Movie Winner: Michael Bay's Transformers: Dark of the Moon, the third entry in the series, which not only looks to make over $300 million in North America, but has gotten pretty good reviews, especially compared to Transformers 2. Mr. Bay, you are officially vindicated...
Transformers 3... It is that good
Demas1025
6/28/2011
http://www.comicbookmovie.com/news/?a=40574
"Transformers: Dark of the Moon": An American summer-movie masterwork
Andrew O'Hehir
Tuesday, Jun 28, 2011
http://www.salon.com/entertainment/movies/andrew_ohehir/2011/06/28/transformers_dotm/index.html
Movie Loser: Larry Crowne. A flick starring Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts should be box-office gold, but this rom-com was a flop to both audiences and critics...
Review: ‘Larry Crowne’ is Painfully Awful
Luke Mullen
July 1, 2011
http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/reviews/review-larry-crowne.php
Showing posts with label Michael Bay. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Michael Bay. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Michael Bay, Genius
“This one is a more mature storyline. It’s definitely darker. When people see the movie, they feel it’s more emotional at the end. The stakes are higher because it takes place in an American city. You’re not as disconnected with Egypt and the pyramids, which are kind of otherworldly.”
Michael Bay on his upcoming Transformers: Dark of the Moon
Michael Bay on his upcoming Transformers: Dark of the Moon
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Silent Movie Classics
Salon.com has a great piece on a restoration release of the classic 1926 Soviet silent film Battleship Potemkin directed by Sergei Eisenstein. What makes this analysis unique is that it points out the greatest influence of this movie is on directors such as auteur Michael Bay:
Anybody who thinks that Sergei Eisenstein's "Battleship Potemkin" is an "art film" either hasn't seen the movie at all or had it ruined for them by some combination of a butchered print and a tedious film-history professor. As a remarkable new restoration of the 1925 Soviet silent classic makes clear, "Battleship Potemkin" is first and foremost an action drama, a work of straightforward emotion and pulse-quickening tension. This taut, 71-minute picture is stitched together from more than 1,300 shots, very few of them lasting more than three or four seconds. For better or worse, this film's true revolutionary legacy is not art cinema but Hollywood; it's got a lot more in common with Tony Scott's "Unstoppable" than it does with Andrei Tarkovsky.
I'm not being willful or contrarian or anything -- it's just true. Of course Eisenstein was a fervent supporter of the Bolshevik Revolution, who hoped his story about a fabled 1905 uprising by sailors in the Tsarist navy would inspire the oppressed of the earth to throw off their chains and hoist the red flag (hand-tinted in this version, as at the Moscow premiere). But that context was a lot less important than he assumed at the time, and "Potemkin's" immense cultural impact has almost nothing to do with its purported politics. (The young Joseph Goebbels, whose ideology ran in a different direction, praised the film extravagantly.)
Like other Marxist thinkers and artists of his time, Eisenstein believed that political revolution demanded a revolutionary aesthetics and a revolutionary cinema. He thought his radical innovations in camerawork, composition and (most of all) the quick-cut editing he called "montage" were part of a global shift in mass consciousness, and he was right about that part. Presumably he never imagined that his aesthetic revolution would conquer the world, divorced from the ideology that had inspired it, while the Soviet experiment in social reinvention would become a cruel and miserable failure.
According to film historian Bruce Bennett, "Battleship Potemkin" was personally imported to the United States by silent star Douglas Fairbanks and screened privately for film-industry luminaries on both coasts during the summer and fall of 1926, beginning with a bedsheet projection at Gloria Swanson's house in New York. "Nobody went Bolshevik," quipped a columnist for Photoplay magazine at the time, "but a lot of people left with some revolutionary ideas of filmmaking." It's safe to say this was one of those collisions that changed the course of cultural history. Has there been a year since the late '20s when Hollywood didn't produce multiple imitations of "Battleship Potemkin"?
How "Battleship Potemkin" reshaped Hollywood
Andrew O'Hehir
Tuesday, Jan 11, 2011
http://www.salon.com/entertainment/movies/andrew_ohehir/2011/01/11/potemkin/index.html
Meanwhile, OpenCulture.com has a great piece on A Trip to the Moon:
"A year before the Wright brothers launched the first airplane flight in 1903, Georges Méliès, a French filmmaker with already 400 films to his credit, directed a film that visualized a much bigger human ambition – landing a spacecraft on the moon. Loosely based on works by Jules Vernes (From the Earth to the Moon) and H. G. Wells (The First Men in the Moon), A Trip to the Moon (Le voyage dans la lune) invented one of our favorite cinematic genres – the science fiction film. Today, many film critics consider Méliès’ short film an enduring classic. The Village Voice ranked it #84 on its list of the 100 Best Films of the 20th Century, and you’ll almost certainly recognize the iconic shot at the 4:44 mark.
Méliès’s body of work, which goes well beyond this landmark film, has been recently collected into a new box set. Georges Méliès: First Wizard of Cinema (1896-1913) puts 173 rare and rediscovered films onto 5 discs."
To see the film online, or even better, to download it:
A Trip to the Moon: Where Sci Fi Movies Began
January 19th, 2011
Dan Colman
http://www.openculture.com/2011/01/a_trip_to_the_moon_where_sci_fi_movies_began.html
Anybody who thinks that Sergei Eisenstein's "Battleship Potemkin" is an "art film" either hasn't seen the movie at all or had it ruined for them by some combination of a butchered print and a tedious film-history professor. As a remarkable new restoration of the 1925 Soviet silent classic makes clear, "Battleship Potemkin" is first and foremost an action drama, a work of straightforward emotion and pulse-quickening tension. This taut, 71-minute picture is stitched together from more than 1,300 shots, very few of them lasting more than three or four seconds. For better or worse, this film's true revolutionary legacy is not art cinema but Hollywood; it's got a lot more in common with Tony Scott's "Unstoppable" than it does with Andrei Tarkovsky.
I'm not being willful or contrarian or anything -- it's just true. Of course Eisenstein was a fervent supporter of the Bolshevik Revolution, who hoped his story about a fabled 1905 uprising by sailors in the Tsarist navy would inspire the oppressed of the earth to throw off their chains and hoist the red flag (hand-tinted in this version, as at the Moscow premiere). But that context was a lot less important than he assumed at the time, and "Potemkin's" immense cultural impact has almost nothing to do with its purported politics. (The young Joseph Goebbels, whose ideology ran in a different direction, praised the film extravagantly.)
Like other Marxist thinkers and artists of his time, Eisenstein believed that political revolution demanded a revolutionary aesthetics and a revolutionary cinema. He thought his radical innovations in camerawork, composition and (most of all) the quick-cut editing he called "montage" were part of a global shift in mass consciousness, and he was right about that part. Presumably he never imagined that his aesthetic revolution would conquer the world, divorced from the ideology that had inspired it, while the Soviet experiment in social reinvention would become a cruel and miserable failure.
According to film historian Bruce Bennett, "Battleship Potemkin" was personally imported to the United States by silent star Douglas Fairbanks and screened privately for film-industry luminaries on both coasts during the summer and fall of 1926, beginning with a bedsheet projection at Gloria Swanson's house in New York. "Nobody went Bolshevik," quipped a columnist for Photoplay magazine at the time, "but a lot of people left with some revolutionary ideas of filmmaking." It's safe to say this was one of those collisions that changed the course of cultural history. Has there been a year since the late '20s when Hollywood didn't produce multiple imitations of "Battleship Potemkin"?
How "Battleship Potemkin" reshaped Hollywood
Andrew O'Hehir
Tuesday, Jan 11, 2011
http://www.salon.com/entertainment/movies/andrew_ohehir/2011/01/11/potemkin/index.html
Meanwhile, OpenCulture.com has a great piece on A Trip to the Moon:
"A year before the Wright brothers launched the first airplane flight in 1903, Georges Méliès, a French filmmaker with already 400 films to his credit, directed a film that visualized a much bigger human ambition – landing a spacecraft on the moon. Loosely based on works by Jules Vernes (From the Earth to the Moon) and H. G. Wells (The First Men in the Moon), A Trip to the Moon (Le voyage dans la lune) invented one of our favorite cinematic genres – the science fiction film. Today, many film critics consider Méliès’ short film an enduring classic. The Village Voice ranked it #84 on its list of the 100 Best Films of the 20th Century, and you’ll almost certainly recognize the iconic shot at the 4:44 mark.
Méliès’s body of work, which goes well beyond this landmark film, has been recently collected into a new box set. Georges Méliès: First Wizard of Cinema (1896-1913) puts 173 rare and rediscovered films onto 5 discs."
To see the film online, or even better, to download it:
A Trip to the Moon: Where Sci Fi Movies Began
January 19th, 2011
Dan Colman
http://www.openculture.com/2011/01/a_trip_to_the_moon_where_sci_fi_movies_began.html
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Internet Critic Review of the Month
"Michael Bay I love your work! I know what a artistic brilliant genius you are! Cast me in the next Transformers."
Heidi Montag on Twitter
Heidi Montag on Twitter
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Great Quotes: South Park, Part 3
http://www.spscriptorium.com/Season11/E1110script.htm
General: What I am about to tell you is highly classified. Two days ago, Muslim terrorists hijacked our imagination. Frankly we don't know what their next move is or how to stop them.
Specialist: In times like these the government often turns to Hollywood for help. You creative filmmakers can think of idea we just can't.
General: That's why we've asked you here, M. Night Shyal-amalam. The Sixth Sense, Signs, The Village, all very clever films. But can you use your amazing idea brain now to help us stop the terrorists?
M. Night Shyalaman: What if... What if it turns out they aren't terrorists? But they're actually werewolves? From the future?
General: N, no. No, they're terrorists. They've been linked to Al Qaeda.
M. Night Shyalaman: But what if Al Qaeda, it turns out, is the group being terrorized? By aliens?
General: No- No. That's not an idea, that's a twist. We need ideas.
M. Night Shyalaman: How about we make everyone think that terrorists attacked us? But really, we were all already dead.
General: Get him out of here. [M. Night Shyalaman is hauled away, only to be replaced by...] Mr. Bay, can you think of any idea how to outwit these terrorists?
Michael Bay: I believe I can. We start... by making a big CG building and then we have a meteor go CROSSHH! and it, and it's all like CRAAWWWLL a-and motorcycles burst into flame while they jump over these helicopters, right?
General: No no! We need ideas how to stop the terrorists!
Michael Bay: An eighteen-wheeler spins out of control and it's all like BROSSHH! And then this huuuge tanker full of dyna-
General: Those aren't ideas, those are special effects!
Michael Bay: I... don't understand the difference.
General: I know you don't. Get him out of here! [next in the chair is Mel Gibson] Aaand being that we are all big Mel Gibson film fans, we thought maybe you could help us.
Mel Gibson: Ah, my nipples, they hurt! They hurt when I twist them!
General: Yes, uh, I don't suppose you have any creative ideas how to fight these terrorists?
Mel Gibson: How about this? You have that tape that the terrorists made, right? Well maybe if you did a background check on that videotape, you might find somebody who doesn't belong. Somebody who doesn't fit Imaginationland. Ohhh!
Specialist: Heyy... that's not a bad idea.
General: Yeah. Say what you will about Mel Gibson, but the sonofabitch knows story structure.
General: What I am about to tell you is highly classified. Two days ago, Muslim terrorists hijacked our imagination. Frankly we don't know what their next move is or how to stop them.
Specialist: In times like these the government often turns to Hollywood for help. You creative filmmakers can think of idea we just can't.
General: That's why we've asked you here, M. Night Shyal-amalam. The Sixth Sense, Signs, The Village, all very clever films. But can you use your amazing idea brain now to help us stop the terrorists?
M. Night Shyalaman: What if... What if it turns out they aren't terrorists? But they're actually werewolves? From the future?
General: N, no. No, they're terrorists. They've been linked to Al Qaeda.
M. Night Shyalaman: But what if Al Qaeda, it turns out, is the group being terrorized? By aliens?
General: No- No. That's not an idea, that's a twist. We need ideas.
M. Night Shyalaman: How about we make everyone think that terrorists attacked us? But really, we were all already dead.
General: Get him out of here. [M. Night Shyalaman is hauled away, only to be replaced by...] Mr. Bay, can you think of any idea how to outwit these terrorists?
Michael Bay: I believe I can. We start... by making a big CG building and then we have a meteor go CROSSHH! and it, and it's all like CRAAWWWLL a-and motorcycles burst into flame while they jump over these helicopters, right?
General: No no! We need ideas how to stop the terrorists!
Michael Bay: An eighteen-wheeler spins out of control and it's all like BROSSHH! And then this huuuge tanker full of dyna-
General: Those aren't ideas, those are special effects!
Michael Bay: I... don't understand the difference.
General: I know you don't. Get him out of here! [next in the chair is Mel Gibson] Aaand being that we are all big Mel Gibson film fans, we thought maybe you could help us.
Mel Gibson: Ah, my nipples, they hurt! They hurt when I twist them!
General: Yes, uh, I don't suppose you have any creative ideas how to fight these terrorists?
Mel Gibson: How about this? You have that tape that the terrorists made, right? Well maybe if you did a background check on that videotape, you might find somebody who doesn't belong. Somebody who doesn't fit Imaginationland. Ohhh!
Specialist: Heyy... that's not a bad idea.
General: Yeah. Say what you will about Mel Gibson, but the sonofabitch knows story structure.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
30th Annual Dis-Honors for Cinematic Dreck
http://www.razzies.com/
30th Annual Dis-Honors for Cinematic Dreck:
RAZZIE® Voters Spread the Loathe Around
With so many Berry Bad Movies to choose from, voting members of The Golden Raspberry Award Foundation decided to spread their dis-honors among multiple titles for their Gala 30th Annual RAZZIE® Awards. In ceremonies presented on Oscar Eve at Hollywood's Barnsdall Gallery Theatre, no less than six 2009 releases received at least one gold-spray-painted statuette designating them as being among last year's Worst Achievements in Film.
The big "winner" was also one of last year's biggest box office hits: The overlong, over-loud, under-whelming toy-based sequel TRANSFORMERS: REVENGE OF THE FALLEN. In addition to taking Worst Director for The Boy Blunder of Blow-‘em-Ups Michael Bay, FALLEN also fell victim as the year's Worst Screenplay and Worst Picture. Worst Actress was awarded to a star who could well follow up the berry next night with an Oscar® win: Sandra Bullock, RAZZed for her performance in ALL ABOUT STEVE. The film also took the Worst Screen Couple dis-honor, for Bullock and co-star Bradley Cooper. Worst Actor went jointly to Disney Boy Band The Jonas Brothers, playing themselves in JONAS BROTHERS: THE 3-D CONCERT EXPERIENCE. Supporting "winners" were Billy Ray Cyrus, riding his daughter's coat-tails and playing her dad in HANNAH MONTANA: THE MOVIE and Sienna Miller as the former girlfriend and current nemesis of the main character in G.I. JOE: THE RISE OF COBRA. One of last year's biggest box office bombs, LAND OF THE LOST, started the evening with a pack-leading 7 nominations. But the $150 million production (which grossed a humiliating $49 million in the U.S.) wound up only "winning" as Worst Remake/Rip-Off or Sequel.
In celebration of three decades of Dissing Hollywood's Biggest Under-Achievers, special awards were also given for Worst Picture of the Decade (BATTLEFIELD EARTH, which "won" by a landslide) Worst Actor of the Decade (Eddie Murphy for ADVENTURES of PLUTO NASH, I SPY, IMAGINE THAT, MEET DAVE, NORBIT and SHOWTIME) and Actress of the Decade ("Celebutant" Paris Hilton for THE HOTTIE & THE NOTTIE, HOUSE OF WAX and REPO: THE GENETIC OPERA).
Dis-honorees were determined by mailing ballots to 657 voters in 47 U.S. states and 19 foreign countries. The RAZZIES® were created in 1980 as a logical antidote to Tinsel Town's annual glut of self-congratulatory awards by John Wilson, author of both THE OFFICIAL RAZZIE® MOVIE GUIDE and EVERYTHING I KNOW I LEARNED AT THE MOVIES. The Barnsdall Gallery Theatre is a facility of the City of Los Angeles Department of Cultural Affairs.
