Movie news on your iPhone today!
Advertisement
Sign in
Username   Password         Forgot password?
Wanna join? Sign up
Find movies you'll love

SpoutBlog on spout.com

  • Fantastic Fest 2008: Complete Coverage

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]

  • What to watch and where to watch it

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]

    This past weekend I attended BlogOrlando , the wonderfully enjoyable and educational social media conference put on by Josh Hallett, the writer of the Hyku blog and one of the guys at Voce Communications, the other being Mike Manuel. BlogOrlando was started by Josh as a way to bring some of the local Florida online talent together in a place that wasn’t New York or San Francisco. It’s also, according to him, an excuse to call up the people he knows in the online media space and get them together sharing their knowledge, hashing out what’s actually important and just talking in general.

    I had attended last year and this year Josh asked me to lead a session on social media and entertainment. One question that came up, and which I wanted to focus on now, was this: When everything is available how do you decide what to watch?

    Let me explain. Right now if I decide I’m in the mood for a comedy my options are:

    • Go to a theater (Options: Ghost Town, Burn After Reading, Tropic Thunder, etc. But more expensive and dependent on scheduling working out.)
    • Rent a movie through Netflix (Options: Almost unlimited. Just about whatever I want to find I can find)
    • Rent a movie through iTunes (Options: More limited than Netflix, but more immediate gratification since I don’t have to manage a queue and wait for the mailed envelope)
    • Find something streaming online (Options: Cruise to Hulu.com, Fancast.com or other site, but dependent on what studios have decided are essentially expendable)
    • Find something in my own DVD collection (Options: Largely Marx Bros., Kevin Smith, Monty Python and some other favorites that are comfortable to me but which I still enjoy.)

    Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that I decide I need to watch something new to me, even if it’s not new in theaters. There are four components that will go into my decision process:

    1. Ratings: On a scale of X, how much did someone like/dislike this film
    2. Reviews: A more nuanced version of Ratings, adding content or explanations for opinions
    3. Recommendations: An active endorsing of a film as being worthy of time/money that is dependent on the reputation of the person doing the recommending
    4. Marketing: How the studio is making an appeal to the audience for their time/money

    Think about how many times you’ve heard the following during a conversation about what movie to watch: A) “The trailers looked really good,” B) “The reviews have been pretty good” or C) Well (name of friend/co-worker) saw it and he/she liked it.”

    In addition to these are things like allegiances to actors/directors or others involved in the film. No one actually needs to convince me to have Zach and Miri Make a Porno, Kevin Smith’s upcoming film, since I’m already a huge fan of his. The external influences above play into it and can shade my desire (or lack of desire if you actively dislike someone) but I’m still going to check it out regardless.

    So the deciding factors then become what movies I’ve heard of, either through press coverage or paid marketing, and how they’ve been reviewed or recommended by those whose opinions I trust.

    And that’s where it comes down to what I’ll dub the Billy Joel Truth #1: It’s a matter of trust.

    There are so many movie blogs out there and so many people, on sites like Spout, sharing what movies they’ve watched and which ones they’ve liked/hated/are indifferent towards. So the goal of those looking for recommendations is to gravitate toward those who they’ve found have either similar tastes or who have consistently pointed to movies that were interesting even if they weren’t always precisely on-target.

    In actuality our decisions are not made on any individual component but instead a compilation of all four. If a trusted friend says a movie isn’t very good then we’ll lower the influence of that really great trailer. If someone whose opinion we don’t trust says the movie was really funny than we might also give the marketing campaign less weight.

    In fact I’d be willing to guess that in almost all cases the opinions of those around us, whether they’re trusted or discounted, will trump a studio’s marketing campaign. We’re social animals and we engage in behaviors that strengthen those social relationships. Either we try to fit in or we try to be influential. And we know that the marketing and advertising of the film, as with just about any other consumer product, may not be representative of the finished product.

    So back to the core question: What do we watch when everything is available?

    The answer is that we watch what we feel we should be watching. But what feel we should be watching is guided by the recommendations of those we’ve identified, in our opinion, to be trustworthy and influential.


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

  • High School Record on Pitchfork.TV

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Over a year ago, I did a FilmCouch segment on High School Record, an indie comedy that played at Sundance and SXSW in 2005, and then was basically never heard from again. I was reminded of the film because I started getting really into this girl punk band Mika Miko, which is fronted by Jenna Thornhill and Jennifer Clavin, the two lead actresses in Record. Then, earlier this year, I started listening to No Age, a noise rock band consisting of two young men, one of whom, Dean Allen Spunt, also starred in Record. Looks like all the dots got connected, because now hipster music site Pitchfork is hosting streams of the film, in its entirety but broken into 8 chapters, for one week only. You can check it out here; I believe the week ends on Friday, so hurry up.


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

  • ORPHANS on DVD Today

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]

    The latest release from Carnivalesque Films, the DVD initiative spearheaded by filmmakers David Redmon and Ashley Sabin, hits stores (and Amazon, etc) today. It’s Orphans, Ry Russo-Young’s debut feature, which premiered and won a Jury Prize at the SXSW Film Festival in 2006. It’s a family horror film of sorts, about two estranged sisters who get together for one weekend of boozy recollection and reconnection gone wrong. I’ve written about the film briefly before; you can see also a conversation with Russo-Young and Tom Hall, and a crazy in-depth “breakdown” of Orphans by Ry and Noralil Ryan Fores. The trailer is above. Also: last week Brandon talked to Ry about Fassbinder and her latent desire to make a film with Amy Winehouse.


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

  • Could BLINDNESS Really Happen? Five Doomsday Movies Ranked by Likelihood

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    The Terminator  (1984)

    Waterworld  (1995)

    Armageddon  (1998)

    The Matrix  (1999)

    Children of Men  (2006)

    Blindness  (2008)

    Bailout talks implode, leaving economy’s fate unresolvedChavez reaffirms Russia alliance during visit, Pirates seize ship carrying tanks, ammo. Just click over to CNN.com or any other news site and you’ll see why post-apocalyptic and doomsday movies seem more relevant than ever. 

    The doomsday scenarios in movies can be pretty outlandish, but some of them are actually plausible. After all, in world where pirates have tanks, Hollywood doesn’t need to stray far from reality for a good yarn.

    Below the jump, we put five doomsday movie scenarios to the plausibility test. If you’ve always secretly thought Waterworld was a work of dead-on global warming prophecy, read on.

    5. Waterworld

    The doomsday scenario:

    Global warming causes the complete melt of glaciers and polar ice caps, flooding nearly the entire planet.

    Could it really happen?

    No. Make no mistake, rising sea levels due to climate change are very likely to cause major problems in the the next century, but a near-total covering of the world in water is not possible. While the melting polar ice caps are destroying the habitat of the polar bear, it’s important to remember that most of the Northern ice cap is already floating in the ocean, so its contribution to sea level rise will not be as severe as Greenland or Antarctica. And even if all the ice melted off of those two land masses, the collective sea level rise would be about 67 meters, or 220 feet. That’s very bad news if you live in Amsterdam or New Orleans, but it’s certainly not enough to cover all but the highest mountains, as in the film. We also shouldn’t expect those chucks of ice to melt too fast. It will likely take a thousand years or more for them to be gone completely, so we’ll have plenty of time to hoard paper and build cool boats, or just move to Denver.

    4. The Terminator/The Matrix (Separate films, similar problem)

    The doomsday scenario:

    Computers converge into one super intelligence, hell-bent on destroying the useless parasite known as humanity.

    Could it really happen?

    Probably not. In the 1980’s Vernor Vinge popularized the theory of a technological singularity. The basic idea is that computers will eventually become smart enough to think for themselves, and therefore make even smarter computers. Those computers would then make even smarter computers, and so on until the exponential growth of artificial intelligence goes far beyond human comprehension. At this point, as in The Terminator and The Matrix films, the machines would realize they no longer need humanity and seek to eliminate it. Most credible scientists doubt Vinge’s hypothesis. While it’s easy to imagine the exponential growth of computing power, as Moore’s Law does, it’s a big jump to assume that such increased power will lead to the creative thinking that would be required for self-improvement.

    So that’s the good news, the bad news is that if the singularity did want to destroy humanity, it wouldn’t be nearly so merciful as the machines in The Terminator and The Matrix. I’m sure it wouldn’t take long for the super intelligence to master the fields of biology and nanotechnology, at which point it would engineer a super virus that would wipe out humanity in a mater of minutes. Is it really a smart use of robot-overlord resources to send mechanized assassins back in time or dispatch swarms of tentacled machines into abandoned sewer tunnels? Sure, biological warfare seems like cheating in human-on-human conflict, but I doubt the machines would be so forgiving.

    3. Blindness

    The doomsday scenario:

    The entire population except for one woman goes blind almost instantly. Mass hysteria breaks out, quarantines are ineffective, the strong and brutal hoard food and commit atrocities.

    Could it really happen?

    Maybe. There is a form of infectious blindness, caused by the bacterium Chlamydia trachomatis. It’s usually passed physically, through towels or by touching an infected person’s eyes. It’s most common among children in poor areas where hygiene is lacking. The up side is that it takes a while, unlike the mysterious plague in Blindness. The down side is that blindness caused by trachoma is extremely painful, as the eyelids turn inwards, scratching the surface of the eye to the point where it’s no longer transparent. In its current state, Chlamydia trachomatis could not cause instant mass blindness, but if by some fluke the bacteria became exponentially more contagious, we could be in for a dark future.

    2. Children of Men

    The doomsday scenario:

    Mass infertility. In the film the cause is unknown. Not only are women unable to get pregnant, pregnancies in progress also fail when the mysterious event occurs.

    Could it really happen?

    Maybe. In the landmark 1995 book Our Stolen Future, the authors examine how chemical pollutants effect reproductive health. In short, there are an increasing number of chemicals floating around that mimic hormones. These have been shown to cause all sorts of problems including reduced puberty age, fetal defects, and reduced sperm counts. The kicker is that many of these chemicals are extremely persistent, meaning that they do not break down. So even if the junk leaching out of your Nalgene bottle is very slight, it will join the other hormone disruptors lodged in your fat cells until they gather enough friends to do some real damage, even if it takes several generations. This differs from the film in that it’s likely to be far more gradual. A steady decline in global sperm count wouldn’t effect pregnancies in progress, and we’d see it coming.

    1. Armageddon

    The doomsday scenario:

    A huge asteroid strikes Earth, wiping out every living thing.

    Could it really happen?

    Yes. It nearly happened 65 million years ago, causing the extinction of most dinosaur species, and it could happen again. More recently, a meteor or comet exploded over a remote region of Siberia in 1908, detonating with the force of 1,000 Hiroshima bombs, knocking over trees in an 830 square mile area, and on the scheme of things, that was a small one. The US government and the UN have recently begun to take the threat of asteroid collision more seriously, but that doesn’t mean we’re prepared. Many experts put this scenario at the top of their list of likely causes of human extinction. There have been several near-misses, some quite recently. As far as we know, the rock that most likely has our name on it is (29075) 1950 DA, which could spin through space in one of two ways: if it picks door number 1, it will miss us by millions of miles, if it picks door number 2, it will have a 1 in 300 chance of ruining everyones’ day. Luckily, that day won’t come until March 16, 2880.

    In the meantime, we can work out a reliable way to either destroy the asteroid, as they did in Armageddon, or alter its course and eliminate the threat. The latter solution is looking more reasonable at the moment, but it’s no surprise Michael Bay preferred interstellar nuclear weapons to a film about altering an asteroid’s course by a fraction of a degree using the gravitational pull of an unmanned spacecraft. The really scary part, however, is that while about 800 near-Earth objects larger than 1 km across (the really bad ones) have been accounted for, many estimate that about 200 have yet to be found. Let’s just hope they find the one heading for us in time to get Bruce Willis and his team from their offshore oil rig and into a nuke-laden space shuttle.


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

  • Che Release Strategy

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Che  (2008)

    Ever since word broke at Toronto that IFC had picked up Steven Soderbergh’s Che for US distribution, there have been conflicting rumors as to how the company, known for its day-and-date theatrical and VOD releases, would handle a film of this length, scope, and potential Oscar cachet. At yesterday’s NYFF press conference, Soderbergh talked a bit about the “roadshow” concept, through which the entire two-part film will first hit theaters.

    He confirmed that in each market the film enters, it’ll screen for just one week, on one screen, with ticket buyers paying a premium (probably $25 each, including full-color printed program) for the experience. “I think that’s the ideal way to see it,” the director said, although he acknowledged that “it’s a lot to ask of an audience, to throw away an entire day.”

    A source told me last night that IFC is banking that a lot of people are going to want to throw away their days on Che.

    After the film completes its initial one-week run at the Zeigfeld theater in Midtown Manhattan in early December, it will move on to other cities (and premiere on VOD), but then the roadshow print will come back to New York in January to take up residence at the IFC Center downtown. The theater will then screen the full 4-something hour extravaganza daily, until demand runs out. The person I talked to said the theater’s operators are confident that there will be enough curious cinephiles and Che obsessives to keep the movie playing there for “a loooong time.” Certainly, if Benicio Del Toro gets the expected Best Actor nomination, you’d think there’d be at least one or two people in the tri state area who’d want to come out and see the film on a big screen.


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog