http://chud.com/articles en-us N/A nicknunziata@gmail.com Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:03:44 EST 20 http://chud.com/articles/blogs/1996/The-Summer-That-Never-Was-and-3-Rules-to-Prevent-it-From-Happening-Again.html
What a disappointment.

My friends tell me I just let my expectations get too high and that's why I'm being let down. Really? Is there something wrong with having high expectations? Someone makes a movie I enjoy so I expect them to get better at what they do and I raise my expectations. I don't see the problem. Then throw in the advertising giants cutting these amazing trailers and the hype(wo)men on every single website out there. How can someone not get overly excited?

I can't help but wonder if things were better 10 years ago when a movie wasn't constantly being thrown in your face everywhere you turned. Instead we are bombarded with people trying to sell us on how great a movie is going to be. It used to be you found out about an upcoming movie by seeing the trailer attached to another movie. Then you saw some posters and ads a month or two before the movie came out and maybe a few commercials. There was a mystery to every movie. Did they all end up being great movies? No, but at least we didn't know everything about them before seeing them. Now they set themselves up for failure because most movies can't live up to this new kind of hype.  They are building our expectations up! Today we know an entire storyline before going in and probably a few twists. So when we are done seeing a movie we wonder why there wasn't more to it. We didn't figure it out right before seeing the movie either. OH NO, we knew everything a year in advance because that's when the advertising started. Studios won't stop advertising until a market is over saturated. I'm sick of it.

So how do we fix this?
You can do what I do and follow 3 rules that I recently created.

Rule #1. I only watch one trailer and that's it. Oh and no five minute trailers. I give you two minutes and I won't watch anymore. That means covering my eyes and ears for anything else(ridiculous but works every time).

Rule #2. No commercials. It's the easiest way to give away every highlight of the movie. Change the channel or if u dvr fast forward.

Rule #3. No reviews or sites covering film news a day or two before a movie I want to see comes out. They love to give their reviews away in the title of a post and I like to formulate my own opinion before I take someone elses.

Try them out. It's not foolproof and you will still get let down, but it's a step in the right direction. Who knows maybe the studios will take notice and take things down a notch.
]]> no@spam.com (Jason Latorre) Tue, 18 Aug 2009 00:00:00 EDT http://chud.com/articles/blogs/1996/The-Summer-That-Never-Was-and-3-Rules-to-Prevent-it-From-Happening-Again.html http://chud.com/articles/blogs/1845/Old-People-Are-Fun-To-Watch-Get-It-UP.html
By making him a real person with a real story.

He is not just an old man but by starting with him as a youth and watching him grow up and eventually grow old we learn to love him for what he went though and how he went through it. Along the way it also builds the sense of attachment the character has to his wife so that when the he takes action as an audience we understand and accept his reasoning for what he is doing. This is a lesson in character development and building a connection between audience and character.  To say Pixar has storytelling down to a science would be a great understatement.

Throw in a cast of supporting characters that are all capable and not bumbling idiots or caricatures and you have something different from everything out there. This film reaches out to all age groups in different ways yet in the end everyone walks away with the same feeling of joy and sadness. Up will surely be walking away with the Oscar for best animated feature since it will take absolute gold to top.
]]> no@spam.com (Jason Latorre) Mon, 01 Jun 2009 00:00:00 EDT http://chud.com/articles/blogs/1845/Old-People-Are-Fun-To-Watch-Get-It-UP.html http://chud.com/articles/blogs/1828/In-The-Future-Heroes-Are-Made-then-sacraficed-for-the-self-centered-human-hero.html
The last 10 minutes of that movie showed me one thing: McG doesn't get the ideas behind the Terminator movies at all.

Terminator: We can't give up even if we know the outlook for the future is terrible that's what makes the enduring HUMAN spirit so powerful.
Terminator 2: We have some control over our future and while the machines wish to destroy us there is hope because they can understand.
Terminator 3: You can fight your destiny all you want but that which is meant to be will find it's way to fruition.
Terminator 4: No person is more important than the one that humans want to believe is their savior. That includes the one person that is the perfect link between the machines and humanity.

SPOILER ALERT!!!

Why the hell would John Connor allow someone who is the key to bridging the gap between man and machine, to sacrifice his life to save his own. That completely goes against the heroic idea of John Connor. If there is one thing Terminator had going for itself is that the ideas behind the characters were more powerful than any one character. Now you might say well what about the idea of redemption for Marcus but what is more powerful redemption? Leading the resistance as the icon of what can exist between man and machine or giving up your heart so that one person can live? You think someone would have said: Hey that's not very heroic of John to just take his heart knowing what Marcus could mean to the war.

That is an epic fail that hits home the fact that a bunch of people got involved in a movie without really understanding what exactly they were trying to say with this movie. Hell even Terminator 3, as terrible as it was, had a decent idea behind it.

Everyone raise your glass and have a toast with me.
Here is to killing off the most interesting thing to happen to the Terminator franchise since Terminator 2.
Thanks McG.
]]> no@spam.com (Jason Latorre) Thu, 21 May 2009 00:00:00 EDT http://chud.com/articles/blogs/1828/In-The-Future-Heroes-Are-Made-then-sacraficed-for-the-self-centered-human-hero.html http://chud.com/articles/blogs/1817/A-Man-Cannes-Only-Do-So-Much-This-Summer.html
Some how I managed to let this slip to the side, but I didn't forget. How can I let so much writers gold pass by with the release of Wolverine twice (internet and theatrical) and the bright future of Star Trek.

I'm back though and with several summer movies come and gone how about the ones that are still to come? I know my list consists of both big and small movies. Some great things are coming and don't let some of them slip through the cracks. Here is my list of must see summer movies(click on name for trailer):

Terminator Salvation
The Girlfriend Experience
Up
The Brothers Bloom
The Hangover
Downloading Nancy
Away We Go
Tetro
Moon
The Taking of Pelham 123
The Proposal
Year One
Transformers: Revenge of The Fallen
The Hurt Locker
Public Enemies
Ice Age: Dawn of The Dinosaurs
Bruno
Harry Potter and The Half-Blood Prince
Funny People
District 9
Taking Woodstock
The Time Traveler's Wife (no trailer yet)
500 Days of Summer
Inglorious Basterds
Extract
Gamer
Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs

That's my perfect combination of fun and depth for this summer. Let me know if I missed anything that looks promising or share your list.
]]> no@spam.com (Jason Latorre) Mon, 18 May 2009 00:00:00 EDT http://chud.com/articles/blogs/1817/A-Man-Cannes-Only-Do-So-Much-This-Summer.html http://chud.com/articles/blogs/1577/Q-What-are-your-top-10-movies-A-Go-screw-yourself-AFI-cause-you-don039t-care.html
Now it seems that AFI allows a chosen group of industry professionals vote on a certain group of nominated films which eventually compile the list. Then they run this 3 hour show with some of those people talking about those films. Now of course they choose the faces we would recognize because who wants to see a bunch of people we don't know talk about movies we probably haven't seen for the most part. These people pick older films because chances are they've been in the industry for years and are emotionally attached to these older films. Though is it more sentimental reasoning than technical reasoning? I think so. If it was more technical then we wouldn't have seen the big changes we saw in the most recent list. Though it may not be a bad thing they vote like this for THEIR list.

Does this list matter? No. Because no one can tell me what the best movies are. Watching a movie is a personal experience. No one can watch it for you. They can tell you what happened, but that's the closest you can get. So when these industry pros vote they are going by their personal experience. Sure there is some technical know how in there, but that technical stuff has to move you in some way in order for it to be effective. So when you ask your neighbor Bob what's the best movie he ever saw and he says Rocky IV. He loved those montages because of how they made him feel. Does that make Battleship Potemkin one of the best movies ever made because they did it first? No, and Rocky IV may not be the best to everyone. However for Bob it is and for Bob that should be all that matters. He voted the same way AFI voters did, emotionally.

