End of the World

End of the world movies have always mesmerized the viewing audience - especially in the United States.  I am not sure whether people in Tibet watch films or care if the world ends.  In some cultures, perhaps they await the end the way some sixteen year old boys await the last day of their being a virgin.  In the United States, end of the world films are resilient - facing the test of time and financial support by viewing audiences.

Yet so often the end is merely a new beginning (2012).  Planet of the Apes is great, except the end is merely the beginning which ends where it began and begins again with humans in charge followed by Apes - a singularly circular life we cannot escape.  I am Legend - a great film, except life does exist outside the walls of New York or whatever the city.  Smith doesn't know, but eventually learns of the colony in the upstate area (in one version of the film) - again, not the end, a new beginning, with far less traffic.

Dawn of the Dead - in some ways similar to the end of I am Legend - thinking, evolving zombies ... a new beginning?  In any case, there are scores of humans alive around the world and we meet them in various other films.  Enough to repopulate at some point - a new beginning, even while you must kill off the zombies or at least await their demise from lack of brain food.

Armageddon, Deep Impact, Core - all start off as end of the world events and we are saved by heroic deeds and man continues.

Day after Tomorrow or Day After - life continues, minus 200-300 million people at most.  Earth manages fine.

Independence Day and Battle LA, Skyline, Cloverfield - potentially devastating, but the Marines will win the day and capture or kill whatever it is.  We win in each, even if 100-300 million die, mankind continues.

12 Monkeys - idiotic.

Terminator:  Requires man to survive for the film to exist.

However, there are a few films that really do take us where we fear to tread - the End of the World.


Knowing !!!  1 of 5

On the Beach !!!  2 of 5

Seventh Sign !!!   3 of 5

When Worlds Collide !!!  4 of 5

Questionable ??    The Day the Earth Caught Fire!!  Although this one is not a certainty.  5 of 5



This is it.  The End.  After watching the first 4, you'd walk the streets telling all to repent and prepare!














the end

Eat Popcorn and Get Fat: Daily Caloric Instake in ONE Bucket of Popcorn

Sweet Popcorn would be the equivalent of caramel corn I believe - not relevant at any theater I have been to in the US.

While the numbers are English - from their popcorn and theaters, popcorn with the oil they use and buttery flavoring would be about the same - or maybe more.

In any case - a reasonable standard to compare to.




A 1,800 calorie bag of popcorn: Cinemas urged to warn film lovers about fat-filled snacks


By Daily Mail Reporter
27th February 2010


Cinema-goers should be warned about how many calories are contained in popular snacks such as popcorn, fizzy drink and icecream, according to the nutrition watchdog.

The Food Standards Agency is also concerned that portion sizes offered to filmgoers are getting out of control and have called on cinemas to act to tackle the obesity crisis.

It follows claims that a large bag of sweet popcorn could contain an alarming 1,800 calories - the equivalent of a large curry with sides and two bottles of beer.

A large salted popcorn did not fare much better than the sweet variety, containing 1,779 calories - the same as a three course meal of pizza, garlic bread and tiramisu.

The large popcorn bags are intended for sharing but are often eaten by just one person.

The agency's chief executive Tim Smith told The Times that cinemas should provide calorie information on their snacks.

'There is a myth that popcorn is calorie-free, but that is not the case. It is a concern to us,' he said.

'Portion sizes are also a big issue, and there seems to be increasingly big packs on sale. Who would ever have thought of the idea of a family needing a wheelbarrow to go into a cinema?'

He also urged cinemas to provide smaller portion sizes.

Popcorn isn't the only food of concern. Hot dogs contain about 650 calories, nachos with cheese could contain as much as 716 calories and a large Coca Cola has 328 calories, according to nutritionists.

Mr Smith spoke out as a number of food chains such as Pret A Manger, Wimpey and The Real Greek decided to put calorie counts on all their menus.

A trial scheme with 21 food companies took place last summer, and has already suggested that consumers alter their buying habits after reading how many calories are in certain products.

'The emerging evidence is that people are picking products which have 100 calories fewer than their normal purchase,' Mr Smith told The Times.

'It seems where there is choice between a chicken salad with 420 calories and one with 320 calories they are picking the lower one. One company has also told us that there is no profit impact on providing the information in cafés or on front of packs and there may even be a competitive advantage'

The Food Standards Agency is hoping to enlist support from cinemas and other entertainment venues, including football grounds and concert arenas, to tackle the obesity crisis.

It has already held talks with cinema suppliers PepsiCo and Coca-Cola.

Mr Smith added: 'When Coke started out in America it was sold in a 5oz bottle and now you can get it in a 64oz bucket. There are 20 fluid ounces in a pint, so that is a three and a bit pints. There can be nothing materially sensible about that, and no one needs that amount of soft drink.'

He said entertainment venues needed to take responsibility.

'It’s the same story. These are all areas where people are buying, albeit sporadically, high-energy items in large portions.'

Cineworld said it was in the process of improving nutritional information for all food and drink on sale at venues.


It comes as research this week showed that eight out of 10 men and almost seven in 10 women will be overweight or obese by 2020.







fat

Paranormal Activity

The film, cost $15,000 to make, followed the Blair Witch model, and has made over $100,000,000 ... considering the cost versus the grosses, has made more than Avatar.  Avatar would need to make about $3.5 billion to equal the gross from Paranormal Activity.

In any case, the film has just opened in Italy, and is pulling in more money than Avatar did , in Italy.

The film is also having an effect ...


"Several panic attacks lasting more than half an hour took place," an emergency response worker said.


"The most serious case is that of a 14-year-old girl who was brought to the hospital in a state of paralysis."

The Italian parents' association noted that admission to the movie is restricted in the United States, Britain, Germany and The Netherlands and asked for an age limit of 18 in Italy.

Defence minister Ignazio La Russa said: "For the past two weeks a trailer has been shown obsessively on TV, and is terrifying thousands of children."

 
 
The Defense Minister spoke out ... that must be a serious issue when the man responsible for the security of the nation, from invasions and such, comments on a film!!
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ghosts

An American Dream

I have to admit I like David Zucker.  Whether it is the commercials he has created, or what is clearly a financial flop, yet a very funny film - An American Carol.

We can all dream that even Michael Moore catches a clue and sees the light.









Michael Moore

Movies and Popcorn, or maybe just movies ...

... and no popcorn.




Cinema popcorn is nutritional horror show: study


November 20, 2009
Agence France Presse
Sydney Morning Herald



Forget Freddy Krueger or flesh-eating zombies: the real villain of a night at the movies could be lurking in a bag of popcorn or drinks carton, according to a new US study.

Nutritional analysis of popcorn servings at some of America's biggest cinema chains has found mind-boggling calorie counts that may surprise consumers who think of the snack as a relatively healthy treat.

However the non-profit Centre for Science in the Public Interest compared some popcorn and drinks combos to consuming three McDonald's quarter-pounders topped with 12 pats of butter.

The CSPI said in a statement that a medium popcorn and softdrink combo at Regal, the United States' biggest movie theatre chain, contained an eye-popping 1610 calories and about 60 grams of saturated fat.

At AMC theatres, the second largest theatre chain, a large popcorn contained 1030 calories and 57 grams of saturated fat, CSPI said.

"Who expects about 1500 calories and three days' worth of heart-stopping fat in a popcorn and soda combo? That's the saturated fat of a stick of butter and the calories of two sticks of butter," CSPI senior nutritionist Jayne Hurley said in a statement.

"You might think you're getting Bambi, but you're really getting Godzilla."

The study said the high calorie counts could be attributed to the fact that corn was popped in coconut oil.

Popcorn cooked in healthier canola oil showed lower levels of saturated fats but similar levels of calories and higher sodium, the study found.












movies

Hollywood knows, yet refuses to confront the issue. Pretending the elephant is not in the room doesn't make it go away.

Why.  I mean it stares you in the face.





The One Place on Earth Not Destroyed in '2012'


by Jonathan Crow · November 3, 2009

When I interviewed director Roland Emmerich a few months ago about his upcoming disaster flick "2012," the first question I asked was, "Why do you like killing the world?" His response: "It makes for a good story."

Over the past fifteen years, Emmerich has crafted some great tales about global doom, featuring some spectacular scenes of destruction. He had aliens zap the White House in "Independence Day," he let a massive lizard flatten New York City in "Godzilla," and he sent killer tornadoes through downtown Los Angeles in "The Day After Tomorrow."

For "2012," Emmerich set his sites on destroying the some biggest landmarks around the world, from Rome to Rio. But there's one place that Emmerich wanted to demolish but didn't: the Kaaba, the cube-shaped structure located in the center of Mecca. It's the focus of prayers and the site of the Hajj, the biggest, most important pilgrimage in Islam.

"Well, I wanted to do that, I have to admit," the filmmaker told scifiwire.com. "But my co-writer Harald [Kloser] said, 'I will not have a fatwa on my head because of a movie.' And he was right."

Emmerich went on: "We have to all, in the western world, think about this. You can actually let Christian symbols fall apart, but if you would do this with [an] Arab symbol, you would have ... a fatwa, and that sounds a little bit like what the state of this world is. So it's just something which I kind of didn't [think] was [an] important element, anyway, in the film, so I kind of left it out."

Traditionally, a fatwa has meant religious opinion by an Islamic scholar or imam. The term has gained currency in the West after Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini issued a death sentence in the form of a fatwa against British author Salman Rushdie for alleged blasphemies in his book "The Satanic Verses" in 1989. As a result, the Indian-born writer was forced into hiding for most of the '90s.

Emmerich has no qualms about wrecking other major landmarks, however. The massive dome of St. Peter's Basilica in the Vatican rolls on top of a crowd of churchgoers. The huge Christ the Redeemer statue that looms over Rio de Janeiro disintegrates. And, of course, the White House gets crushed when a wave drops the aircraft carrier John F. Kennedy on top of it.

The director was also reportedly approached by people hoping to get their famous landmarks trashed, like Taiwan's Taipei 101, which is the tallest completed building in the world. There's no word yet if that structure will meet the same on-screen fate as the Vatican and the White House. "2012" opens nationwide on November 13.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2012

Boondock Saints: All Saints Day

The auditorium showing the film was small, may well have been the smallest at the theater.  I do not know the director's name and don't care - this story, the feud between the director and everyone in Hollywood is pretty pathetic.  These people, whoever they are, wll allow a movie to sink because they so hate the director.  They will allow the film to sink, yet they would prop up Moore and Capitalism, or Lions and Lambs.  Boondock will easily make more than Lions and Lambs, relative to theaters it plays in and time it runs for, yet it is showing in about 65 theaters nation wide!!  That at least is an improvement over the first film which appeared in a whopping 5 theaters.

Why?  because it seems everyone hates the director/writer Troy Duffy.  He seriously pissed off everyone in Hollywood single-handedly.  So to take it out on him, his film will not be released in 1000 screens.  Nooooo, release Lions and Lambs with Tom Cruise and let all 12 people go and see it, but lock out Boondock Saints and you are being manly-men and standing up to an egotistical director.   I am impressed.  It takes a lot to make a stand.  All the grit and guts, and the defiance you muster to show you will not let a director push you around.

The theater was packed at 10:40 pm on a Friday night.  Packed.

The theater at 7:45 was packed - how do I know?  Because the seats all around still had sodas in the arm rests and popcorn bags on the floor.  The cleaning was minimal and rarely happens unless a theater is overly packed, especially on a Friday.  The theater could hold 350, and I am sure 275 people were there.  X $11 =.  Take that number and multiply it by 2 and that number by 65.  That would make at least $500,000 on the first day in all the theaters.  Forget any other showings and forget some theaters being bigger - let's just average it.

The first Boondock Saints made a whopping $30,000 in its total release.

The second Boondock cost approximately $8 million to produce.  Imagine 10% of your cost in the first day - 2 shows only.  Now imagine if this movie had been released on 1 screen in every major city in the US.  It would have made more than Lions and Lambs in one showing, more than many films touted as great Hollywood pictures.  And why?  Because the film has a following, who are loyal thus far, and when a film is as well engineered as The Saints, it is no wonder.

Hollywood - Spiting nose and face and cutting off, and all that jazz.

It was a good film.  Realistic - not really.  Guys don't jump through greenhouse glass roofs and start shooting like their bullets have magnets drawing them to the bad guys, yet these two seem to do just that when they begin shooting.  So what.

Day After Tomorrow - Realistic?
Asteroid, Meteor, Armageddon, Rocknrolla?  Snatch?  2012?

Lions for Lambs?  Only realistic if you are a liberal on acid.
Couples Retreat?  Realistic?  Not quite.
Law Abiding Citizen?  Yeah, come on, get real.
The Invention of Lying?  Please.
The HANGOVER?  Nope.  Not even close.

Love Happens?  So far off, it was love didn't happen.  It opened in 1898 theaters.  A movie so bad, so moronic ... 1898 theaters.  It cost $19 million to make and has grossed a whopping $22 million.

As opposed to Boondock Saints #1: 5 theaters at $36,000 and $7 million in DVD sales.  Cost for Boondock was $6 million.  Now, imagine if it had been released in 500 theaters.  Relative gross figures versus cost would have far outstripped LOVE didn't HAPPENS.

Lions for Lambs - $35 million production costs, raked in a whopping $16 million.  Ooooooh  I am really impressed, but even more impressive is the number of theaters - 2,215 theaters!!!  It was in the theaters for over 2.5 months and ended its run in 4 theaters (just one less than Boondock had for its entirety).  Boondock ran for days in five theaters. 

No wonder Hollywood doesn't want Boondock to do well.  Same for Mel Gibson's 'Passion' - it allows comparisons - the massive fiascos they produce versus films by individuals like Duffy, who may well be the single most egotistical man on earth - so bloody what.  He just joined the ranks of the actors and actresses in Hollywood, and the multitude of singers who regard themselves as divine.

Get over the need for realism.  If you want reality, wake up and look in the mirror.  This film has so many issues with realism - but then, for that matter Tarantino films all lack a reality check, yet are not savaged by Hollywood the way this film has been.  Enjoy the film for what it is, very good.  Would I give it an A, B, C, or D ... not a D for sure.  And it isn't just average - that would be Lions and Lambs.  Is it a B or a B+ or an A- or an A?  I would say somewhere between a very high B+ (maybe 89) up to an A (maybe about 94).  Worth the money you now must waste at the theater to see much worse.


There will be a number 3, and we will see Hollywood take an interest.










film

Movies

On an average day I probably spend on average, about 15 seconds thinking about celebrities - among these are sports figures, actors, and all around useless sorts. 

Thinking about these sods is distinguished from thinking about or watching movies.  One can watch a movie and not have a second thought about the actor in the film - which is usually the case.  However, if one has favorites, and I do - then what is thrilling is finding out they have a made a follow-up to the original.

I have a favorite film and, four or five days ago I found out they have made a second film - a follow-up to the original.  The original film did very poorly at the boxoffice - and I mean very poor.  It was savaged by the critics and sent into oblivion, where a strange thing happened ... a following developed.  The film cost about $6 million to produce and in the end, somewhere around $260,000 was made in distribution (yes, $260 thousand) but $7 million in DVD sales.

The film, Boondock Saints. 

The critics were wrong, it was a good film, and in my opinion, one of the top 3 or 4 films I have watched.

On October 31, Boondock Saints: All Saints Day will be released into theaters.

It is one film I am looking forward to going to when it opens and will gladly hand over the money to see the film (unlike most of the movies I have seen).











movies

GI Joe

I went to see this movie and like the other 60-70% thought it was alright. if you are looking for a movie that is seamless, no problems or issues with reality or credibility - I have never watched one. If you are looking for great acting - to be honest, again, I do not think very few films have great acting.

Let's consider the top 25 films to date:

Transformers: Not realistic, problems with story line, and certainly no great acting.

UP: Not realistic - it is a cartoon and certainly no great acting.

Harry Potter - Problems with story line, not great acting by all characters, not realistic

The Hangover - Not realistic - be serious. While we might like to think it was realistic - a tiger in the bathroom, mattress on a steeple, and no one would have gone to the roof to inspect the mattress, problems with story line, and certainly no great acting.

Star trek - Oh well, very realistic, we all know that huge star ships sit around all over Idaho. Not realistic, problems with story line, and certainly no great acting. Although Spock did look like the old Spock.

Monsters v Aliens - Not realistic - cartoon, and certainly no great acting.

Ice Age - Cartoons, no acting.

X-Men: Wolverine - as if this could be real, problems with storyline, acting was ok but no great performance, nothing stellar.

Night at the Museum - Yes, I suppose some might call this realistic, but I think not. Not realistic, acting was tolerable, storyline/plot thin.

The Proposal - Haven't seen.

Fast and Furious - cars driven really fast. Not realistic, problems with story line, and certainly no great acting.

Mall Cop - Not realistic, problems with story line, and most certainly not great acting.

Taken - this one is questionable. A little over acted by 2-3 characters, several cliches. I did like this one maybe best of all. But still - come on, within 24 or 70 hours he goes from Los Angeles to Paris, takes down a major human trafficking organization, exposes corruption, and saves his daughter. Me thinks it is not very realistic for one man to accomplish.

Angles and demons - We should be clear - while the acting was good, there were some problems with storyline / credibility, and it certainly is not realistic - not in this world at least.

Terminator - What more can be said. Not realistic, problems with story line, and certainly no stellar acting.

Watchmen - Not realistic, problems with story line, and certainly no great acting.

Ok, so I stopped after 16 films.

Now, go back to GI Joe.

Acting - not great.

realistic - not.

Problems with storyline - yes.

It will be at home within the top 16.

What the movies do have in common is - THEY ENTERTAIN, and that is the purpose of films.

Does the movie entertain?

If yes, it is worth seeing.

The next question - good acting, good story -- that determines whether you pay the outrageous fees to go to the movies or wait until the film is on DVD.

In any case - whether it entertains is whether you should see it - not whether it is realistic.

Of the top 16, only 1 would qualify as realistic enough to be considered - realistic.

Number 17 on the list, which I stopped at before - Public Enemies. That film was probably quasi realistic (we don't know because no one is old enough to have been alive and cognizant of those events), good acting ... so that film might work, but I didn't use it in my example!


We do not need social drama to make a film good or bad - if you want social drama - examine your life. Look at your neighbors or family, friends - you have plenty of drama.

We go to films to be entertained.

If you want a realistic war movie - why would you? if you have served, you don't need any more realism. If you haven't served - why do you want to know what a hell war is - for a political use? War is bad, it dehumanizes, it reduces life to survival and kill - it is not good and films cannot depict it realistically. They can approximate, but I return to why do you want to approximate how horrible war is? And my guess will be - political. And that is unfortunate.










films

Movies

Obama



Off the subject of Obama, who is trying his darnedest to stay relevant and working hard. We have to hope he can do the job.



Name all the movies in which planet earth, not just the population, is destroyed.


I have thought about it, checked, researched some, and found only 2.

Hitchhikers Guide to the Universe - aliens want to build a freeway of sorts through our galaxy and Earth is in the way. Chance of happening: 1 in infinity. Never gonna happen.

When Worlds Collide - 1951. "A rogue planet flew into our solar system" and slams into our Earth." Chance of happening: 1 in infinity - planets cannot be rogue, and a strange planet cannot enter our solar system. A meteor maybe, not a planet. Setting aside those differences and issue - is it possible a large meteor will come hurtling toward earth and crash into it? Possible. Could destroy the planet.


There have been many films about the end of mankind: I am Legend, 28 Days, 28 Weeks Later, Dawn/Day Night of the Day ... but Earth and its structures remain.

They are, according to IMDB, remaking When Worlds Collide.

I admit, over the years, I have hoped that the Earth would get whacked without a surprise save by Bruce Willis or some astronomer or sheer luck or nuclear missiles. It is tiring to watch, time and again, 'saved by this much'.

I went and saw a movie on the weekend. Knowing.

It changes the whole idea around. I went back to wanting someone to save us and Earth.







movies

Twilight

Somewhat defies standard understanding of what makes a hit.

No major actors.

No sex, in fact, kissing is very limited - your grandparents may be as active, or more.

No smoking, no drugs, and I don't recall any drinking and if there was - someone off scene was drinking.

Minimal violence, and nothing graphic.

Yet the film appears to be doing well. Friday night it was not busy - 1/2 the theater was empty, plus there was an entire second auditorium playing at the same time, but Saturday it turned into a major film experience with the lines everywhere.

It made over $35 million in the first night, and it was not as busy as Saturday.

A major film, and for no reason. It defies everything they believe makes a success.

I only comment on the film because it is an oddity. It defies conventional wisdom - and I like that.

Plus the idea of climbing a tree like a squirrel is intriguing, and worth a second film to close the holes, and finish off a character, perhaps expand upon the legends of that tribe - if the vampires existed, so then the wolves must have.


Update: Over $70 million in two days at a cost of $37 million.
A brilliant success.








Movies

Movies

Lions to Lambs - Bomb. Cost $35 million, made $15. Huge bomb.

Body of Lies - Could turn into a disaster at the box office.

Rendition - Bomb.

Syriana - Flop. Cost $50 million and total made $50 million (including foreign), which, for movies = flop.

Jarhead - flop.

(there are more, but this is a start)

Hollywood - make another movie that turns the war on terrorists into a cliche, and you will get yet another flop. Promise. Make another film that turns it into a joke, a made up war that we caused - flop. Promise.

You must be confused. I understand. How can the American people oppose the war in Iraq, and question their government, yet not want to see your condescending films. they should, if you have all the facts correct. The problem is ......

... you don't understand.



So go ahead, sink $80 million into another hate Bush, anti war, anti ... and see your revenue stream in at $20 million return on the $80 spent. Bankruptcy.

Then you can claim it is Bush's fault, ask for loans from the federal government to bail you out.





Have a good day.







Fools

X Files

Worth going to see when tickets cheapest during day; for sure when it is on dvd; or if you really must, at the theater in the evening. Also possible to rent it when it comes to On Demand for a lot less. In any case - get it one way or another.

I'd give it a B to a B+
(Revision: B+ ... 89.5 so it is very close to an A-)

I expect too much - like from my neighbors, but, if we accept that not everyone can be perfect, only He, the Obamessiah, then the writers (Carter and another person) did the best they could and the film was fine.

The competition is what did it in. It will make back its cost, and hopefully they do another (as Duchovny suggested an interest in a franchise). Kidnapping or abduction, missing person, someone vanishes - make it the presidents daughter, reinstate Scully and Mulder type thing. Then drag out some of the old stuff never addressed and get it resolved and settled and then get Mulder and Scully married off and ... they can do a lot with the characters.




The Truth is Out There






X Files



Mulder



Scully

Stupid French People

The truly stupid catering to the wholly inept fed by the ignorant.

I will say this about this stupid cow ... I have an interest in Edith Piaf, thanks to someone I knew, and watching the media about this woman winning an oscar, has made me think of that someone again. I should therefore see this movie sometime.

And while we should never generalize about the French, particularly given their close friendship with the US (now), it is a country that thrives on conspiracies. A best selling book in France was about 9/11 - and conspiracies. They are as a group (with exceptions) fools.


In the meantime:

Actress Marion Cotillard sparked a political row yesterday after accusing America of fabricating the 9/11 attacks.

The 32-year-old French actress, who received an Oscar last month for her performance as singer Edith Piaf in La Vie En Rose, openly questioned the truth behind the terrorist atrocity in an interview broadcast on a French website.

"I think we're lied to about a number of things," Cotillard said, singling out the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center as an example of the US making up horror stories for political ends.
Referring to the two passenger jets being flown into the Twin Towers, Cotillard said:
"We see other towers of the same kind being hit by planes. Are they burned? They [sic] was a tower, I believe it was in Spain, which burnt for 24 hours. It never collapsed. None of these towers collapsed. And there [in New York], in a few minutes, the whole thing collapsed."

She added that the towers, planned in the early Sixties, were an outdated "money-sucker" that would have cost more to modernise than to rebuild altogether, which is why they were destroyed.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/showbiz/showbiznews.html?in_article_id=523729&in_page_id=1773

There Will be Blood

Nominated for several Oscars. In its place, should be Rambo. Rambo has more plot. Blood is all over the place and no place. It is sadly, pointless. Rambo at least has a point - to cater to brain dead audience members.