BUY FROM AMAZON: CLICK HERE!
STUDIO: Oscilloscope
MSRP: $29.99
RATED: Not Rated
RUNNING TIME: 80 minutes
SPECIAL FEATURES:
• Crafting a Character
• “Thursday” music video
• Flutter – short film

The Pitch

It’s like an early David Gordon Green movie but without all that pointless action and character development.


The Humans

Starring Zoe Kazan, Mark Rendall
Written and directed by Brad Rust Gray


The Nutshell

Ivy (Kazan) goes back home to NYC for spring break during her first year at college, during which she spends her time on the phone either with the guy, Greg, that she’s been seeing or on the phone trying to call him or holding her phone waiting for him to call.  It’s over the course of this week that she spends time with her best friend, Al (Rendall), who is staying with her and her mom, sleeping on their couch.  When she’s about to head back to school, she realizes her feelings for one of the guys in her life is stronger than the other.

“So, like, ohmigod…”

The Lowdown

The Exploding Girl works better as an 80-minute business card for Zoe Kazan than as a film that can stand alone on its own two feet.  Nearly every single frame of the movie contains Kazan’s Ivy and she fills it well enough; I believed the entire time that she was a slightly awkward college student going through that tough period in between being a teenager living at home and adulthood — that up-and-down, 10-year span known as your Twenties.  While the movie’s focus on Kazan gives her the opportunity to shine, it also does her a disservice by not giving her remotely enough to do with all that face time.

Don’t get me wrong: I’m a fan of minimalist cinema.  Many movies that I love – All The Real Girls and The Station Agent, for example – don’t have anything close to a complex plot.  In fact, after having seen them, it’s easier to recall feelings than responding to someone when you recommend the flick as they inevitably ask: “What’s it about?”  For those asking that about The Exploding Girl, I’d have a simple answer that both explains what the movie is about and also says nothing at all at the same time.  If I were being kind, I’d say it’s about that first “real” relationship.  And if I weren’t, I’d say it’s about a girl who sleeps a lot when she’s not talking on a cell phone.

“And then, like, y’know…”

In rare circumstances, one-sided conversations taking place on a cell phone can be captivating.  Hell, Phone Booth attempts to make the entire film about that very concept.  But for the most part, when you see a character just talking on the phone, not doing anything else, it’s lifeless.  It’s boring.  It’s not cinema.  And that’s precisely what Ivy does for an overwhelming majority of The Exploding Girl.  She’s either leaving her out-of-town boyfriend, Greg, voicemails or calling him and then hanging up when it goes to voicemail, occasionally even talking to her boyfriend on the phone, or talking to her best friend on the phone who is staying at her own house so you’d think she’d be able to at least have some face-to-face conversations with him more often than not.  But, no.  There are a number of scenes where Ivy actually interacts in real-life with people, but they feel like they’re in the minority.

Writer/director Bradley Rust Gray’s (a man who was born with the perfect name for self-important cinema) script couldn’t have weighed much in the actors’ hands when studying their lines during rehearsal. For this to feel like nothing happens while being in a genre of movies where you don’t expect a whole lot to happen, you know that there just ain’t much going on.  And, again, while I love stories with small yet powerful character arcs, Ivy’s growth feels both obvious and underdeveloped all at once.  From the get-go, we know that she’s going to realize that she loves her best friend and that she’s going to break up with her on-the-rocks boyfriend; the point of the movie is to find out how. 

And that’s what the movie fails to do: show us anything interesting during Ivy’s spring break at home from college.  We see her napping.  We see her eating soup.  We see her on the phone or playing with her cell phone in countless venues.  We see her walking.  We see her hanging out with Al, but more often than not, ditching him to just be alone, waiting to talk to Greg on the phone, who, based on the amount of excitement in his voice, has clearly checked out a long time ago — if he’d ever even had any serious feelings for Ivy in the first place.  The burden of these types of movies is to externalize an internal struggle as much as possible — but, when the character just broods, with probably a mountain of emotion going on underneath her skin, we can only infer – not experience – and that doesn’t make for compelling cinema.

“Wait. No.  NO!  She said what!?”

Character studies work best when putting someone in a tough situation and seeing how they handle it.  Rust Gray gets the first part right by putting Ivy into one — it’s easy for those of us older to look back at our naivete when we were in that position with hindsight, but the reality is that your first adult relationship is a big deal — unfortunately, for some reason, he never forces her to make any decisions on her own behalf.  Other people decide for her on everything: when she’s sick, Al tells her she needs soup and makes it for her; when she wants to talk to Greg, she has to wait for him to call her back or just hope that he answers her; when Al asks her straight-up if she likes him, she literally doesn’t respond.  And Rust Gray lets her off the hook!  He cuts to the next scene before she gives him an answer.  I suppose maybe it was to leave us hanging?  But, c’mon: this isn’t some mystery or suspense flick.  We’re not eagerly anticipating her answer wondering what she’s going to say.  We want to see how it transpires. We want to see that scene — at least, I did.  It was what had been set up the whole movie up until that point.  So instead of it coming across like a cliffhanger, it only feels like another instance where Ivy needed to take an active role in her own life only to get bailed out by some higher power and in the process, we the audience loses out on some entertaining drama.

There are some lessons that we all need to learn by doing — the experience alone is the only way that it’ll stick in those stubborn brains of ours regardless of how many people try to teach us by telling us their horror stories.  Ivy needs to go through this one on her own; instead it feels like Rust Gray loves his own character too much – like an overprotective parent – to put her through any undue harm.  It probably felt good for him to see her get through it all in that ideal scenario: she grew up and realized what (who) she really wanted and needed to be with, all without actually going through hell to get to that realization.  It’s basically what we all wish had happened to us when we went through that miserable experience ourselves, only now we know that it had to go that way for us to be where (and who) we are now — hopefully healthier, more mature, and more aware of what we need out of a relationship.  That makes for a relatively hollow fantasy at best, not the deep character study that it wants to be.

“Wait, no… no I mean you cut out there.  Hold on, yeah-yeah.  Let me just walk across- okay cool there, yeah I can hear you again.”

The Package

The film is quite beautiful to watch.  It’s pretty remarkable really that the filmmakers were able to create so many unique and interesting frames that were filled predominantly with just Kazan on the phone.  It was shot on the Red, which continuously proves its worth in taking film-like footage — and even if it has elements of looking digital, it’s beautiful on its own to not look like we’re watching something cheap and inferior.  Unfortunately the movie itself isn’t quite up to par with the quality of the image, made even more apparent in the ridiculously pretentious behind-the-scenes featurette with Rust Gray and Kazan talking ever-so deeply about their technique and method, coming off so self-indulgent and overly important.  Watching this after the film confirmed my initials feelings about the movie — they clearly thought they were making something much more moving than what actually transpired on screen.

“Toilet flushing? No, I mean, I’m outside so that’s impossible.  Must be the wind or something.”

Kenny Johnson’s had the fortune of being involved in two massively successful and important shows on the FX Network in The Shield and Sons of Anarchy. After his turn as Lemansky truly opened eyes to his skill and his character’s fate served as THE pivotal moment in that show’s run he’s been appearing in a variety of roles before landing on Shield alum Kurt Sutter’s biker show. As Kozik, it appears Johnson may be hunkering down for another important run as his character has quickly become a vital man of action for the SAMCRO biker gang. Additionally, his relationship and antagonism with CHUD favorite Kim Coates (whom I poorly doodled while on the phone for this interview) has led to a lot of fun moments over this season. With the finale looming this evening, I was able to have a quick chat with the actor who as it turns out was once ranked in the top ten in the world at his weight class as an arm wrestler.

Nick Nunziata: You’re in a cast with a variety of the most interesting and fun character actors that I’ve personally loved for the past 15, 20 years, just a bunch of great regular guys thrust together.  You get to play a lot of scenes against one of the big boys in Kim Coates.  I wanted to get an idea how you guys achieved that dynamic that you have.  That feels really palpable, the tension between the two of you.  What’s Kim like as a guy offset and how do you guys get that dynamic to work?

Kenny Johnson: Chemistry I think is something that I guess it’s just there.  Again, Kim Coates, his character, is such kind of bold, out there guy.  He’s a Canadian guy.  I married a Canadian.  He’s so brash as a character and so— There’s something about it personally that I thought was going to work for me because I thought, “I want to hate this guy.”  I go, I know so much on this guy that no one else knows and I just want to reveal it all inside of my head and let him know that I knew.  It’s kind of easy to do.  I mean, he’s an amazing actor.  He’s completely in his character when he’s doing Tig.  Off the set, he’s like the nicest guy in the world and it’s hard to not like him.So after the second week, he was such a good guy that I was starting to really work hard to have that angst and that tension against him.  But I’m telling you when he’s in character, he’s like unapologetic and brass and just in your face kind of guy and it triggers me off.  So I just try to play the character as true and genuine as I can the way Kurt writes it.  I think the tension just sort of happens.We definitely get into stuff.  He has a certain style of acting that also helps feed me.  I’m not going to say what it is, but it definitely feeds me and we get into it a little bit.  I’ll pull aside some people and talk about it, so we can get on the same page, but it’s really good.  The tension is just naturally there between us, so I kind of dig that.

Nick Nunziata: It seems like the intensity is a recurring theme for you in terms of the shows that you’re on, at least in these two.  Is the set of Sons of Anarchy a family type atmosphere or is there that machismo that pushes it forward? 

Kenny Johnson: It’s like both, I think.  I have to say the SOA family is so tight and so fun and yet so crazy.  Like you say, all these actors are pretty amazing character actors and they have crazy personalities, a lot of them.  Charlie will just run full speed and tackle somebody like Boone and he’ll knock him on his ass in the middle of the road.  Boone will get up and chase him and everybody kind of challenges each other, but it never gets to— It’s always in love, so it’s very crazy, yet safe in a fun family type of atmosphere in that respect, but not like—you know, family.There are a lot of different biker gangs that are there that are real biker gangs and has all the background and so I found the first week when I was there was really uncomfortable for me because I was in there with the real deal.  I’m not only working with all these great actors that I didn’t know, which was really exciting and neat, but you have to feel your way in.  At the same time, everybody in the background was from a real motorcycle gang or real porn stars or real whatever and they’re all there.  It starts to feel like this is a whole other environment and world that I wasn’t used to.  But then, probably two weeks into it, I felt like I knew these guys all my life and everybody was great. 

Nick Nunziata: Being such a physical actor and having that background that you do, we’re in an era now where people are starting to get back towards the action kind of roles where it’s actually athletic people playing the part.  The everyman thing is kind of going away.  Is there any sort of a passion that you have?  Is there a project or is there a style of movie or show that really fits your dream project motif because you’re young enough to actually do it, which is nice, a nice change of pace, and you sell the physicality of it effectively.  Do you have any aspirations towards finding that role or that kind of genre thing that would be your big franchise? 

Kenny Johnson: I’ve always dreamed of doing something like Thor, the movie Thor, which I think they would give to somebody like Brad Pitt or something, but like a model character would be amazing for me.  That would be like the ultimate— I see like a show coming up called Lights Out that FX is doing about a retired fighter that has to go back to fight.  I don’t really know the storyline, but I think he comes out of retirement to fight.  I’ve been trying to get this movie going about Jerry Quarry that I got approached five years ago to play the part of Jerry Quarry.  That got me into boxing like five years ago.  I think I’ve been really intrigued with the Jerry Quarry movie, which we’re still trying to make happen.I think things to do with— I would love to do the movie about a boxer or a fighter like Lights Out.  I think that interests me a lot.  But if you gave me a part like—obviously if Michael Bay or somebody did Indiana Jones or Spielberg, a part like that would be pretty amazing, but I would say something in that respect. 

As I said HERE, you need to watch the finale tonight on FX. 90 minutes of kickass biker action.

I think everyone knew Jackass 3D was going to be well received, but who would have guessed it would be the most successful of the franchise, and end up grabbing the biggest opening for a documentary ever(or non-scripted, documentary-esque feature, if you prefer), along with landing in the top 10 of all comedy openings? That’s a massive hit for a relatively cheap film that’s the third in the series, a decade into the franchise. The success was so huge that rumors quickly spread that MTV wanted to take the extra footage and pump out a fourth right away! Fortunately that didn’t happen, and they are instead taking the inevitable Jackass 3.5 –the feature-length collection of deleted scenes that follows the pattern of 2.5— and making it into an event, with scenes released on the web weekly, an online distribution of the collected product, and an eventual DVD release.

Dropping in March of next year, “new stunts and antics from JACKASS 3.5 will be released online weekly and then packaged together as a feature length film distributed digitally followed by other platforms including home video.”

You can read the full press release below. Watch out for scenes to hit the web next year, or keep an eye on iTunes or whatever your digital media outlet of choice is for the full release.

 
JACKASS 3.5 Follows the Worldwide Box Office Success of JACKASS 3D with All New Antics from Johnny Knoxville and Crew to Be Released Digitally
 

LOS ANGELES, CA (November 30, 2010) – Paramount Digital Entertainment in association with MTV, both part of Viacom Inc. (NYSE: VIA and VIA.B) announced today that it plans to add another original project to its popular digital programming line-up:  JACKASS 3.5, which will premiere in March 2011.

The third installment of JACKASS from Paramount Pictures and MTV Films – JACKASS 3D – hit theaters on October 15, 2010 and has already grossed over $155 million at the worldwide box office.   The film stars Johnny Knoxville and the boys and was produced by Dickhouse Production’s Jeff Tremaine and Spike Jonze, along with Knoxville. Jackass 3.5, which was tailor-made for launch in digital media, will feature all new content, including never-before-seen stunts, pranks and other side-splitting antics by the JACKASS crew.  New stunts and antics from JACKASS 3.5 will be released online weekly and then packaged together as a feature length film distributed digitally followed by other platforms including home video.

“I don’t want to say that the JACKASS guys invented the Internet, but they were doing viral videos before most people had even heard the term. That distinguished heritage makes JACKASS the perfect franchise for digital,” said Thomas Lesinski, President of Paramount Digital Entertainment. “When the JACKASS guys went to make JACKASS 3D, we proposed that we shoot a follow up to the successful JACKASS 2.5 digital feature alongside it, and everyone was up for it. In JACKASS 3.5, you are going to see an entire movie’s worth of new stunts, new pranks and new gags, on whatever screen you choose.”

“For JACKASS 3D we shot enough footage for two movies so a lot of great stuff didn’t make it in the film. Luckily you will get to see those bits in 3.5. We also shot some additional footage in Europe specifically for 3.5. I have staples in my head right now to prove it. Woo hoo,” said JACKASS co-founder and star Johnny Knoxville.

“It’s been ten years since JACKASS first launched on MTV and there is still more poo, stunts and hilarity to go around on every screen imaginable,” said Van Toffler, President, MTVN Music/Logo/Films Group. “Whenever the JACKASS crew gets together, you know there will be a plethora of valuable fragments of entertainment to satiate their fans, and JACKASS 3.5 will not disappoint as the latest installment in this fine franchise.”

In 2007, Paramount Digital Entertainment & MTV released JACKASS 2.5, the first digital movie released by a studio that quickly became the most successful non-theatrical release in the studio’s history.  In the first few weeks of launch, the digital property garnered over 20 million views and was the #1 title on iTunes the week it launched.

The JACKASS franchise first debuted as an original television series on MTV from 2000 to 2002, launching the careers of Johnny Knoxville, Bam Margera and other now-popular personalities shown performing outrageous stunts and hysterical pranks. Since 2002, three successful JACKASS theatrical films have been produced and released by MTV Films and Paramount Pictures. JACKASS: THE MOVIE grossed more than $64 million in the United States alone, and finished in the Number 1 spot at the box office in its opening weekend. JACKASS NUMBER TWO was released in September 2006 and like its predecessor, topped the box office in its debut weekend, and ultimately earned more than $72 million in cumulative box office revenues.  JACKASS 3D, released this October 2010 dominated the weekend box office opening to $50 million in ticket sales, setting several records such as becoming the biggest opening ever for a non-scripted/documentary-esque film, the 10th highest opening comedy of all-time, notching the record for an October midnight gross with $2.5 million, making it a special event for throngs of moviegoers.

The JACKASS franchise also includes a JACKASS: The Game video game for the PlayStation 2, PlayStation Portable and Nintendo DS. Its numerous DVD releases include JACKASS: VOL. 1, JACKASS: VOL. 2, JACKASS: THE MOVIE, JACKASS: VOL. 3, JACKASS: THE BOX SET, JACKASS NUMBER TWO, JACKASS 2.5, JACKASS WORLD PRESENTS: MATT HOFFMAN’S TRIBUTE TO EVIL KNIEVEL, and JACKASS: THE LOST TAPES.

About Paramount Digital Entertainment

Paramount Digital Entertainment (PDE) is a division of Paramount Pictures Corporation. PDE develops and distributes filmed entertainment across worldwide digital distribution platforms including online, mobile and portable devices, videogames, and emerging technologies.

Paramount Pictures Corporation (PPC), a global producer and distributor of filmed entertainment, is a unit of Viacom (NYSE: VIA, VIA.B), a leading content company with prominent and respected film, television and digital entertainment brands.  The company’s labels include Paramount Pictures, Paramount Vantage, Paramount Classics, MTV Films and Nickelodeon Movies.  PPC operations also include Paramount Digital Entertainment, Paramount Famous Productions, Paramount Home Entertainment, Paramount Pictures International, Paramount Licensing Inc., Paramount Studio Group and Paramount Worldwide Television Distribution.

MTV

MTV is the world’s premier youth entertainment brand.   With a global reach of more than a half-billion households, MTV is the cultural home of the millennial generation, music fans and artists, and a pioneer in creating innovative programming for young people.  MTV reflects and creates pop culture with its Emmy®, Grammy® and Peabody® award-winning content built around compelling storytelling, music discovery and activism across TV, online and mobile.  MTV’s sibling networks MTV2 and mtvU each deliver unparalleled customized content for young males, music fans and college students, and its online hub MTV.com is the leading destination for music, news and pop culture.  MTV is part of MTV Networks, a unit of Viacom (NYSE: VIA, VIA.B), one of the world’s leading creators of programming and content across all media platforms.  For more information, go to www.mtvpress.com.

It would seem fans of the massive hit-anime Evangelion may get the chance to see the action on the big screen, as part 2 of the 4-part Rebuild series has a planned DVD/Blu-ray release on March 29th of next year, to be preceded by a small US theatrical release in January. According to Dark Horizons (by way of ANN) the release will be anywhere from 70 to 100 screens deep, so cross your fingers for a market near you.

Neon Genesis: Evangelion is one of the few animes I’ve watched in its entirety, and one of the very few I’ve enjoyed. I was still new to the genre when I saw it, so I wasn’t as tired of some the standard genre conventions at the time, but even still the series managed to take a standard anime set-up and cram it with an intense amount of unique mythology and mystery. The series is a cultural monolith in Japan, with a multi-media presence in Mangas, video games, merchandising, and even a theme park, while everything centers around the 26 episode series, and the two films. Now the Evangelion “Rebuilds” are retelling the story of the series across four feature length films, with an increasingly divergent plot-line that will bring another new ending to the series, along with tons of new footage (some of which exploits modern CG).

The second of these films was released last year in Japan, following the first film in 2007. While the first  is essentially a beat-for-beat retelling of the first batch of episodes (with some subtle changes), the second film apparently includes more modifications that lead the way towards the totally new ending. The films are supposed to be more accessible for unfamiliar audiences as well. I’ve not seen the first of the rebuilds (or the original series in many years), but there’s a ton of interesting imagery, story, and allusion for those that are willing to brave the genre and enjoy Biblical-scale apocalypse mythos. Keep in mind, this is a franchise WETA did a great deal of pre-visualization on for a huge scale live-action adaptation, which is something that will probably get off of the ground someday. Now might be a good time for the interested to hop into the franchise.

I’ll keep a lookout for the markets the film will show and share them with you, especially since I’d like to catch up and see it myself.

(Previously… Need For Speed: Hot Pursuit)

For years James Bond games have been a teasing bag of mixed emotions, some good others bad. Entries like 1997’s GoldenEye 007 were glorious in how responsive and innovative certain aspects were – in GoldenEye‘s case it was the multiplayer section. And while subsequent games would be generally well-received, there was always the feeling that they could have been better, or more grand. Sure, some would have neat elements, like Everything or Nothing‘s ‘Bond Moments’ which allows the user to complete specific events in a way Bond might, but there would always be something holding them back from being true classics. It was almost as if there was little thought put into some of them, like the studio’s were just pumping them out for cash. They would either feature dumb enemies with bad AI, have annoying aspects that were lame (usually driving moments), or simply be too short (a criticism leveled on more than one Bond game).

So this brings us to the latest 007 game, and the second to feature Daniel Craig. His first, Quantum of Solace, had problems of its own which of course was tied into the gameplay length and mechanics. In terms of the brevity, maybe it has something to do with trying to keep the cinematic feel to the games alive, by keeping the story contained. Regardless, one day it would be great to see a Bond game on the scale of a Grand Theft Auto, where you could get assignments from M at random intervals. But until then we’ll keep getting action games like Blood Stone that try and offer a cinematic experience, in lieu of a new Bond movie.

Veteran Bond writer Bruce Feirstein wrote the plot for Blood Stone, which centers on a missing professor and stolen bio-weapons. As a storyline it’s a well-paced thriller that offers plenty of Bond moments: romance scenes, car chases and plenty of action. But it’s bloody short! All told, the total gameplay seems to be around 4-5 hours, which is incredible in its briskness.

The game begins in Greece during the G20 Summit (all cut scenes). M gets wind of an assassination plot against the world leaders and sends you, as Bond, to investigate Greco. He’s an international terrorist, and you begin the game (and tutorial) on the deck of his yacht. Here the real game opens up and allows you to attack the first guard in any manner you fancy – shoot or grapple him. I found it was more fun to grapple, as the shooting mechanics in this game are on the easy side. There’s a way to lock on without using your powerup special ability, by quickly tapping the left trigger. While it’s a cool thing it makes the gun play a bit too lopsided, as most of the enemies you’ll encounter aren’t nearly as deadly with their aim.

Back to the game: once you’ve initiated a grapple attack a very quick cut scene takes over, showing Bond beating the crap out of the poor chap. So there’s no real manual punching or kicking; those are handled by the cut scene, and while that would normally annoy me in other games (you know, it takes away a certain aspect of the gameplay), in Blood Stone it kind of works. It lends itself well to the “playing a movie” vibe it has going for it, and I found myself using this technique almost exclusively as it offered more of a challenge than simply shooting the enemy.

So the first few minutes takes place on the yacht, but shortly thereafter you find yourself hurtling through the waves on a motorboat. As with the driving later, this is where the only degree of difficulty is encountered. Driving anything in Blood Stone is hard, as they’re not very responsive. The movements are sluggish, which doesn’t lend itself well to a high speed chase. While in the boat a few of Greco’s henchmen will attack you, but you don’t even have to aim to kill them: the game lines your shot up for you, leaving you with nothing to do except press the A button. It’s s cop out to be sure, but due to the difficulty in steering the boat I didn’t care much. And actually, controlling either a boat or a car offered the only time I died during my two hours, which says more about the easy factor of the rest of the product than it does my ability as a stealth gamer.

I quickly made my way through the various levels, including catacombs and a casino, all the while grabbing foes and watching them being pummeled to the ground, or dragged over ledges and thrown out of windows.

It’s a great way to spend two hours.

Developer Bizarre Creations did a good job of capturing the feel of the modern Bond films, and it’s aided by the voice work and model designs. Both Daniel Craig and Judi Dench (M) provide the speech for their respective characters, and the modelling is quite good – although there’s something about Craig’s hair style that bothers me. It’s as if they don’t have it right for some reason, but it’s irrelevant in the end. It’s the play that matters, and while Blood Stone is a straight forward action game it offers enough to keep you entertained. Such as:

– every successful grapple grants you points to use toward the Bond aiming system, which allows you an easier way to lock on to targets.

– for the achievement (Xbox 360) and trophy (PS3) hunters, the game keeps track of how many you have, if you accomplish something towards one of them. It’s a nice little touch and helped me crack an achievement I may not have been aware of, had it not been for the display that pops up unobtrusively.

– even though it isn’t gameplay related, the opening title sequence is very Bondian… but the song is crap. Performed by Joss Stone, who’s also in the game as the love interest, it’s the only weak link musically as the actual score to the game is good.

– about the only gadget, at least in the first two hours, is Bond’s tricked out smart phone. As a tool, it allows you to scan areas for objects you’ll have to hack into – like laptops. A side effect of this is it also shows you the location of nearby enemies, which makes an easy game all the more easier. Of course, you don’t have to use it for that reason but it’s there nonetheless.

At the end of my two hours I had already completed over half of the game, as I ended up in Siberia chasing after a train – a feat I failed at miserably because of the driving mechanics and my lack of skill with it. Despite some of the flaws, I had a surprisingly good time with the game. It’s fast paced and keeps you interested, and in the end that’s all an action game should do.

GOOD

• Beautiful looking game, very cinematic.
• The in-game music is great (composed by Richard Jacques), keeping David Arnold’s modern Bond sound alive.
• The fight elements are easy to learn and fun to use.
• Third-person view works well for this game, makes it seem as though you’re playing a movie.

BAD

• Game is extremely short and easy.
• The driving elements are difficult to handle, and take a bit to get used to.
• Bond is virtually invincible, with regenerative health. If you get shot, just back away and your health will return, then go back to murdering.
• Maybe too many cut scenes, and some of the action that takes place in them looks like it would have been fun to play… but you can’t.

Overall the game is fun, in spite of the drawbacks. My recommendation would be to wait for the price to come down from the $60, or better yet rent it. You’ll be able to finish the game well before you have to return it, and I still think there’s some replayability going for it. If you’re a 007 fan, check it out and see for yourself.

I
think we all need at least one really nice positive thing about the
entertainment business every single day of the year, including weekends.
Sometimes it may be something simple, like a video that showcases
something fun and sometimes it may be a movie poster that embraces the
aesthetic we all want Hollywood to aspire to. Sometimes it may be a
long-winded diatribe. Sometimes it’ll be from the staff and extended
family of CHUD.com. Maybe even you readers can get in on it. So, take
this to the bank. Every day, you will get a little bit of positivity
from one column a day here. Take it with you. Maybe it’ll help you
through a bad day or give folks some fun things to hunt down in their
busy celluloid digesting day.

11.27.10
By Joshua Miller (Facebook Page)

What I’m Thankful For:

Jeff Smith’s Bone.

This past Saturday I was thankful for Stephen King’s It, the first adult novel I ever read. In the piece I passingly mentioned that I used to buy comic books largely for their artwork when I was younger. That got me thinking about the uneven relationship I’ve had with “comics” in my life.

I didn’t read comic books when I was a little kid. I liked newspaper comic strips, but I never seemed to come into contact with actual comic books. My first real foray into the medium was reading Carl Barks’ Uncle Scrooge comics, which I was turned onto by TV’s Ducktales. Then Tim Burton’s Batman fostered an interest with superheroes. By this time I had become a zealous and burgeoning artist, and being a boy, superhero artwork obviously appealed to me. The first superhero comic I ever bought was issue #1 of the 90’s Ghost Rider relaunch, which I spotted in a gas station during a family road trip. I began gobbling up superhero comics, but making my selections entirely based on which had the coolest art.

I enjoyed the lifestyle too. Riding my bike to Shinder’s (the local comics chain in my Minneapolis suburban area back then) once a week, and attending the random comic convention at the Thunderbird Hotel. But this period ultimately lasted for only four years before I completely stopped collecting/reading comic books. Aside from becoming increasingly more expensive due to price bumps and constant Special Embossed Gold-Foil Bagged Multi-Series-Cross-Over Collector’s Editions, I determined that comic books just weren’t very good storytelling. They were interesting drawings without true substance.

During the entirety of high school and college I read one comic book, DC’s Kingdom Come, which, surprise surprise, I was attracted to because of Alex Ross’s amazing artwork.

Then something happened.

I was visiting friends in Boston. While the guy whose floor I was crashing on was at class, I noticed he had a whole bookshelf of comics. One in particular caught my eye – Jeff Smith’s Bone. As usual, it was the artwork that pulled me in. But once I started reading it I couldn’t stop. For those unfamiliar with Bone, it is basically what Lord of the Rings would have been if Carl Barks had created it (in fact, Jeff Smith cites Barks as one of his major creative influences). I excitedly told my buddy about my “discovery” and he began plying me with more and more of his collections. Johnny the Homicidal Maniac. Alan Moore’s Swamp Thing. The Dark Knight Returns (which I had ignored in my younger dumber days because – you guessed it – I didn’t like the art). After I left Boston I began seeking things out myself. Watchmen. From Hell. Sandman. Scott Pilgrim. Y The Last Man. Hellboy.

As it turned out, comic books weren’t the problem, my previous selections were (Dale Keown may create vibrant splash pages, but Images’ Pitt will turn anyone off the medium).

So for showing me the way back to the road – by revealing that there are amazing comic books out there – I am thankful for Bone.

Top Gear‘s History Channel incarnation (official site) arrived this month (to decent if unspectacular ratings), and the gents have added it to the Tag Team circulation. Consider yourself rewarded! We were iffy on the first episode. How do we feel about the second?

TOP GEAR #2 – BLIND DRIFT
Your hosts: Nick Nunziata, Renn Brown, Jeremy Butler, and David Oliver.

Nick: I made a big mistake before watching episode two of the American Top Gear.

I watched an episode of the British show. I giggled, smiled, laughed,
and was in awe of the filmmaking and writing numerous times through the
episode. It was so fun and so playful. They didn’t care about being a
‘Car Show’, but rather embodied the bold and creative spirit that makes
the show so great.

Then I watched this second episode of the American show and it was just
like the British show except for everything but the excellent filmmaking
and editing. The crew on this show is pretty good. There’s some
beautiful photography and it’s edited very well. The segment where
Boring McSleepytime races downhill against the skiing dudes is just like
something from the original show (including the moment where they jump
over the car as it drives past) except for the personality and
looseness. The drift racing with the blind man and his dog is totally
something the other show would do except there’s no humor. The man is a
blind comedian and there’s no humor.

The Aston Martin segment is gorgeous. And dreadfully bland.

And… if you’re going to have The Stig… then you have to make fun of
The Stig. You have to have wacky shit playing on the stereo in his car.
Otherwise it’s like doing a Spider-Man movie except he doesn’t have
special powers or web shooters. Just the name and the costume.

Dave: I went into Episode 2 resolved to let go of my love for the original and especially the UK hosts and try to give these guys a fair shake on their own merits.  Then I actually watched the episode…and was bored again.  I just cannot get over on these guys.  Every segment, minus the technical wizardry in the camera and editing departments, are crushingly bland at best and just awful at worst.  Tanner Foust is the only member of the trio I can stand more than a couple of minutes of on camera.  His driving ability gives him cred; but he still needs to work on his onscreen presence.  He’s more straight narrating his segments than he is entertaining with them.

Rutledge…the guy is a cliche machine.  On commenting on the Lancer Evo, he actually said that it fell out of an ugly tree and hit every branch on the way down.  Really?  That’s the best you got?  And Ferrara is a charisma black hole on this show.  The chemistry between the three, what there is of it (which ain’t much) continues to come off forced and labored.

As for the car segments, was it me or did the Lancer section seem like it was staged near the end to get that skiers jumping over the car shot?  Tanner’s reaction seemed genuine, but I’d almost put money that that shot was a set up.  And actually, the editing on this lacked a lot of immediacy.  I have to go back to the original show for a similar stunt where James May was racing in a rally car down a snow covered mountain in Lillehammer I believe it was, and Hamster was rocketing down in the Olympic bobsled track.  The elapsed time for that was only a minute, but it was a masterful bit of side by side editing.  Catching Tanner behind traffic and then a propane truck made the segment drag.  Maybe chalk it up to a logistical flub in selecting that site, but for a segment that should get the heart going, mine never raised above resting.

The Aston Martin segment was indeed gorgeously shot, but Rutledge handling the narration just did little for me on it..  The blind drifter segment dragged.  Liked the Dominic Monaghan interview segment, though.  he was a good interview and had some cool ideas about the future of automobiles.  Overall, though, Top Gear should make you want to either have the show keep going for hours or immediately have another episode at the ready.  It shouldn’t be something you have to get through, and so far that’s all it is.  Nash the guide dog had the right idea about the show to date: Piss on it.

Jeremy: Well…I liked it.  I’m the only dude on crew here who has limited-to-no exposure to the original, so that may be coloring my perception, but as a whole I really enjoyed the episode.  Not that you guys aren’t right about a lot of things.  Ferrara has got to go.  He sucks the life out of every segment he’s in and his whole tough-guy accent/voice just feel out of place.  And he needs to take that damned studio audience with him.  Was that part of the original?  And if so, what the hell did they do to make it work?

Howeva’ – I dig Tanner.  A lot.  No, he’s not the most exciting dude to ever be on TV, but that kid can drive his dick off and the fact that he doesn’t use that as an excuse to tack on some obnoxious swagger (like Ferrara’s) makes me like him even more.  Ruttledge?  Well, he can jog on with Ferrara.  That Aston Martin segment should have been top-tier – you had that location, that sexysexysexy car, the technical chops of the guys BTS – but you stick Kevin Smith behind the wheel and you end up with a segment that was the entertainment equivalent of the V8 Vantage.  Pretty to look at, but not a damn thing else.
I will diverge a bit on the blind-driving segment, though.  I really liked it.  It was light and fluffy in places, but it was fun.  I am a sucker for shit like that handbrake parking bit though, so I was all excited when they did that and kinda lost the ability to look at it objectively since I was too busy going “OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.”  Sucker.

And David mentioned that the Lancer segment seemed staged.  I completely agree with this.  But what I took away from it was that it almost kinda betrayed the urgency of the stunt itself.  I don’t buy that the Insurance Company let Tanner rip ass on a roadrace on a road where there would be random traffic and pedestrians.  Everything about that seemed staged, choreographed, orchestrated…any other synonym you can think of for artificial as balls.  And I get it – you kinda have to do that with several-thousand-pound death machines, but they overproduced the hell out of this segment.  However – I walked away from that thinking “I want an Evo,” so it obviously did something right, but again, it’s the car talking louder than the show.  That’s a balance that STILL needs to be fixed.

And speaking only for our version – The Stig can run along with Ferrara, Ruttledge and the audience.  HE’S the most boring part of this show, and he’s only on screen for roundabout a minute, so that’s saying something.  I did like Monaghan though – that was a fun little bit of fluff.But again, overall I dug it. 

Nash, however, is a fan of the original, it would seem.

Renn: Yeah, I think we’re going to settle on a pretty standard, “hosts sucks,
photography’s great” pattern here, as its their both definitive
characteristics of the show. I’ve never assumed these big segments are
anything but highly choreographed events manufactured as much in editing
as in planning. There’s no way they did their stunt in the first
episode without closing streets (not to mention airspace, since
obviously there’s an airport in Griffin*) and I don’t really hold that
against them. As long as it is well-shot and exhilarating, I can dig it.
So all of these gimmicky segments I’ve enjoyed, but yeah, these guys
just do not command the screen and their personalities melt away.

I’ve chuckled at some jokes to be sure, and I’m a pretentious film
geek so well-done photography keeps me entertained, but damn the show’s
flat. I’ll lay some blame on the writing as well (which I’m sure is a
shared duty between the hosts and a stable of writers), as I feel like
these guys could be somewhat entertaining with better material. Perhaps
they’ll grow into the show and hit a groove at some point, but it’s not
happening fast.

*Griffin namedrop!

Jeremy: I do wanna jump back in for a moment and clarify –
there’s no doubt in my mind that these segments are meticulously
planned every step of the way, but I took umbrage to the fact that they
showed their hand so plainly with the Evo segment.  It’s the editing
that makes the most meticulously planned thing look organic and
exhilarating (hello SCOTT PILGRIM), and here is one of the rare
occasions where the production team dropped the ball.

Nick: In their defense, the UK shows it all the time too. There’s a
lot of stuff staged to look good on camera.

I don’t get the Ferrara hate, though. He’s the only guy who seems
truly comfortable with his role.

Jeremy: I’ll give him that, he feels natural on-screen and that’s due to his
stand-up career, but the dude’s always “on.”  Plus he doesn’t feel like a
car guy in a sense that Tanner’s a car guy – Tanner drives, appreciates
the machines, Ferrara comes off as a tough-guy who likes cars because
that’s what tough guys do.  Maybe that’s just me, though.

Renn:
I agree with Jeremy, but I almost feel like the dynamic, if they grow to
be something, could use a dick as part of the trio. Someone to fill the
lovable asshole and make the hosts relationship more dynamic. That’s
giving them the benefit of the doubt that they’ll grow more comfortable
and entertaining though.

David:
I haven’t caught any of Ferrara’s stand up, so I don’t know from that. 
All I know that on this show, he’s vanilla.  They’re all vanilla, but
at least Tanner’s maybe French vanilla.  And as for the UK car segments
being produced, stuff like the romp with Clarkson and the two cars
through the shopping mall, sure.  But I never got that vibe from the
actual races.  When I see the skiers jumping over Tanner in the Evo at
the perfect time, during a race, though, it smacks of reality TV
shenanigans.

And I guess I’ll stick to the “hosts suck, photography’s
great” riff until the hosts give me something worth noting.  Again,
their in-studio stuff is like the commercial where the cars are dragging
steel safes or anchors or pianos.  Also, there’s just no spark to
anything I’ve seen from them on their location stuff.  And yeah, why
have the Stig if you’re not going to make good use of him?  You want to
have an American version of possibly the most entertaining show in the
world, then you’ve got to have entertaining hosts.  This show doesn’t. 

Nick: I know they’re having fun doing it. It’s obvious that they’re enjoying the shit out of their job. The difference is that Jeremy Clarkson, Richard Hammond, and James May are three very distinctive personalities that are able to make their fun OUR FUN. That’s not an easy thing to do, but it’s become a part of the Top Gear brand. I’d go as far as to say that it IS the brand. Otherwise it’s a show about fast cars and that shit gets old faster than any Bugatti Veyron could ever aspire to.

Loosen the belts. Take a dump, and make the fun contagious and the show’s justified its existence.

Kevin Smith’s fond of talking… talking about his movies, his pals, and especially the stuff that’s annoying him, and lately it’s the regurgitative world of movie sites that’s getting his goat. Through all of the teeth-grinding we’ve gotten some legitimate chunks of info about his distribution scheme (and I do mean “scheme”) for Red State, and casting news for his hockey flick, Hit Somebody, that you can find below.

His latest frustration is with the widely cycling “news” that he would be retiring after his upcoming project Hit Somebody was finished. Smith has made no attempt over the years to hide the fact that he feels there are only a limited number of films he cares to make, but the definitive nature of retiring after his next project made it a topic of discussion. /Film went for a quote from the man himself, and ended up getting a full response describing his frustration with the whole thing, an excerpt of which follows…

“I’ve always said (since CLERKS, even) that I’ve got about ten films in me (that info might even be on my Wikipedia page). And COP OUT notwithstanding (solely because I didn’t write it), HIT SOMEBODY is the 10th film I’ve got in me. At this moment in time, I’ve got no other flicks I wanna make. The musing about a possible return visit to the View Askewniverse with a third CLERKS is something I’ve been doing since CLERKS II, but I’ve always opened said musings with the disclaimer “If I ever wanna make a flick about being in my 40′s, I’ll think of Dante & Randal first.” There are no concrete plans for a CLERKS III.

The author of the Boston Phoenix piece did a really nice job of not hyping that throwaway factoid in the article and turning it into the exact piece of specious bullshit “news” the websites you mentioned are trying to create of it.”

Frankly, I think Smith should be flattered that the idea of his retirement is news! It means people actually care. He’s certainly mentioned the finiteness of his career before, but it’s inevitably going to become a thing when he sticks to that story so close to that final project being made. All of that said, I have no doubt Smith will make more movies after Hit Somebody.

Smith used the letter as an opportunity to pimp the various podcasts he’s involved in, all of which are linked in the original piece, but he also dropped a bit of Red State “news,” –that is, he wants to quite literally auction the film off if it’s accepted into Sundance.

“But if you can’t wait ’til then? If you’ve GOTTA have some Kevin Smith news to hold you over? Here’s something that’s not so much news as my stated intentions for RED STATE: if it gets into Sundance, my plan is to pick the RED STATE distributor right there – IN THE ROOM – auction style. Might even bring up a professional auctioneer to make it fun and unintelligible. And if you’re a multi-millionaire who can’t make it to the first screening of RED STATE, fear not: maybe we’ll set up an eBay page for the post-screening bid-calling as well.”

Pair that interesting (if silly-sounding) plan with a later revelation (in a podcast of course) that Nicholas Braun (Sky High) has been cast as the lead in Hit Somebody, and we assholes on the net have some legitimate Kevin Smith news to report!  

I’ve always found it fascinating, though it’s not a train of thought I’ve ever carried to a grand thesis, that Kevin Smith seems to possess a very unique and interesting relationship with his target audience because of the truly fortuitous timing of his first film. It would seem Clerks found much of its success among that first legitimate generation of Star Wars geeks that were in their 20s and saw some or all of the OT in theaters and had their childhoods shaped by it. What’s funny is that these same audiences who drove his little indie film to such success in the early 90s, would soon latch on to the Aint It Cool world of internet movie fanboyism that developed largely because of… a new Star Wars film. My point is that Smith’s audience was largely made up of fans that would later use the same common ground with Smith’s characters to create an anonymous world of forums, fansites, and blogs- segments of which would become so hostile to the defensive director, creating a nasty back-and-forth that has flared periodically for years. Clerks II and Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back try painfully hard to delineate these generations, even though the large majority of the teeming internet fanboys are of the same generation as Dante, Randal, Jay, and Bob- they’re just the ones that landed jobs in front of computers instead of cash registers.

Of course, these days Smith has focused much of his ire on critics specifically, but as you read above, he still maintains a serious distaste for the (admittedly) circle-jerking world of online movie “scoops.” It’s a rare case of not biting, but being bitten by the hand that fed you.

(via Dark Horizons)