I went a few weeks ago to see Iron Man and I was blown away. I don’t pretend to know too much about the latest technology but they advertise they are the first in the world to incorporate all Digital Cinema and THX technology. I guess that’s pretty good shit. At least it made my seat thump.

They also had a sound proof “crying room” for parent’s to take their kids if they got too noisy

We hit our first problems with the cinema however on Sunday. I had purchased Balcony tickets for Indiana Jones the Thursday before and we showed up on Sunday to see the movie only to be told that you could not order tickets for the balcony online and all seats were sold out. I told them the money was taken out of my bank account and they said I would need a bank statement to prove it.

I was pissed.

They gave me complimentary tickets to another showing and, to work around my wife’s work schedule, we chose to go tonight. I took in the bank printout and showed them the money was paid and they set it up to refund the payment. We’ll see how that turns out.

Then we went into the balcony.

Holy shit.

We ate at a restaurant in the balcony, which was reasonably priced before the movie started and then were shown to our seats. In the balcony, you get assigned seats so, no matter what time you arrive, you know where you are sitting.

The seats were freaking huge. The guy who showed us to our seats explained how to turn the heaters up in the individual chairs, which the wife loved. There was also a call button on the seats to call a waiter who would bring drinks from a full service bar or food from the restaurant.

There was a table in between each two seats for the food and a large cup holder and table like area on one of the arm rests. Halfway through, we ordered a small popcorn and refills on our drinks without leaving our seats and missing part of the movie. How cool is that?

I hope I’m not showing that I am too much of an Okie, but damn ...

I’m used to theaters with rude employees, uncomfortable seats, and sticky floors.

I think I'm spoiled.

One of the main inspirations for the character of Indiana Jones is that of Allan Quatermain. This character was the star of a number of adventure novels by author H. Rider Haggard. The first of those novels, King Solomon’s Mines, was released in 1885 and was followed by more than a dozen sequels. That first novel had the distinction of being the first adventure novel to take place in the wilds of Africa. Unfortunately, most kids today only know of Quatermain as the influence behind Indiana Jones or, worse than that, the Sean Connery character in League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.

That should never be the case.

The novel was first adapted into a film in 1937 and remained relatively faithful to the source material. There were also two more recent adaptations of the book, one as a comedy in 1985 starring Sharon Stone and Richard Chamberlain. It was actually followed by a sequel in 1987, but both are simply parodies of the Indiana Jones films. I don’t know what to think of this conundrum, as it would indicate the influential source material was being used as a cheap copy of the movie it influenced to begin with. There was also an adaptation in 2004, made for television, and starring Patrick Swayze. The less said about that, the better.

The version I want to talk about is the 1950 film.

Allan Quatermain was portrayed by Stewart Granger, in a role that should have made him a star. It did help him find a little success as a swashbuckler in the same vein as Errol Flynn, but I would have thought, after this movie, he would have been huge. He plays Quatermain as a mix between Han Solo and Indiana Jones. I know I am using characters created thirty years later to describe the man, but I believe he was the template for many of these later character’s tics and traits.

Quatermain is a hired gun, a scout who takes people out on safaris for payment. The film starts with an astonishing elephant hunt. It would be the first time movie going audiences would see the wild, untamed animals of Africa in Technicolor and it is not disappointing. At times the film seems to be more of a National Geographic special, but that is part of its charm. Following the death of his loyal companion at the tusks of a charging elephant, he decides it might be time to retire from this line of work.

Much like the character of Indiana Jones, Quatermain is not a man who can just go to England and settle down. He does not fit in well with the civilized society of the cities and only feels at home in the wilds of Africa. Surrounded by natives who have accepted him as one of their own, he would prefer to live his life without the constraints of proper etiquette. A woman named Beth and her brother John come to Quatermain and ask him if he will take them into uncharted territory. He refuses, saying he is finished with that business and, besides, a safari is no place for a woman. When Beth offers him 20,000 pounds, he agrees on the spot.

