall is excellent in "Dexter" and Patrick Dempsey doesn't show much shine for his acting IMO (neither does the show, just saying), but since they're the big competitors for "House", that's gonna be interesting!

No nomination for anybody else from the cast nor the show itself, but one for GA! Boooh. And who the fuck put Desperate Housewives into the comedy category? O.o
silversolitaire: (silly)
Clooney To Date Everyone To End Paparazzi Reign

Hollywood superstar George Clooney is so desperate to bring paparazzi culture to an end, he plans to start dating as many A-list beauties as possible. The single actor/director admits his carefully thought out plan might not be entirely plausible, but believes it would soon change public perception of celebrity gossip. He says, "Here is my theory in debunking photographs in magazines. You know, the paparazzi photographs. I want to spend every single night for three months going out with a different famous actress. You know, Halle Berry one night, Salma Hayek the next, and then walk on the beach holding hands with Leonardo DiCaprio. People would still buy the magazines, they'd still buy the pictures, but they would always go, 'I don't know if these guys are putting us on or not.'"

silversolitaire: (Default)

[ profile] kribban and I have been puzzling over it for a while now. So far, we found these:

silversolitaire: (shocked)
Gay Bond

Daniel Craig will have a male love interest in the next Bond movie. The British actor has attracted a large gay following after sharing an onscreen kiss with another man in his latest movie Infamous, and film bosses are keen to capitalise on this new status. 'Infamous' documents the life of author Truman Capote. In the movie, Craig plays convicted killer Perry Smith who has a relationship with Capote, played by British actor Toby Jones. 'Bond 22' - the follow-up to Craig's debut 007 movie Casino Royale, which is due to be released in November - will now see a homoerotic relationship develop between the suave spy and secret agent Felix Leiter, played by Jeffrey Wright. A film insider said: 'Bond will always be a hit with the ladies. But Daniel has a massive gay fan base and that can't be ignored. 'There will still be sexy Bond Girls. But the modern Bond will be more sensitive.' Craig has already been heavily criticised by some Bond fans unhappy at his casting in the role and this latest news seems certain to cause more furore. The 38-year-old star was previously lambasted for wearing a lifejacket on the speedboat journey to his first Bond press conference, his confession that he hates guns, his alleged inability to drive a manual car and for reportedly losing two teeth in his first fight scene.

Somehow... I can't believe it. This is like... too good to be true! This would be the wet dream of my youth coming true! D: Even though I'll have to admit that I'm not completely happy with Felix Leitner being the one.. but beggars can't be choosers I guess, eh? Of course, it's also a bit annoying, because this means that I'll have to go see the new Bond even though I was actually going to boycott it since I disapprove of Daniel Craig as Bond. But if Bond is going to smooch a guy? OMG I'm totally in!
silversolitaire: (neener-neener-neener)
Just found that on YouTube and it amuses me XD.

Go watch it!
silversolitaire: (retarded)
Wtf dudes? I thought Vanilla Ice had killed the franchise for good. Okay okay, I know they made like five more movies after Vanilla, but still... slow death. Yes. Anyway, what the hell?

*watches trailer*

... heh. Okay, this doesn't actually look half bad. I think it's a good idea to go for CGI completely (apparently). Now the crucial question is: how do the humans look? Badly rendered humans always make movies look lame. The turtles definitely are looking good. I think the old franchise was really ailing from the badly dressed rubbersuit guys. It always made the turtles look so bulky and... er... non-ninja-y. From the looks of this, they've definitely tried to give them the fit, muscular built of fighters now. Rawr... I can see a whole new furry fandom emerging from that. Sabby will be so pleased... hehehe.

One thing that's always bothered me about the turtles though was that they just don't look like turtles! Their faces make them look like frogs or something. Turtles don't look like that at all!

Hahaha, ten bucks say that the guy dropping into the trashcan at the end was Michelangel! Can't see the color of their respective bandanas (or whatcha call them), but that's gotta be him...! hehehe...

Seriously... what were they thinking? I didn't see that one coming. Then again, who am I kidding?!? Look at me, I still know all their names. I think people in my generation will get all giddy about this since they've grown up with the TMNT and will remember. And why shouldn't kids of this generation get drawn in by its appeal once again? Oy vey... just think of all the merchandising possibilities. Well this is going to be very interesting...

P.S.: The icon has nothing to do with the post. I just wanted to finally use it!


silversolitaire: (Default)

February 2009

89 1011121314


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 22nd, 2017 06:36 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios