<![CDATA[CHUD.com - A Movie Website and SO MUCH MORE. - Blogs]]> http://chud.com/articles en-us N/A nicknunziata@gmail.com Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:04:38 EST 20 <![CDATA[The Do's and Don't's (But Mainly Don't's) of Trick or Treating]]> http://chud.com/articles/blogs/1381/The-Do039s-and-Don039t039s-But-Mainly-Don039t039s-of-Trick-or-Treating.html
But I digress.  Seeing as it's been a few years since I've been among the costumed masses demanding treats upon penalty tricks, I'm not sure if the same guidelines apply to today's trick or treating tradition that applied in the hay day of my carefree youth when there was no fear of the Large Hadron Collider destroying the universe.  Whether you're a lonely shut-in anticipating a night full of meddling kids, a parent to a candy-starved child, or a creepy middle-aged to elderly single person disguising your evening prowlings as trick or treating, there are a few rules I remember from my youth that, if applied to your Halloween, should make for a delightful Halloween night for all (except Scientologists because their houses will more than likely get egged no matter what):

- Don't leave out a bowl, bucket, or basket with a sign reading "Please Take One" and expect anyone to adhere to it, because nobody will.  If you're foolish enough to expect that to work, you deserve to lose it all.  I've seen, and been involved in plenty of cases, where the entire bowl has been emptied thanks to one rambunctious youth.  This is a lose-lose situation because it A) makes you look like a lazy ass who may as well have written "I don't give a damn about this day or you kids, so don't bother me" and B) will guarantee that some adorable 2 or 3-year old out on his or her first trick or treating experience dressed as a cuddly bunny will begin to mist up when he or she sees some obnoxious 12 year-old empty the entire bowl in one foul swoop.  Do you want the tears of a 2-year old on your conscience?  Because I sure as hell wouldn't.  That being said...

- Don't empty the entire bowl unless you can get away with it.  Near the end of the night when the streets are sparsely populated, emptying the "Please Take One" bowl is a safe move that will pad your stash and ensure unused candy isn't thrown away.  This technique is significantly difficult when trick or treating in apartment buildings in inner cities where your actions are in full view of the rest of the hall and will more than likely result in your being beaten to death by an angry parent/child combination behind you.

- Don't give out healthy food, tracts, or anything but sweet, sweet candy.  For many kids, this is the one night of the year when they can load up on tooth-rotting, stomach-churning, unhealthy, sugar-covered deliciousness that they'll have to ration for the rest of the year.  If you shortchange these kids with granola bars, fruit, pocket change, or tracts on Scientology (yes, I've received tracts instead of candy before) then you deserve to be punched in the face repeatedly. 

- Don't give out candy corn.  If you really want to give children something this shitty, you may as well just take a dump in their bag.

- If you're out of candy or want to be left alone for the rest of the evening, don't leave the light on that hangs over your front door.  Leaving this light on, no matter how late, is the equivalent of hanging a neon "Open" sign in your window.  I've rang door bells as late as 10 o'clock because the front light was on and that, to me, signaled they were open for business.  On that note...

- Don't ring the doorbells of people who have no Halloween decorations, no exterior illumination, or both.  They are either A) not home, B) assholes that hate you or C) Scientologists.

- If you are home and can clearly be seen through the window, then do answer the door.  I've had cases where a person watching TV looked me straight in the eye, and didn't move a muscle off the couch.  That's rude, demeaning and may result in your house being egged and/or rumors being spread about you that you eat babies while dressed in human skin masks and watching Triumph of the Will.

- Do put some effort into your costume.  Even if you end up looking like Charlie Brown's ghost did, at least you tried.  When I was in middle school, I went trick or treating with my older brother and his friend - both dressed in plain clothes - and he claimed he was a boy with cancer when one elderly chap asked what he was.  That's not only a viable excuse to withhold candy, it's a viable excuse to get your ass kicked.

- Do give kids some variety.  The houses most remembered are the ones where the man or woman answering the door held out a bowl filled with an array of options.  Believe it or not, some kids don't love chocolate and will opt for the mini Starbursts or Twizzlers instead of the fun-sized Snickers of which trillions of houses seem to have an arsenal. 

- But the final and most important of all is DO have trick or treating on October 31st.  I'm looking at YOU, Pennsylvania.  I don't know who thought of the brilliant idea to hold Halloween festivities on some other day, but it's a stupid idea.  I went to college in PA for 4 years and never once did I see kids trick or treating on Halloween because it "fell on a school night and they didn't want kids being out late."  Hey, I got an idea: let's give rabies shots to the Easter Bunny, eat spam on Thanksgiving, and ban alcohol on New Year's Eve. 