I don't think Rocky IV would ever make AFI's list, but I bet the same emotion Bob felt over Rocky IV is there on that list for one if not all of those movies. The industry is so afraid to let people vote on awards and lists like this because they feel like it will be a popular vote, but isn't it no matter how you look at it? The popular vote among voters gets you on the list. It just so happens that those movies are considered respectable because of the awards they won or the stars in them or just because of who chose them. The public might choose Transformers, or Harry Potter. Who cares. If they love them then let them show it. Don't hide from the public's opinion and definitely don't ignore it for lists like this.
]]> no@spam.com (Jason Latorre) Wed, 18 Feb 2009 00:00:00 EST http://chud.com/articles/blogs/1577/Q-What-are-your-top-10-movies-A-Go-screw-yourself-AFI-cause-you-don039t-care.html http://chud.com/articles/blogs/1534/Maybe-All-The-Good-Stories-Have-Been-Told.html
After watching The Curious Case of Benjamin Button I said the same thing that countless others have said... Forrest Gump. Though I must say it was a far less emotional Forrest Gump in my opinion. There were so many similarities that if you've seen one then you kinda get what will happen in the other. Come to find out like everyone else that the same person wrote both, Eric Roth. So does one movie take away from the other?

Yes and no. I don't think that Benjamin Button becomes less of a film because of those similarities. Where Button is the same to Gump in some respects it certainly is different in other. Yes they have similar events and characters but ultimately the stories are told in very different ways. Gump lacked the visuals that Button exceeded at. Button lacked the emotion that Gump moved us with. They both take place in the south but in two radically different locations that greatly affect the stories. Good themes are good themes and if you take any of the themes and put them in other movies they can't help but make the movie better, so it's no wonder that Roth uses them again in Button.

Though where Button falls short is in credibility, especially come awards season. I can't believe it received 13 Oscar nominations. Ok, the visuals were great and Brad Pitt was amazing with those spectacular special effects. Beyond that I can't see anymore nominations. The story shared too much in common with Best Picture Winner Forrest Gump. Button is a good movie, but originality along the lines that this writer retold Forrest Gump deems that this movie shouldn't be recognized for certain things. Put this movie up against Forrest Gump and it won't win. It's not fair to Gump or any other best picture winner to consider something as good when it's a rehash by the same writer. Button was good but not that good and if it were that easy to get the nomination or even the win then most writers would be doing the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over. Annoying isn't it?
]]> no@spam.com (Jason Latorre) Thu, 22 Jan 2009 00:00:00 EST http://chud.com/articles/blogs/1534/Maybe-All-The-Good-Stories-Have-Been-Told.html http://chud.com/articles/blogs/1515/Golden-Feel-Good-Globes.html
Last nights Golden Globes was the most entertaining awards show I have seen in years (Ricky Gervais holding a beer... priceless). It felt like everyone that won actually made me feel good that they did. Slumdog picking up best director for Boyle was well deserved because what he did took a tremendous amount of skill. It also won best adapted screenplay which was really a toss up between all of them and I wouldn't have been pissed with any pick. As far as best picture goes after it won several awards I think it was obvious that Slumdog would win and I'm not really complaining. I don't think it will go on to win an Oscar for best picture, but it felt good last night.

Where they really got things right was with every single acting category for film. I think everyone that deserved to win did. Kate Winslet smashed every role she had this year and has been doing that for several years. She deserved both awards and I don't think anyone came close to bettering her performances. Colin Farrell was wonderful with In Bruges and I think he was right in saying half of that is Brendan Gleeson's. Heath won and quite frankly it felt just as good as we all thought it would. Sally Hawkin was spectacular in Happy-Go-Lucky and if you don't believe me watch it and tell me there was someone better. Finally what can I say about Mickey that isn't obvious? He stood out in one of the toughest years to choose a best actor and that bit where he thanked his dogs just shows how real his performance was in The Wrestler.

Springsteen with best song and Wall-E for best animated were givens and well deserved. It was good that most of the night there were no real upsets or mistakes. I wish In Bruges would have won but it's the Hollywood Foreign Press and they love Woody Allen. In Bruges deserved it and definitely is Top 10 of 2008 while Vicky, Christina, Barcelona isn't. I think the Oscars will be pretty much the same with nominations though it will be interesting to see who wins because Slumdog was good but Revolutionary Road was great.