For more information on this year's "winners," the Golden Raspberry Awards' history, or to arrange an interview with Wilson, please visit the official RAZZIE® web site (www.razzies.com) or contact HeadRAZZberry@razzies.com
30th Annual Golden Raspberry (Razzie©) Award “Winners”
Worst Picture of 2009:
Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen
(Aka Trannies, Too)
(Dreamworks/Paramount)
Worst Actress of 2009:
Sandra Bullock
All About Steve
Worst Actor(s) of 2009:
All Three Jonas Brothers
Jonas Brothers: The 3-D Concert Experience
Worst Screen Couple:
Sandra Bullock & Bradley Cooper
All About Steve
Worst Supporting Actress:
Sienna Miller
G.I. JOE: THE RISE OF COBRA
Worst Supporting Actor:
Billy Ray Cyrus
HANNAH MONTANA: THE MOVIE
Worst Prequel, Remake, Rip-off or Sequel
(Combined Category for 2009):
Land of The Lost
(Universal PIctures)
Worst Director:
Michael Bay
TRANSFORMERS: REVENGE OF THE FALLEN (aka TRANNIES, TOO)
Worst Screenplay:
Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen
Written by Ehren Kruger & Roberto Orci & Alex Kurtzman,
Based on Hasbro’s Transformers Action Figures
Special 30th RAZZIE®-versary Awardz
Worst Picture of the Decade:
Battlefield Earth
Nominated for 10 RAZZIES® / "Winner" of 8
(Including Worst Drama of Our First 25 Yrs)
Worst Actor of the Decade:
Eddie Murphy
Nominated for 12 "Achievements" / "Winner" of 3 RAZZIES®
ADVENTURES of PLUTO NASH, I SPY, IMAGINE THAT,
MEET DAVE, NORBIT, SHOWTIME
Worst Actress of the decade
Paris Hilton
Nominated for 5 "Achievements," "Winner" of 4 RAZZIES®
THE HOTTIE & THE NOTTIE, HOUSE of WHACKS,
REPO: THE GENETIC OPERA
30th Annual Dis-Honors for Cinematic Dreck:
RAZZIE® Voters Spread the Loathe Around
With so many Berry Bad Movies to choose from, voting members of The Golden Raspberry Award Foundation decided to spread their dis-honors among multiple titles for their Gala 30th Annual RAZZIE® Awards. In ceremonies presented on Oscar Eve at Hollywood's Barnsdall Gallery Theatre, no less than six 2009 releases received at least one gold-spray-painted statuette designating them as being among last year's Worst Achievements in Film.
The big "winner" was also one of last year's biggest box office hits: The overlong, over-loud, under-whelming toy-based sequel TRANSFORMERS: REVENGE OF THE FALLEN. In addition to taking Worst Director for The Boy Blunder of Blow-‘em-Ups Michael Bay, FALLEN also fell victim as the year's Worst Screenplay and Worst Picture. Worst Actress was awarded to a star who could well follow up the berry next night with an Oscar® win: Sandra Bullock, RAZZed for her performance in ALL ABOUT STEVE. The film also took the Worst Screen Couple dis-honor, for Bullock and co-star Bradley Cooper. Worst Actor went jointly to Disney Boy Band The Jonas Brothers, playing themselves in JONAS BROTHERS: THE 3-D CONCERT EXPERIENCE. Supporting "winners" were Billy Ray Cyrus, riding his daughter's coat-tails and playing her dad in HANNAH MONTANA: THE MOVIE and Sienna Miller as the former girlfriend and current nemesis of the main character in G.I. JOE: THE RISE OF COBRA. One of last year's biggest box office bombs, LAND OF THE LOST, started the evening with a pack-leading 7 nominations. But the $150 million production (which grossed a humiliating $49 million in the U.S.) wound up only "winning" as Worst Remake/Rip-Off or Sequel.
In celebration of three decades of Dissing Hollywood's Biggest Under-Achievers, special awards were also given for Worst Picture of the Decade (BATTLEFIELD EARTH, which "won" by a landslide) Worst Actor of the Decade (Eddie Murphy for ADVENTURES of PLUTO NASH, I SPY, IMAGINE THAT, MEET DAVE, NORBIT and SHOWTIME) and Actress of the Decade ("Celebutant" Paris Hilton for THE HOTTIE & THE NOTTIE, HOUSE OF WAX and REPO: THE GENETIC OPERA).
Dis-honorees were determined by mailing ballots to 657 voters in 47 U.S. states and 19 foreign countries. The RAZZIES® were created in 1980 as a logical antidote to Tinsel Town's annual glut of self-congratulatory awards by John Wilson, author of both THE OFFICIAL RAZZIE® MOVIE GUIDE and EVERYTHING I KNOW I LEARNED AT THE MOVIES. The Barnsdall Gallery Theatre is a facility of the City of Los Angeles Department of Cultural Affairs.
For more information on this year's "winners," the Golden Raspberry Awards' history, or to arrange an interview with Wilson, please visit the official RAZZIE® web site (www.razzies.com) or contact HeadRAZZberry@razzies.com
30th Annual Golden Raspberry (Razzie©) Award “Winners”
Worst Picture of 2009:
Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen
(Aka Trannies, Too)
(Dreamworks/Paramount)
Worst Actress of 2009:
Sandra Bullock
All About Steve
Worst Actor(s) of 2009:
All Three Jonas Brothers
Jonas Brothers: The 3-D Concert Experience
Worst Screen Couple:
Sandra Bullock & Bradley Cooper
All About Steve
Worst Supporting Actress:
Sienna Miller
G.I. JOE: THE RISE OF COBRA
Worst Supporting Actor:
Billy Ray Cyrus
HANNAH MONTANA: THE MOVIE
Worst Prequel, Remake, Rip-off or Sequel
(Combined Category for 2009):
Land of The Lost
(Universal PIctures)
Worst Director:
Michael Bay
TRANSFORMERS: REVENGE OF THE FALLEN (aka TRANNIES, TOO)
Worst Screenplay:
Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen
Written by Ehren Kruger & Roberto Orci & Alex Kurtzman,
Based on Hasbro’s Transformers Action Figures
Special 30th RAZZIE®-versary Awardz
Worst Picture of the Decade:
Battlefield Earth
Nominated for 10 RAZZIES® / "Winner" of 8
(Including Worst Drama of Our First 25 Yrs)
Worst Actor of the Decade:
Eddie Murphy
Nominated for 12 "Achievements" / "Winner" of 3 RAZZIES®
ADVENTURES of PLUTO NASH, I SPY, IMAGINE THAT,
MEET DAVE, NORBIT, SHOWTIME
Worst Actress of the decade
Paris Hilton
Nominated for 5 "Achievements," "Winner" of 4 RAZZIES®
THE HOTTIE & THE NOTTIE, HOUSE of WHACKS,
REPO: THE GENETIC OPERA
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Razzie Award nominations
http://goldderby.latimes.com/awards_goldderby/2010/01/razzie-awards-razzies-nominations-7594106284-news-story-article.html
Gold Derby
Tom O'Neil has the inside track on Oscars, Emmys, Grammys and all the award shows.
Razzie Award nominations: Can Sandra Bullock win worst AND best actress?
February 1, 2010
"Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" and "Land of the Lost" are tied for the most Razzie Award nominations, scoring seven chances each to take gold paint-sprayed statuettes hailing the worst films of 2009.
Also noteworthy: two of this year's Oscar players could also end up as Razzie stars when trophies are doled out one night before the Academy Awards gala. Oscar ceremony co-host Steve Martin is nominated for worst actor in "Pink Panther 2." No other actor has ever been up for a Razzie the same year he or she emceed the Academy Awards, although Martin's co-host on March 7, Alec Baldwin, was nominated for a Razzie in 2003 (worst supporting actor, "Cat in the Hat").
Sandra Bullock is considered an Oscar best actress front-runner for "The Blind Side," but she's also nominated for 2009's worst actress for "All About Steve." If Bullock claims both trophies, she'll be the first star ever to pull off the dual win in the same year. Others have done so in nonacting categories. In 1992, Alan Menken won two Oscars for composing the music in "Aladdin" and a Razzie for a tune in "Newsies." In 1997, Brian Helgeland reaped an Oscar for writing "L.A. Confidential" screenplay and a Razzie for penning "The Postman."
Two stars have been nominated for an Oscar and a Razzie in the same year for the same role, but they lost: James Coco ("Only When I Laugh") and Amy Irving ("Yentl"). Halle Berry famously bagged a Razzie soon after her Oscar, but three years separated her wins for "Catwoman" (2004) and "Monster's Ball" (2001).
John Wilson, Razzie president and founder, tells Gold Derby that "Transformers 2" creator Michael Bay is overdue for Razzie glory after a past worst-picture loss for "Armageddon" (1998) and two defeats for worst director: "Armageddon" and "Pearl Harbor" (2001). "Bay is totally talent-free and untouched by the muse," Wilson says with a sigh.
Wilson says that 2009 was such a banner year for bad movies that the Razzies considered expanding their worst-picture list to 10 nominees like the Oscars' best-picture list, "but then I realized that our membership is only one-tenth of the academy, and it would have no meaning. It would be just like the Golden Globes where a movie can win with only 17 votes."
If the Razzies had expanded its top category, "Twilight: New Moon" would've been nominated for worst picture since it came in sixth place in the voting, so alas, it got snubbed.
" 'Twilight: New Moon' just wasn't bad enough," Wilson adds, noting that its star Taylor Lautner also barely missed out receiving a nomination for worst supporting actor. Nonetheless, he was cited along with "Twilight" costars in the category for worst screen couple as "Kristin Stewart and either Robert Pattinson or Taylor Whatz-His-Fang." Pattinson is nominated for worst supporting actor, and "New Moon" is listed in the race for worst screenplay.
Wilson is surprised at a few omissions from the performance lists. "Gerard Butler had a banner bad year with 'Gamer,' 'The Ugly Truth' and 'Law Abiding Citizen,' and Nicolas Cage was terrible in 'Knowing,'" he says. "In any other year they would've been nominated."
It's the Razzies' 30th anniversary year, so it's time to bestow prizes for worst filmmaking of the decade. They'll be doled out with 2009's trophies at Hollywood's Barnsdall Gallery Theatre at 7:30 p.m. March 6.
WORST PICTURE OF 2009
"All About Steve"
"G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra"
"Land of the Lost"
"Old Dogs""
"Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" (a.k.a. "Trannies, Too")
WORST ACTOR OF 2009
All Three Jonas Brothers, "Jonas Brothers: The 3-D Concert Experience"
Will Ferrell, "Land of the Lost"
Steve Martin, "Pink Panther 2"
Eddie Murphy, "Imagine That"
John Travolta, "Old Dogs"
WORST ACTRESS Of 2009
Beyonce, "Obsessed"
Sandra Bullock, "All About Steve"
Myley Cyrus, "Hannah Montana: The Movie"
Megan Fox, "Jennifer’s Body" and "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen"
Sarah Jessica Parker, "Did You Hear About the Morgans?"
WORST SCREEN COUPLE OF 2009
Any Two (or More) Jonas Brothers, "The Jonas Brothers 3-D Concert Experience"
Sandra Bullock and Bradley Cooper, "All About Steve"
Will Ferrell and any co-star, Creature or "Comic Riff," "Land of the Lost"
Shia Lebouf & Either Megan Fox or Any Transformer, "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen"
Kristin Stewart and either Robert Pattinson or Taylor Whatz-His-Fang, "Twilight Saga: New Moon"
WORST SUPPORTING ACTRESS OF 2009
Candice Bergen, "Bride Wars"
Ali Larter, "Obsessed"
Sienna Miller, "G.I. Joe"
Kelly Preston,"Old Dogs"
Julie White (as Mom), "Trannies, Too"
WORST SUPPORTING ACTOR OF 2009
Billy Ray Cyrus, "Hannah Montana: The Movie"
Hugh Hefner (as himself), "Miss March"
Robert Pattinson, "Twilight Saga: New Moon"
Jorma Taccone (as Cha-Ka), "Land of the Lost"
Marlon Wayans, "G.I. Joe"
WORST REMAKE, RIP-OFF OR SEQUEL (COMBINED CATEGORY FOR 2009)
"G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra"
"Land of the Lost"
"Pink Panther 2" (A Rip-Off of a Sequel to a Remake)
"Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen"
"Twilight Saga: New Moon"
WORST DIRECTOR OF 2009
Michael Bay, "Trannies, Too"
Walt Becker, "Old Dogs"
Brad Silberling, "Land of the Lost"
Stephen Sommers, "G.I. Joe"
Phil Traill, "All About Steve"
WORST SCREENPLAY OF 2009
"All About Steve," screenplay by Kim Barker
"G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra," screenplay by Stuart Beattie and David Elliot & Paul Lovett, based on Hasbro's G.I. Joe Characters.
"Land of the Lost," written by Chris Henchy & Dennis McNicholas, based on Sid & Marty Krofft's TV series
"Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen," written By Ehren Kruger & Roberto Orci & Alex Kurtzman, based on Hasbro’s Transformers Action Figures
"Twilight Saga: New Moon," screenplay by Melissa Rosenberg, based on the novel by Stephenie Meyer
WORST PICTURE OF THE DECADE (3 SPECIAL 30TH RAZZIE-VERSARY AWARDZ)
"Battlefield Earth" (2000) -- Nominated for 10 Razzies, "winner" of 8 (including Worst Drama of Our First 25 Years)
"Freddy Got Fingered" (2001) -- Nominated for nine Razzies, "winner" of five
"Gigli" (2003) -- Nominated for 10 Razzies, winner of seven (including Worst Comedy of Our First 25 Years)
"I Know Who Killed Me" (2007) -- Nominated for nine Razzies, "winner" of eight
"Swept Away" (2002) -- Nominated for nine Razzies, "winner" of five
WORST ACTOR OF THE DECADE
Ben Affleck -- (Nominated for nine "achievements,"winner" of two Razzies) "Daredevil," "Gigli," "Jersey Girl," "Paycheck," "Pearl Harbor," "Surviving Christmas"
Eddie Murphy -- (Nominated for 12 "achievements," "winner" of three Razzies) "Adventures of Pluto Nash," "I Spy," "Imagine That," "Meet Dave," "Norbit," "Showtime"
Mike Myers -- (Nominated for four "achievements," "winner" of two Razzies), "Cat in the Hat," "The Love Guru"
Rob Schneider -- (Nominated for six "achievements," "winner" of one Razzie) "The Animal," "Benchwarmers," "Deuce Bigalo: European Gigolo," "Grandma's Boy," "The Hot Chick," "I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry," "Little Man," "Little Nicky"
John Travolta -- (Nominated for six "achievements," "winner" of three Razzies) "Battlefield Earth," "Domestic Disturbance," "Lucky Numbers," "Old Dogs," "Swordfish"
WORST ACTRESS OF THE DECADE
Mariah Carey – (The Single Biggest Individual Vote Getter of the Decade: 70+% Of ALL Votes For Worst Actress Of 2001), "Glitter"
Paris Hilton (Nominated for five "Achievements," "Winner" of four Razzies) "The Hottie & The Nottie," "House of Whacks," "Repo: The Genetic Opera"
Lindsay Lohan -- (Nominated for five "achievements," "winner" of three Razzies) "Herbie Fully Loaded," "I Know Who Killed Me," "Just My Luck"
Jennifer Lopez -- (Nominated for nine "achievements," "winner" of two Razzies) "Angel Eyes," "Enough," "Gigli," "Jersey Girl," "Maid in Manhattan," "Monster-in-Law," "The Wedding Planner"
Madonna -- (Nominated for six "achievements," "winner" of four Razzies) "Die Another Day," "The Next Best Thing," "Swept Away"
Gold Derby
Tom O'Neil has the inside track on Oscars, Emmys, Grammys and all the award shows.
Razzie Award nominations: Can Sandra Bullock win worst AND best actress?
February 1, 2010
"Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" and "Land of the Lost" are tied for the most Razzie Award nominations, scoring seven chances each to take gold paint-sprayed statuettes hailing the worst films of 2009.
Also noteworthy: two of this year's Oscar players could also end up as Razzie stars when trophies are doled out one night before the Academy Awards gala. Oscar ceremony co-host Steve Martin is nominated for worst actor in "Pink Panther 2." No other actor has ever been up for a Razzie the same year he or she emceed the Academy Awards, although Martin's co-host on March 7, Alec Baldwin, was nominated for a Razzie in 2003 (worst supporting actor, "Cat in the Hat").
Sandra Bullock is considered an Oscar best actress front-runner for "The Blind Side," but she's also nominated for 2009's worst actress for "All About Steve." If Bullock claims both trophies, she'll be the first star ever to pull off the dual win in the same year. Others have done so in nonacting categories. In 1992, Alan Menken won two Oscars for composing the music in "Aladdin" and a Razzie for a tune in "Newsies." In 1997, Brian Helgeland reaped an Oscar for writing "L.A. Confidential" screenplay and a Razzie for penning "The Postman."
Two stars have been nominated for an Oscar and a Razzie in the same year for the same role, but they lost: James Coco ("Only When I Laugh") and Amy Irving ("Yentl"). Halle Berry famously bagged a Razzie soon after her Oscar, but three years separated her wins for "Catwoman" (2004) and "Monster's Ball" (2001).
John Wilson, Razzie president and founder, tells Gold Derby that "Transformers 2" creator Michael Bay is overdue for Razzie glory after a past worst-picture loss for "Armageddon" (1998) and two defeats for worst director: "Armageddon" and "Pearl Harbor" (2001). "Bay is totally talent-free and untouched by the muse," Wilson says with a sigh.
Wilson says that 2009 was such a banner year for bad movies that the Razzies considered expanding their worst-picture list to 10 nominees like the Oscars' best-picture list, "but then I realized that our membership is only one-tenth of the academy, and it would have no meaning. It would be just like the Golden Globes where a movie can win with only 17 votes."
If the Razzies had expanded its top category, "Twilight: New Moon" would've been nominated for worst picture since it came in sixth place in the voting, so alas, it got snubbed.
" 'Twilight: New Moon' just wasn't bad enough," Wilson adds, noting that its star Taylor Lautner also barely missed out receiving a nomination for worst supporting actor. Nonetheless, he was cited along with "Twilight" costars in the category for worst screen couple as "Kristin Stewart and either Robert Pattinson or Taylor Whatz-His-Fang." Pattinson is nominated for worst supporting actor, and "New Moon" is listed in the race for worst screenplay.
Wilson is surprised at a few omissions from the performance lists. "Gerard Butler had a banner bad year with 'Gamer,' 'The Ugly Truth' and 'Law Abiding Citizen,' and Nicolas Cage was terrible in 'Knowing,'" he says. "In any other year they would've been nominated."
It's the Razzies' 30th anniversary year, so it's time to bestow prizes for worst filmmaking of the decade. They'll be doled out with 2009's trophies at Hollywood's Barnsdall Gallery Theatre at 7:30 p.m. March 6.
WORST PICTURE OF 2009
"All About Steve"
"G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra"
"Land of the Lost"
"Old Dogs""
"Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" (a.k.a. "Trannies, Too")
WORST ACTOR OF 2009
All Three Jonas Brothers, "Jonas Brothers: The 3-D Concert Experience"
Will Ferrell, "Land of the Lost"
Steve Martin, "Pink Panther 2"
Eddie Murphy, "Imagine That"
John Travolta, "Old Dogs"
WORST ACTRESS Of 2009
Beyonce, "Obsessed"
Sandra Bullock, "All About Steve"
Myley Cyrus, "Hannah Montana: The Movie"
Megan Fox, "Jennifer’s Body" and "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen"
Sarah Jessica Parker, "Did You Hear About the Morgans?"
WORST SCREEN COUPLE OF 2009
Any Two (or More) Jonas Brothers, "The Jonas Brothers 3-D Concert Experience"
Sandra Bullock and Bradley Cooper, "All About Steve"
Will Ferrell and any co-star, Creature or "Comic Riff," "Land of the Lost"
Shia Lebouf & Either Megan Fox or Any Transformer, "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen"
Kristin Stewart and either Robert Pattinson or Taylor Whatz-His-Fang, "Twilight Saga: New Moon"
WORST SUPPORTING ACTRESS OF 2009
Candice Bergen, "Bride Wars"
Ali Larter, "Obsessed"
Sienna Miller, "G.I. Joe"
Kelly Preston,"Old Dogs"
Julie White (as Mom), "Trannies, Too"
WORST SUPPORTING ACTOR OF 2009
Billy Ray Cyrus, "Hannah Montana: The Movie"
Hugh Hefner (as himself), "Miss March"
Robert Pattinson, "Twilight Saga: New Moon"
Jorma Taccone (as Cha-Ka), "Land of the Lost"
Marlon Wayans, "G.I. Joe"
WORST REMAKE, RIP-OFF OR SEQUEL (COMBINED CATEGORY FOR 2009)
"G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra"
"Land of the Lost"
"Pink Panther 2" (A Rip-Off of a Sequel to a Remake)
"Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen"
"Twilight Saga: New Moon"
WORST DIRECTOR OF 2009
Michael Bay, "Trannies, Too"
Walt Becker, "Old Dogs"
Brad Silberling, "Land of the Lost"
Stephen Sommers, "G.I. Joe"
Phil Traill, "All About Steve"
WORST SCREENPLAY OF 2009
"All About Steve," screenplay by Kim Barker
"G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra," screenplay by Stuart Beattie and David Elliot & Paul Lovett, based on Hasbro's G.I. Joe Characters.
"Land of the Lost," written by Chris Henchy & Dennis McNicholas, based on Sid & Marty Krofft's TV series
"Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen," written By Ehren Kruger & Roberto Orci & Alex Kurtzman, based on Hasbro’s Transformers Action Figures
"Twilight Saga: New Moon," screenplay by Melissa Rosenberg, based on the novel by Stephenie Meyer
WORST PICTURE OF THE DECADE (3 SPECIAL 30TH RAZZIE-VERSARY AWARDZ)
"Battlefield Earth" (2000) -- Nominated for 10 Razzies, "winner" of 8 (including Worst Drama of Our First 25 Years)
"Freddy Got Fingered" (2001) -- Nominated for nine Razzies, "winner" of five
"Gigli" (2003) -- Nominated for 10 Razzies, winner of seven (including Worst Comedy of Our First 25 Years)
"I Know Who Killed Me" (2007) -- Nominated for nine Razzies, "winner" of eight
"Swept Away" (2002) -- Nominated for nine Razzies, "winner" of five
WORST ACTOR OF THE DECADE
Ben Affleck -- (Nominated for nine "achievements,"winner" of two Razzies) "Daredevil," "Gigli," "Jersey Girl," "Paycheck," "Pearl Harbor," "Surviving Christmas"
Eddie Murphy -- (Nominated for 12 "achievements," "winner" of three Razzies) "Adventures of Pluto Nash," "I Spy," "Imagine That," "Meet Dave," "Norbit," "Showtime"
Mike Myers -- (Nominated for four "achievements," "winner" of two Razzies), "Cat in the Hat," "The Love Guru"
Rob Schneider -- (Nominated for six "achievements," "winner" of one Razzie) "The Animal," "Benchwarmers," "Deuce Bigalo: European Gigolo," "Grandma's Boy," "The Hot Chick," "I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry," "Little Man," "Little Nicky"
John Travolta -- (Nominated for six "achievements," "winner" of three Razzies) "Battlefield Earth," "Domestic Disturbance," "Lucky Numbers," "Old Dogs," "Swordfish"
WORST ACTRESS OF THE DECADE
Mariah Carey – (The Single Biggest Individual Vote Getter of the Decade: 70+% Of ALL Votes For Worst Actress Of 2001), "Glitter"
Paris Hilton (Nominated for five "Achievements," "Winner" of four Razzies) "The Hottie & The Nottie," "House of Whacks," "Repo: The Genetic Opera"
Lindsay Lohan -- (Nominated for five "achievements," "winner" of three Razzies) "Herbie Fully Loaded," "I Know Who Killed Me," "Just My Luck"
Jennifer Lopez -- (Nominated for nine "achievements," "winner" of two Razzies) "Angel Eyes," "Enough," "Gigli," "Jersey Girl," "Maid in Manhattan," "Monster-in-Law," "The Wedding Planner"
Madonna -- (Nominated for six "achievements," "winner" of four Razzies) "Die Another Day," "The Next Best Thing," "Swept Away"
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Megan Fox Branded 'Dumb-As-A-Rock'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/13/megan-fox-branded-dumb-as_n_285005.html
Megan Fox Branded 'Dumb-As-A-Rock' And 'Classless' By 'Transformers' Crew, Michael Bay Responds
09-13-09
Megan Fox was the target of an open letter from unnamed 'Transformers' crew members slamming her as thankless, classless, graceless, dumb, trailer trash, and ungracious after she likened director Michael Bay to Hitler in an interview. Legitimizing the letter's authorship and sidestepping some of the allegations it made, Bay even weighed in (Bay's response is down below the long open letter).
The fracas started when Fox recently told an interviewer of Bay:
He's like Napoleon and he wants to create this insane, infamous mad-man reputation. He wants to be like Hitler on his sets, and he is. So he's a nightmare to work for but when you get him away from set, and he's not in director mode, I kind of really enjoy his personality because he's so awkward, so hopelessly awkward. He has no social skills at all. And it's endearing to watch him.
In return, unnamed crew members posted a long slam of Fox on Bay's website, signed "Loyal Transformers Crew," which has since been removed. But here it is:
"This is an open letter to all Michael Bay fans. We are three crew members that have worked with Michael for the past ten years. Last week we read the terrible article with inflammatory, truly trashing quotes by the Ms. Fox about Michael Bay. This letter is to set a few things straight.
Yes, Megan has great eyes, a tight stomach we spray with glycerin, and an awful silly Marilyn Monroe tattoo plastered on her arm that we cover up to keep the moms happy.
Michael found this shy, inexperienced girl, plucked her out of total obscurity thus giving her the biggest shot of any young actresses' life. He told everyone around to just trust him on his choice. He granted her the starring role in Transformers, a franchise that forever changed her life; she became one of the most googled and oogled women on earth. She was famous! She was the next Angelina Jolie, hooray! Wait a minute, two of us worked with Angelina - second thought - she's no Angelina. You see, Angelia is a professional.
We know this quite intimately because we've had the tedious experience of working with the dumb-as-a-rock Megan Fox on both Transformers movies. We've spent a total of 12 months on set making these two movies.
We are in different departments; we can't give our names because sadly doing so in Hollywood could lead to being banished from future Paramount work. One of us touches Megan's panties, the other has the often shitty job of pulling Ms. Sour pants out of her trailer, while another is near the Panaflex camera that helps to memorialize the valley girl on film.
Megan has the press fooled. When we read those magazines we wish we worked with that woman. Megan knows how to work her smile for the press. Those writers should try being on set for two movies, sadly she never smiles. The cast, crew and director make Transformers a really fun and energetic set. We've traveled around the world together, so we have never understood why Megan was always such - the grump of the set?
When facing the press, Megan is the queen of talking trailer trash and posing like a porn star. And yes we've had the unbearable time of watching her try to act on set, and yes, it's very cringe-able. So maybe, being a porn star in the future might be a good career option. But make-up beware, she has a paragraph tattooed to her backside (probably due her rotten childhood) easily another 45 minutes in the chair!
So when the three of us caught wind of Ms Fox, pontificating yet again in some publication (like she actually has something interesting to say) blabbing her trash mouth about a director whom we three have grown to really like. She compared working with Michael, to "working with Hitler". We actually don't think she knows who Hitler is by the way. But we wondered how she doesn't realize what a disgusting, fully uneducated comment this was? Well, here let's get some facts straight.
Say what you want about Michael - yes at times he can be hard, but he's also fun, and he challenges everyone for a reason - he simply wants people to bring their 'A' game. He comes very prepared, knows exactly what he wants, involves the crew and expects everyone to follow through with his or her best, and that includes the actors. He's one of the hardest working directors out there.
He gets the best from his crews, many of whom have worked with him for 15 years. And yes, he's loyal, one of the few directors we've encountered who lowered his fee by millions to keep Transformers in the United States and California, so he could work with his own crew.
Megan says that Transformers was an unsafe set? Come on Megan, we know it is a bit more strenuous then the playground at the trailer park, but you don't insult one of the very best stunt and physical effects teams in the business! Not one person got hurt!
And who is the real Megan Fox? She is very different than the academy nominee and winning actors we've all worked around. She's as about ungracious a person as you can ever fathom. She shows little interest in the crew members around her. We work to make her look good in every way, but she's absolutely never appreciative of anyone's hard work. Never a thank you. All the crewmembers have stopped saying hi to Ms. Princess because she never says hello back. It gets tiring. Many think she just really hates the process of being an actress.
Megan has been late to the sets many times. She goes through the motions that make her exude this sense of misery. We've heard the A.D's piped over the radio that Megan won't walk from her trailer until John Turturro walks first! John's done seventy-five movies and she's made two!
Never expect Megan to attend any of the 15 or so crew parties like all the other actors have. And then there's the classless night she blew off The Royal Prince of Jordan who made a special dinner for all the actors. She doesn't know that one of the grips daughters wanted to visit their daddy's work to meet Megan, but he wouldn't let them come because he told them "she is not nice."
The press certainly doesn't know her most famous line. On our first day in Egypt, the Egyptian government wouldn't let us shoot because of a permit problem as the actors got ready in make up at the Four Seasons Hotel. Michael tried to make the best of it; he wanted to take the cast and crew on a private tour of the famous Giza pyramids. God hold us witness, Megan said, "I can't believe Michael is fucking forcing us to go to the fucking pyramids!" I guess this is the "Hitler guy" she is referring to.
So this is the Megan Fox you don't get to see. Maybe she will learn, but we figure if she can sling insults, then she can take them too. Megan really is a thankless, classless, graceless, and shall we say unfriendly bitch. It's sad how fame can twist people, and even sadder that young girls look up to her. If only they knew who they're really looking up to.
But 'Fame' is fleeting. We, being behind the scenes, seen em' come and go. Hopefully Michael will have Megatron squish her character in the first ten minutes of Transformers 3. We can tell you that will make the crew happy!"
-Loyal Transformers Crew
Late Saturday Bay waded in slamming both sides:
I don't condone the crew letter to Megan. And I don't condone Megan's outlandish quotes. But her crazy quips are part of her crazy charm. The fact of the matter I still love working with her, and I know we still get along. I even expect more crazy quotes from her on Transformers 3.
Michael
No word yet from Fox.
Megan Fox Branded 'Dumb-As-A-Rock' And 'Classless' By 'Transformers' Crew, Michael Bay Responds
09-13-09
Megan Fox was the target of an open letter from unnamed 'Transformers' crew members slamming her as thankless, classless, graceless, dumb, trailer trash, and ungracious after she likened director Michael Bay to Hitler in an interview. Legitimizing the letter's authorship and sidestepping some of the allegations it made, Bay even weighed in (Bay's response is down below the long open letter).
The fracas started when Fox recently told an interviewer of Bay:
He's like Napoleon and he wants to create this insane, infamous mad-man reputation. He wants to be like Hitler on his sets, and he is. So he's a nightmare to work for but when you get him away from set, and he's not in director mode, I kind of really enjoy his personality because he's so awkward, so hopelessly awkward. He has no social skills at all. And it's endearing to watch him.
In return, unnamed crew members posted a long slam of Fox on Bay's website, signed "Loyal Transformers Crew," which has since been removed. But here it is:
"This is an open letter to all Michael Bay fans. We are three crew members that have worked with Michael for the past ten years. Last week we read the terrible article with inflammatory, truly trashing quotes by the Ms. Fox about Michael Bay. This letter is to set a few things straight.
Yes, Megan has great eyes, a tight stomach we spray with glycerin, and an awful silly Marilyn Monroe tattoo plastered on her arm that we cover up to keep the moms happy.
Michael found this shy, inexperienced girl, plucked her out of total obscurity thus giving her the biggest shot of any young actresses' life. He told everyone around to just trust him on his choice. He granted her the starring role in Transformers, a franchise that forever changed her life; she became one of the most googled and oogled women on earth. She was famous! She was the next Angelina Jolie, hooray! Wait a minute, two of us worked with Angelina - second thought - she's no Angelina. You see, Angelia is a professional.
We know this quite intimately because we've had the tedious experience of working with the dumb-as-a-rock Megan Fox on both Transformers movies. We've spent a total of 12 months on set making these two movies.
We are in different departments; we can't give our names because sadly doing so in Hollywood could lead to being banished from future Paramount work. One of us touches Megan's panties, the other has the often shitty job of pulling Ms. Sour pants out of her trailer, while another is near the Panaflex camera that helps to memorialize the valley girl on film.
Megan has the press fooled. When we read those magazines we wish we worked with that woman. Megan knows how to work her smile for the press. Those writers should try being on set for two movies, sadly she never smiles. The cast, crew and director make Transformers a really fun and energetic set. We've traveled around the world together, so we have never understood why Megan was always such - the grump of the set?
When facing the press, Megan is the queen of talking trailer trash and posing like a porn star. And yes we've had the unbearable time of watching her try to act on set, and yes, it's very cringe-able. So maybe, being a porn star in the future might be a good career option. But make-up beware, she has a paragraph tattooed to her backside (probably due her rotten childhood) easily another 45 minutes in the chair!
So when the three of us caught wind of Ms Fox, pontificating yet again in some publication (like she actually has something interesting to say) blabbing her trash mouth about a director whom we three have grown to really like. She compared working with Michael, to "working with Hitler". We actually don't think she knows who Hitler is by the way. But we wondered how she doesn't realize what a disgusting, fully uneducated comment this was? Well, here let's get some facts straight.
Say what you want about Michael - yes at times he can be hard, but he's also fun, and he challenges everyone for a reason - he simply wants people to bring their 'A' game. He comes very prepared, knows exactly what he wants, involves the crew and expects everyone to follow through with his or her best, and that includes the actors. He's one of the hardest working directors out there.
He gets the best from his crews, many of whom have worked with him for 15 years. And yes, he's loyal, one of the few directors we've encountered who lowered his fee by millions to keep Transformers in the United States and California, so he could work with his own crew.
Megan says that Transformers was an unsafe set? Come on Megan, we know it is a bit more strenuous then the playground at the trailer park, but you don't insult one of the very best stunt and physical effects teams in the business! Not one person got hurt!
And who is the real Megan Fox? She is very different than the academy nominee and winning actors we've all worked around. She's as about ungracious a person as you can ever fathom. She shows little interest in the crew members around her. We work to make her look good in every way, but she's absolutely never appreciative of anyone's hard work. Never a thank you. All the crewmembers have stopped saying hi to Ms. Princess because she never says hello back. It gets tiring. Many think she just really hates the process of being an actress.
Megan has been late to the sets many times. She goes through the motions that make her exude this sense of misery. We've heard the A.D's piped over the radio that Megan won't walk from her trailer until John Turturro walks first! John's done seventy-five movies and she's made two!
Never expect Megan to attend any of the 15 or so crew parties like all the other actors have. And then there's the classless night she blew off The Royal Prince of Jordan who made a special dinner for all the actors. She doesn't know that one of the grips daughters wanted to visit their daddy's work to meet Megan, but he wouldn't let them come because he told them "she is not nice."
The press certainly doesn't know her most famous line. On our first day in Egypt, the Egyptian government wouldn't let us shoot because of a permit problem as the actors got ready in make up at the Four Seasons Hotel. Michael tried to make the best of it; he wanted to take the cast and crew on a private tour of the famous Giza pyramids. God hold us witness, Megan said, "I can't believe Michael is fucking forcing us to go to the fucking pyramids!" I guess this is the "Hitler guy" she is referring to.
So this is the Megan Fox you don't get to see. Maybe she will learn, but we figure if she can sling insults, then she can take them too. Megan really is a thankless, classless, graceless, and shall we say unfriendly bitch. It's sad how fame can twist people, and even sadder that young girls look up to her. If only they knew who they're really looking up to.
But 'Fame' is fleeting. We, being behind the scenes, seen em' come and go. Hopefully Michael will have Megatron squish her character in the first ten minutes of Transformers 3. We can tell you that will make the crew happy!"
-Loyal Transformers Crew
Late Saturday Bay waded in slamming both sides:
I don't condone the crew letter to Megan. And I don't condone Megan's outlandish quotes. But her crazy quips are part of her crazy charm. The fact of the matter I still love working with her, and I know we still get along. I even expect more crazy quotes from her on Transformers 3.
Michael
No word yet from Fox.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
War of the Words: Michael Bay Vs. Megan Fox
War of the Words: Genius Cinematic Auteur Michael Bay Vs. Method Actress Megan Fox
http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/us-magazine-megan-fox-bay.html
Director: Megan Fox 'Says Some Very Ridiculous Things'
by Us Magazine
July 1, 2009
Megan Fox slammed "Transformers" director Michael Bay for focusing more on special effects than acting, but he doesn't mind.
"Well, that's Megan Fox for you," Bay tell the Wall Street Journal. "She says some very ridiculous things because she's 23 years old and she still has a lot of growing to do.
"You roll your eyes when you see statements like that and think, 'Okay Megan, you can do whatever you want. I got it,'" he goes on.
Fox told Entertainment Weekly: "I mean, I can't s--- on this movie because it did give me a career and open all these doors for me. But I don't want to blow smoke up people's a--. People are well aware that this is not a movie about acting."
Bay says he "100 percent disagrees" with Fox.
"Nick Cage wasn't a big actor when I cast him, nor was Ben Affleck before I put him in 'Armageddon.' Shia LaBeouf wasn't a big movie star before he did 'Transformers' -- and then he exploded. Not to mention Will Smith and Martin Lawrence, from 'Bad Boys'," he points out.
Bay thinks Fox could be a little more grateful, though.
"Nobody in the world knew about Megan Fox until I found her and put her in Transformers," he says. "I like to think that I've had some luck in building actors' careers with my films."
http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/us-magazine-megan-fox-bay.html
Director: Megan Fox 'Says Some Very Ridiculous Things'
by Us Magazine
July 1, 2009
Megan Fox slammed "Transformers" director Michael Bay for focusing more on special effects than acting, but he doesn't mind.
"Well, that's Megan Fox for you," Bay tell the Wall Street Journal. "She says some very ridiculous things because she's 23 years old and she still has a lot of growing to do.
"You roll your eyes when you see statements like that and think, 'Okay Megan, you can do whatever you want. I got it,'" he goes on.
Fox told Entertainment Weekly: "I mean, I can't s--- on this movie because it did give me a career and open all these doors for me. But I don't want to blow smoke up people's a--. People are well aware that this is not a movie about acting."
Bay says he "100 percent disagrees" with Fox.
"Nick Cage wasn't a big actor when I cast him, nor was Ben Affleck before I put him in 'Armageddon.' Shia LaBeouf wasn't a big movie star before he did 'Transformers' -- and then he exploded. Not to mention Will Smith and Martin Lawrence, from 'Bad Boys'," he points out.
Bay thinks Fox could be a little more grateful, though.
"Nobody in the world knew about Megan Fox until I found her and put her in Transformers," he says. "I like to think that I've had some luck in building actors' careers with my films."
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
`Transformers': Worst-reviewed $400 million hit?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/29/AR2009062901195.html
`Transformers': Worst-reviewed $400 million hit?
By DAVID GERMAIN
The Associated Press
Monday, June 29, 2009
LOS ANGELES -- After just five days, "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" is halfway to $400 million domestically, a box-office milestone only eight other movies have reached. If it climbs that high, the "Transformers" sequel will be by far the worst-reviewed movie ever to make the $400 million club.
Critics and mainstream crowds often disagree, but "Revenge of the Fallen" sets a new standard for the gulf between what reviewers and mass audiences like.
The movie pulled in $201.2 million since opening Wednesday, the second-best result for a movie in its first five days, just behind "The Dark Knight" with $203.8 million. Even after its whopping $60.6 million opening day, "Revenge of the Fallen" was packing theaters, a sign that unlike critics, who mostly hated the movie, audiences felt they were getting their money's worth and were giving the flick good word of mouth.
Critics "forget what the goal of the movie was. The goal of the movie is to entertain and have fun," said Rob Moore, vice chairman of Paramount, which is distributing "Transformers" for DreamWorks. "What the audience tells us is, `We couldn't be more entertained and having more fun.' They kind of roll their eyes at the critics and say, `You have no idea what you're talking about.'"
According to Paramount's exit polls, 91 percent of the audience thought the sequel was as good as or better than the first "Transformers," which received far better reviews.
Most of Hollywood's all-time biggest hits are accompanied by either good or at least passable reviews, and some can be among the year's most-acclaimed, such as this year's "Up" and "Star Trek" and last year's "The Dark Knight," "WALL-E" and "Iron Man."
Not so for the new "Transformers." On Rottentomatoes.com, a Web site that compiles critics' opinions, the sequel had only 38 positive reviews out of 187, a lowly 20 percent rating usually reserved for box-office duds.
Many critics who liked the movie had reservations, praising the movie's visual effects and relentless action but generally advising audiences to check their brains at the door.
The critical drubbing was a new low for "Transformers" director Michael Bay, never a favorite among professional movie reviewers. But he has long been a favorite among fans, scoring hits with the first "Transformers" and such flicks as "Armageddon," "Pearl Harbor," "Bad Boys II" and "The Rock."
Like blockbuster maestro Jerry Bruckheimer, who produced many of Bay's movies, the director aims to please audiences, not critics.
"He really had blinders on when it comes to what he believed the picture needs to be, and then he executed it," said Brad Grey, Paramount chairman and chief executive officer. "He's a director who is the definition of blockbuster at this point. His grosses speak for themselves."
Bay's previous worst score on Rottentomatoes was 23 percent for "Bad Boys II," followed by 25 percent for "Pearl Harbor." Even his commercial flop "The Island" rated well above the "Transformers" sequel, with 40 percent positive reviews.
Of the eight movies that have grossed more than $400 million domestically, four scored 90 percent or higher on Rottentomatoes: "The Dark Knight," "Spider-Man," "E.T. the Extra-terrestrial" and "Star Wars." Two others, "Shrek 2" and "Titanic," topped 80 percent.
The other two had mixed reviews but still came in far higher than "Revenge of the Fallen," with "Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace" scoring 63 percent and "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest" rating 53 percent.
This year's biggest hits so far had terrific scores, "Up" with 97 percent and "Star Trek" with 95 percent. Both movies have grossed about $250 million, a number the "Transformers" sequel will soar past by next weekend.
On Metacritic.com, a site that assigns ratings of zero to 100 based on movie reviews, "Revenge of the Fallen" received a 36, a lowly score barely above those given to recent box-office duds "Year One" and "Land of the Lost."
Bay has said that if there is a third "Transformers" movie, he would like to come back for it. But his next project could be far quieter than the explosions and action for which he is known.
"I've got to take a little time off from the robot world," Bay said before the movie opened. "I've got to do something totally different. It's enough of this for right now. I keep saying I'm going to do my small movie. I've got one I want to do."
---
On the Net:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com
http://www.metacritic.com
---
Associated Press Entertainment Writer Sandy Cohen contributed to this report
`Transformers': Worst-reviewed $400 million hit?
By DAVID GERMAIN
The Associated Press
Monday, June 29, 2009
LOS ANGELES -- After just five days, "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" is halfway to $400 million domestically, a box-office milestone only eight other movies have reached. If it climbs that high, the "Transformers" sequel will be by far the worst-reviewed movie ever to make the $400 million club.
Critics and mainstream crowds often disagree, but "Revenge of the Fallen" sets a new standard for the gulf between what reviewers and mass audiences like.
The movie pulled in $201.2 million since opening Wednesday, the second-best result for a movie in its first five days, just behind "The Dark Knight" with $203.8 million. Even after its whopping $60.6 million opening day, "Revenge of the Fallen" was packing theaters, a sign that unlike critics, who mostly hated the movie, audiences felt they were getting their money's worth and were giving the flick good word of mouth.
Critics "forget what the goal of the movie was. The goal of the movie is to entertain and have fun," said Rob Moore, vice chairman of Paramount, which is distributing "Transformers" for DreamWorks. "What the audience tells us is, `We couldn't be more entertained and having more fun.' They kind of roll their eyes at the critics and say, `You have no idea what you're talking about.'"
According to Paramount's exit polls, 91 percent of the audience thought the sequel was as good as or better than the first "Transformers," which received far better reviews.
Most of Hollywood's all-time biggest hits are accompanied by either good or at least passable reviews, and some can be among the year's most-acclaimed, such as this year's "Up" and "Star Trek" and last year's "The Dark Knight," "WALL-E" and "Iron Man."
Not so for the new "Transformers." On Rottentomatoes.com, a Web site that compiles critics' opinions, the sequel had only 38 positive reviews out of 187, a lowly 20 percent rating usually reserved for box-office duds.
Many critics who liked the movie had reservations, praising the movie's visual effects and relentless action but generally advising audiences to check their brains at the door.
The critical drubbing was a new low for "Transformers" director Michael Bay, never a favorite among professional movie reviewers. But he has long been a favorite among fans, scoring hits with the first "Transformers" and such flicks as "Armageddon," "Pearl Harbor," "Bad Boys II" and "The Rock."
Like blockbuster maestro Jerry Bruckheimer, who produced many of Bay's movies, the director aims to please audiences, not critics.
"He really had blinders on when it comes to what he believed the picture needs to be, and then he executed it," said Brad Grey, Paramount chairman and chief executive officer. "He's a director who is the definition of blockbuster at this point. His grosses speak for themselves."
Bay's previous worst score on Rottentomatoes was 23 percent for "Bad Boys II," followed by 25 percent for "Pearl Harbor." Even his commercial flop "The Island" rated well above the "Transformers" sequel, with 40 percent positive reviews.
Of the eight movies that have grossed more than $400 million domestically, four scored 90 percent or higher on Rottentomatoes: "The Dark Knight," "Spider-Man," "E.T. the Extra-terrestrial" and "Star Wars." Two others, "Shrek 2" and "Titanic," topped 80 percent.
The other two had mixed reviews but still came in far higher than "Revenge of the Fallen," with "Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace" scoring 63 percent and "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest" rating 53 percent.
This year's biggest hits so far had terrific scores, "Up" with 97 percent and "Star Trek" with 95 percent. Both movies have grossed about $250 million, a number the "Transformers" sequel will soar past by next weekend.
On Metacritic.com, a site that assigns ratings of zero to 100 based on movie reviews, "Revenge of the Fallen" received a 36, a lowly score barely above those given to recent box-office duds "Year One" and "Land of the Lost."
Bay has said that if there is a third "Transformers" movie, he would like to come back for it. But his next project could be far quieter than the explosions and action for which he is known.
"I've got to take a little time off from the robot world," Bay said before the movie opened. "I've got to do something totally different. It's enough of this for right now. I keep saying I'm going to do my small movie. I've got one I want to do."
---
On the Net:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com
http://www.metacritic.com
---
Associated Press Entertainment Writer Sandy Cohen contributed to this report
Monday, June 29, 2009
Transformers -vs- Transformers
http://networkedblogs.com/p6577318
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009) -vs- Transformers (2007)
When Robots Collide
Beau DeMayo
June 25, 2009 in Action, Beau DeMayo, Comic Book, Sci-Fi, Teens
The Smackdown. Hollywood's in love with the 1980s, and nowhere is it more apparent than with the Transformer's franchise. Started in 2007, the first "Transformers" was a box-office success, easily earning itself a sequel in "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen." Now, in less then two years, "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" hits theaters with the same cast and crew as the original. Sounds like a fair fight? So true spirit to the Transformer series, today's smackdown pits robot against robot in a knock-down intergalactic cinematic fight as we ask which film does robot-on-robot action better?
The Challenger. With "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen," Michael Bay spares no expense ensuring audiences get more bang for their $14 movie ticket. This time, a college-bound Sam Witwicky finds himself trapped in the ever-escalating war between the Autobots and Decepticons...again. See, a prehistoric Transformer called The Fallen intends to drain our sun to obtain the Transformer's life-force, Energon. Naturally, he'll then conquer the cosmos or achieve some equally impolite end (like chewing with his mouth open). But only Sam knows the location of this Energon machine due to a series of psychic visions. Now, Sam must lead the Autobots to Egypt where they wage war against The Fallen, his Decepticons, and Megatron...yes, that's right, Megatron's back too. Still want more plot? Don't worry; I just gave you half. Clocking in well over two hours, "Transformers: RotF" has enough plot for three trilogies. It's the only type of sequel you'd expect from Michael Bay: one that's bigger, louder, and dumber.
The Defending Champion. "Transformers" was pitched to Michael Bay as a film about a boy getting his first car. Sounds nice. Really, it's about a boy caught between two groups of alien robots whose intergalactic war has crashed landed on Earth. Everyone's searching for the Allspark, a techno-mystical cube with the power to animate any mechanical form. By the end of the movie, I think I got that Megatron wanted this cube so he could create a new mechanical army to take over Earth... but that was after two brain-busting hours of claustrophobic action, syrupy slow-mo shots, self-aware jokes, and bombastic explosions.
The Scorecard. Both "Transformers" and "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" brim with elaborate action set-pieces, campy humor, and hyper-sexuality. Industrial Light and Magic struggles in both films to design the Transformers in such a way that we can distinguish one from the other. Whenever a fight erupts between Autobot and Decepticon, the on-screen action tumbles into a jumbled mess of flopping, indistinguishable mechanical parts. Sure, I appreciate the high level of detail, but not at the cost of coherent action scenes. "Transformers: RotF" especially suffers from ILM's designs as Bay introduces a whole slew of new Transformers that simply blend together. It's hard to appreciate large-scale action sequences when I can't tell the good from the bad guys and thus, can't tell who's winning.
Now both films embrace Bay's typical low-brow humor. Again, "Transformers: RotF" probably suffers most in this category. Gags like Sam's mom lolly-gagging around on a college campus after eating pot-brownies or the dangling wrecking ball testicles on a construction Decepticon aren't just dumb, they're insulting to the audiences' intelligence. "Transformers" had some corny moments, many centered around the Autobots fitting into Sam's suburban life. However, none proved as gregarious and useless as those in Transformers: RotF" where the jokes simply exist onto themselves and are cracked in the most inappropriate moments.
While on the topic of insulting our intelligence, let's not forget Sam's girlfriend Mikaela, played by Megan Fox. When we first meet her, Mikaela is bent over a motorcycle in daisy dukes, applying lip gloss as she flirts with Sam on the phone. This scene alone establishes Bay's general outlook toward women in "Transformers 2: RotF." Everyone female -- from college students to lip-lassoing Decepticons -- exist either as love-dumb airhead or sexy vixena. In the first film, we at least got to see female Defense analysts and agents. Even Mikaela, struggling to be more than just the popular girl, had a journey in "Transformers." She doesn't just make pouty-kiss faces at the camera as she does this time around.
But so far, both these films are guilty of the same crimes, with "Transformers: RotF" being a bit more to blame.
Now while "Transformers" had its healthy dose of claustrophobic over-plotting, "Transformers: RotF" proves that bigger is not always better. Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman scribed both films, with Ehren Kruger joining them for the second outing. How much Michael Bay contributed to story, I don't know. However, there seems to be a constant tension between Bay's sensibilities and the retro-camp feeling the scribes hoped to achieve. Looking at the dialogue (especially of The Autobots), one will notice its on-the-nose, campy feel. What at first can be seen as just poor dialogue is really an homage to the 1980s cartoons, where Optimus Prime spoke in verbose monologues about sacrifice, virtue, and friendship. The writers spend a hefty amount of time establishing this cartoony world only to have Bay come in and try to merge it with real world grittiness.
In all his films, Bay has a clear love of the military. Even "Transformers" suffered from the "I love the military" attitude of Bay. But in "Transformers: RotF," I actually began to wonder if this movie was financed by the United States Military. As the Autobots square off against The Decepticons, Bay continually forces the US military to have a role in the action. Whole portions of the climax play like "Join The Army" ads, showing extreme sports style camera views of parachuting into combat. We watch Higgins boats and jet bombers do their thing. And we spend way too much time listening to "Delta Four, you are ready to blah blah blah at Vector blah blah bleh." But yet, at the same time, there's this evil alien robot with a energy spear hopping around The Great Pyramids, reeling in his plan "to destroy the sun and kill mankind!" It just doesn't fit. It doesn't feel natural or organic. Plus, isn't this a movie about big-ass robots?
Where this really hurts Bay is that the military, at times, is actually more competent than Sam or the Autobots. Example, while a huge Decepticon destroys a pyramid, another character calls a battleship off the coast and orders them to use their "rail gun." What is this rail gun? I don't know. First time we've ever heard about it. So, the battleship unveils this hi-tech rail gun and proceeds to destroy the huge Decepticon (from miles away!) when all of the Autobots could barely handle it. Yet they never use the gun again. Even as smaller and more exposed Decepticons continue to fight, the good guys never think, "Hey, that rail gun worked really nifty that time. Hm, how about..."
Moments like these seem too hammed and forced. This, matched with the constant intercutting of military procedures and lingo, create a climax that's like a geriatric patient wadding through mud.
Now, characterization is another thing to examine with these two films.
When the movie begins, you see that Sam's journey is going to be one of becoming a man. He's young and going off to college and his parents struggle to let him go. Now, more on his own than in the first film, Sam must rise to the occasion and lead the Autobots. Yet, isn't this essentially the same journey from the first film? What you soon realize in "Transformers: RotF" is that you are watching "Transformers," all over again, only with more robots, more action, and more dialogue. Sequels like "The Dark Knight" or "Spider-Man 2" demonstrated that you must ask a new dramatic question of your characters. The characters and the world must be explored differently, with new conclusions reached because of it. "Transformers: RotF" just retreads its predecessor's ground, adding nothing new.
And don't count on the Autobots to make the story feel any different. For spending so much time humanizing the Transformers with intricate facial expressions and body features, Bay fails to apply that same level of detail to their character arcs. Optimus Prime and his Autobot friends do not change. Optimus is always the loyal, headstrong leader. Bubblebee is always the loyal, childish robot. They don't grow, they don't evolve as a result of their conflicts. They simply move through a set of action pieces toward the film's end.
So now we're left with strict plot. "Transformers" was fairly standard in terms of its plot. We have a sympathetic character. He gets in trouble. Whoops! Bad guys. Comedic moments. Action. Damn, things look severe. What? Yay! Good guys win! So while I can't forgive the plot paradox of the Allspark being a object that can both restore and kill Transformers, I can say "Transformers" at least tried. On the other hand, "Transformers: RotF" takes poor plotting to another level.
The movie spends forty minutes establishing itself. And that's because it's just so damned convoluted. Here, just watch:
Sam is going to college and Mikaela is staying behind and while Sam's gone his parents are going to Paris to get some free time now that they've finally let their son go. But Sam touched a fragment of the Allspark from the first movie and now is having these mental breakdowns in class and drawing weird Autobot hieroglyphs everywhere. Meanwhile, The Autobots are working for the US government but at the same time they may be exiled by the government because the Decepticons are still causing a ruckus and the public is becoming more and more aware that there are gigantic robot aliens warring on the planet. Also the Decepticons are spying on Earth in order to locate Megatron (who died) so they can bring him to The Fallen who is the master of Megatron and wants to find this ancient machine that was left on Earth that will allow him to harness the sun's rays to get Energon which will enable him to create an army and take over the universe.
We wait nearly an hour for all of that to get set-up....just so we can understand what the hell is going on. What's worse? It doesn't stop there as Sam must journey to find an ancient Prime Transformer who space-jumps them to Egypt where they go on an Indiana Jones adventure trying to solve an ancient riddle about three kings and hunt down a legendary alien artifact.
Along the way, as we trudge through this near incomprehensible plot, we lose track of any character arcs, any themes, or any nuances that would make us appreciate this film as anything more than eye sex (and like I said, even that is jumbled). By the time we reach Egypt and the film's climactic battle, you actually find yourself rooting for the film to end regardless of who dies in the process.
The Decision. So yeah, I know, "Transformers" is not a great film. But it was understandable in terms of plot and character. There was something to hold onto in the journey of a boy becoming a man. But "Transformers: RotF" is just spectacle, and jumbled spectacle at best. It retreads its predecessors ground with more action and less class. So when it comes down to these two films, it's "Transformers" that offers us something more than what meets our eye!
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009) -vs- Transformers (2007)
When Robots Collide
Beau DeMayo
June 25, 2009 in Action, Beau DeMayo, Comic Book, Sci-Fi, Teens
The Smackdown. Hollywood's in love with the 1980s, and nowhere is it more apparent than with the Transformer's franchise. Started in 2007, the first "Transformers" was a box-office success, easily earning itself a sequel in "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen." Now, in less then two years, "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" hits theaters with the same cast and crew as the original. Sounds like a fair fight? So true spirit to the Transformer series, today's smackdown pits robot against robot in a knock-down intergalactic cinematic fight as we ask which film does robot-on-robot action better?
The Challenger. With "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen," Michael Bay spares no expense ensuring audiences get more bang for their $14 movie ticket. This time, a college-bound Sam Witwicky finds himself trapped in the ever-escalating war between the Autobots and Decepticons...again. See, a prehistoric Transformer called The Fallen intends to drain our sun to obtain the Transformer's life-force, Energon. Naturally, he'll then conquer the cosmos or achieve some equally impolite end (like chewing with his mouth open). But only Sam knows the location of this Energon machine due to a series of psychic visions. Now, Sam must lead the Autobots to Egypt where they wage war against The Fallen, his Decepticons, and Megatron...yes, that's right, Megatron's back too. Still want more plot? Don't worry; I just gave you half. Clocking in well over two hours, "Transformers: RotF" has enough plot for three trilogies. It's the only type of sequel you'd expect from Michael Bay: one that's bigger, louder, and dumber.
The Defending Champion. "Transformers" was pitched to Michael Bay as a film about a boy getting his first car. Sounds nice. Really, it's about a boy caught between two groups of alien robots whose intergalactic war has crashed landed on Earth. Everyone's searching for the Allspark, a techno-mystical cube with the power to animate any mechanical form. By the end of the movie, I think I got that Megatron wanted this cube so he could create a new mechanical army to take over Earth... but that was after two brain-busting hours of claustrophobic action, syrupy slow-mo shots, self-aware jokes, and bombastic explosions.
The Scorecard. Both "Transformers" and "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" brim with elaborate action set-pieces, campy humor, and hyper-sexuality. Industrial Light and Magic struggles in both films to design the Transformers in such a way that we can distinguish one from the other. Whenever a fight erupts between Autobot and Decepticon, the on-screen action tumbles into a jumbled mess of flopping, indistinguishable mechanical parts. Sure, I appreciate the high level of detail, but not at the cost of coherent action scenes. "Transformers: RotF" especially suffers from ILM's designs as Bay introduces a whole slew of new Transformers that simply blend together. It's hard to appreciate large-scale action sequences when I can't tell the good from the bad guys and thus, can't tell who's winning.
Now both films embrace Bay's typical low-brow humor. Again, "Transformers: RotF" probably suffers most in this category. Gags like Sam's mom lolly-gagging around on a college campus after eating pot-brownies or the dangling wrecking ball testicles on a construction Decepticon aren't just dumb, they're insulting to the audiences' intelligence. "Transformers" had some corny moments, many centered around the Autobots fitting into Sam's suburban life. However, none proved as gregarious and useless as those in Transformers: RotF" where the jokes simply exist onto themselves and are cracked in the most inappropriate moments.
While on the topic of insulting our intelligence, let's not forget Sam's girlfriend Mikaela, played by Megan Fox. When we first meet her, Mikaela is bent over a motorcycle in daisy dukes, applying lip gloss as she flirts with Sam on the phone. This scene alone establishes Bay's general outlook toward women in "Transformers 2: RotF." Everyone female -- from college students to lip-lassoing Decepticons -- exist either as love-dumb airhead or sexy vixena. In the first film, we at least got to see female Defense analysts and agents. Even Mikaela, struggling to be more than just the popular girl, had a journey in "Transformers." She doesn't just make pouty-kiss faces at the camera as she does this time around.
But so far, both these films are guilty of the same crimes, with "Transformers: RotF" being a bit more to blame.
Now while "Transformers" had its healthy dose of claustrophobic over-plotting, "Transformers: RotF" proves that bigger is not always better. Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman scribed both films, with Ehren Kruger joining them for the second outing. How much Michael Bay contributed to story, I don't know. However, there seems to be a constant tension between Bay's sensibilities and the retro-camp feeling the scribes hoped to achieve. Looking at the dialogue (especially of The Autobots), one will notice its on-the-nose, campy feel. What at first can be seen as just poor dialogue is really an homage to the 1980s cartoons, where Optimus Prime spoke in verbose monologues about sacrifice, virtue, and friendship. The writers spend a hefty amount of time establishing this cartoony world only to have Bay come in and try to merge it with real world grittiness.
In all his films, Bay has a clear love of the military. Even "Transformers" suffered from the "I love the military" attitude of Bay. But in "Transformers: RotF," I actually began to wonder if this movie was financed by the United States Military. As the Autobots square off against The Decepticons, Bay continually forces the US military to have a role in the action. Whole portions of the climax play like "Join The Army" ads, showing extreme sports style camera views of parachuting into combat. We watch Higgins boats and jet bombers do their thing. And we spend way too much time listening to "Delta Four, you are ready to blah blah blah at Vector blah blah bleh." But yet, at the same time, there's this evil alien robot with a energy spear hopping around The Great Pyramids, reeling in his plan "to destroy the sun and kill mankind!" It just doesn't fit. It doesn't feel natural or organic. Plus, isn't this a movie about big-ass robots?
Where this really hurts Bay is that the military, at times, is actually more competent than Sam or the Autobots. Example, while a huge Decepticon destroys a pyramid, another character calls a battleship off the coast and orders them to use their "rail gun." What is this rail gun? I don't know. First time we've ever heard about it. So, the battleship unveils this hi-tech rail gun and proceeds to destroy the huge Decepticon (from miles away!) when all of the Autobots could barely handle it. Yet they never use the gun again. Even as smaller and more exposed Decepticons continue to fight, the good guys never think, "Hey, that rail gun worked really nifty that time. Hm, how about..."
Moments like these seem too hammed and forced. This, matched with the constant intercutting of military procedures and lingo, create a climax that's like a geriatric patient wadding through mud.
Now, characterization is another thing to examine with these two films.
When the movie begins, you see that Sam's journey is going to be one of becoming a man. He's young and going off to college and his parents struggle to let him go. Now, more on his own than in the first film, Sam must rise to the occasion and lead the Autobots. Yet, isn't this essentially the same journey from the first film? What you soon realize in "Transformers: RotF" is that you are watching "Transformers," all over again, only with more robots, more action, and more dialogue. Sequels like "The Dark Knight" or "Spider-Man 2" demonstrated that you must ask a new dramatic question of your characters. The characters and the world must be explored differently, with new conclusions reached because of it. "Transformers: RotF" just retreads its predecessor's ground, adding nothing new.
And don't count on the Autobots to make the story feel any different. For spending so much time humanizing the Transformers with intricate facial expressions and body features, Bay fails to apply that same level of detail to their character arcs. Optimus Prime and his Autobot friends do not change. Optimus is always the loyal, headstrong leader. Bubblebee is always the loyal, childish robot. They don't grow, they don't evolve as a result of their conflicts. They simply move through a set of action pieces toward the film's end.
So now we're left with strict plot. "Transformers" was fairly standard in terms of its plot. We have a sympathetic character. He gets in trouble. Whoops! Bad guys. Comedic moments. Action. Damn, things look severe. What? Yay! Good guys win! So while I can't forgive the plot paradox of the Allspark being a object that can both restore and kill Transformers, I can say "Transformers" at least tried. On the other hand, "Transformers: RotF" takes poor plotting to another level.
The movie spends forty minutes establishing itself. And that's because it's just so damned convoluted. Here, just watch:
Sam is going to college and Mikaela is staying behind and while Sam's gone his parents are going to Paris to get some free time now that they've finally let their son go. But Sam touched a fragment of the Allspark from the first movie and now is having these mental breakdowns in class and drawing weird Autobot hieroglyphs everywhere. Meanwhile, The Autobots are working for the US government but at the same time they may be exiled by the government because the Decepticons are still causing a ruckus and the public is becoming more and more aware that there are gigantic robot aliens warring on the planet. Also the Decepticons are spying on Earth in order to locate Megatron (who died) so they can bring him to The Fallen who is the master of Megatron and wants to find this ancient machine that was left on Earth that will allow him to harness the sun's rays to get Energon which will enable him to create an army and take over the universe.
We wait nearly an hour for all of that to get set-up....just so we can understand what the hell is going on. What's worse? It doesn't stop there as Sam must journey to find an ancient Prime Transformer who space-jumps them to Egypt where they go on an Indiana Jones adventure trying to solve an ancient riddle about three kings and hunt down a legendary alien artifact.
Along the way, as we trudge through this near incomprehensible plot, we lose track of any character arcs, any themes, or any nuances that would make us appreciate this film as anything more than eye sex (and like I said, even that is jumbled). By the time we reach Egypt and the film's climactic battle, you actually find yourself rooting for the film to end regardless of who dies in the process.
The Decision. So yeah, I know, "Transformers" is not a great film. But it was understandable in terms of plot and character. There was something to hold onto in the journey of a boy becoming a man. But "Transformers: RotF" is just spectacle, and jumbled spectacle at best. It retreads its predecessors ground with more action and less class. So when it comes down to these two films, it's "Transformers" that offers us something more than what meets our eye!
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Beast of the Month - March 2009
Beast of the Month - March 2009
Uwe Boll
Grade Z Movie Director
"I yam an anti-Christ..."
John Lydon (aka Johnny Rotten) of The Sex Pistols, "Anarchy in the UK"
As March begins, 650,000 more jobs were lost in the USA during February, meaning a total of over four million jobs have been lost in the past year: unemployment stands at 8.1 percent nationally. Meanwhile, the Dow Jones dipped below 7000, a drop of over 50 percent rate, which means any investor in the DJIA who bought on margin at peak would have absolutely nothing left. This may not be the end of the drop: some respectable forecasters predict the Dow Jones will bottom out as low as 5000. It's gotten so bad economically, the disastrous war in the Middle East has become basically an ignored story at this point. But never mind Iraq, Afghanistan, subprime loans or massive layoffs and bankruptcies, clearly there is one story more important than any other: what The Bachelor's sleazy contestant did to those two girls!
Okay, The Konformist can't pretend it's above frivolous stories. But even among the depraved standards of the korporate media, the recent wallowing in the tales of The Bachelor, the Octomom, Alex Rodriguez on steroids and Chris Brown smacking up Rhianna stinks of sheer desperation. It's almost as if the establishment is looking for anything to distract people from the ongoing economic crisis. Oh, look, Dancing with the Stars & American Idol are back on TV!!!
But in the end, The Konformist must relent: there's only so much depressing news even we can surf through on the Internet before throwing up our hands, shouting "No mas!" and turning on the Playstation for another round of Grand Theft Auto or Guitar Hero.
Yes, people need their bread & circuses to feed an appetite for distraction, especially when things go bad. And so it is in this spirit that The Konformist has decided to slack off this month and give the Beast of the Month trophy not to some slimy politician, creepy CEO or swindling Wall Street titan, but rather to someone involved in the world's biggest bread & circus arena, the art of cinema.
Sorry, Michael Bay, but you are no longer the worst director on the face of the planet. (And not just because your last two films - the underrated sci-fi action flick The Island and the shamelessly entertaining summer blockbuster Transformers - were both actually very good.) No, that title is now in the hands of a semi-obscure filmmaker: German auteur Uwe Boll, The Konformist Beast of the Month.
Boll's claim to fame is making schlock with barely coherent plots, acting that is completely unconvincing and filming techniques that show a stunning lack of any basic level of competence. Thanks to this, his films have been a staple of IMDB.com's "Bottom 100" list for worst movies of all time. It doesn't hurt that his movies are made in English rather than his native German, meaning he shoots with dialogue he apparently barely understands. This point was underscored in a hilarious article at SomethingAwful.com by Blair Erickson, a treatment writer for one of Boll's works. In between barking demands for "big gun battles" and "car chases" Boll showed a complete lack of command over English. Erickson concluded after one of Boll's email rants: "Yes, I know English is not his first language, but Jesus Christ, I'm not even sure this man has a first language."
His notoriety began in 2003, when, in House of the Dead, he finally found his niche: adapting video games into really, really bad movies. He followed that formula up in 2005 with what is (for now at least) his master crapperpiece, Alone in the Dark, a movie with badness that can be summed up in one sentence: party girl Tara Reid as an archaeologist and museum curator. (Sorry Tara, you may have been great as porn star Bunny Lebowski in the Coen Brothers' finest masterpiece, but Harrison Ford you are not.) In 2006, he followed it up with yet another lousy videogame-based flick, BloodRayne. All three movies (especially Alone in the Dark) would be on the short list for most bad-movie aficionado’s worst movie of the decade.
In 2008, he had an amazingly productive year in turgid films even by his standards. He had four movies with limited release in US theaters (Far Cry, Postal, 1968: Tunnel Rats and In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale) and two (Seed and BloodRayne 2: Deliverance) that went straight to video. Making his output even more impressive, 1968: Tunnel Rats and Seed stretched his cinematic boundaries, as both, rather than being terrible adaptations of video games, were instead merely terrible movies inspired by non-video game material. For such an impressive amount of lousy celluloid output, he was nominated for Worst Director by the esteemed prize of bad filmmaking, The Razzies (which are awarded the day before the Oscars in Hollywood.) He was also nominated for Worst Supporting Actor thanks to his performance playing himself in Postal, which used Boll's limited talents to best effect yet by having him shot in the genitals.
Unfortunately for Boll, he had his huge bowel movement of cinematic gifts the same year as The Love Guru and the Paris Hilton vehicle The Hottie and the Nottie. It seemed quite plausible that Boll, who previously had been snubbed twice for Worst Director, would lose yet again.
(Making it even more difficult for Boll is that there are many bad film snobs who insist he is no longer the worst director on the planet, that the title has already been taken over by Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer. The tag team auteurs behind the ultralame "Blank Movie" series, it is the worst collection of alleged humor found outside a Police Academy marathon on Comedy Central or a Paulie Shore film festival.)
Not to be deterred, the Razzies decided to make sure he didn't go home empty-handed: even before the award presentation, it was decided he'd receive a Lifetime achievement award. As it turned out, he needed no such special prize, as he won the Worst Director trophy after all.
Of course, two awards from the Razzies is just part of his infamy at this point: there is actually a website named UweBollIsAntichrist.com in his honor. As far as Internet cults for bad directors go, the only name that compares to Boll at this point is Ed Wood of Plan 9 from Outer Space fame.
Yes, poor Ed Wood, a name who until Boll was always the punch line inserted when giving a director the ultimate insult. Being portrayed by Johnny Depp in Tim Burton's 1994 masterpiece (based on the Feral House book Nightmare of Ecstasy) perhaps finally earned him some belated respect, but the unfair mockery continues. Indeed, allegedly some defenders of Boll insist he is merely a misunderstood modern day Wood. (The Konformist says "allegedly" here because, as far as we can tell, there aren't any Boll defenders who actually exist.)
And to be fair, there is a nugget of truth in comparison. After all, say what you will about Michael Bay at his worst (or the wannabe Michael Bays like McG and Brett Ratner) but he and his clones are at least technically proficient. Boll, like Wood before him, certainly can't claim any such gifts.
But there are two noted differences between Boll and Wood. To begin with, Ed Wood had a good excuse for his technical incompetence: he never was provided with anything besides the most meager of budgets to make his films. Compare that to the financing Boll has been given as a blank check: House of the Dead, $12 million; Alone in the Dark, $20 million; BloodRayne, $25 million; and In the Name of the King, an astounding $60 million. How does Boll continue to get funding for his flicks, even though none of them have had any box office success? Some may suspect it has something to do with the bad taste of his homeland Germany, a nation that's had as its two most beloved men over the past century David Hasslehoff and Hitler. Alas, it isn't German tastes which are to blame, but rather their tax laws: the nation's tax code allows investors in German productions to write off all losses completely, creating the perfect tax shelter. So it seems that while Boll may lack cinematic genius, he is a visionary businessman.
The bigger difference between the two is more elemental: as noted at UrbanDictionary.com about the comparison between the two, "Wood was enthusiastic but inept, an earnest director whose vision as an artist greatly outstripped his meager abilities as a filmmaker. Boll's films are driven by cynical exploitation of German tax law that allows a movie to make money even when it fails at the box office. He is better thought of as a real-life Max Bialystock from The Producers, a movie in which a Broadway producer attempts to make money by intentionally staging a massive flop, Springtime for Hitler." Allen Varney in EscapistMagazine.com compared the two further: "Though both Wood and Boll are often described as totally inept, Wood is, in fact, selectively inept. Films by truly incompetent directors are hard to follow and boring. Wood's movies, with their nutty plots and miserable production values, nonetheless flow smoothly from scene to scene; his storytelling is, for the most part, technically decent (that is, you know where you are in the narrative); and his ludicrous lack of taste can be mesmerizing. Show Glen or Glenda to an audience. Their initial stunned disbelief quickly turns to joy. They watch with enthusiasm throughout and rapturously cheer the ending. Boll's audiences sometimes cheer too; they're relieved the film is finally over."
Faced with such nasty criticism, Boll has responded in a rather innovative way: specifically, by beating his critics to a bloody pulp. Boll actually did this in 2006, challenging some of his critics to a boxing match and punching them silly in a PR stunt. (Granted, a profession that has included Rex Reed and Leonard Maltin isn't filled with the most intimidating guys ever, but it still was an undefeated run.)
Which leads to a little devil advocacy in defense of Boll, for reason's which include the plausible fear he may try to kick our ass if we don't. After all, as incompetent of a buffoon Boll may be, is he really what is wrong with the movie industry right now? Isn't he just a scapegoat for an even greater evil brewing from Hollywood? (And no, we're not talking about Larry the Cable Guy.)
The real answer to what is wrong with today's movie industry can be found, in all places, a mildly positive review by Roger Ebert of the 2004 biker flick Torque. (A pretty underrated movie, BTW, and worthy of a spot on your Netflix queue.) While Ebert enjoyed the movie for what it was, he couldn't help but make this observation: "Hollywood genres have undergone a fundamental flip-flop. Low-budget pictures are now serious and ambitious and play at Sundance. Big-budget exploitation work, on which every possible technical refinement is lavished, are now flashy and dispensable and open in 3,000 multiplexes."
Ebert isn't exaggerating. While Boll's In the Name of the King $60 million budget is nothing to sneeze at, it hardly represents an abnormal amount. Most blockbuster films now have budgets of over $100 million, and that is before the marketing costs are factored in.
Nine figures is a huge amount, and a very risky investment. How has Hollywood dealt with the giant gamble that is behind big budget movies? The most obvious way is through repetition via the creation of franchises and multiple sequels. Granted, sequels weren't created in the 21st century, but the usage of them has become far more widespread and concentrated. As a result, no film since 2002 has topped the annual North American box office chart that wasn't a sequel, and that was the franchise-creating Spider-Man. Indeed, you have to go back to when Clinton was president to find a non-franchise film that topped the annual BO charts. Even more telling, of the top 25 films in North American gross this decade, only two are non-franchise flicks. (And even those two exceptions prove the rule, as one is Finding Nemo from Pixar, an animation studio that can be viewed as a franchise in its own, and the other was Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ, based on the New Testament, which - sorry The Godfather II, The Empire Strikes Back and The Dark Knight - is, hands down, the most successful sequel in the history of mankind.)
The Konformist doesn't mean to sound like cinematic snobs here: after all, the 2008 summer was dominated by three quality franchise films in The Dark Knight, Iron Man and the unfairly maligned Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. And certainly both Harry Potter and The Lord of the Rings trilogy have huge deserved followings in their own right. But all this money and energy being devoted to derivative works is unprecedented. Indeed, the 2007 summer was so loaded down with lesser third parts of the Shrek, Spider-Man and Pirates of the Caribbean franchises that a Michael Bay film inspired by eighties-era robotic action figures seemed like a breath of fresh air for its originality in comparison.
True, there's a few directors (among them Michael Moore, Christopher Nolan, Clint Eastwood and, though he's been a tad desperate to win an Oscar, Martin Scorsese) who've consistently made great movies the last ten years. Still, though it is hard to judge an era artistically while in the middle (or even the end) of it, it is fair to say that the zeroes are the worst decade in film of the modern day era that began in the sixties. This is no accident: whatever the flaws of Peter Biskind's book Easy Riders, Raging Bulls, his basic thesis was correct, that Hollywood executives became so clueless about what was popular in culture, they gave directors more of a free reign than ever before, to the benefit of movie fans everywhere. Forty years later, and the pendulum has clearly swung too far in the opposite direction, as the suits now have way too much control. Which is why The Konformist suspects this decade won't be remembered for the franchise flicks but the low-budget movies that took a chance: Donnie Darko, About Schmidt, Fahrenheit 9/11, Brokeback Mountain and, from last year alone, The Wrestler and Slumdog Millionaire.
The irony is that even in the franchise films, you can see how rebellion against the system can lead to success. Two noted examples are the favorite movie hero and villain of the decade, Johnny Depp's Jack Sparrow and Heath Ledger's posthumous turn as The Joker. At first, Depp's unorthodox character decisions in Pirates of the Caribbean freaked out producers who feared it would ruin the movie's commercial prospects: as it turns out, his gutsy performance won him a Screen Actors Guild prize for Best Actor and was central to the billion dollar success of the series. Meanwhile, Ledger's violently anarchic take on The Joker was even more daring than playing a gay cowboy in Brokeback Mountain, and his Oscar-winning performance has passed even the likes of Jack Nicholson, Cesar Romero and Mark Hamill as the definitive Joker. And, like Pirates of the Caribbean, commercial success was the reward, as The Dark Knight is the decade's biggest box office hit.
Of course, there's only so much originality that can come from movies inspired by comic books and amusement parks. And that's why we suspect (or at least hope) a big change may be coming to Hollywood sooner rather than later. The high concept franchise blockbuster is about as tired as a hair metal ballad in 1991. Eventually, someone is going look at the state of Hollywood and notice something that smells like teen spirit. And maybe along the way someone will have something to say about the current state of affairs, from the mass manipulation of 9/11, the failed Iraq War, and the current economic crisis. Until then, Uwe Boll may be the least of our problems.
In any case, we salute Uwe Boll as Beast of the Month. Congratulations, and keep up the great work, Uwe!!!
Sources:
Thanks to IMDB.com, RottenTomatoes.com, BoxOfficeMojo.com, Razzies.com, RogerEbert.com, UweBollIsAntichrist.com and Wikipedia.org for research help on this article.
Erickson, Blair. "Behind the Scenes: Uwe Boll and Uwe Boll's Alone In the Dark." Something Awful 2 February 2005 <http://www.somethingawful.com/d/feature-articles/behind-scenes-uwe.php>.
"Uwe Boll." Urban Dictionary <http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Uwe+Boll>.
Varney, Allen. "Boll vs. Wood." The Escapist 23 January 2007 <http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/67985-Boll-vs-Wood>.
Uwe Boll
Grade Z Movie Director
"I yam an anti-Christ..."
John Lydon (aka Johnny Rotten) of The Sex Pistols, "Anarchy in the UK"
As March begins, 650,000 more jobs were lost in the USA during February, meaning a total of over four million jobs have been lost in the past year: unemployment stands at 8.1 percent nationally. Meanwhile, the Dow Jones dipped below 7000, a drop of over 50 percent rate, which means any investor in the DJIA who bought on margin at peak would have absolutely nothing left. This may not be the end of the drop: some respectable forecasters predict the Dow Jones will bottom out as low as 5000. It's gotten so bad economically, the disastrous war in the Middle East has become basically an ignored story at this point. But never mind Iraq, Afghanistan, subprime loans or massive layoffs and bankruptcies, clearly there is one story more important than any other: what The Bachelor's sleazy contestant did to those two girls!
Okay, The Konformist can't pretend it's above frivolous stories. But even among the depraved standards of the korporate media, the recent wallowing in the tales of The Bachelor, the Octomom, Alex Rodriguez on steroids and Chris Brown smacking up Rhianna stinks of sheer desperation. It's almost as if the establishment is looking for anything to distract people from the ongoing economic crisis. Oh, look, Dancing with the Stars & American Idol are back on TV!!!
But in the end, The Konformist must relent: there's only so much depressing news even we can surf through on the Internet before throwing up our hands, shouting "No mas!" and turning on the Playstation for another round of Grand Theft Auto or Guitar Hero.
Yes, people need their bread & circuses to feed an appetite for distraction, especially when things go bad. And so it is in this spirit that The Konformist has decided to slack off this month and give the Beast of the Month trophy not to some slimy politician, creepy CEO or swindling Wall Street titan, but rather to someone involved in the world's biggest bread & circus arena, the art of cinema.
Sorry, Michael Bay, but you are no longer the worst director on the face of the planet. (And not just because your last two films - the underrated sci-fi action flick The Island and the shamelessly entertaining summer blockbuster Transformers - were both actually very good.) No, that title is now in the hands of a semi-obscure filmmaker: German auteur Uwe Boll, The Konformist Beast of the Month.
Boll's claim to fame is making schlock with barely coherent plots, acting that is completely unconvincing and filming techniques that show a stunning lack of any basic level of competence. Thanks to this, his films have been a staple of IMDB.com's "Bottom 100" list for worst movies of all time. It doesn't hurt that his movies are made in English rather than his native German, meaning he shoots with dialogue he apparently barely understands. This point was underscored in a hilarious article at SomethingAwful.com by Blair Erickson, a treatment writer for one of Boll's works. In between barking demands for "big gun battles" and "car chases" Boll showed a complete lack of command over English. Erickson concluded after one of Boll's email rants: "Yes, I know English is not his first language, but Jesus Christ, I'm not even sure this man has a first language."
His notoriety began in 2003, when, in House of the Dead, he finally found his niche: adapting video games into really, really bad movies. He followed that formula up in 2005 with what is (for now at least) his master crapperpiece, Alone in the Dark, a movie with badness that can be summed up in one sentence: party girl Tara Reid as an archaeologist and museum curator. (Sorry Tara, you may have been great as porn star Bunny Lebowski in the Coen Brothers' finest masterpiece, but Harrison Ford you are not.) In 2006, he followed it up with yet another lousy videogame-based flick, BloodRayne. All three movies (especially Alone in the Dark) would be on the short list for most bad-movie aficionado’s worst movie of the decade.
In 2008, he had an amazingly productive year in turgid films even by his standards. He had four movies with limited release in US theaters (Far Cry, Postal, 1968: Tunnel Rats and In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale) and two (Seed and BloodRayne 2: Deliverance) that went straight to video. Making his output even more impressive, 1968: Tunnel Rats and Seed stretched his cinematic boundaries, as both, rather than being terrible adaptations of video games, were instead merely terrible movies inspired by non-video game material. For such an impressive amount of lousy celluloid output, he was nominated for Worst Director by the esteemed prize of bad filmmaking, The Razzies (which are awarded the day before the Oscars in Hollywood.) He was also nominated for Worst Supporting Actor thanks to his performance playing himself in Postal, which used Boll's limited talents to best effect yet by having him shot in the genitals.
Unfortunately for Boll, he had his huge bowel movement of cinematic gifts the same year as The Love Guru and the Paris Hilton vehicle The Hottie and the Nottie. It seemed quite plausible that Boll, who previously had been snubbed twice for Worst Director, would lose yet again.
(Making it even more difficult for Boll is that there are many bad film snobs who insist he is no longer the worst director on the planet, that the title has already been taken over by Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer. The tag team auteurs behind the ultralame "Blank Movie" series, it is the worst collection of alleged humor found outside a Police Academy marathon on Comedy Central or a Paulie Shore film festival.)
Not to be deterred, the Razzies decided to make sure he didn't go home empty-handed: even before the award presentation, it was decided he'd receive a Lifetime achievement award. As it turned out, he needed no such special prize, as he won the Worst Director trophy after all.
Of course, two awards from the Razzies is just part of his infamy at this point: there is actually a website named UweBollIsAntichrist.com in his honor. As far as Internet cults for bad directors go, the only name that compares to Boll at this point is Ed Wood of Plan 9 from Outer Space fame.
Yes, poor Ed Wood, a name who until Boll was always the punch line inserted when giving a director the ultimate insult. Being portrayed by Johnny Depp in Tim Burton's 1994 masterpiece (based on the Feral House book Nightmare of Ecstasy) perhaps finally earned him some belated respect, but the unfair mockery continues. Indeed, allegedly some defenders of Boll insist he is merely a misunderstood modern day Wood. (The Konformist says "allegedly" here because, as far as we can tell, there aren't any Boll defenders who actually exist.)
And to be fair, there is a nugget of truth in comparison. After all, say what you will about Michael Bay at his worst (or the wannabe Michael Bays like McG and Brett Ratner) but he and his clones are at least technically proficient. Boll, like Wood before him, certainly can't claim any such gifts.
But there are two noted differences between Boll and Wood. To begin with, Ed Wood had a good excuse for his technical incompetence: he never was provided with anything besides the most meager of budgets to make his films. Compare that to the financing Boll has been given as a blank check: House of the Dead, $12 million; Alone in the Dark, $20 million; BloodRayne, $25 million; and In the Name of the King, an astounding $60 million. How does Boll continue to get funding for his flicks, even though none of them have had any box office success? Some may suspect it has something to do with the bad taste of his homeland Germany, a nation that's had as its two most beloved men over the past century David Hasslehoff and Hitler. Alas, it isn't German tastes which are to blame, but rather their tax laws: the nation's tax code allows investors in German productions to write off all losses completely, creating the perfect tax shelter. So it seems that while Boll may lack cinematic genius, he is a visionary businessman.
The bigger difference between the two is more elemental: as noted at UrbanDictionary.com about the comparison between the two, "Wood was enthusiastic but inept, an earnest director whose vision as an artist greatly outstripped his meager abilities as a filmmaker. Boll's films are driven by cynical exploitation of German tax law that allows a movie to make money even when it fails at the box office. He is better thought of as a real-life Max Bialystock from The Producers, a movie in which a Broadway producer attempts to make money by intentionally staging a massive flop, Springtime for Hitler." Allen Varney in EscapistMagazine.com compared the two further: "Though both Wood and Boll are often described as totally inept, Wood is, in fact, selectively inept. Films by truly incompetent directors are hard to follow and boring. Wood's movies, with their nutty plots and miserable production values, nonetheless flow smoothly from scene to scene; his storytelling is, for the most part, technically decent (that is, you know where you are in the narrative); and his ludicrous lack of taste can be mesmerizing. Show Glen or Glenda to an audience. Their initial stunned disbelief quickly turns to joy. They watch with enthusiasm throughout and rapturously cheer the ending. Boll's audiences sometimes cheer too; they're relieved the film is finally over."
Faced with such nasty criticism, Boll has responded in a rather innovative way: specifically, by beating his critics to a bloody pulp. Boll actually did this in 2006, challenging some of his critics to a boxing match and punching them silly in a PR stunt. (Granted, a profession that has included Rex Reed and Leonard Maltin isn't filled with the most intimidating guys ever, but it still was an undefeated run.)
Which leads to a little devil advocacy in defense of Boll, for reason's which include the plausible fear he may try to kick our ass if we don't. After all, as incompetent of a buffoon Boll may be, is he really what is wrong with the movie industry right now? Isn't he just a scapegoat for an even greater evil brewing from Hollywood? (And no, we're not talking about Larry the Cable Guy.)
The real answer to what is wrong with today's movie industry can be found, in all places, a mildly positive review by Roger Ebert of the 2004 biker flick Torque. (A pretty underrated movie, BTW, and worthy of a spot on your Netflix queue.) While Ebert enjoyed the movie for what it was, he couldn't help but make this observation: "Hollywood genres have undergone a fundamental flip-flop. Low-budget pictures are now serious and ambitious and play at Sundance. Big-budget exploitation work, on which every possible technical refinement is lavished, are now flashy and dispensable and open in 3,000 multiplexes."
Ebert isn't exaggerating. While Boll's In the Name of the King $60 million budget is nothing to sneeze at, it hardly represents an abnormal amount. Most blockbuster films now have budgets of over $100 million, and that is before the marketing costs are factored in.
Nine figures is a huge amount, and a very risky investment. How has Hollywood dealt with the giant gamble that is behind big budget movies? The most obvious way is through repetition via the creation of franchises and multiple sequels. Granted, sequels weren't created in the 21st century, but the usage of them has become far more widespread and concentrated. As a result, no film since 2002 has topped the annual North American box office chart that wasn't a sequel, and that was the franchise-creating Spider-Man. Indeed, you have to go back to when Clinton was president to find a non-franchise film that topped the annual BO charts. Even more telling, of the top 25 films in North American gross this decade, only two are non-franchise flicks. (And even those two exceptions prove the rule, as one is Finding Nemo from Pixar, an animation studio that can be viewed as a franchise in its own, and the other was Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ, based on the New Testament, which - sorry The Godfather II, The Empire Strikes Back and The Dark Knight - is, hands down, the most successful sequel in the history of mankind.)
The Konformist doesn't mean to sound like cinematic snobs here: after all, the 2008 summer was dominated by three quality franchise films in The Dark Knight, Iron Man and the unfairly maligned Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. And certainly both Harry Potter and The Lord of the Rings trilogy have huge deserved followings in their own right. But all this money and energy being devoted to derivative works is unprecedented. Indeed, the 2007 summer was so loaded down with lesser third parts of the Shrek, Spider-Man and Pirates of the Caribbean franchises that a Michael Bay film inspired by eighties-era robotic action figures seemed like a breath of fresh air for its originality in comparison.
True, there's a few directors (among them Michael Moore, Christopher Nolan, Clint Eastwood and, though he's been a tad desperate to win an Oscar, Martin Scorsese) who've consistently made great movies the last ten years. Still, though it is hard to judge an era artistically while in the middle (or even the end) of it, it is fair to say that the zeroes are the worst decade in film of the modern day era that began in the sixties. This is no accident: whatever the flaws of Peter Biskind's book Easy Riders, Raging Bulls, his basic thesis was correct, that Hollywood executives became so clueless about what was popular in culture, they gave directors more of a free reign than ever before, to the benefit of movie fans everywhere. Forty years later, and the pendulum has clearly swung too far in the opposite direction, as the suits now have way too much control. Which is why The Konformist suspects this decade won't be remembered for the franchise flicks but the low-budget movies that took a chance: Donnie Darko, About Schmidt, Fahrenheit 9/11, Brokeback Mountain and, from last year alone, The Wrestler and Slumdog Millionaire.
The irony is that even in the franchise films, you can see how rebellion against the system can lead to success. Two noted examples are the favorite movie hero and villain of the decade, Johnny Depp's Jack Sparrow and Heath Ledger's posthumous turn as The Joker. At first, Depp's unorthodox character decisions in Pirates of the Caribbean freaked out producers who feared it would ruin the movie's commercial prospects: as it turns out, his gutsy performance won him a Screen Actors Guild prize for Best Actor and was central to the billion dollar success of the series. Meanwhile, Ledger's violently anarchic take on The Joker was even more daring than playing a gay cowboy in Brokeback Mountain, and his Oscar-winning performance has passed even the likes of Jack Nicholson, Cesar Romero and Mark Hamill as the definitive Joker. And, like Pirates of the Caribbean, commercial success was the reward, as The Dark Knight is the decade's biggest box office hit.
Of course, there's only so much originality that can come from movies inspired by comic books and amusement parks. And that's why we suspect (or at least hope) a big change may be coming to Hollywood sooner rather than later. The high concept franchise blockbuster is about as tired as a hair metal ballad in 1991. Eventually, someone is going look at the state of Hollywood and notice something that smells like teen spirit. And maybe along the way someone will have something to say about the current state of affairs, from the mass manipulation of 9/11, the failed Iraq War, and the current economic crisis. Until then, Uwe Boll may be the least of our problems.
In any case, we salute Uwe Boll as Beast of the Month. Congratulations, and keep up the great work, Uwe!!!
Sources:
Thanks to IMDB.com, RottenTomatoes.com, BoxOfficeMojo.com, Razzies.com, RogerEbert.com, UweBollIsAntichrist.com and Wikipedia.org for research help on this article.
Erickson, Blair. "Behind the Scenes: Uwe Boll and Uwe Boll's Alone In the Dark." Something Awful 2 February 2005 <http://www.somethingawful.com/d/feature-articles/behind-scenes-uwe.php>.
"Uwe Boll." Urban Dictionary <http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Uwe+Boll>.
Varney, Allen. "Boll vs. Wood." The Escapist 23 January 2007 <http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/67985-Boll-vs-Wood>.
Monday, April 14, 2008
Now That's What I Call Movie, Vol. 1
Robalini's Note: Move over Michael Bay & Uwe Boll, Aaron Friedberg and Jason Seltzer are the new names in bad filmmaking...
http://www.avclub.com/content/hater/now_thats_what_i_call_movie_vol__0
Now That's What I Call Movie, Vol. 1 Cast Of References Finally Announced
April 3rd, 2008
For months now, Epic Movie and Meet The Spartans co-referencers Aaron Friedberg and Jason Seltzer have kept all of Hollywood on pins and needles, anxiously awaiting the pair's annual spoof movie casting announcement, or, as it's known in industry circles, The Yuk-Yuk Hilari-eference List. Which pop cultural notables will catch Friedberg and Seltzer's mercilessly referencing eye? Whom will they knock down a peg through simple, pointless impersonation? Whose mere presence will take the place of a joke? (I mean, Jessica Simpson's, obviously. But who else's?) Well, after reading this article, it's clear that Friedberg and Seltzer's current Yuk-Yuk Hilari-eference List is proof that they have their fingers firmly on the pulse of pop culture's cold, dead, steadily bloating corpse. Will Smith’s forthcoming superhero jaunt “Hancock” is going to be spoofed, the “Sex and the City” movie (they’re looking for a guy – yes! A guy! – to play Carrie!) will too, and Mike Myers’s upcoming “The Love Guru” is even getting a ribbing. Aside from the above characters, Friedberg and Seltzer are currently on the lookout for a ‘Jessica Simpson’, a ‘Justin Timberlake’, a ‘Prince’, a ‘Flava Flav’, a ‘Dr Phil’, a ‘Angelina Jolie’, ‘Paris Hilton’, and, of course, a ‘Michael Jackson’. What, no Olsen twins? They would make a great reference/joke. Apparently, the movie, called Goodie Two Shoes, will be tenuously held together under the guise of a Superbad spoof, which begs the question: How will Friedberg & Seltzer maximize the references? In Meet The Spartans, they could simply throw celebrity impersonators into the pit: Hilarity achieved.
But Superbad lacks a giant hole in the middle of the ground. If I were fart-writing this movie--which, let's face it, would never happen: fart-writing is such a boys' club--I would have Goodie Two Shoes take place at a giant house party. Fake McLovin and his date (maybe Fake Jessica Simpson) would be looking for a room in the house to have sex in, and the entirety of the movie (all 70 terrible minutes of it) would be the pair opening door after door to reveal pop culture reference coupling, after pop culture reference coupling. And, of course, for the big finale, Fake McLovin and Fake Jessica Simpson would open the attic door to reveal Fake Juno giving birth on the back of Fake Christian Siriano (while he shouts, "So not fierce!") to Fake Flava Flav, who would then be promptly adopted by Fake Angelina Jolie. The End.
http://www.avclub.com/content/hater/now_thats_what_i_call_movie_vol__0
Now That's What I Call Movie, Vol. 1 Cast Of References Finally Announced
April 3rd, 2008
For months now, Epic Movie and Meet The Spartans co-referencers Aaron Friedberg and Jason Seltzer have kept all of Hollywood on pins and needles, anxiously awaiting the pair's annual spoof movie casting announcement, or, as it's known in industry circles, The Yuk-Yuk Hilari-eference List. Which pop cultural notables will catch Friedberg and Seltzer's mercilessly referencing eye? Whom will they knock down a peg through simple, pointless impersonation? Whose mere presence will take the place of a joke? (I mean, Jessica Simpson's, obviously. But who else's?) Well, after reading this article, it's clear that Friedberg and Seltzer's current Yuk-Yuk Hilari-eference List is proof that they have their fingers firmly on the pulse of pop culture's cold, dead, steadily bloating corpse. Will Smith’s forthcoming superhero jaunt “Hancock” is going to be spoofed, the “Sex and the City” movie (they’re looking for a guy – yes! A guy! – to play Carrie!) will too, and Mike Myers’s upcoming “The Love Guru” is even getting a ribbing. Aside from the above characters, Friedberg and Seltzer are currently on the lookout for a ‘Jessica Simpson’, a ‘Justin Timberlake’, a ‘Prince’, a ‘Flava Flav’, a ‘Dr Phil’, a ‘Angelina Jolie’, ‘Paris Hilton’, and, of course, a ‘Michael Jackson’. What, no Olsen twins? They would make a great reference/joke. Apparently, the movie, called Goodie Two Shoes, will be tenuously held together under the guise of a Superbad spoof, which begs the question: How will Friedberg & Seltzer maximize the references? In Meet The Spartans, they could simply throw celebrity impersonators into the pit: Hilarity achieved.
But Superbad lacks a giant hole in the middle of the ground. If I were fart-writing this movie--which, let's face it, would never happen: fart-writing is such a boys' club--I would have Goodie Two Shoes take place at a giant house party. Fake McLovin and his date (maybe Fake Jessica Simpson) would be looking for a room in the house to have sex in, and the entirety of the movie (all 70 terrible minutes of it) would be the pair opening door after door to reveal pop culture reference coupling, after pop culture reference coupling. And, of course, for the big finale, Fake McLovin and Fake Jessica Simpson would open the attic door to reveal Fake Juno giving birth on the back of Fake Christian Siriano (while he shouts, "So not fierce!") to Fake Flava Flav, who would then be promptly adopted by Fake Angelina Jolie. The End.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
CGI Team Creates Realistic Oscar For Michael Bay
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/cgi_team_creates_realistic_oscar
CGI Team Creates Realistic Oscar For Michael Bay
February 20, 2008 Issue 44•08
LOS ANGELES—A leading team of CGI experts hand-selected by blockbuster producer and director Michael Bay has pushed the limits of what can be accomplished with special effects and digital imaging by creating a computer- generated best-director Oscar for the 43-year-old filmmaker.
The $125 million project, funded entirely by Bay, has been called one of the most ambitious CGI undertakings to date, dwarfing even Bay's most ambitious efforts in his 2007 robot-action film, Transformers. A crew of nearly 200 technicians working for nine months on a 15,000-square-foot soundstage was required to realize the director's wildly imaginative fantasy world.
"Viewers are going to be blown away by how believable-looking we've been able to make Michael Bay accepting the highest award in film appear," said senior technical director Zsolt Krajcsik, who also worked with Bay on the 2003 film Bad Boys II. "The podium, the backdrop, the sense of creative achievement that hangs about him—it's all so vivid and detailed that you'd swear it was real."
Added Krajcsik, "When you see Michael thanking his talented cast and crew and raising the Oscar above his head, it's going to be hard to believe it never, ever happened."
In order to create the illusion of filmmaking achievement, Bay was first filmed in front of a green screen while being presented a "dummy" award, a green cylinder roughly the size and shape of an Oscar statuette. Technicians next analyzed a real Academy Award borrowed from Ben Affleck, whom Bay directed in the 2001 film Pearl Harbor, in order to build a digital model. The team then took the raw motion-capture footage of Bay accepting the dummy award and painstakingly rotoscoped the digitally rendered Oscar into every frame.
The CGI team also took great care to make the scenery match flawlessly with the new digital footage. Not only did technicians create a 3-D computer model of the Kodak Theatre, where the 2008 Academy Awards will be held, but they also engineered a startlingly lifelike audience. The computer-generated crowd was designed using advanced artificial intelligence software, which allowed the digital actors to behave as individuals and respond to each other and their surroundings as if Michael Bay were actually standing before them, being honored by his peers and the Academy. Using this program, thousands of meticulously detailed figures seemed to laugh, applaud, and cry at appropriate moments in Bay's 15-minute-long acceptance speech.
The same technology, which features a sophisticated cloth-simulation application, was used to create Bay's digital tuxedo.
"There is no way this would have been possible five years ago," Krajcsik said, later admitting that CGI technology is still decades away from making an Academy Award win for Rush Hour 3 director Brett Ratner look plausible.
While the production is a testament to recent technological advances in the field of CGI, the human aspect of the project also proved extremely challenging. As part of his intense preparation for the role of an acclaimed director, Bay said he interviewed several Academy Award winners, including Steven Spielberg and Marisa Tomei.
"This was a world that was completely foreign to me," said Bay, who spent months practicing the choreographed motions of holding the statue aloft and kissing it. "I tried to get a sense of what it would actually be like to hold an Oscar for the first time, and not just the emotions involved, but the actual heft and tactile feel of accepting the award."
Meryl Streep, who commanded a $5 million salary for her role as the presenter of the Oscar, said the production was the biggest challenge of her career.
"To put yourself in that mental place, in a world where something like this would be possible, it's just indescribable," Streep said. "Standing in front of that greenscreen and trying to make it look as though I actually believed what I was doing was the most difficult thing I've ever attempted as an actor."
The completed production will debut on ABC during the Academy Awards in a seamlessly integrated advertising block Bay purchased that directly precedes the presentation for best director, and has already garnered considerable buzz for its purportedly mind-boggling visual effects.
"We'll just have to wait and see if it lives up to the hype," Chicago Sun-Times film critic Roger Ebert said. "However, if the special effects team has succeeded in making Michael Bay getting anything above a People's Choice Award seem even remotely convincing, then this has Oscar written all over it."
CGI Team Creates Realistic Oscar For Michael Bay
February 20, 2008 Issue 44•08
LOS ANGELES—A leading team of CGI experts hand-selected by blockbuster producer and director Michael Bay has pushed the limits of what can be accomplished with special effects and digital imaging by creating a computer- generated best-director Oscar for the 43-year-old filmmaker.
The $125 million project, funded entirely by Bay, has been called one of the most ambitious CGI undertakings to date, dwarfing even Bay's most ambitious efforts in his 2007 robot-action film, Transformers. A crew of nearly 200 technicians working for nine months on a 15,000-square-foot soundstage was required to realize the director's wildly imaginative fantasy world.
"Viewers are going to be blown away by how believable-looking we've been able to make Michael Bay accepting the highest award in film appear," said senior technical director Zsolt Krajcsik, who also worked with Bay on the 2003 film Bad Boys II. "The podium, the backdrop, the sense of creative achievement that hangs about him—it's all so vivid and detailed that you'd swear it was real."
Added Krajcsik, "When you see Michael thanking his talented cast and crew and raising the Oscar above his head, it's going to be hard to believe it never, ever happened."
In order to create the illusion of filmmaking achievement, Bay was first filmed in front of a green screen while being presented a "dummy" award, a green cylinder roughly the size and shape of an Oscar statuette. Technicians next analyzed a real Academy Award borrowed from Ben Affleck, whom Bay directed in the 2001 film Pearl Harbor, in order to build a digital model. The team then took the raw motion-capture footage of Bay accepting the dummy award and painstakingly rotoscoped the digitally rendered Oscar into every frame.
The CGI team also took great care to make the scenery match flawlessly with the new digital footage. Not only did technicians create a 3-D computer model of the Kodak Theatre, where the 2008 Academy Awards will be held, but they also engineered a startlingly lifelike audience. The computer-generated crowd was designed using advanced artificial intelligence software, which allowed the digital actors to behave as individuals and respond to each other and their surroundings as if Michael Bay were actually standing before them, being honored by his peers and the Academy. Using this program, thousands of meticulously detailed figures seemed to laugh, applaud, and cry at appropriate moments in Bay's 15-minute-long acceptance speech.
The same technology, which features a sophisticated cloth-simulation application, was used to create Bay's digital tuxedo.
"There is no way this would have been possible five years ago," Krajcsik said, later admitting that CGI technology is still decades away from making an Academy Award win for Rush Hour 3 director Brett Ratner look plausible.
While the production is a testament to recent technological advances in the field of CGI, the human aspect of the project also proved extremely challenging. As part of his intense preparation for the role of an acclaimed director, Bay said he interviewed several Academy Award winners, including Steven Spielberg and Marisa Tomei.
"This was a world that was completely foreign to me," said Bay, who spent months practicing the choreographed motions of holding the statue aloft and kissing it. "I tried to get a sense of what it would actually be like to hold an Oscar for the first time, and not just the emotions involved, but the actual heft and tactile feel of accepting the award."
Meryl Streep, who commanded a $5 million salary for her role as the presenter of the Oscar, said the production was the biggest challenge of her career.
"To put yourself in that mental place, in a world where something like this would be possible, it's just indescribable," Streep said. "Standing in front of that greenscreen and trying to make it look as though I actually believed what I was doing was the most difficult thing I've ever attempted as an actor."
The completed production will debut on ABC during the Academy Awards in a seamlessly integrated advertising block Bay purchased that directly precedes the presentation for best director, and has already garnered considerable buzz for its purportedly mind-boggling visual effects.
"We'll just have to wait and see if it lives up to the hype," Chicago Sun-Times film critic Roger Ebert said. "However, if the special effects team has succeeded in making Michael Bay getting anything above a People's Choice Award seem even remotely convincing, then this has Oscar written all over it."
Sunday, September 9, 2007
Spector asks Mistrial
http://www.hollywoodtoday.net/?p=1954
Spector asks Mistrial, DA Charges Checkbook Defense, Manipulation
Thursday, September 6th, 2007
DA Alan Jackson strikes blows to the Spector defense during compelling closing argument
By Stacey Silberman
HOLLYWOOD, CA (Hollywood Today) 9/6/07 – “I think I killed somebody,” said 67-year old music producer Phil Spector while holding the bloody gun in his hand, according to sworn testimony by his chauffeur.
After today’s defense closing arguments, the jury will decide if Spector was right in that statement.
Spector’s chauffeur Adriano DeSouza said that seconds before the producer staggered from the mansion, he’d heard a loud “pow.”
This was only the beginning of the District Attorney Alan Jackson’s dramatic and detailed closing argument Wednesday.
The defense objected to parts of Jackson’s presentation, asking Superior Court Judge Larry Paul Fidler to declare a mistrial. At issue was Jackson’s assertion that if the gun went off, even by accident, after Spector pulled it and pointed it at her, it was second degree murder. Defense attorneys argued that if “an earthquake occurred and the gun went off it would not be second degree murder.” The judge refused to grant the mistrial, but asked Jackson to clear up the question in later statements.
Jackson painted a chilling picture of events, from Spector’s history with other women and guns, up until the alleged Feb. 3, 2003 murder of 40-year-old blonde actress Lana Clarkson. Jackson presented an extremely organized Powerpoint presentation to bolster his argument, which included slides, diagrams, posters, an answering machine tape from a female witness and clips of recorded testimony.
It mainly focused on the five-female witnesses who survived Spector’s previous gun threats. The DA established him as a man who exhibits a consistent pattern of violence against women. According to Jean Rosenbluth, a law professor at USC and a former federal prosecutor, the fact so many women have attested to Spector’s violent behavior could be decisive.
The trial, which began opening testimony in late April, has been long and arduous. Approximately 75 witnesses have testified for both sides, including the many paid expert witnesses hired by the defense team. The defense case is depending mostly on scientific evidence, conveniently disputed by retired forensic experts, like the prominent Dr. Vincent DiMaio. “When the defense didn’t like the way science was going, they changed the science,” exclaimed Jackson. It is estimated that Spector spent upwards of $200,000 for “his witnesses.”
In addition to Spector’s confession following Clarkson’s death, another potential flaw in the defense argument, centers on the blood-spatter theory. The particular spatter in question was referred to as “back spatter,” This is the blood which shot back from the wound, due to the high-intensity gunshot into the mouth. The defense claims that Spector was standing six-feet away when the shot was fired, even though some of the back spatter landed on his hands and jacket.
Blood was also found inside his pockets.
The prosecution asserts that Spector was no more than “arms length” away from Clarkson, since most forensic experts agree that the spatter would land no more than two feet from the point of entry. Another obvious point, is the fact that Clarkson was wearing her shoes, her jacket and notably, her purse over her shoulder. This indicates that she was trying to leave the house, not commit suicide, said the DA.
This story follows the same pattern that the other women corroborated. They said Spector, often in a drunken and violent state-of-mind, threatened them with a gunshot to the head if they left his house before he was ready for their departure.
“As a prosecutor it’s very rare to have even one or two people who can testify to previous bad acts. To have four or five people, as in this case, is exceptional,” said Rosenbluth.
Jackson also went after the defense witnesses, in particular nightclub promoter Punkin Pie, who testified Clarkson was suicidal. He called her actions “chasing the limelight” for her own ends. Pie also testified the actress carried her purse everywhere, the latter to explain why Clarkson had her purse on her shoulder when shot, if she wasn’t trying to leave Spector’s house.
Jackson noted none of the dozens of photos of Clarkson pictured her with a bag, implying Spector’s attorneys put her up to it. “Give it to Pie, she’ll testify to anything,” he mocked, as to what defense lawyers may have been thinking.
More damaging was his insistence that Pie lied in her testimony, noting she even admitted she lied to officers by stating Clarkson was not suicidal when police questioned her shortly after the shooting. Jackson said that years later, as the case came to trial, she spoke with authorities again. “The next time she talked to authorities, her story flipped,” said Jackson. “She made a 180 degree turn” timed to news articles that appeared.
Slide after slide went by jurors and on national TV, itemizing what Jackson said were holes in her testimony such as her statements in Star Magazine when everyone was under a gag order and being what he called “exiled” by Clarkson’s family.
Almost as damaging was the rebuttal to Pie’s testimony earlier in the trial by star director Michael Bay “Transformer” who spent hours on the stand noting that Clarkson could not have been depressed at not having talked to him at a party.
Bay said Clarkson was in no way a depressed person and they were good enough friends that she would have come up and kissed him at the party he supposedly ignored her at, even if he was surrounded by other guests. And that he would have noticed her as she was a “tall and beautiful” blonde.
Though Spector had reportedly pulled guns on stars including John Lennon, Dee Dee Ramone, Deborah Harry, Leonard Cohen and others, Bay was the only celebrity called to the stand – and specifically to rebut Pie. She was central to defense arguments that Clarkson’s death was a suicide, not a murder, accidental or otherwise.
The defense went to great lengths to portray Clarkson as a depressed has-been, who had nothing to live for. However, the prosecution presented evidence to the contrary. The defense will have its chance to present their closing statement tomorrow. The only thing that the defense needs is to create a reasonable doubt by tearing apart the DA’s gruesome and persuasive evidence If found guilty of second-degree murder, Spector faces a sentence of 15-years to life.
Spector asks Mistrial, DA Charges Checkbook Defense, Manipulation
Thursday, September 6th, 2007
DA Alan Jackson strikes blows to the Spector defense during compelling closing argument
By Stacey Silberman
HOLLYWOOD, CA (Hollywood Today) 9/6/07 – “I think I killed somebody,” said 67-year old music producer Phil Spector while holding the bloody gun in his hand, according to sworn testimony by his chauffeur.
After today’s defense closing arguments, the jury will decide if Spector was right in that statement.
Spector’s chauffeur Adriano DeSouza said that seconds before the producer staggered from the mansion, he’d heard a loud “pow.”
This was only the beginning of the District Attorney Alan Jackson’s dramatic and detailed closing argument Wednesday.
The defense objected to parts of Jackson’s presentation, asking Superior Court Judge Larry Paul Fidler to declare a mistrial. At issue was Jackson’s assertion that if the gun went off, even by accident, after Spector pulled it and pointed it at her, it was second degree murder. Defense attorneys argued that if “an earthquake occurred and the gun went off it would not be second degree murder.” The judge refused to grant the mistrial, but asked Jackson to clear up the question in later statements.
Jackson painted a chilling picture of events, from Spector’s history with other women and guns, up until the alleged Feb. 3, 2003 murder of 40-year-old blonde actress Lana Clarkson. Jackson presented an extremely organized Powerpoint presentation to bolster his argument, which included slides, diagrams, posters, an answering machine tape from a female witness and clips of recorded testimony.
It mainly focused on the five-female witnesses who survived Spector’s previous gun threats. The DA established him as a man who exhibits a consistent pattern of violence against women. According to Jean Rosenbluth, a law professor at USC and a former federal prosecutor, the fact so many women have attested to Spector’s violent behavior could be decisive.
The trial, which began opening testimony in late April, has been long and arduous. Approximately 75 witnesses have testified for both sides, including the many paid expert witnesses hired by the defense team. The defense case is depending mostly on scientific evidence, conveniently disputed by retired forensic experts, like the prominent Dr. Vincent DiMaio. “When the defense didn’t like the way science was going, they changed the science,” exclaimed Jackson. It is estimated that Spector spent upwards of $200,000 for “his witnesses.”
In addition to Spector’s confession following Clarkson’s death, another potential flaw in the defense argument, centers on the blood-spatter theory. The particular spatter in question was referred to as “back spatter,” This is the blood which shot back from the wound, due to the high-intensity gunshot into the mouth. The defense claims that Spector was standing six-feet away when the shot was fired, even though some of the back spatter landed on his hands and jacket.
Blood was also found inside his pockets.
The prosecution asserts that Spector was no more than “arms length” away from Clarkson, since most forensic experts agree that the spatter would land no more than two feet from the point of entry. Another obvious point, is the fact that Clarkson was wearing her shoes, her jacket and notably, her purse over her shoulder. This indicates that she was trying to leave the house, not commit suicide, said the DA.
This story follows the same pattern that the other women corroborated. They said Spector, often in a drunken and violent state-of-mind, threatened them with a gunshot to the head if they left his house before he was ready for their departure.
“As a prosecutor it’s very rare to have even one or two people who can testify to previous bad acts. To have four or five people, as in this case, is exceptional,” said Rosenbluth.
Jackson also went after the defense witnesses, in particular nightclub promoter Punkin Pie, who testified Clarkson was suicidal. He called her actions “chasing the limelight” for her own ends. Pie also testified the actress carried her purse everywhere, the latter to explain why Clarkson had her purse on her shoulder when shot, if she wasn’t trying to leave Spector’s house.
Jackson noted none of the dozens of photos of Clarkson pictured her with a bag, implying Spector’s attorneys put her up to it. “Give it to Pie, she’ll testify to anything,” he mocked, as to what defense lawyers may have been thinking.
More damaging was his insistence that Pie lied in her testimony, noting she even admitted she lied to officers by stating Clarkson was not suicidal when police questioned her shortly after the shooting. Jackson said that years later, as the case came to trial, she spoke with authorities again. “The next time she talked to authorities, her story flipped,” said Jackson. “She made a 180 degree turn” timed to news articles that appeared.
Slide after slide went by jurors and on national TV, itemizing what Jackson said were holes in her testimony such as her statements in Star Magazine when everyone was under a gag order and being what he called “exiled” by Clarkson’s family.
Almost as damaging was the rebuttal to Pie’s testimony earlier in the trial by star director Michael Bay “Transformer” who spent hours on the stand noting that Clarkson could not have been depressed at not having talked to him at a party.
Bay said Clarkson was in no way a depressed person and they were good enough friends that she would have come up and kissed him at the party he supposedly ignored her at, even if he was surrounded by other guests. And that he would have noticed her as she was a “tall and beautiful” blonde.
Though Spector had reportedly pulled guns on stars including John Lennon, Dee Dee Ramone, Deborah Harry, Leonard Cohen and others, Bay was the only celebrity called to the stand – and specifically to rebut Pie. She was central to defense arguments that Clarkson’s death was a suicide, not a murder, accidental or otherwise.
The defense went to great lengths to portray Clarkson as a depressed has-been, who had nothing to live for. However, the prosecution presented evidence to the contrary. The defense will have its chance to present their closing statement tomorrow. The only thing that the defense needs is to create a reasonable doubt by tearing apart the DA’s gruesome and persuasive evidence If found guilty of second-degree murder, Spector faces a sentence of 15-years to life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