Jim Rohner tries to justify his college degree by blogging for Zoom In Online.
]]> no@spam.com (Jim Rohner) Thu, 30 Oct 2008 00:00:00 EDT http://chud.com/articles/blogs/1381/The-Do039s-and-Don039t039s-But-Mainly-Don039t039s-of-Trick-or-Treating.html <![CDATA[Dear Tina Fey, Please Leave Your Husband For Me. Sincerely, Jim Rohner.]]> http://chud.com/articles/blogs/1352/Dear-Tina-Fey-Please-Leave-Your-Husband-For-Me--Sincerely-Jim-Rohner.html Those of you who know me, or those of you who are only aware of my existence because of this blog, would probably agree that I possess nothing outside of an underdog quality that would draw any of these women to me.  Most of them, with the exception of one (the animated, fictional one that doesn't actually exist...), would probably quickly slap me with a restraining order after mistaking my looking through their windows with binoculars and shipping myself in a box to their houses for stalking.  Can't a guy be romantic anymore without babble about "personal space," "illegal," and "you need therapy?"

But none of that matters.  All the ladies listed above are my silver medals.  They can't compare to the apple of my eye.  Remember when I said there was no particular order?  Well, for them, there isn't; they're all just scrambling for second place.  But there is definitely a number one - the cream of the crop, the tip of the iceberg, the one who makes my boat float, the one for whom I would punch puppies in the face (which is saying a lot because I really like puppies).  That one is Tina Fey.

Yes, the 38-year old SNL alum and Emmy-winning genius behind 30 Rock is the one woman who I hope will someday choose to share her life with me.  She would be the Juliet to my Romeo (without the suicide), the whoever-Rachel-McAdams-plays to my whoever-Ryan-Gosling plays in The Notebook (without the Alzheimers), and the Lindsay Lohan to my Samantha Ronson (without me being an unattractive lesbian and her not being a walking anti-drug commercial).

Tina Fey was the first female head writer on SNL and is the creator, star, and a writer on 30 Rock, which in my opinion, is the best show on television.  She's a talented writer, she's humble, she makes glasses look sexy, she's got a hilarious self-deprecating sense of humor, and also, she's kind of smokin' hot.

She's also married with two kids.  Now, I'm not the kind of guy to condone extra-marital affairs, especially when kids are involved, so my solution is simple: Tina, if you're reading this (because I'm sure she regulars the obscure blog postings on CHUD.com), then consider this blog to be my impassioned plea to you to leave your husband and run away with me.  I know that I'm nowhere near as successful or talented as your producer/composer husband, and that I'd pretty much ride your financial and social coattails, and that I hate kids, and that I could never support you should something happen to your career, and that I never actually watched SNL when you were on it, and that my physique inspires children to laugh at me in public places such as pools, beaches, and city streets, but we can work through all that.

For one thing, I'm really tall.  Have you ever needed to stand on a chair or a pile of precariously stacked books to reach something - like a pan for cooking or another book for that precarious stack - off a high shelf?  Those days are over.  I'm also a pushover.  Tired of having people disagree with you or have their own ideas?  I will agree to anything you tell me with a smile and forfeit all rights to any dignity or self-respect if you would just hold me gently later on.  Do you need somebody killed?  I mean, I can't do that.  But, you know, I know some people who know some people...

Alright, Tina, so I realize that in comparison to what you already have, I'm no improvement. In fact, I'm probably a step or two (or twelve) backwards.  But a guy can dream can't he?  If nothing else, we can always roleplay - I'll dress up like Tom Palin and you can show me that the only difference between a hockey mom and a bulldog is that there's no bulldog in bed with me.

Sincerely,
Jim Rohner

Jim Rohner pays his bills as a film critic and associate producer for Zoom In Online

]]> no@spam.com (Jim Rohner) Mon, 20 Oct 2008 00:00:00 EDT http://chud.com/articles/blogs/1352/Dear-Tina-Fey-Please-Leave-Your-Husband-For-Me--Sincerely-Jim-Rohner.html <![CDATA[News Headline From the Future: Guillermo del Toro Inadvertently Triggers the Apocalypse]]> http://chud.com/articles/blogs/1271/News-Headline-From-the-Future-Guillermo-del-Toro-Inadvertently-Triggers-the-Apocalypse.html Guillermo del Toro, the visionary director behind Hellboy, Pan's Labyrinth, and many of my nightmares, is going to be busy for a while.  The Internet, being the all-knowing, gossipy bitch that it is (like all women, right guys?  Hiyo!) has splayed del Toro's schedule for the near (and distant) future all over the web.  It would appear that if you wanted to grab a beer with the Mexican filmmaker or take him out for a fancy dinner, you'll be waiting for about 9 years and by then you probably won’t be that into him anymore.  (Just like all women, right guys? Hiyo!).

Yes, del Toro, who signed a three-year, first-look deal with Universal Pictures back in June '07, is making a long term commitment with the studio, planning to direct updates of "Frankenstein," "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde," "Slaughterhouse-Five," and an adaptation of the novel "Drood."  This, of course, is only after he's finished work on the much-anticipated The Hobbit film with used-to-be roly-poly Peter Jackson.  On top of all those high profile gigs, Universal also aims to please del Toro by producing his pet project, an adaptation of H.P. Lovecraft's "At the Mountains of Madness."

This news upsets me.  My quarrel lies not with his audacity at remaking so many classics (let's be honest - with his "Muppets On Acid" imagination, who's better suited for the job?), nor with the idea that he won't have any time to hang out with me soon (or ever).  I'm slightly put off because one of these projects - I'm looking at YOU "Mountains" - could very well lead to the eradication of mankind by triggering the Apocalypse.

Think I'm daft?  Probably, but hear me out anyway.  Chances are if you're reading my blog, you've got nothing better to do anyway.  Anyone who's ever read H.P. Lovecraft, knows that the macabre American author didn't exactly crap rainbows and lollipops.  The man had a very nihilistic view on life, adhering to the views of cosmicism - the belief that greater powers control the functioning of the universe and no matter how hard we try, we can't change one damn iota of it.  The ideas found their embodiment within his short stories in the Great Old Ones - ancient, god-like, extraterrestrial beings that are colossal in size and power and can pretty much destroy anything and everything on a whim.  Wikipedia describes them as such:

"These entities seem to have a physical shape, but being cosmic lifeforms from beyond our space-time continuum means they are not based on matter in our definition of the concept, yet their forms are built on principles similar enough to those of true matter that they appear to be material in their nature."

They also go by Scrabble-dominating names like Cthulhu, Baoht Z'uqqa-Mogg, Tsathoggua, and Ythogtha.  Time and time again the finite human characters in Lovecraft's stories cross paths with these entities resulting in one of three possible consequences:

   1. The Good - faced with a finiteness, weakness, and insignificance on a cosmic scale that their puny minds cannot possibly comprehend, they go irreversibly insane
   2. The Bad - they die of fright
   3. The Ugly - they commit suicide

Without exception, nobody in an H.P. Lovecraft tale has a happy ending.  Nobody survives by the skin of his teeth, walks home, hugs his wife and kids when he gets in the door, and thanks the Lord for the blessings he's been given.  No, they go bat-shit crazy insane.  Brando during Apocalyspe Now insane times 100.  Guillermo del Toro, being the aesthetically macabre visual artist that he is, will no doubt do his best to bring the horrific mind-fucks - known as Shoggoths - from "At the Mountains of Madness" to life.

Does anyone else see the problem here?  BRING THEM TO LIFE!!!

del Toro's crafting could very well result in Lovecraftian creatures that are so true to life they ACTUALLY DO induce fits of insanity, fear-induced heart failure, and mass suicides.  Imagine 3000 screens across the U.S. where theater patrons are ripping out their own hair, throwing feces, babbling about the Necronomica, and hanging themselves by their own entrails.  Still fail to see where the Apocalypse, the war to end mankind's existence, comes into play?  According to the research I've done*, this is how the End Times may ultimately play out:

  •  The widespread hysteria resembles horrors depicted in the Old Testament involving "weeping and gnashing of teeth" prompting hyperbolic journalists (probably from the New York Post) to question: Are We in the End Times?
  • Satan, sitting back leisurely and congratulating himself on a job well done with "that Sarah Pallin thing," sees the news and spits out his soft drink in surprise in hilarious sitcom fashion.  "Shit," he says.  "Already?  I'm not prepared for this."  In a flurry, Satan wakes up the troops, scrapes together a ragtag End Times army and proceeds to invade Earth.
  • The Archangel Michael, seated in a lofty position in heaven, sees that Satan and his cronies are launching an assault on earth with all those multi-headed beasts, numbers inscribed on foreheads, and raining fire and shit.  Checking his calendar, he sees the Lord of Darkness is early and gives God a ring on his personal line.
  • "Already?  He's early" God quips.  Not wanting to disappoint those who've put money on the Vegas odds that the God vs. Satan doubt is 2:1 in His favor, the Almighty gathers his sleepy-eyed angels and heads to Earth to counter the assault.
After everything is said and done and the world has been ravaged by the cosmic battle and Satan and his followers have been sentenced to life without parole in an eternal lake of burning sulfur, God will have a heart-to-heart with Guillermo that will probably end with Him patting the director on the head and telling him "not to do it again**" before patting the lovable little scamp on the head and ushering him off to go play with his friends...who are now all dead, along with you and I, thanks to the global destruction brought on by the Apocalypse.  Thanks, del Toro - I haven't even seen Paris yet.***

This is all assuming, of course, that the Large Hadron Collider doesn't destroy the entire universe first.  Thanks, science.

* Which is none
** Idib
*** Yes I have
]]> no@spam.com (Jim Rohner) Fri, 19 Sep 2008 00:00:00 EDT http://chud.com/articles/blogs/1271/News-Headline-From-the-Future-Guillermo-del-Toro-Inadvertently-Triggers-the-Apocalypse.html <![CDATA[Is Ben Stiller Biting the Hand That Feeds?]]> http://chud.com/articles/blogs/1140/Is-Ben-Stiller-Biting-the-Hand-That-Feeds.html Tropic Thunder was finally released last week to mostly rave reviews and enough box office clout to usurp the cinematic phenom, The Dark Knight, which has been number one in America since Regan was president.  I won't delve too deeply into analyzing and review the film, mostly because it's Friday and I'm struggling to find the energy to blink, but suffice it to say enough pee-pee escaped into my pants during fits of laughter for me to dub it the funniest movie of the year. 

Yet, I ponder.  Ben Stiller and company are arguing that the content of the film that some critics are finding offensive (racial issues, use of the word 'retard') are not done in poor taste, but done in an effort to lampoon the Hollywood machine that spawns soulless executives, yuppie agents, mindless films, and worst of all, method actors (shudder).  If you believe that (and I do), then the film is infinitely awesometastic.  However, if you believe that, then you also must believe that Ben Stiller, Jack Black, Robert Downey Jr. and other notable Hollywood names associated with the film are essentially making fun of themselves and the culture that provides them the soapbox upon which they can preach.  Everybody loves a little self-deprecation: Michael Bay has recently jumped on board to hilarious effect and Woody Allen has essentially made his entire career out of it.  But, Michael Bay is too big of an asshole and will go back to swimming in pools full of money and blowing shit up and not really care what people think of him and Allen has, at best, only flirted with the mainstream, never really expressing any interest to be a part of it.  Yet, Stiller and his supporting cast of A-listers are Hollywood mainstays with nothing to gain nor anything to prove with their lampooning.  So what's the point?

Typically, there are two types of people who make fun of Hollywood:
  1. The hardcore independents who view Hollywood as The Great Satan (David Lynch)
  2. People who are bitter because they will never make it in Hollywood (most filmmakers in NYC)
Ben Stiller falls into neither of those categories.  Ben fits into the "you might remember me from such Hollywood films as Meet the Parents, Dodgeball, and Starsky and Hutch" category.  He himself might not be an A-lister per se (maybe a B+ lister?) but his film features Robert "Iron Man" Downey Jr. and Tom "I can't think of anything witty enough referring to his mainstream iconography" Cruise.  Poking fun of something that you also profit from is a bit like calling that tool from high school with a Mustang a douche bag, but continuously asking him for rides home anyway. 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not up in arms and calling Ben Stiller a hypocrite, nor do I think he makes bad films (all the time).  I just wonder what the purpose of it all is.  Is this film a mantra for Ben Stiller?  Will it get the ball rolling on some type of wholesale changes for the vapid Hollywood industry?  Probably.  Oh crap, I meant to say no, no it won't change a thing.  Just because some A-listers made a movie that said "you guys are morons" won't stop the release of Beverly Hills Chihuahua, it won't hold up production on Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, and it won't throw any wrenches in the gears on The Birds remake.  If you believe Stiller is smart enough to realize this (which I do), then you can possibly deduce two methods behind the madness:
  1. Stiller is just going with the flow, writing a genuinely hilarious film, which Hollywood greenlights to show everyone else that "it's still cool" by being able to poke fun of itself, or
  2. Stiller is smart enough to realize that Hollywood is a whore for money and he can use his leverage in the biz to get his film greenlight despite the fact it makes fun of Hollywood.
I tend to lean towards the latter option because A) Ben Stiller has been shown to poke fun of Hollywood before in venues outside of Tinsel Town and B) it allows me to believe there's a deeper purpose for this film than just toting the "never go full retard" thing.  Maybe he's of the Billy Wilder mold - the guy who realizes the flaws in the system that makes him rich and uses it as a podium to say things that would otherwise go unsaid.  With Wilder, you knew the guy couldn't give two shits about Hollywood whether they employed him or not.  Maybe that's Stiller.  Or maybe the joke's on us and Stiller's laughing all the way to the bank. 
]]> no@spam.com (Jim Rohner) Fri, 22 Aug 2008 00:00:00 EDT http://chud.com/articles/blogs/1140/Is-Ben-Stiller-Biting-the-Hand-That-Feeds.html <![CDATA[Why 'The X-Files' is More Relevant Than Ever]]> http://chud.com/articles/blogs/988/Why-039The-X-Files039-is-More-Relevant-Than-Ever.html The Dark Knight. It's called The X-Files: I Want to Believe and if you're a child of the 90's, you already know that it's based on the wildly popular television show, The X-Files, which spawned one of the foremost examples of a rabid internet fan base coagulating around a popular medium.  I recently purchased the complete nine-season Collector's Edition of the former Fox program as an impulse buy, but the more I've watched, the more I'm beginning to believe that it was worth every single penny of the $200 I spent for it.  (Yeah, nine seasons plus the first feature length film for only $200.  Thank God for Amazon.com).  It's a mere coincidence that the release of the latest feature film coincides with my finishing up the fourth - and arguably best - season of the show, but the more time I spend thinking about it, the more it seems so eerily convenient.  You see, the film isn't being very well received by critics (as of its 7/25, a paltry 32% on Rotten Tomatoes) and many criticisms include the idea that the show is "so 90's" and has no relevance half a decade after its last (and sub-par) season.  But with all the shit going on in the world and all the prevalent themes I'm seeing come through Mulder and Scully's exploits, I'm beginning to think that The X-Files is more relevant ever.

For those of you who remember, season four was bathed in a darker tone than the previous seasons with the revelation of Scully's inoperable cancer, the murder of X, Skinner's manipulation at the hands of Cancer Man, and Mulder's apparent suicide in the season finale, Gethsemane.  On top of that, Musings of a Cigarette Smoking Man gave us insight into the seemingly black heart of Mulder and Scully's biggest antagonist, Tunguska and Terma furthered the storyline of the Black Oil mytharc, and Herrenvolk seemed to signal a step backwards in Mulder's pursuit of knowledge surrounding alien colonization.  Though these themes had been discussed before, the depths to which they were explored really made us as viewers feel that Mulder and Scully may have been in way over their heads and that there was no way their effort could be successful.  I mean, at the end of the season, one main character is dying and the other is seemingly dead!  But, what was really inspirational to watch, and what allows the show and its themes to still be relevant today, is understanding the catalyst for Mulder's passion; the reason for Scully's loyalty to him; what exactly the Cigarette-Smoking Man was working so hard to suppress:

The truth.

Time and time again, Mulder and Scully would risk their jobs, their lives, and the lives of those close to them because they believed that, despite it being controlled by higher powers, the truth was out there and it could be obtained and it would, for lack of a better term, set them free.  After all, the phrase "The Truth is Out There" was used in the opening credits of all but 18 of the 201 episodes of the show.  My knowledge of their success is limited by my incomplete viewing of all the seasons and perhaps this limits the potency of my argument.  But, I do know that Mulder and Scully often come so close to discovering and unveiling the truth that plans of higher powers often have to be modified and improvisations must be implemented to keep certain chess pieces in place so the board of conspiracy wouldn't collapse completely - at the end of Herrenvolk, the Cigarette-Smoking Man convinces the Alien Bounty Hunter to heal Mulder's mother, claiming that if he were to lose his mother, Mulder would then have nothing to lose and become an even more dangerous foe.  Mulder and Scully aren't alone in their struggles though, as they are often aided by informants who work for the higher powers and want to help uncover the truth: X (underling for the Syndicate), Deep Throat (founding member of the Syndicate), Marita Covarrubius (Special Representative of the Secretary-General), and Senator Richard Matheson (duh) are all significant figures who arguably risk even more than Mulder and Scully in helping the agents uncover the truth.

But, if you're still reading this novella, you're probably saying, "quit confirming how big of a nerd you are, fanboy, and got on with the relevance."  Well, in essence, Mulder and Scully were so dedicated to the idea that the truth could and should be known that they inspired those who aided them and terrified those who opposed them.  Here in the United States (Canadians - you can turn off your computers), the Constitution guarantees us a democratic government "of the people, by the people, and for the people," which basically means that if the people want it, the people will get it.  If we want the truth, we can have the truth.  If we're displeased with figures that won't give us the truth, we can replace them with those who will.  While our country (Britons - read a different blog) is unfortunately mired in apathy, it is such an exhilarating and empowering idea to think that IF we, the citizens, would make enough noise, then our government has to listen.  A favorite song of mine, "Predator and Prey," by New York City's best kept secret, Eveneye, touches on the question of should we be afraid of our government or should our government be afraid of us?  Now, I'm not naive enough to believe that there aren't those figures who would work their f*cking asses off to ensure that noise be muffled, but the fact remains that IF enough voices are united, there is no way to shut them all up. 

As shit continues to go down that makes us angrier and angrier (Enron, the Iraq War, Miley Cyrus), many of us stop caring or trying because we think that a select group of very few control the course of the nation.  But our nation WAS NOT established to work like that and we have in our hands the power to change it - it just takes the right people or enough people speaking up to get the wheels motion.  This idea, the idea that the truth exists and it's our right to know it, is what drove Mulder and Scully so passionately in the 90's and it only makes sense that it can still be driving them, and us, to this very day.  While none of this may change whether or not The X-Files: I Want to Believe is a well-made film, I feel that it certainly answers the question of its relevance. 

Jim Rohner is a Film Critic and Associate Producer for Zoom In Online.
]]> no@spam.com (Jim Rohner) Fri, 25 Jul 2008 00:00:00 EDT http://chud.com/articles/blogs/988/Why-039The-X-Files039-is-More-Relevant-Than-Ever.html <![CDATA[How Christopher Nolan Has Ruined Me - Totally and Beautifully Ruined Me]]> http://chud.com/articles/blogs/933/How-Christopher-Nolan-Has-Ruined-Me---Totally-and-Beautifully-Ruined-Me.html The Dark Knight, the most anticipated movie of the summer (screw you, Indiana Jones and the Overly Elaborate Title), is being released tomorrow.  Pre-sale ticket figures from websites such as Fandango.com and Movietickets.com are already showing astronomical numbers in terms of revenue (over $3.5 million in IMAX alone), sold out shows (over 700), and percentage of ticket purchases (about 90% of all sales belong to TDK).  Today is so many fanboys' Christmas Eve.  In fact, having already seen the film myself (hooray for press screenings!), I'm even MORE excited at the aspect of seeing it again next Monday the 21st (all other shows were sold out) - this time, in IMAX.  I love this movie just as much as the next guy and, if I were married, would probably be willing to divorce my wife if we couldn't agree on the film's awesomeness.  But as phenomenal as this film is and will, there's a flip side to every coin.  Co-writer/director Christopher Nolan has not only single-handedly resurrected a dying franchise but he's also been able to successfully translate the psychologically complex and gritty realism of indie films to a $200+ million dollar Hollywood blockbuster.  Nolan has proved that there is still value to be found in Hollywood filmmaking and, in the process, made some producers look really, really smart. 

However, Christopher Nolan has also ruined my movie going experience.  Nolan has taken the superhero genre - a genre of incredible fantasy and suspension of disbelief - and make it real.  Whether it's Batman Begins or The Dark Knight, you can sit in your chair watching a brooding billionaire dressed as a bat fight crime with high-tech gizmos, and you can believe that it could plausibly happen.  Because of this my brain, in a logical leap reminiscent of TiVo, will assume that this realism could and should be applied to any story involving the fantastic and the whimsical.  "Well, if Christopher Nolan did it, than anyone can do it."  If you don't immediately see the error in that, then shoot yourself in the head and survive.  People have done it, so you can do it too.  No, just because one extraordinarily talented filmmaker can bridge the gap between the real and the unreal doesn't mean that it can, or necessarily should, be done with every superhero story.  Ever since I first saw Batman Begins in the summer of 2005, I've found myself slipping in the phrase "suspension of disbelief" in a lot of reviews.  In fact, I've said it twice already in this piece and will more than likely say it again. 

When a friend and I walked out a press screening for Iron Man, we spent at least 30-40 minutes talking about what was wrong with it (what was right with it can be summed up in three words and roughly 2 and a half seconds - Robert Downey Jr.).  We walked from the theater to a bar, sat down to grab some beers, and discussed the many flaws of the film: weak supporting cast, anti-climactic final battle, poorly scripted plot points, lack of dramatic tension, and yaddy yaddy yadda.  After some time, we put down our glasses, stroked our (metaphorical) beards and asked ourselves, "did Batman Begins spoil us?"  For every flaw we listed, we could point to how it was done well in Nolan's revamping of the Caped Crusader, but it didn't stop there - Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, The Incredible Hulk, and even to an extent, Hellboy II: The Golden Army were all marked as disappointments because of "too many calls for suspension of disbelief."  (That's three times, for those of you following along at home).  For the love of Pete, Hellboy is a half-man, half-devil struggling to stop an Elfen lord from resurrecting an indestructible robot army created at the dawn of time, and I'm COMPLAINING about suspension of disbelief?  What have you done to me Christopher Nolan?!?  (Though, in Nolan's defense, many of Hellboy's II problems came from the phenomenal substance of the first installment that Guillermo del Toro seemingly decided to abandon for style).

It seems odd to be angry at a man for kicking SO much ass, yet that's where I seem to stand.  Starting with Batman Begins and continuing with The Dark Knight, Nolan has set the bar so high not only for superhero films, but for Hollywood blockbuster films as well, that my brain is having trouble realizing that not everything can be, nor once again, should be, equated with Nolan's Batman films.  If a guy flies around in an armored suit faster than the speed of sound and another guy grows into a 9-foot tall behemoth when he gets angry, then I shouldn't automatically begin thinking "do I believe this could happen?"  Of course it couldn't f***ing happen, but that's not the point!  Nolan's films are believable because the character of Bruce Wayne/Batman is believable and we get enjoyment out of thinking, "what could happen?"  Iron Man/Tony Stark and Bruce Banner/Hulk are not believable, but we get the same enjoyment out of thinking, "what could happen?"  Now if only my brain could accept this.  Damn you, Christopher Nolan.  But I love him so much, please don't tell him I said that.

Suspension of disbelief.  I had to say it one more time...

Oh, and also, Iron Man did kind of suck.

Jim Rohner is a film critic and associate producer for Zoom In Online.
]]> no@spam.com (Jim Rohner) Thu, 17 Jul 2008 00:00:00 EDT http://chud.com/articles/blogs/933/How-Christopher-Nolan-Has-Ruined-Me---Totally-and-Beautifully-Ruined-Me.html <![CDATA[Five Reasons Why 'The Incredible Hulk' is Better Than 'Iron Man']]> http://chud.com/articles/blogs/706/Five-Reasons-Why-039The-Incredible-Hulk039-is-Better-Than-039Iron-Man039.html Iron Man film that I and probably only seven other people in the world highly disliked.  Iron Man's opening weekend boasted $102 million before ultimately raking in almost three times that amount and has already (in my opinion, undeservedly) been included on IMDB.com's Top 250.

Not only do I find it hard to believe that Iron Man is one the 250 BEST films of all time (ranked above the likes of Coppola's The Conversation (three Oscar noms), Wilder's The Lost Weekend (four Oscars), and my favorite film ever, Groundhog Day (just damn good)), but I also fail to understand why more people aren't praising the recently released The Incredible Hulk.  Though it's opening weekend numbers were barely above half of Iron Man's and the critical reception has been significantly colder (66% on Rottentomatoes.com compared to 93%) I personally feel that The Incredible Hulk was a superior film and here are my five reasons why.

   1. Climactic Fight Sequences - Sure, Iron Man has its share of thrills and adrenaline pumping action fare (I'm recalling his aerial joust with the jet pilots) but satisfying combat is severely lacking.  When Obadiah Stane gets his hands on the arc reactor technology, we're led to believe there will be a monumental clash between the two technological savants in the end.  This proves not to be the case.  After a brief, one-sided fight in which Stark has his ass handed to him, the fight ends due to a logical leap of faith (which I will address later) courtesy of Pepper Pots.  However, the clash between the Abomination and the Hulk at the climax of The Incredible Hulk live up to the billing.  A titanic battle occurs between the two giants utilizing flawless special effects, interaction with the surrounding environment (real and simulated), and seesaw swings of momentum.  One minute the Abomination is railing on Banner and the next he's having his face smashed in by green fists. The best part is the fight lasts.  You could've taken a bathroom break at the climax of The Incredible Hulk and still caught the majority of the action, whereas you would've missed it entirely in Iron Man.

