Movies in My Life Lately #1

I watch a lot of movies over the week. I also make my own movies. So I decided it might be a good idea to get a column going where I can sum things up from a particularly busy week of movie watching and movie making.

This past week I watched all the movies from A Nightmare on Elm Street: The Collection that I had not previously seen (I had already seen A Nightmare on Elm Street, The Dream Warriors (Part 3), and Wes Craven's New Nightmare (Part 7)). My favorite that I watched was Freddy's Revenge (which I featured in the Cult Corner last week). My least favorite was Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare (Part 6) which was pretty terrible in every way. The Dream Master (Part 4) was a disappointing follow up to The Dream Warriors. I hate that they disposed of the remaining Dream Warriors in the manner that they did. The story was confusing and didn't make much sense. I was surprised, however, at how much I enjoyed that film's follow up: The Dream Child (Part 5). The stalk sequences were inspired, the gothic settings great and Stephen Hopkins' direction was visually exciting. It's a shame that the film was a bomb... it was much better than the successful Dream Master was.

Overall, the series was fun to catch up on and I'm glad that I have finally added it to my film collection.

I recently got Netflix Watch Instantly so I've been watching a lot of movies I normally wouldn't watch. I saw that the panned remake of The Stepfather was on it so, on a particularly boring day, I sat down and gave it a watch.

This movie is pretty bad, which is to be expected. It's not scary (you can see the jump scares coming from a million miles away) and, every time Dylan Walsh tries to be crazy and menancing, it's completely laughable and over the top. Also, the movie seems obsessed with having actress Amber Heard be in either her underwear or a skimpy bikini in literally every single scene she is in (not neccesarily a bad thing but after a while it became glaring that the director liked shooting her this way).

Still, I wouldn't say it was a complete waste of time. I get a certain amount of enjoyment in watching bad horror movies and I can say I got that same amount of enjoyment out of watching this one. There's nothing special about it but it's not the absolute worst way you could spend an hour and a half.

Rating: 3/10

I also finally saw The Coen Brother's much lauded A Serious Man this week. I really wanted to love this movie but, after much thought, I can't say that I did. The film showcased that The Coens are indeed brilliant filmmakers and know how to shoot the mess out of a movie. Visually, the movie is great and has some great pacing. However, I didn't like the story and could not stand the characters. I know that this intentional to an extent-- after all, this is a black comedy. Still, I disliked them to the point where I really wanted to turn the movie off at times.

The movie deals with Larry Gopnik (Michael Stuhlbarg) who is a college physics proffessor dealing with a lot problems: review by the tenure committee, his pot smoking son Danny's bar mitzvah, being bribed by a Korean-American student, the threat of divorce by his wife Judith (who is leaving him for his friend Sy Abelman), and the ongoing encroachment of brother Arthur and his sebaceous cyst.

In a sense, the film works as a modern day retelling of the story of Job. Larry is being put through some major problems and doesn't understand why God is letting this happen to him. He seeks help and understanding from many rabbis but to no real avail.

While the film's hopeless and grating characters turned me off, I have to admit that the movie really made me think (I actually haven't stopped thinking about it since I watched it on Saturday) and displayed why the Coens are great filmmakers. A few sequences really stood out as great pieces of filmmaking. One was the opening sequence. The opening is an old Yiddish folk tale shot in 1:33:1 aspect ratio that tells a story that doesn't really have anything to do with the story told after the opening credits (at least, at first glance-- there are many theories on the Internet on what this has to do with the rest of the movie). The sequence is haunting, funny and kind of gets under your skin. You can watch it here if you interested.

The other sequence that really caught my eye is the story of the Goy's Teeth by one of the rabbis to Larry. This scene really sums up the film quite well and is a blast to watch. It is set brilliantly to Jimi Hendrix's "Machine Gun" and showcases why the Coens are great at directing. Please watch it here.

Still, I really couldn't get into most of the movie because I didn't really like the characters or care much about their plight. Because of that, I can't give the movie a high rating, no matter how well it was directed, shot and edited.

Rating: 6/10

I also spent a lot of the week working on my own film work. I just finished my second television commercial for Mississippi's Southern Fried Comic Con. The Con lasts from June 26-27 and takes place at the Cabot Lodge in Jackson, MS. The commercial features original music by David Tigrett and narration by Jay Long. You can watch my commercial below.

Well that's been my week with film. Hope you all enjoyed reading about it.

Captain America Costume Revealed

Some concept art hit the rounds on movie sites earlier today showing off Captain America's costume in the upcoming Joe Johnston film adaptation. I thought I'd drop a few opinions on the suit really quick.

I never really thought how hard it was going to be to get Captain America to work on film... but then I remembered how bad the original 1990's Captain America movie was (hint: really, really bad). Captain is just a character that's so blatantly pro-America and patriotic that it's hard to get him to work on film and not seem silly.

So, with all that in mind, the new suit does seem like a nice compromise. Sure, I was pretty heart broken and kind of shocked when I saw that they got rid of the wings on the side of his head but... I dunno... as the day has gone on, the costume has been growing on me. It feels as realistic as a Captain America costume could feel on film I think.

Still, with that said, I don't have the highest hopes for this film. I'm not completely sold on Chris Evans as Captain yet (though he was great in Sunshine). Also, I feel like Joe Johnston has never really made a good movie (expect for maybe The Rocketeer). Lastly, Marvel's been kind of pissing me off lately with their interweaving of characters to add up to The Avengers movie. It was cool at the end of Iron Man but now that it's being worked into the actual plots of the films (see the muddled Iron Man 2) it's annoying and hurting the actual films at hand.

So... not exactly hopeful yet. But the design is intriguing.

Source: JoBlo

Cult Corner: A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge

Welcome to the Cult Corner. I watch a lot of weird movies. And by weird movies, I mean weird movies. I also tend to have a greater appreciation for films that didn't do very well upon their release or that were universally disliked by fans and critics a like. I will cover these films in the Cult Corner articles and explain why they deserve a second look and why I love them so much.

The Cult Corner's first entry is the much panned and controversial sequel A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge.

A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge has always been the black sheep in the Nightmare on Elm Street series. People have always held a certain amount of hatred and distaste for the film because it takes a very different direction with the series. Gone is the whole premise of Freddy Krueger killing teens in their nightmares. No, this movie has a different story to tell. In this entry, Freddy torments angsty teen Jessie and basically possesses his body, using him to kill people in the real world.

If that wasn't strange enough, this movie is stock full of overall weirdness. I'm talking scenes with killer parakeets that burst into flames, dogs with human faces, and some serious homoerotic undertones.

The biggest thing that people talk about in regards to Freddy's Revenge is the gay undertones that fill the film. The character of Jessie is hinted to be struggling with his sexuality throughout the film, with Freddy Krueger representing his repressed homosexuality. The film has strange sequences like Jessie wondering into a homosexual S&M bar in the middle of the night, his gay gym teacher being stripped naked and having his butt smacked with a towel over and over again in the shower by Freddy before being clawed up, and an interesting scene where Jessie, after a failed make-out session with his girlfriend (which was foiled due to Freddy's intrusion... a.k.a. his homosexual desires kicking in), runs to his buff guy friend Grady's house for comfort and to sleep over. Lastly, Mark Patton, the actor who played Jessie, was gay in real life.

Only recently have people involved in the film come out about the gay undertones of the film. In an interview with Attitude Magazine, Robert Englund (Freddy Krueger) spoke out about the intentions of the film:

The second Nightmare on Elm Street is obviously intended as a bisexual themed film. It was early 80s, pre-AIDS paranoia. Jesse's wrestling with whether to come out or not and his own sexual desires was manifested by Freddy. His friend is the object of his affection. That's all there in that film. We did it subtly but the casting of Mark Patton was intentional too, because Mark was out and had done Come Back to the Five and Dime, Jimmy Dean, Jimmy Dean".

In the recent documentary Never Sleep Again, screenwriter David Chaskin also admitted that the gay undertones were intentional (though the director and producer of the film were unaware of them at the time). I feel like these undertones really make the film more interesting than it already was. They are fun to look for and make the film ultimately deeper and a little more thought provoking (much like the undertones in The Hitcher).

But if you're not into overall weirdness and gay undertones, Freddy Krueger is still here to scare the mess out of you. The Freddy here is much like the one in the first Nightmare film. He's angry, pissed off and kind of terrifying. Sure, he spouts off a few one liners here and there but this is nothing compared to the days when he'd be killing kids via video games. This Freddy is a dark, demon-like creature who wants nothing more to possess Jessie and commit random acts of horrible violence.

A lot of people didn't like bringing Freddy into the real world but I loved it. Where else can you see a scene where Freddy crashes a pool party / kegger? This scene alone was worth the price of the film. Also, the scene where Freddy pops out of Jessie's stomach to slice and dice his potential gay love interest Grady was super tense and had some pretty awesome 80's special effects.

But despite all the film's awesome Freddy-in-the-real-world moments and it's overall strangeness, what really made it work was its overall believable nature. I really cared for Jessie, Lisa and Grady for that matter. Jessie's family felt like a real family and the way they interacted with each other was very natural. Because of this, the threat of Freddy intruding in their real world was a violation and the result was often terrifying. I also really liked the ending of the film where Lisa is forced to confront Freddy / Jessie in the boiler room. The scene was uncomfortable and loved the direction that it took. Ever seen a girl willingly make out with Freddy Kreuger? Well, now you have. It also made me wonder what the film was trying to say about supressed homosexuality. It's almost like Jessie is made to turn from the dark side (a.k.a. embracing his homosexuality) and love Lisa (thus making turning hetero despite your feelings and urges the right thing to do in the film's logic?). It's all interesting and ballsy stuff for a slasher sequel.

All and in all, I really enjoyed this movie. It made me think, cringe and just blew me away with its overall weirdness. If you're into Freddy Krueger and his movies, then this is one that I feel like you have to see to believe. It's odder than any of the other entries in every shape and fashion. It lacks the fun of The Dream Warriors but also isn't as serious as the first entry. It's a dark, little odd ball that's somewhere in the middle.

If you're feeling it, watch the trailer below. And try not to get chills when Freddy proclaims, "You're all my children now!" Fun stuff.

Stay tuned for more entries in the Cult Corner in the future.

YDKS Movies Returns

Hey everyone.

So YDKS Movies hasn't had an update since January. Which is very sad. I never meant to let this place go. However, in the midst of my senior year of college, I just got wrapped up in other things (graduating, getting into film school, filmmaking, social life, etc.).

Senior year is over now and, in the fall, I'm off to film school at the Savannah College of Art and Design. I have a lot more free time on my hands and would like to start updating this place a lot more regularly.

In the next few weeks, expect to see posts every now and again. I'm not doing a post every single day like I used to but I will update this place every week. Expect to see regular topics from the past start to recirculate. I will also finally finish a list I started before YDKS Movies hit its slump (15 Most Hateable Characters in Film).

Since I haven't updated since January, I'd like to update you all on some of my film work. I have made two short films since I stopped updating and a few test films. I just recently purchased a Canon EOS Rebel T2i and it has really changed the way I make movies completely. I love this camera so much.

The first film I'd like to share with you is called "VHS." It was filmed on my old Canon XH A1 so it, unfortunately, doesn't have the visual prowess that the other videos that I'm going to share with you have. Still, it's a good story and I'm really proud of it. It deals with an outcast dealing with high school and how a female classmate befriends him in his time of trouble.

Watch it below:

The next video is called The Informal. It is a test film I did at the 2010 ST Informal in Jackson, MS with my Canon T2i. It was the first thing I edited that I shot with the T2i. It just chronicles the dance that we had that night. The thing with this video is that I wanted to demonstrate what could be achieved with this camera without color grading and very little editing. All the footage is fresh out of the camera and it is all shot with a 50mm f1.4 lens. It's all very pretty stuff.

Watch it below:

The last video I'd like to share with you was also shot on the Canon T2i and is called 3 P.M. It was a film shot in two class periods for my Acting II class. The assignment was that we had to view the Senior Art exhibit and pick one piece to base a film around. The piece we chose was "HDR Display" by Kyle Hancock (the piece appears in the film). Anyways, the movie is just a short, fun little thriller. Hope you enjoy it.

Watch it below:

I hope you all enjoy these films I have been making in my absence. And I am, once again, sorry to let this place go like I have. I look forward to updating once again.

Thank you all for your patience.