Bravo Golden Globes Bravo
]]> no@spam.com (Jason Latorre) Mon, 12 Jan 2009 00:00:00 EST http://chud.com/articles/blogs/1515/Golden-Feel-Good-Globes.html http://chud.com/articles/blogs/1514/JCVD-Van-Damme-The-Man.html
The reason he stood out so much was because he was filling a huge void back then. Up to that point the only true martial artist I knew was the legendary Bruce Lee. No one ever did a martial arts movies that achieved the level of bada$$ that Lee had. Until Van Damme showed up with Bloodsport and shook up the martial arts film world. He made martial arts look like an art. He made it look like ballet, we never said that then, but it was that smooth! An action star was born and major hits kept coming. He was the action star martial arts needed and the martial artists that action movie fans craved.

Though like all things his time came to an end. Eventually Van Damme was doing action movies that went straight to DVD. The world was changing and martial arts wasn't hot. Then you add in the fact that Van Damme wasn't getting better as an actor and the media began to tear him apart. People were calling him crazy for some of the things he said in interviews and it seemed like his life fell apart while he fell from the public eye.

I am a firm believer that in life we all hit a point where we have to face ourselves and accept who we are. While its difficult for the average person to face, it has to be even more difficult when you are world famous and everyone has an opinion about you. I think Van Damme hit that point in his life and decided to share it with the world.

JCVD is a film that even with it's wild premise never felt more real. In the film Van Damme is caught in the middle of a bank robbery which the police think he is committing. Throughout the film he is broken down mentally in one scene after another. Normally that is fine because it's an actor playing a role, but here you can't help but notice that it's not a character being broken down but it's him. There were times while watching this film when I was afraid I could never look at Van Damme the same again. He wasn't that uber bada$$ martial arts star I knew because he was just a man.

Then something happened, something that I will never forget. A monologue that will go down in history as one of the best I have ever heard/seen. Van Damme poured his heart out to me. Yes me. It felt like there were two people in the room, him and I. He spoke and I just listened. I won't tell you what he said because I think you should let him just tell you himself. Though I will say this... Van Damme is a man. I will never forget it and I will always look up to him for it. He has nothing to be ashamed of.

Jean-Claude Van Damme has entered a new stage in his life, whether or not this translates to a second shot at fame who knows. I don't think it really matters though. Van Damme said what he wanted to say in this film. JCVD is definitely one of the top films of the year. I would even put it up there with Last Tango In Paris as far as films that blur the line between actor and real person. Hopefully we get a DVD release soon, otherwise it's available on Amazon UK.
]]> no@spam.com (Jason Latorre) Sat, 10 Jan 2009 00:00:00 EST http://chud.com/articles/blogs/1514/JCVD-Van-Damme-The-Man.html http://chud.com/articles/blogs/1510/Roadshow-Revolution-With-Che-amp-Mickey-Part-II.html
If you've never been to the AMC in Times Square then you should go. Its a monster of a movie theater with 20 something screens spread over like 6 stories. It's nuts. Every theater I've been in has had great sound, great picture, and great seats. Now it's a little crowded on a Friday night but you know what it's part of the experience and for a film like The Wrestler which won't get much play it's welcome.

Everyone has heard the hype about Mickey Rourke and how he puts on a great performance and this will revitalize his career. Well after the first time watching it I was definitely a little bummed out. I thought his performance was good but it was sad to see in the same way it was sad to see JCVD (which I will talk about another time). Mickey's performance comes off like a swan song. If I never saw him in another movie I think a part of me would be sad but another part would be happy because he went out on a high note. This is by far the best acting of his career which is supported by great directing and decision making by Aronofsky.

Once in a while you get perfect casting and a big part of that is knowing exactly who you're casting. It's easy casting for say a movie about a rappers life when you cast a real rapper or a movie about a singers life when you cast the singer. It's a huge risk when cast a movie about a washed up actor/athlete (that's what wrestlers are) with an actor that most people think is washed up and don't care about. Then for Aronofsky to actually play off of that and the hurt associated with that is gutsy. The film is a mixture of happy and sad that makes you unsure of how it will end and leaves you wanting more. Added to this is a solid performance in a parallel life with Marissa Tomeii and great cinematography. I've had a chance to watch it a second time and it's even better on repeat viewings.

Is it a best picture winner? No. Is it a best actor winner? I would say so, and that is a tough call because of the level of acting my male leads this year. If this performance and film wins it does so because it has heart. In a year full of sad films this sad film actually makes me feel good. Cap it all off with a midnight ride home on a train filled with puke and that my friends is why going to the movie should be an event. How can you forget two bad train rides, a spanish revolution, and a washed up wrestler in Times Square?
]]> no@spam.com (Jason Latorre) Fri, 09 Jan 2009 00:00:00 EST http://chud.com/articles/blogs/1510/Roadshow-Revolution-With-Che-amp-Mickey-Part-II.html http://chud.com/articles/blogs/1505/Roadshow-Revolution-With-Che-amp-Mickey-Part-I.html
We started the day with a train ride in to NYC. For some of you this may be a normal thing and for others a fun experience that doesn't happen often. I on the other hand was terrified. I never felt less in control in my life. All I kept thinking about was Unbreakable and how much I had in common with David. I can safely say I won't be doing that again unless its the subway or the T.

So we get down to the IFC and first thing I'm thinking is food. Che was being presented as Steven Soderbergh intended as a close to 5 hour epic. Now they do include an intermission, but who wants to run out, get food, and eat it in under 20 minutes. Not I my friends. So pizza it is along with some of a bottle of water. Now I say some because when you're are watching a 5 hour movie in spanish with subtitles you don't want to get up to use the bathroom.  So my goal was ultimately to not go to the bathroom anytime during the movie. Well on to the movie after a quick meal and precautionary bathroom visit.

Che was an interesting was an interesting journey through the life of Che Guevarra during the time most people seem to care about, which is his time as a revolutionary. The first half of the film dealt with his teaming up with Fidel Castro to overthrow Batista in Cuba. We meet a farely young Che with a trace understanding of what it means to help Castro. As the movie moves along Che discovers what it really means to be a revolutionary and the level of respect one shows to the common people. This is where the heart of the movie is. In showing how much he cared about the common people you begin to understand why he can do something so drastic. The first half of the film is beautifully shot. The story is like a small snowball rolling down a hill and just getting bigger and better as it goes. By the end of the film I felt like I was a part of something special. Part of a revolution.

The second half of the film jumps ahead in time and covers Che's revolution in Bolivia. This is where things begin to go wrong. I mean that in both ways because the film starts to slow down and the actual revolution hits some bumps in the road. You see by the end of the first half you see Che as someone who had morals and an understanding of what is needed to lead a revolution. Though in the second half most of that seems to have been forgotten. He doesn't stick to rules he established for his revolutionaries. I couldn't understand why. I mean he still comes off as a man who has compassion for the oppressed, but yet his standards for his own soldiers drops. I felt like I missed something. Almost like a part of the story and his change was missing. It left me mystified for most of the second half which focuses on this failed revolution which is blamed on american interference, which could be true but I'm not a historian who can verify that claim. Luckily the film gains momentum towards the end which is a breathtaking end. It felt like hitting a brick wall.

Overall I would definitely recommend catching this one in theaters. Roadshow if you can, but definitely catch Che Part I in theaters. Che Part II probably won't be in many theaters so that will be a dvd watch, but if thats the case do both in one day since it's easier to do bathroom breaks and that's how it was intended to be seen.

Stay tuned for Roadshow Revolution with Che & Mickey Part II as we work our way around NYC for some vegan food and The Wrestler.


]]> no@spam.com (Jason Latorre) Tue, 06 Jan 2009 00:00:00 EST http://chud.com/articles/blogs/1505/Roadshow-Revolution-With-Che-amp-Mickey-Part-I.html