Wolf Creek 2006 and Alien 1979

Wolf Creek 2006  

The other night I figured that I could sneak another film in as I passed out and I think I picked the right one.  For a good chunk of the first part of this ‘horror’ film you either watch everyone yawning, going to bed, or getting up so early you want to let them go back to bed for a minute.  I spent so much time wanting the characters to get more sleep that I forgot to watch the film or pay attention to the story when suddenly I realized that the story hadn’t started yet, it was like when you talk about the weather for so long with an associate that your not really friends with and you run out of things to say.  You find yourself staring at a film - where one of its characters calls earth the pooh planet, because there is pooh everywhere.  When suddenly I realized the movie was gorgeous to watch.  I could almost pretend like it was a foreign film, and simply different because of it.  At times I felt like it was hard to hear the dialogue on purpose, because the context didn’t really matter.

     Until suddenly it started raining, got uncomfortably cold, night quickly approached, and the car didn’t start.  But still they kept on taking naps, which I figured was a good thing cause they needed to be ready for bad things, right?  And what’s worse than a horror version of Crocodile Dundee 2.  Except that the final girl theory doesn’t apply, must be because it’s ‘based’ on a true story.  Many props to whomever came up with the eloquent tale of two girls who almost got away… from a writers mind with no physical evidence, thought it’s ‘based’ on a true story.  You can never trust a tale based on a true story even if it’s a documentary.  Based…

Alien 1979

     Which leads me straight to true documentary filmmaking.  For I watched a true vampire horror film classic.  I should say that I’m lying on the documentary comment, but that’s based on the fact that classic sci-fi is always based on the films reality, the world as it is on the reel. 

I say true classic because this film exhibits so many primal scene fantasies that one may lose track of Freud if they don’t pay attention.  It also is a 100% monster classic without the influence of postmodern horror outside if it sci-fi dating.  We are watching a vampire tale without the romantic appeal, at least until Alien:Resuerection. 

Alien, as the film opens, introduces us to a cohesive family unit.  We have mother, the caretaker, as well as Ash the android medical humanoid, the father.  Of course the rest of the ‘sibling’ crew is unaware of Ash’s status as a robot.

     Perhaps alluding to a biblical tale, we find Cain to be overly curious, always pressing the boundaries of comfort and curiosity.  Cain, of course, finds and introduces the rest of his family to chaos and an inability to harmonize with common reality.  Since I hope we have all seen this movie I will stop myself from applying my verbosity.

Tron 1982- CGI's Stillbirth

Director Steven Lisberger's freshman feature Tron was a failure at the box office in 1982.  The rumors at the time for the cause were surrounding computer animations ability to only represent the artificial.  Though Tron used computer animation to illustrate the inside of a computer, this could do little to alter the opinion of the people viewing it at that time.  Many saw Tron as a test run of the viability of computer animation.  A test that many people thought failed, thanks in no part to the storyline (or lack thereof).  It could be said that many of these viewers lacked the ability to see what was available in the current day, much less the ability to foresee future possibilities. Even today Tron receives a wide range of reviews and critiques.  

Today the concepts pioneered by the filmmakers of Tron have propelled forward thinking animators and filmmakers alike, in addition to creating the basic styles of computer animation.  What was once seen as a failure has replaced many standards of the past including the use of models and filmmaking techniques.  The first feature film to have fully rendered live action sequences was made so long ago… have we really gone that far since Tron?  Sure, now we call it by a name, CGI. 

Shot in 70mm and in black and white for all of the computer world scenes.  The actors in the film wore white costumes covered with black circuitry detailing.  Each individual frame was then enlarged and placed on transparencies.  These transparencies were then placed on a backlit animation stand and rephotographed using color filters or gels.  This process, also known as rotoscoping, could have anywhere from 5-25 layers for each element of the composite image (face, body, background, eyes, etc.).  This style of backlighting 'from the inside' intensified the sharp colors of the gels and gave a saturated feel for the colors on film.  To better enable the filmmakers to perform this task, all of the computer world sets were almost entirely black.  This enabled the sets to be lit without affecting the still to be added effects, backgrounds, and sets themselves- only the actors faces.  They could also then add additional lighting affects to the sets and backgrounds, matching the shading and the like to the computer-generated objects.  Sounds like a lot of work for an animated film right?

 Tron was on the cutting edge of computer animation.  At that time the world had finally evolved to two primary styles: raster graphics and vector graphics.  Vector graphics are a grid or skeletal structure created in the computer to form a frame (this is also know as mainframe graphics today).  All vector images are based on geometric shapes (i.e. points, lines, curves, polygons, etc).  Raster graphics are based on a patterned shading of an area to give three-dimensional shape and/or different levels of shading (today we refer to this as a bitmap).  Represented by a rectangular grid filled with pixels, raster graphics use the three base color system to define its image.  The size and shape of the rectangle affects the perceived color based on the number of assigned pixels and their color.  The biggest difference in the two is the fact that vector images can be scaled indefinitely without a loss of clarity or degradation, whereas raster images lose quality due to their bitmap structure.

 These two types of animation were both used in Tron, in addition to the frame-by-frame live action animation/special effects/layering.  The ‘reel’ skill shown by the filmmakers was their ability to blend all of the images and create continuity onscreen with the varying styles. 

Though many might argue the impact Tron had on the state of computer animation at the time, the further away from 1982 we get and the better the advancements in animation get, the more a film like Tron can be appreciated.  It was a movie that created something entirely new without any reference point.  Two things were certain though, there was no limit to the point of view of the camera and no limit to the physical reality of the objects occupying the computer world.  The directions taken in CGI since Tron have continued to make use of these elements, for they seem to have endless possibilities for creative minds.  The simplicity of the computer animation, though young in concept, had a story that matched the environment for which it was created.  But the real charm and magic of the film lies in the animation itself.  Tron blended real world action with computer generated images better than any before or since (unless you count Roger Rabbit).  Even the recent Star Wars films aren’t as good, the CGI is surreal, too good looking at times, and this is something we all can agree on.  Somewhere along the line the challenges and hurdles the makers of Tron had to face allowed them to create something different from reality, a truly otherworldly experience.  Men did all the calculations necessary to ‘move’ the camera in the computer by hand.  Every item, wall and vehicles was created the hard way, manually.  There weren’t any software programs for walls, wheels, or even water (one of the only non animated items in the electronic world aside from the bipeds).  Today it would be fare to say that all of the CGI created is based on software and hardware.  Today CGI is simply trying to mimic what we see as reality or reusing a program that’s already been created (Pixar continues to reuse almost everything it’s ever created), at times its biggest flaws.  Tron never made that attempt, the attempt to seem real.  They crafted a whole new world, a new civilization.  In the beginning all of the programmers had to write everything themselves, a long arduous process.  Creating something that had never been tried and that no one knew how to do.  Everything since the beginning of computer animation has been built upon itself.  Tron was that beginning.    

 Much like the inability of formula filmmakers and Hollywood executives to see what possibilities existed in the world of Tron in 1982, the two worlds in the film mirrored life.  The electronic world emulates much of what our lives hold.  Authoritarian control figures, social and political beliefs - many centered on a spiritual belief, underlings trying to climb the ladder, and lets not forget technophobia.  The ‘real’ world represents the spiritual world beyond reach, a metaphor for our analogues of humanity.  The 'real' world and especially the ending illustrate just how close our world is to what the perceived world of Tron is like.  We watch the last image burn and fade out, the lapsed image of a city at night with its street traffic glowing and streaking… commenting wryly on today’s society, from the past, in an eerie manner.  Metropolis did something similar so many years ago and still remains a timeless work of art as well as a future prediction.  Someday maybe Tron will be viewed the same way.  Or is it already? 

Have the computer geeks taken over the planet or have the computers?

Half Nelson 2007

This spring weather took me back to another place, another time.  Though it still isn't quite spring.

My night was once again calming down.  Fall was setting in, the daily weather drifted from 70’s in the day to 40’s at night.   My birthday was fast approaching and I knew horror was in the air.  Feeling a need for fear I pondered what film to watch.  I nestled on the couch in front of my 42inch plasma fire with surround sound wondering what to watch to wind down.  My cat pounced upon my lap, forcing me to stand and select.  As I glanced at my stack of owned but never viewed movies I noticed a pleasurable discovery for my mood.  Someone had challenged the question of naming a remake that is better than the original within earshot of me at the bar.  Of course the movie I didn’t mention to them, mostly because I didn’t feel like offending all parties with a showcase of my superhuman trait of verbosity, was none other than John Carpenter’s The Thing, but I digress.

Half Nelson is a convincing winner in the remake category.  Ryan Fleck simply reworked his already brilliant short film and kept its best star, Shareeka Epps.  The handheld camera work speaks to the gentle fuzziness of the film reality.  The images that we are meant to see are always in focus, most times the background is not.  Yet the world of the film is the world we live in and we can never forget it.  This is the thing this film brings us, many points of view and moral decisions.   But who are we to judge and decide who can offer the best help for each other.

Ryan Gosling offers a tour de force performance that will leave you moved.  To portray a character on film with so many emotions proves the tragic optimism of life.  So I guess you could say I liked the film.  You should check it out!

Caddyshack 1980

A true comic classic, Caddyshack offers what it promises, a comedy with balls.  From the eternally classic opening song, Kenny Loggins' soundtrack melds magic within the movie.  And the simple fact that this is one of the top twenty sports movies ever made keeps this classic fresh on every revisit.

Harold Ramis of Ghostbusters, Stripes, Back to School, Meatballs, Animal House, etc. fame co-writes and directs a comic tour de force. One can only imagine the amount of improvisation these actors tried to bring.  Yet it is obvious that Ramis kept them reeled in, as always, focused on the task at hand.

Caddyshack offers an actual story line outside of the comedic play that inevitably ensues.  The movies offers a "theory of everything" that has continued in popular culture, even referenced in a 2008 CSI episode as fact.  Point in fact the film offers a zen view of the game of golf as well as life, which many consider synonymous.

The screen is shared by some of the funniest men of its time.  Rodney Dangerfield, Chevy Chase, Bill Murray, and Ted Knight.  Ted Knight is the underdog of the bill as the 'judge' and social representative/president of the country club scene.  He was my focus as i watched a film that, at times, i found myself quoting out loud.  Knight may seem familiar to you, as well he should.  Famous for the TV show 'Too Close for Comfort' he was also the narrator for the saturday morning cartoon 'Superfriends'.  Don't know why but each time i watch the film i focus on a different character.  Next i think i'll spy maggie.

If you're too young and you've never seen a film from the 70's/80's you may find it difficult to watch this film.  i'm sure you don't remember a time before golf carts.  you see, there was once a time when young men, as a summer job, would carry golf bags for members, and golfers used to walk the courses just like the pro's still do.  they carried all their clubs, alcohol, and even radio's.  it was a good living, like being a bartender but not selling alcohol and being 12 years old. 

many modern films still try to steal the magic recipe this film created.  some have succeeded.  i suspect it will be difficult for most.  don't waste anyone's time trying to discuss how this film sucks and anchorman kicks it's ass, because then you must realize that the latter is trying to look like the former and failing. Not that i'm saying the movie wasn't good(a least out loud that is).  Modern comedy doesn't compare to this absolute classic, despite many dissenting opinions(which i assume to be because many are to young to have seen and/or educated/watched enough film to have an educated opinion).  Caddyshack's comedic chops range from Laurel and Hardy to the modern day and everything in-between.  If you think differently, watch the movie twenty times.  brush up on your comedy film genre knowledge.  then we can talk...  and if you're right, i may admit i'm wrong.

   

Fido 2005

Truth be told I can only say that everyone on the planet needs to see this film.  I could go on about the manner in which the film was shot.  Every frame is saturated in the colors you need to see.  The depth of field and cinematography always tease and lead the eye. 

I could become verbose about the detailed wordplay and wit littered throughout the film.  You will find yourself laughing when it’s wrong to do so.  Simply because it’s that funny, yet serious.                                                                    "How did that blood from your nose get on your zombie Timmy?"           "I wiped it there." 

I could point out the many intricacies laden beneath the films storyline that relate to political and social beliefs. 

On this film I won’t tell you much.  Eat your heart out Vincent Price, Elvira, and Tim Burton.

     Watch it for yourself and tell me what you think.  Tell me what it is that’s the greatest about this film.  I want to know.  I think it’s the fact that some governments actually give filmmakers money to make good movies.  

i'm going to pretend that i'm not sure where to begin.... but it's simple!  i just received saw V from columbia house.  while i recommend the company for what it offers, after you have done your required amount of films, i must say that from time to time i have issues.  i certainly declined my directors selection, which was saw V, and i think that i could argue it or send it back.  yet there must be a reason that they decided they would send it to me in spite of the fact that i didn't want it, and it's not the first... or twentyith time.  surely they will say that i didn't decline, but my issues are bigger than that.

i haven't seen any of the saw films.  maybe mostly because i heard they lacked a plot.  i was brought up on crazy materials, like 'faces of death', and other obscure 80's flicks.  i know the voyeuristic pleasures gained from the material offered.  am i simply not hip to the saw experience?  am i wrong for wanting an actual story line in a movie?  or are others simply not viewing the better versions of the saw concept in its original form from decades ago? more importantly can't i simply view saw V because i own it?  even if i enjoy it, it would only go to prove that i don't need to see any of the other films.  or do i need to buy the other four and watch them first?  as if to pretend that throwing millions of dollars in crap produces good material?