I'm Here Trailer is the Reason I Love Spike Jonze

I'm Here is a thirty minute short film that Spike Jonze made that just premiered at the Sundance Film Festival. Read the synopsis below:

Funded by Absolut Vodka, I’m Here is a robot love story celebrating a life enriched by creativity. The movie is set in contemporary L.A., where life moves at a seemingly regular pace with the exception of a certain amount of robot residents who love among the population. A male robot librarian lives a solitary and methodical life — devoid of creativity, joy and passion - until he meets an adventurous and free spirited female robot. The film stars British actor Andrew Garfield (Boy A, The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus, The Social Network) and Sienna Guillory, one of Maxim’s 100 sexiest women.


If that isn't enough to get you excited about this short film, the trailer is pretty much magically. It basically gave me the same sense of wonder that I felt when I watched the first trailer for Jonze's Where the Wild Things Are. That and the buzz from Sundance says that the film is just as wonderful as its trailer.

Watch the trailer below and get excited.

Source: /Film

Spider-Man 4 is No More

For about a month now, there have been rumors of turmoil on the behind-the-scenes front of Spider-man 4. The production recently went on a month's break due to director Sam Raimi's problems with the latest draft of the script. It appeared that he wanted the film to focus on the villain of the Vulture (who was to be played by John Malkovich). Sony, on the other hand, wanted the film to focus on literally any other villain.

It was this disagreement over villains and story that led to the utter failure of Spider-man 3. However, unlike that unfortunate venture, Raimi stood his ground on this one. Many thought that this would only lead to a delay of production and another script re-write. However, it's much worse than that.

Earlier tonight, Spider-man 4 was scrapped. Sam Raimi and Tobey Maguire have both walked away from the production.

This is really surprising news... and it's kind of upsetting. I really wanted to see Raimi make a respectable comeback in this series. He's been very vocal about the failure of Spider-man 3 and has been equally vocal about wanting to right his wrongs. Unfortunately, it looks like we'll never get to see this happen. Still, I'm proud of him for standing his ground and not letting all of this crap happen again. I can't believe Sony would be so ungrateful and belligerent after the man gave them two really wonderful superhero films. It's just insulting.

Sony will be picking up the pieces of this shut down by doing a Spider-man reboot, set for a 2012 release date. It will be scripted by James Vanderbilt (Zodiac) and will focus back on Peter Parker's high school days. While it will be nice to see Spider-man from a new director's eyes, I'll always be angry with Sony for denying Sam Raimi his chance to make one more respectable Spider-man film. It's just not fair to him.

Source: /Film

A Review of The Road

A few years ago, I began the journey of becoming a fiction reader. An English professor, Dr. James Potts (who would go on to be my adviser), sparked my interest in American literature. As I got to know Dr. Potts, I discovered that his dissertation focused on two huge American literary icons: William Faulkner and Cormac McCarthy. When it came time to sign up for classes, Dr. Potts didn't ask me to take his Faulkner course. He told me to enroll in it. I took the class. While the material was difficult, especially for a young reader like I was (and still am), I was blown away by Faulkner's characters, the devastation and heartbreak found in his fictional Yoknapatawpha County. Though Dr. Potts's passion for Faulkner was undeniable, he consistently referenced the author Cormac McCarthy, saying, "This guy switches between writing like Faulkner and Hemingway like you wouldn't believe." My interest was piqued.

I hate to say it, but I bought my copy of The Road from Wal-Mart. I suppose after Oprah hyped the novel, Wal-Mart figured they could make a few bucks off of it. Still, critics and authors had praised the work. Friends championed the book, saying it was magnificent. I'd been to the Kissimmee Social Tribe formal that weekend, and the backseat of the car had grown a bit dull. When I came across the novel at Wal-Mart of all places, I bought it. If you find gold in the trash heap, don't pass it by.

The first few lines carried a sadness with them I'd never encountered: "When he woke in the woods in the dark and the cold of night he'd reach out to touch the child sleeping beside him. Nights dark beyond darkness and the days more gray each one than what had gone before. Like the onset of some cold glaucoma dimming away the world." I read the book slowly, making it last. The pages "each one" more lovely and gripping "than what had gone before." What a story. The novel went on to win the Pulitzer Prize, and rumors of a film adaptation began circulating. With any great novel, a fear of how the story will translate on the big screen is always present. The Road was such a powerful and moving piece of literature. For the story to have been botched by Hollywood would be tragic.

The Coen Brothers certainly proved that with the right atmosphere and storytelling McCarthy's work can be powerful on film. No Country for Old Men blew me away, but could John Hillcoat (director) and Joe Penhall (writer) do The Road justice? I wasn't without skepticism, considering that Billy Bob Thornton's film version of McCarthy's All the Pretty Horses was pretty disgraceful. How would The Road fare in comparison to No Country for Old Men and All the Pretty Horses? I was fairly anxious to see the picture, especially after it was delayed twice from release in 2008. Like a lot of great movies, the picture did not come to Mississippi. My initial attempt to see the movie was thwarted due to flooding in New Orleans, and my prepaid tickets were wasted. However, thanks to a pretty awesome girl in my life, I was able to catch the movie in Memphis the next weekend.

For those unfamiliar with The Road's premise, it is a post-apocolyptic story involving a father and his little boy journeying across scorched America. How things have become so bleak we are never told. It doesn't matter. What matters is that humanity has been reduced to the most depraved and bare bones existence imaginable. The earth continues to die. Cannibalism runs rampant. Food is scarce at the very best. It is cold, "cold enough to crack rocks." All that spurs the father on is his love for his child; all that keeps the boy alive is his love for and trust in his father. Pretty bleak stuff to capture on screen, but Hillcoat did not fail. Not even a little, really.

For the most part, McCarthy's story is very much in tact. The grey, somber, and desperate imagery is dead on. You can always see the character's breath in front of their faces; everything is wet; the clothes are tattered and dirty; bones jut out from beneath each character's skin; scorched bodies hide in every crevice. This picture is haunting, but its ability to paint a bleak picture doesn't make the movie ugly to look at. It's quite beautiful.

The father and son travel south, doing their best to find the warmest place possible. They face cannibals, victims of cannibalism, those trying to survive as they are. They search for food, often coming across surprises like a can of Coca-Cola which the boy has never before tried. Here and there they can catch their breath, but they must always be wary, must always be on the run. The father carries a gun containing two bullets. "One for you and one for me," he tells his son. "We'll do it together." Suffering is so likely that they have a plan for suicide. Some of the most intense and suspenseful scenes involve their hectic decision to commit suicide or to try fleeing. It's gut-wrenching stuff.

The acting is superb. It isn't atypical for a child in a movie to overact or make it abundantly clear that they are beginners. The Boy is played by Kodi Smit-McPhee, a newbie to the screen and an excellent choice for the role, as he authenticates McCarthy's character. When the Father says about his son "If he is not the voice of God, God never spoke," we believe it. Viggo Mortensen is a pleasure to watch as the father. He embodies a desperate man attempting to survive against all odds. Their interaction is charming, and its easy to get attached to them. The same can be said for all supporting actors, including Robert Duvall and Guy Pearce (who makes a great appearance at the movie's end). I can't remember a weak moment.

The film differs from the novel in its description of the Father's marriage. Charlize Theron plays the Father's wife, who ends up leaving him and the boy behind to die alone in the cold. These scenes come as flashbacks, interrupting the narrative as dreams or recollections. Some critics have said that this causes the movie to be unstable as a narrative, switching back and forth between the present and the past. While these flashbacks are not present in the novel, I think it works for the movie. Had Penhall kept strictly to the novel, the movie would have been a long, hard, and painful slog: two full hours of trekking across dead America, searching for food, trying to survive. McCarthy gets away with it because his language is so gorgeous and the reader is free to put the book down when he or she needs a break. With the addition of the loss of the wife, however, the film maintains the same sense of urgency that the book does, without forcing the viewer to endure an entire two hours of sheer hopelessness. Perhaps the flashbacks are too numerous, but I'm not sure how the movie would have fared without them.

By the last scene I had tears in my eyes. The Road, as both a film and novel, has left me humbled and jealous. Few movies/stories break my heart like this one has. Few stories translate as beautifully as this one has on film. If filmmakers continue to do justice to McCarthy's novels the way the Coen Brothers and Hillcoat have, it's possible that these movie adaptations could become as important to me as his books have. McCarthy isn't for the faint of heart. Candidly, my body sort of ached after this movie was over. I have trouble recommending the movie based on its graphic nature. However, the acting is excellent, the imagery beautiful, and the story timeless. It'll be in my collection.