Much like Han Solo, he is a man who will do anything if the price is right. Also like Solo, he has reasons for doing this beyond simple greed. He has a son who goes to a proper boarding school in England and he sends every penny of the money to him to make sure he has a good life. Quatermain is a conflicted hero, only caring about the mission, carrying a sexist attitude for women in general, and possibly a lack of concern for his own well being. However, he is trustworthy, protective and the one person you would want to have by your side when facing a stampede of charging animals. He is Han Solo, or rather, Han Solo is Allan Quatermain.

The sexual dynamic between Quatermain and Beth is classic screwball comedy, reminiscent of Cary Grant and Katherine Hepburn. It is clear it is another template shared by this film and Indiana Jones, especially the scenes in Temple of Doom between Indiana and Willie in the woods, with all the creatures of the night surrounding them. This entire scene seems to be taken directly from King Solomon’s Mines. However, it works so much better in here than in that second Indiana Jones adventure. While Kate Capshaw did nothing but annoy during her scenes in the wild, Deborah Kerr was a perfect balance between panic and confidence. The pairing of Granger and Kerr was just as natural as that between Indiana and Marion in Raiders of the Lost Ark.

The story was simple. Beth needed to find her husband, who had gone in search of King Solomon’s Mines, an almost mythical place where riches beyond your wildest dreams is said to live. However, the story is not concerned with finding Beth’s husband or the diamonds in the mine. This story is only concerned with getting there. We see all the wild animals you could imagine – crocodiles, poisonous snakes, elephants, wild cats, giraffes, zebras, giant spiders, fire ants and a number of other beasts. They face down a stampede, avoid capture by a wild native tribe and eventually find the mines of the title. The time spent in the mines is less than a couple of minutes, and the treasure is left behind. As I said, the final treasure does not matter, and that is the biggest difference between this and the Steven Spielberg films where the treasure might be a macguffin, but it is still the number one concern for Indy at the end of the day.

It is not a movie to watch if you want a cerebral excursion into the world of storytelling. However it is a great “Boy’s Adventure” tale and includes all the pratfalls and excitement you would get in the later Indiana Jones films. It is not up the level of those films, this was an early simpler time, but it is a great film to watch to see the progression that the genre took, leading us to that great treasure hunt that began our love affair with Dr. Jones.

Did I mention Allan Quatermain had a pet monkey?

I do a lot of bitching to people about how Oklahoma is not really conducive to the creative development of its artists.

I am not only talking about filmmakers, such as myself. I am talking about musicians as well. For many years I have worked with great local bands who seem to never get the kind of turnouts they deserve when they put on concerts. I used to think the venues were to blame, but the more I thought about it, I realized it was not so much the venue owners as it was the fan base not really wanting to take the time to leave their homes to support their local talent.

Then these same fans wonder why their favorite bands break up or leave the state.

I live in a college town. We had a big music festival a few weeks ago, the biggest I can recall around here. It had over thirty great bands playing in five venues in one day, all within three blocks of each other. Two large stages sat at each end of Main Street, blockaded off for the day. A public theater (Sooner Theatre) was another venue. An art museum and the patio of a smaller art house staged the other two venues.

For the first time in ages, I was proud of the music scene here. People showed up and supported the bands and it was an overwhelming success. I covered the show as a journalist and got some great video interviews with some of the bands that I will be posting soon as Starving Dogs Productions prepares the re-launch of its podcast, The Starving Dog Show (shameless plug!!!).

When we had the comments on the articles, I took offense to a guy who claimed that since I was from Oklahoma, I obviously was not as knowledgeable about film history as someone who lived on the coast. Well, other than the fact that that poster had to be an complete idiot, I thought about what made people think that if you don’t live in California, you don’t have the qualifications to discuss film academically.

At my alma-mater, the faculty included an Academy Award winning producer (Gray Frederickson for The Godfather II). When he came back to Oklahoma and began to teach here, did he no longer qualify as someone who is knowledgeable of the film business? I mean, he taught me and I guess I’m not qualified. I also had a professor who is considered an expert on the life and work of Bela Lugosi (Gary Don Rhodes). Of course, living in Oklahoma, I guess he was not qualified to produce and direct the documentary Banned in Oklahoma, which appeared on the Criterion release of The Tin Drum. Add to this list Fritz Kiersch (director of Children of the Corn), Andrew Horton (film scholar and author of numerous academic film studies), actor Darryl Cox (Arlington Road, JFK), and James Ragan (esteemed author and poet, and the former head of the USC professional writing program), and I would argue that living in Oklahoma does not diminish someone’s film knowledge when it comes to the history of the medium.

I have done quite a lot of complaining about the stores here in Norman. I was anti-Borders for a while and have complained about Hastings continued redesigns. However, with those as the only two retailers in Norman who actually caters to classic and foreign film fans, I feel a need to apologize for everything I have said against them. I went back to my home town to have dinner with my family a couple of weeks ago and chose to visit the Hastings in that town. I figured since Yukon, Oklahoma had grown so much since I left (with Garth Brooks and everything), the “Entertainment Superstore” should be pretty decent and I have been looking for a certain Criterion DVD for a couple of months now.

I will never complain about the Hastings in Norman again.

All the foreign films were cluttered into a corner of an aisle, not alphabetized and with very little to choose from. My wife was looking for a book and had to pass many rows of Christian and self help books to find their small selection of fiction novels. I will never bitch about Norman again because I think, viewing a town such as the one I grew up in, I understand why there are so many people on the coasts who are ignorant about the Midwest.

Just because I live in the same part of the country as the majority of this nation’s hillbilly population, does not mean that I am one of them.

I also don’t feel any need to move to California. I want to make small films and the ability to make those films is a thousand times easier here than it would be for me in California. California is about making movies, and I could never afford to make my movies there. People here, especially in a college town like Norman, are willing to help me make these dreams a reality. The greed of “what will you do for me” does not exist here on the level it does in LA, and I believe it is an easier process to make films here.

California may have more people who want to make movies, but I don’t consider that a good thing. I would rather be a big fish in a little pond than a floundering fish lost in a giant pond of piranhas.

When speaking about Lawrence of Arabia, it is impossible not to talk about “that shot.” Of course, that shot being the extreme long shot as Sherif Ali (Omar Sharif) makes his first appearance riding out of the mirage and instantly becoming one of the greatest shots in cinema history. Any film student will be shown this immaculate scene in their introduction to film classes and for good reason. In one shot you get the instant feel of what this film represents, both in scope and theme. You can barely make out the figure of Sherif in the distance until his figure grows as he nears the camera in much the way the character of Lawrence also grows in magnitude. He starts out as a small, insignificant man who eventually becomes a figure larger than even he can match up to.

The film begins with the death of T.E. Lawrence in a simple motorcycle accident. We see his funeral at St. Paul’s Cathedral, where his bust remains today facing the sarcophagus of Lord Nelson. Men leave the Cathedral talking about the legend that was T.E. Lawrence. A reporter scurries around the crowd asking questions about Lawrence, but aside from the fact that he was a great individual, no one really knew much about the man. Then he finds war correspondent Jackson Bentley and gets a generic quote before moving on. However, after he leaves, Bentley gives the more accurate description of the man of the hour.

“He was a poet, a scholar and a mighty warrior. He was also the most shameless exhibitionist since Barnum and Bailey”

When we meet T.E. Lawrence, he was none of these things. He did show off some of the sadist tendencies that would later surface in his character, but at the start he was simply offsetting, strange and a little off. He was a stumbling, bumbling man, unsure of himself, with a reluctance to be anywhere he was expected to be. I don’t believe he was cocky or arrogant. The script shows him early as he haphazardly salutes a commanding officer, but when he is asked if he is being insubordinate, he says that is just his “manners”. When asked if he is half witted, he says he wonders that himself sometimes. What he turns out to be is someone who does not feel comfortable in the skin that he is forced to wear and someone who would rather leave his life behind for the world of great adventures.

I question if this movie would have carried the pomp and flair that it does if anyone other than Peter O’Toole were cast in the lead role. It is said David Lean originally wanted Albert Finney for the title role and Alec Guinness, a great admirer of T.E. Lawrence, wanted desperately to play the lead role as well. However, everything worked out in the end and O’Toole turned in a performance that surely could not have been matched by any other man. Showing an effeminate side that made Lawrence a very different sort of hero, he maintained a pained demeanor that showed the conflict buried deep within his psyche.

He is surrounded by a cast that was picture perfect in their portrayals of the archetypes in Lawrence’s quest. While Guinness was deemed too old to portray Lawrence, he was cast as the Prince Feisal, the Arab leader that Lawrence would help in his battles with the Turks. Claude Rains was cast to play the skeptical Mr. Drydan, the man who would send Lawrence to observe the Arabs during this war. His character, in a very minor role, would grow from a skeptical man into a person with great devotion and loyalty to Lawrence. Anthony Quinn plays Auda abu Tayi, the leader of the Howeitat tribe who were fighting their own battles against Prince Feisal’s men. Omar Sharif turned in a spectacular portrayal as Sherif Ali, a character who begins the story as a nemesis to our hero but finishes the story as his closest confidant, a man who knew more about Lawrence than anyone else in the world.

I left one actor out, and that man is the character that connects Lawrence to the world. The war correspondent Bentley, portrayed by Arthur Kennedy, served many purposes. He was the man who would take the individual of T.E. Lawrence and turn him into a hero. It is a role familiar in popular culture today, the press seeming more responsible for creating heroes and villains than the individuals themselves. Bentley made Lawrence a hero to the world and made him appear as a savior in the eyes of the men surrounding Lawrence. By the end, he is the man who voices what the viewers were surely thinking; noting Lawrence had become an animal.

I can not discount the music and cinematography in telling this great story. The music is of an epic scale, conducted by Maurice Jarre who won three Oscars, all for David Lean pictures (The Bridge on the River Kwai, Doctor Zhivago and Lawrence of Arabia). When looking at the various devises Steven Spielberg pulled from this film, you only need look at the music as it lends a pomp and circumstance to the dynamic visuals provided by F.A. Young. Raiders of the Lost Ark, in its greatest moments, shares these moments where you see outlandish set pieces while over-the-top music tells you it is a heroic moment. It is a dynamic combination of perfect music with perfect visuals that produces a setting that would allow any character to look like a hero.

The film is about the rise and fall of a man who was viewed by many as a savior. Early in the film, someone mentions that Lawrence is acting like Moses, leading “his people” across the deserts. The Arabs mention their belief that things happen “as it is written.” They also decide that Lawrence’s tale might be written by the man himself. It is at this point he is lifted above mere mortal status and is seen as an almost Christ-like figure as he leads the men, who follow and worship him as he leads them into victory after victory. He is rewarded by the Arab soldiers with the white silk robes of honorable men. After one victory, as they derail and rob and loot a train, he prances along the top of the train, flaunting his robed figure for both the photographer Bentley and for the men who continue to chant his name. He has stepped over the line of soldier and has embraced his role as savior.

In this role as savior, early in their desert journey he ignores common sense and returns to save a man lost in the desert, risking his own life to do so. When he is told “it was written”, he tells Sherif that nothing is written and proves his point by saving the man. Later in the story, the man he saved kills a member of a rival tribe and almost starts a civil war between the forces Lawrence rallied together. In order to keep the warring tribes from battling each other, he chooses to execute that same man. The argument remains, was it written and only postponed or did Lawrence himself rewrite it? It is once again the question of whether he is a savior or simply a man. He continued to grow in stature and ego until the end of his hero’s journey, where he found himself no longer accepted by either the Arabs or British. He heroically led the men into battle and came out victorious in the end. However, when there is no longer a battle to fight, there is no longer a need for a savior. When Lawrence stands in a jeep as Arabs walk towards him at the end, they remain silent, no longer chanting his name, and he realizes he is no longer a savior among men and is once again just a man of a forgotten time.

It is here that I think back to the beginning. Lawrence died alone. He did not die in a great battle on a field of war with men surrounding him, looking up to him and almost worshipping the ground he walked on. He died a lonely man, no longer accepted or needed. Yet, following his death the stories grew in stature. Was he an egotistical showman? Those who were close to him knew this to be true. Yet for the rest of the world, the people who only knew him by a single hand shake or even more importantly the people who only knew him by the sensational stories and pictures in the newspapers, he was a legend. He was not the showman that was worshipped by the men who stood at his feet. He was a magnificent and heroic man who single handedly led an army to victory. He was not T.E. Lawrence, he was Lawrence of Arabia.

The film business is not like a normal business.

If I work at the local Taco Bell and go psycho and act like I’m better than everyone else, I will get my ass fired. Soon, it will be hard for me to get another job because people talk. The word will get out.

In the world of blockbuster films, someone like Ed Norton can go prima donna on the set of American History X and, regardless of who is right or who is wrong, he will be the one who most people take the side of. Who the hell is Tony Kaye anyway? When he does it again on The Incredible Hulk, he is painted in an even darker light, more people may turn on him, but he will get work because he is a damn great actor. When you are great, you can be a prima donna asshole.

However, people who are very much NOT GREAT, pull that shit too.

A guy I know made a movie a few years ago. He needed a major star to help sell the movie and, thanks to a friend, he was able to sign Gary Busey. Busey proved to be much trouble. He demanded that if he came to Oklahoma to film his scenes he would require first class airfare for him and his girlfriend. He demanded the best room in the best hotel in the city for him and his girlfriend. He demanded limo service, on call, for anywhere he or his girlfriend wanted to go while they were here. The budget for this movie was under $100,000. The production crew ended up flying all necessary personnel to California to shoot the scenes with Busey in a bar similar to the one they were using in OKC. They saved money moving all their crew, actors and equipment to California instead of flying one actor, with his girlfriend, to Oklahoma to shoot his scenes.

Once on set, Busey pulled some of the shit he is known for. Old timers like Busey and Donald Sutherland use a technique they have almost perfected where they can almost guarantee their shots will all be close-ups. See, when the camera is in a master shot or 2-shot they will do something to disrupt the take in such a way that will be impossible to fix in editing. Then on their close-up, they would knock it out of the ballpark. Busey was in a scene with an actress where they were sitting at a table and talking. He then proceeded to purposively knock the ash tray over while delivering his dialogue. The actress, an unknown from Oklahoma, caught the ashtray, never skipped a beat and delivered her line. They used that shot, despite Busey’s actions.

Busey would also disappear for long periods of time while he was supposed to be on set and then when he returned would be bouncing off walls. Wonder what he was doing? Regardless, his name helped sell the movie and make a profit.

Now, let’s go to an even smaller scale: short films and student films.

These filmmakers are at the greatest disadvantage. They can’t say anything about horrible actors or actresses because the talent pool is so small, that when they find one, they don’t want to alienate all the other actors that they know.

A personal story.

An performer is hired to act in one of my movies. They come off well in the casting call and did well in the read through. On the second day of shooting, they decided they didn’t like their co-stars. I assumed things will go on as planned, professionalism and all that. We finished the shoot and, by the end, the two leads HATED each other. Fine, we were done and only two problems occurred during the shoot.

1. The performer showed up one day when we had the set ready to go, having read the script and gone over everything in detail, and tells me they are not willing to do the shot the way we discussed. It was the day of the shoot. I discussed with the producer the ramifications of firing this person on the spot, but we would have lots of footage to reshoot and would need to find a new lead and it might cripple the shoot. We changed it to satisfy this person. When I was watching the final season of Project Greenlight, I saw Krista Allen pull the same shit. I could relate.

2. We were preparing to shoot a scene from the movie and the performer brought another person to the set with them. This person sat there and pretty much ripped on my camera work and style the entire shoot. The person was asked by my producer to leave but refused and it was a public place, so we were handcuffed. I had to listen to this asshole critique the entire shoot.

Another problem after the shoot.

It was time to do the voice over’s. There was one voice over to be placed over a montage, the kind of voice over that would almost be like telling a story. The performer REFUSED to read it the way it was wrote, told me it was not good writing because they (them – not the character they were playing) would not talk like that. They then turned in a voice over that sucked the energy right out of the film at that point. I had given up on trying to reason with this person. I wanted them gone and I never wanted to see them again.

I should have fired this person after the first slip up.

Now that person is in Los Angeles. They are, I am sure, at the hands of people who will keep them under control. I don’t think this person will make it very far, though. You notice I don’t mention whether or not they are a male or female. See, that is my problem here. I am at the bottom of the food chain. I cannot afford to burn bridges. They know I am talking about them, but I won’t use names, movie titles or anything else that would hurt their career opportunities. It could turn around and burn me.

This can be a very frustrating business sometimes.

I can understand prima donnas in the upper echelon of the film business, but what the hell gives B-listers, and even worse yet, student actors just starting out the balls to think they can act like they are better than the picture.

NO ONE is above the movie itself.

Not even an Ed Norton.

I have finally met "those people."

While working at the casino I bartend at last night, I was dumbstruck as I listened to the two older couples (mid to late 40’s) sitting at the bar talking. I had Raiders of the Lost Ark playing on the TV over the bar and they were intently watching the movie. One of the guys got up and went over and started up the juke box. I got to hear two country songs, a couple of ZZ Top songs and then a Nickelback song. Then they began to talk about movies.
 
I Am Legend – “The biggest piece of crap I have ever seen. It was just horrible.”

Catwoman – “I don’t understand why more people don’t like it. It is OUR FAVORITE MOVIE EVER. She was just a fantastic actress in the movie and it is just a GREAT MOVIE.”

Entrapment – “I love that movie with Sean Connery and Catherine Zeta Jones. It is just really cool with the lasers and all that. It was one of the first HD DVDs we bought.”

They then moved back over to the juke box and played Nickelback again.

I finally met the people that Meet the Spartans was produced for. If I was a gambling man, I would bet they own Catwoman in full screen so they can see the full picture and not have the tops and bottoms cut off.

On a completely different note, if you have not seen The Fire Within by Louis Malle, you need to go get it and watch it right now. It is a fantastic film. Just amazing.

An update to my Top Movies of 2008. Remember, I only list movies I have personally seen and there are only 4 so far. I got lots of catching up to do, as I have been devoting my time to classic Film Noir and French New Wave films lately, ignoring much of the recent output. The Ruins was originally listed above Harold and Kumar, but the more I think about it, the less I like the ending and that just hurts it in my eyes. Harold and Kumar gets bonus points for the Neil Patrick Harris bordello scene.

1.  Iron Man
2.  Street Kings
3.  Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay
4.  The Ruins

Tomorrow is the opening of Iron Man. I am pretty damn excited for this movie. From the news of Jon Favreau directing the film, to the FANTASTIC choice of Robert Downey Jr. to play Tony Stark to the solid casting of Terrence Howard and Jeff Daniels all the way to the really good trailers, I am very, very excited to see this movie. That unfortunately may cause me to go in with expectations too high and hurt my enjoyment for the film (it happened with my first viewing of There Will be Blood). I am more excited about this movie than about Indiana Jones, and that is saying a lot. I still want to see The Dark Knight more, but seeing Iron Man this weekend is giving me the same feelings I got when Spider Man hit theaters.

I often ponder the differences between the Internet and the real world. With the deletion of the Comment Section for awhile, I was thinking about how people on those boards liked to personally attack writers. Whether calling Devin fat and ugly or making fun of Owen’s writing skills, they say things on those comments that would probably get them knocked the fuck out for saying in person. I also question the intelligence of many of these posters on other websites. Whether they insult the writers on sites like Sportsline for their “writing skills,” make racial comments towards people like Mike Freeman, or insult the size of Harry Knolls waste, I have never heard anyone in the real world have the balls to make these sorts of insulting comments. Actually, I have. I worked in a little redneck bar for awhile and had many seemingly illiterate country bumpkins come in and seemingly have no filter between their brains and mouth. More fights broke out because the trailer trash just did not know when to shut the fuck up. Maybe these talk back commentators prove that the Internet has finally reached the backwoods.

I have really enjoyed the You Got it All Wrong columns a few of the site’s select writers have been invited to participate in. This is an area where I read the comment section and thought that everyone was ignorant to the actual purpose of these columns. Then I went to the message board and realized that there are people who do understand that these columns, while geared towards getting an actual reaction, are actually a great way to start conversation on a specific film. If you disagree that Silence of the Lambs is overblown, you have a chance to debate this topic. No one on this site is telling you that a movie sucks and that statement is fact. They are giving you two sides of the debate and setting up a chance to discuss whether you agree or disagree. This website is built for people who know their shit and that should be the perfect environment for discussion. If you disagree with one of the selections (and there is one writer in each of the columns that disagrees as well), I thought this was the perfect website to start that debate. Once again, it’s the difference between an intelligent reader and mere mouth breathers.

What the fuck is Wesley Snipes getting three years in prison for? How can Vince Neil kill someone and get 20 days in jail but Snipes gets busted for tax evasion and gets three years?

I am not as happy as everyone else that Guillermo del Toro was signed to make The Hobbit. Now, the movies will kick all kinds of ass and will probably finally get del Toro the Oscar he deserves, but I hate the fact that it will take him out of commission for up to three or four years. Sam Raimi has not made a non Spider Man movie since 2000. Peter Jackson went from Lord of the Rings to an overblown King Kong. I recently read a Andy Serkis interview that said The Lovely Bones was even going to be a big budget affair. I would hate to see del Toro make The Hobbit and then not be able (or willing) to make his more personal movies like The Devil’s Backbone and Pan’s Labyrinth. He has stated he wanted to make a third movie in the vein of those two and I don’t know if we’ll see it now. If so, it won’t be for at least five years. Congratulations to del Toro. I’ll miss him.

Hey, look it's a blog.

So, how many times have I tried to start something to get me going regular like here in the blogs only to have them fail? Well, I tried a news wrap up and decided that no one cared. So, then I started reviewing classic masterpieces and then stopped. I really want to do that, but it requires determination and I procrastinate more than I determinate. Or something ...

There will be more whenever I get the urge.

What can I talk about that is interesting? How about my favorite thing in the world - incoherent ramblings?

I think I'll just talk about whatever shit is in my mind. That's actually what a blog is all about right? If I do this every day, it will last like three days. Tops. How about if I do it weekly? Then every once in awhile throw in one of the classic reviews? Cool?

Sounds good to me, at least.

You may have noticed in this week’s Special Edition I talked a bit about an independent flick called Attitude for Destruction. There is a reason for that, you know. I emailed a few independent filmmakers who had films coming out this week to see if they had anything to say about their movie. I do that, you know. I don't just click on Amazon and randomly slip in titles, I actually do research sometimes. Well, out of all the three filmmakers I emailed, Ford Austin, the director of Attitude emailed me back. He also gave me lots of info about his movie. I like that, someone who wants to talk about his flick. The other two filmmakers got their movies stuck in the "other DVDs" column. Austin got his highlighted in my column. I hold the power, bitches. Other directors who have received my special treatment include Rick Walker (The Fun House) and Brett A. Hart (Bone Dry). If you want me to talk about your flick, talk to me. It's called free publicity.

I am finishing my latest movie - and it's a zombie movie. I know that everyone says that the zombie genre is getting a little too much right now because everyone and his mother is putting out a zombie movie. I don't give a shit. I planned this short early last year (2007) and we are now finishing it. It is a religious zombie satire that compares being a brainless zombie to being a brainless follower. It also borrows heavily from a book called The Bible (you might have heard of it). I also got some cool zombie makeup work done for me by a guy who knows his shit. Don't rip on me because I am making "another zombie movie." I make movies that I feel I want to make and I really don't care what anyone else is making. Anyone who makes movies based on what other people want are not making movies that are important to them. They suck. And they are more successful than me because they are willing to sell out. Fuck them. I had it in my heart to make a zombie Jesus movie and that is all that fucking matters.

No Country for Old Men was fantastic. In other news, it is cold in the Antarctic. I think the reason I liked the movie so much was the lack of music. It made it really unique and showed a lot of balls by the brother's Coen because without music, the actors and setups really had to sell it and they did so spectacularly. I also think it was a better film than There Will be Blood. I will also take this time to say that my opinion of There Will Be Blood has changed somewhat. After my initial viewing, I said that I did not know if I personally liked it. I said it was brilliant, but still ... I have changed my mind and think it is brilliant and great. I am one of those assholes that changed their minds about the film. Sue me.

There are some filmmakers here in Oklahoma who tried to use viral marketing to advertise their religious based horror thriller and they got investigated by the FBI for it. In their initial trailer, they warned the citizens of Muskogee that something was coming, but never mentioned it was a movie. They had planned a series of these small vignettes that would lead to the reveal that it was a movie. Well, citizens of Muskogee freaked, the police compared it to a kid making a prank 9-11 call and then the FBI began to investigate in case it was a terrorist threat. Then The Bare Bones Film Festival booted their film out of the competition. Then some yokel told the news these guys needed to be punished for scaring her. I hope to be interviewing these guys in the near future to get their thoughts on the entire situation. Oklahoma Rules!

I'll be posting my top movies from 2008 as the year goes on.  SO far this year, I have seen one new (2008) movie, so here is my list for the Best of 2008 as seen by me!

1. The Ruins

Yeah, that was easy.

I’ve really got a problem with some television commercials that have been airing lately. I’ll just talk about the one that I saw most recently. It is showing both on TV (I saw it tonight during American Idol) as well as before movies in theaters (I saw it before There Will be Blood). It is for the Visa Check Card.

The set up is pretty simple. A couple is standing in line buying their movie tickets. They notice that their movie is going to start in only a few minutes and the theater suddenly becomes a mad house. Everyone is racing around trying to get to the theater in time to not miss a moment. Everyone is going through the concession line and swiping their card and running to the movie. The couple reaches the line and the man looks for cash and can’t find any. The problem, the commercial says, is that he is now slowing everything down. His wife whips out her Visa check card and swipes it and the two race off, making their movie in time.

What the commercial does not show is that the woman stole the Visa check card from someone who left their purse sitting on the table in her cafeteria at work while getting a refill. Then she used this woman’s check card to make numerous purchases, destroying her credit and damaging her name. Thank God, these commercials show that as long as you use the Visa check card things run so smoothly and quickly that no one bothers to ask for an ID. That is what the commercials show – use the Visa check card so life won’t slow you down.

Ever since the first one I saw a while back, the entire purpose is that if you use the Visa check card everything moves quick. No one checks an ID, because that would defeat the purpose of the commercial.

Last December, someone broke into the storage room behind my condo and stole my wife’s old checkbooks. She had two accounts before we married and the person who stole them also stole her old driver’s license. I learned my lesson and now use a public storage facility with a big ass lock on the door. Lesson was learned too late because the person who stole the checks and driver’s license went out and wrote close to $1000 worth of checks and the people never even took the time to see that it was not her picture on the ID. We went to the tag agency and changed her license number, put a fraud alert on her credit report and reported all the checks we began to receive to the local police. Lucky, I am pretty anal about checking our account balances every morning and caught it when the first check came through. We think we have everything under control as the check collection agencies have agreed that it was fraud. I am not sure it will ever be completely over as I saw a news story about how these agencies sell their bad accounts and people will get collection notices years down the line. At least we know for now that no check has been written since late December and we did not lose any money out of pocket. Only bad thing is the thief was never caught.

To say that someone can write a check using someone else’s ID at places like Homeland, Del Rancho and Wal Mart’s gas station is bad enough. To realize that these Visa check card commercials are actually pretty accurate is another thing. Think about it. How many times are you asked to show your ID when you use a credit or debit card at Wal Mart? At the movie theater? At the local pub? Recently I have implemented a personal policy. At the bar I work at I ID everyone to drink. It is the law and I won’t lose my job because someone thinks they look over 30. After making their drinks, if they hand me a credit card, I ask to see the ID again and compare the names on the card. It annoys some people, but fuck them. I explain that my wife was recently a victim of identity theft and ask if they would be so annoyed if someone stole their credit card and I did not check their ID. That usually shuts them up. But, then again, others are just stupid bitches who don’t think it will ever happen to them.

I just feel that these commercials are very irresponsible. They preach that it is better to move fast and get in and out as quick as possible then to be safe. Maybe they don’t see it that way, but that is the way I saw it even before it happened to us. The ad campaign is flawed and needs to be changed. It almost plays as a how to for identity thieves and that just really pisses me off.