   2. Suspension of Disbelief - Super heroes exist in a fanciful world, a world beyond reality, and therefore, we need to leave our grasp of the actual at the door in order to envelop ourselves in a world where men shoot lasers out of their eyes and nobody points to the guy in the blue and red spandex in regards to questioning his sexuality.  But Iron Man just asks to turn a little bit too much of your brain off.  Maybe I've been spoiled by a film like Batman Begins where every element of the film could probably happen, but there were too many "oh come on" moments in Iron Man.  Isn't it convenient how Stane turns the narrative tide when he steals the prototype from the terrorists with the aide of a previously unmentioned handheld device that possesses the power of instant paralysis?  Or let's not forget about the previously mentioned anti-climactic conclusion.  In Iron Man the outcome of the final battle hinges on Pepper Potts operating an ungodly complex machine that emanates a blast which somehow harms only Stane and not Stark, despite the fact Stark was lying next to a gaping hole in the roof from which the blast emanated.  In The Incredible Hulk, if you accept the idea that gamma radiation - instead of slowly and painfully killing you - would in fact, give you super powers, then you're pretty much in the right mindset for the rest of the film.

   3. An Actual Love Story - We're lead to believe, I guess, that there's some sort of romantic tension between Stark and Potts because at one point he dances with her and at another point she almost kills him when removing the solitary piece that is keeping his entire body alive.  Or something.  For the most part though, it appears as though Tony Stark's closest companions are those adorably personified robot assistants. On the other hand, the love story is very much prevalent in The Incredible Hulk with Betty Ross being the key factor in Bruce being able to control the Hulk from going overboard at the end.  It may be a little sappy for some but there is genuine chemistry between Tyler and Norton and there's quite a humorous bit involving the gamma radiation on Banner's sex life.  The love story adds another level of relatability to Bruce Banner as a character as he struggles between what he wants and what he feels he has to do.

   4. Louis Leterrier Never Mistakes Himself for an Artist - But Jon Favreau does.  What struck me as humorous was a behind the scenes piece on Iron Man where Favreau comments on how ironic it is to see so many indie regulars running around a Hollywood set.  Because, you know, Jon Favreau directed indie films like Elf and Zathura.  (Don't mention Swingers.  He didn't direct it).  He makes himself seem like a descendant of the movie brats of the 70's whose auteur aspirations were able to flourish in a desperate studio system.  But he never actually compares himself to one of them, does he?  Yup, he does.  Favreau has described Iron Man as "a kind of independent film-espionage thriller crossbreed; a Robert Altman-directed Superman, with shades of Tom Clancy novels, James Bond films, Robocop, and Batman Begins."  You know, because of the low-budget, multiple protagonist super hero story which is a biting satire of violence in the media yet grounded in gritty reality.  It's one thing to be inspired, but when you publicly declare your film to be one thing and it's clearly something else, it's equivalent to slapping a blank canvas on a wall and calling it art.  The Incredible Hulk director Louis Leterrier, on the other hand, takes what he learned from The Transporter 2 (not necessarily defending that film) and applies them to the Hulk: people love well choreographed fight scenes.  No claims about his Friedkinesque style coming from his mouth.

   5. Superior Performances - The one thing I will readily admit is that Edward Norton can't hold a candle to Robert Downey Jr.'s Tony Stark.  Downey is flawless, hilarious, arrogant, and yet so damn cool.  Norton carries a certain aura with him where people will automatically like him no matter what role he plays, but Downey stands head and shoulders above.  He needs to, because the supporting cast for Iron Man is so damn boring.  The film boasts Oscar-winning Gwyneth Paltrow and Oscar-nominated Jeff Bridges yet both manage to coast through the film as though they're bored, hung over, or both.  Paltrow, even during scenes of duress, seems to be only half-trying and you're never sure if Bridges is brooding or ready to fall asleep.  On the Hulk side we have Liv Tyler's sympathetic and heart-warming turn as Norton's love interest and the cold-hearted, ruthless portrayal of Emil Blonsky by Tim Roth.  No one is either of these films is going to win an award, but in the case of Iron Man they seemed to build a story around a character, essentially making the film pander to Robert Downey Jr.

Pardon my lack of pictures and other visual flair.  As I said, I'm a beginner here so I'm just learning the ropes but as time goes by I'm sure I'll find my legs.  That is, as long as you keep reading and/or don't hate me already. 

Jim is an Associate Producer and Film Blogger for Zoom In Online and the direct link to his blog can be found here. Scroll a little down the page to read his Hulk review.

]]> no@spam.com (Jim Rohner) Thu, 19 Jun 2008 00:00:00 EDT http://chud.com/articles/blogs/706/Five-Reasons-Why-039The-Incredible-Hulk039-is-Better-Than-039Iron-Man039.html