Astrojanitor

what? so, uh, what do we do if Marv Levy circa 1991 isn't available?

KS directing other people's scripts, or even have a better director direct something he wrote, it a huge step for his artistic growth. part of me digs that whole recurring character/town/in jokes thing; but man it is a serious crutch. Sometimes writer/director/producers get stuck in the same kind of circle jerk you find when someone from a band goes solo. Soul Asylum was a pretty good band...early on, but Dave Pirner's solo album is unlistenable--dude needs 3 other guys screaming no at his stupid stupid ideas. Smith movies are like that; he's a guy that could really use the compromise that comes with collaboration. But then I'm still bitter he cut me out of Dogma.

I know, right? Who would have thought letting a guy named McG direct a movie would backfire?

Smith is far from "everything wrong with cinema" but I do think he is using his amateurness as a gimmick/crutch...though his new movie seems like its going to force him to make a "real" film. technically I consider Speilberg to be the "everything wring with cinema" since he is credited with inventing both the summer blockbuster (with "Jaws") and ending the director driven Hollywood new wave of 1967-75. Then again I am obsessed with B pictures of the 40-60s and the grindhouse style movies of the 70s...so being amateurish and barely competent is less a issue than being bland and soul less.

It would be cooler if someone just gave John Carpenter some money to make another film.

Check out Lucero, especially their new one 1372 Overton Park. A little rootsy-ier than Gaslight, but with the same energy, vibe and Springsteen fetish.

Kevin Smith is a guy who writes brilliantly. Quotable films, they move at a steady pace, exposition is treated seamlessly...all good things. But the guy can't direct to save his life. His films look terrible and he is not good with actors and all. His actors always come off as awkward and stiff. His camera also makes the fourth wall obvious--his films feel like they were made on sets and not in any kind of 360 degree reality. But he is a very nice guy (i was an extra in Dogma--but was cut) and is kind of the anti-Cameron in that you know you are watching a kevin Smith film within about 5 seconds. On day one in film school everyone goes around and says their favorite filmmaker. The top three are always, in order: 1) Tarantino 2) Smith 3) Tim Burton. Always. Basically i think Smith has a lot of natural talent but not much of an eye. I totally get the appeal, but I really don't share in it. But anyone who gets people really into film is okay with me. Smith is a gateway--he is the pot of directors.

No argument here. But Transformers 2 making a billion dollars does not, in any way, mean that movie was anything less than a big dumb incoherent oddly racist piece of garbage. It's also chic to trash Titanic since now the special effects have worn off we can see it's an overlong series of people walking down hallways. three hours of walking down hallways. Cameron is smart enough to blanket his shortcomings in revolutionary special effects. It makes seeing his films on the big screen a worthwhile investment....you will see something remarkable at a Cameron film. Although for my money both Cameron and Speilberg made exactly one good film each (Terminator and Duel, respectively). I find their films to be insufferable melodramas with explosions.

Ha!

word. I love the guy. Brings a lot of fun to football and does not do anything stupid off field. he's just a genuinely weird guy who loves football...I really don't get how that gets under people's skin.

I don't know how great of an idea that is. The Browns won their last 4 games in a rebuilding year, the shows something is finally clicking. And with a team that has bigger QB problems than the Bills. I can understand Holmgren wanting to start over from scratch, but I think Mangini has earned a chance at a second year

Well, being popular and being good are two completely different things. Nickelback is the highest selling rock and roll band of the last ten years, doesn't mean they are doing anything right. Just means there are a lot of people with terrible taste out there.

yeah, from a historical perspective I get that. But if you are trying to tell a story with a camera having everyone a maniac just gets redundant after awhile. I don't need an SS officer weeping at all the death, just a brief "what have we done" moment in order to drive the brutality home. All of the violence just feels empty to me after awhile...too one dimensional.

I believe it all comes down to trying to figure out what qualifies as a "liberal" bias, "conservative" bias or what is natural democrat/republican leanings coming out in a narrative. To paint with a wide brush here, ideologically speaking any film involving a noble military is going to be considered conservative by nature (full disclosure: I am about to marry a woman in the Army--I take offense at painting the military as "bad guys," not their fault they are stuck in a war) which explains Michael bay type entertainments. Military actually has to ok scripts for films that want to use their equipment. You see a tank or a fighter jet in a movie you are watching a conservative movie. But more than that any film that backs up or defends the status quo is inherently conservative while any film that criticizes the way things are is going to be progressive. From a storytelling perspective there simply is not a whole lot of "everything is fine, all is well" stories to tell. Especially in these last 10 years. Which is not to say it is impossible. "24" could not be more conservative if it tried. "Disturbia" is a love letter to spying on your neighbors and then reporting it to the authorities. Michael Bay loves including long sensual images of the military stoicly taking care of business. So really the cynic in me says Tom Sellick got blackballed because it's no longer 1983. I find films to be far more conservative to neutral than liberal.

yeah, i always get surprised comments when I complain about "Schindler's List." Without going into a huge dissertation about the film: I think Nazis=bad is pretty much a given. However there are reaction shots in SL of german soldiers standing next to piles of burning bodies and like cackling, firing their weapons into the mass, etc. After 2.5 hours it loses all power and meaning. By doing something as simple as having a couple reaction shots of a soldier being horrified at what all the pro-german rhetoric led to would be infinitely more powerful than the dozens of shots of helpless weeping children. I felt Spielberg was manipulative in a story that needed no manipulation. And that ending with the survivors at Schindler's tombstone? Yeesh. Turns the movie into sad porn. It's not even really a point to create sympathy for the SS. Just not everyone on the one side is a raving sociopath and the other a saint. You just need a two second shot of a soldier looking nauseated and it's a whole different film.

Ron Howard has had a terrific career and has made many films that are, for lack of a better term, beloved. And, from what I understand, one of the truly decent people in the industry. But, coming from within the academy, he and Speilberg are considered shorthand for what is wrong with contemporary filmmaking. There is nothing Howard does that makes his films his own. he is a director without edge or a point of view. he is a brilliant businessman, and he does know how to get people into theaters. but man, I have dedicated my life to studying film. I try to watch a couple films a day and have been doing so for about 15 years now. I couldn't name 3 Ron Howard films without looking at his imdb page. That, to me, is a sign of a pretty poor artist. When I say he is a nothing director it's because I feel literally any professional filmmaker could have done those movies. there's just no such thing as a "Ron Howard film." At least Speilberg has his suffocating sentimentality.

The problem with that point of view is that the American Indian is not in a position of power. there is no threat of communities on reservations in Oklahoma attacking settlements. By all accounts their violence was more defensive anyway. And, not for nothing, there have been literally thousands of films depicting Indian brutality. Some brilliant ("the searchers") some not (every western pre-"Stagecoach"). DWW is less finger pointy than accepting responsibility. The key is that it was made by a white American. The film, and its success, shows a willingness to own and learn from the past. very important in that regard. The film belies a very American attitude in that allows for mistakes made and moves to correct them. It's why the constitution has amendments. Now this is coming from a guy who feel "Schindler's List" is too one-sided (it's true, I do). personally I feel DWW's honesty makes it a very "American" film.

I'm not much of an Oliver Stone fan, but he does have some great smaller movies hidden amongst the nonsense. "U Turn" and "Talk radio" are both brilliant. And "natural born killers" is such an insane and audacious film that it can not be ignored. personally that movie gives me a headache, but wow is it ever alive.

Ron Howard is a nothing director...can't really think of many movies he made. DaVinci Code was an adaptation and was highly controversial in its depiction of the Catholic Church. I think the anti-Church stuff was far more Dan Brown than Ron Howard. but Howard did direct Apollo 13, and I don't think there was a blatant liberal agenda in Splash or How the Grinch Stole Christmas. To be brutally honest, I don't think Ron Howard is interesting enough of a director to sneak any kind of message into his movies. Actually, now looking at his imdb page, I see Gung Ho as well as Apollo 13, Far and Away, backdraft, Parenthood...lot of conservative films. Stone is a guy who lost all credibility years ago. like Michael Moore, everyone knows where Stone's politics are. So, like Moore, only people who agree with his point of view actually see his movies. it's actually not really worth complaining about Stone (or Moore) because they admit, and project, their bias. And, more importantly, only preach to the converted. Which is the number one reason why Michael Moore (or Oliver Stone, Bill O'reilly, Glenn beck, etc etc) is a waste of everyone's time. They don't start conversation, they create self righteous indignation. When people complain about Hollywood's liberal bias I like to think they are mostly concerned about those messages being sneaked into the narrative. As in you think the film is about aliens or whatever, but in reality the entire film is an awkward metaphor for the war on terror, or whatever. But I contend that since Hollywood's number one priority is turning a profit they tend to stay fairly neutral to slightly conservative, as that is largely the pulse of the nation.

Rail? that's a little harsh. maybe thank him for showing the team can, occasionally, shows signs of life and wish him luck...then send him on his way. He did A LOT better than I was expecting...Bills were only really out of the ATL game; the others were certainly winnable. And he had the sand to go with Fitz and Jackson even though Trent and Lynch were the supposed "stars" (I use that term real loosely). And, if nothing else, he did give us a Dolphins blow out. That alone is worth a bus ticket over a rail

religulous and Fahrenheit 9/11 don't count at all, they are opinion page "documentaries" which is a whole 'nother animal. Erin Brockovich and Milk are docudramas; compelling stories that actually happened. Is Erin Brockovich against capitalism? Maybe, but those capitalist were giving cancer to hundreds of people. And harvey Milk was murdered for trying to get equal rights for gays and lesbians. Would a conservative point of view be sympathetic to the murder of Harvey Milk? the guy was murdered for demanding freedom and equal rights....is that not an American ideal? hard to see your point with those two examples. However a film like John Q or The Contender are democrat wet dreams. But then it's not like the conservative point isn't hammered home constantly. In classic Hollywood look at "On the waterfront" or everything starring John Wayne. Or more currently look at the military fetishism of Michael Bay or whatever the hell GI Joe was. Or maybe "Disturbia" or "Eagle Eye," both of which are essentially love letters to the Patriot Act. It has always gone both ways, but the anti-leftys tend to be more vocal, and organized, when a film dares to speak against their point of view.

Ah! someone else noticed! i thought Cowher had this very odd complimentary demeanor when talking about the Bills but didn't want to read too much into it

Totally agree. A good filmmaker has a responsibility to speak to their point of view...but then the good filmmaker can artfully make his case so it does not feel like preaching. Few people complain Bob Dylan or Springsteen are "too liberal," but films always take heat. As a film scholar it depresses the hell out of me viewers demand movies to be politically neutral and bland. One of my favorite films is "A Face in the Crowd," a brilliant satire from 1955 or 6. If that film was made today Fox news would explode. Now sometimes a political agenda passes into propaganda (John Q anyone?), but a film like "Wall E" can be populist and carry a "liberal" message about consumerism and the environment. "Avatar" is kind of a post-colonialists wet dream, and I can respect that. It's just I do not feel Cameron is a very talented writer or director. Problem is he can solve any narrative issues with money. I was watching an interview with tarantino last night and he was saying he shoots his films in 6 weeks in order to keep up the energy and to force himself to work through problems on the fly. Cameron could use some of that attitude

Did anyone else notice Cowher was being oddly complimentary towards the Bills during the halftime show? I may be reading into it, what with all the Cowher rumors swirling around, but his attitude seemed odd to me. anyone else pick up on his vibe? p.s. this is all speculation. I am not saying Cowher unconsciously admitted he was coming to Buffalo or was interested in the team or anything of the sort. Just felt he had an odd demeanor when talking about the Bills.

"Bills offense has scored 1 Touchdown in the last 31 drives" that's a real sad fun fact, CBS