plus 4, Adurs review: A must watch movie for all - SamayLive |
- Adurs review: A must watch movie for all - SamayLive
- Norman museum’s movie night looks ‘Up’ - Daily Oklahoman
- Poor execution stakes vampire movie - Daily Trojan
- Movie masterpieces and the road to greatness - Seattle Post Intelligencer
- Avatar: It's just a movie, right? - West Central Tribune
| Adurs review: A must watch movie for all - SamayLive Posted: 12 Jan 2010 09:41 PM PST Chennai: Director VV Vinayak's latest Telugu flick Adurs is all set to release on January 13. The Junior NTR starrer movie is a complete entertainer. The movie Adurs will take Junior NTR to a new height in the industry. Junior NTR has played double role in the movie and it is a humorous movie. Overall the movie is excellent and must watchable. Adurs Movie Review: NTR and Brahmanandam's chemistry is filled with amazing humour. NTR plays a Brahmin in the movie. And his other role is just contrast to Brahmin. His way of dialogue delivery as a Brahmin is excellent. He justified his role in the movie. Beautiful actress Nayanatara plays female lead in the movie while actress Sheela will be seen in the second lead role. Bollywood director-producer Mahesh Manjrekar is also playing crucial role in the movie.
Cinegoers will have a treat as sexy Punjabi Charmy is doing an item song opposite NTR We will give it three out of four stars. Five Filters featured article: Chilcot Inquiry. Available tools: PDF Newspaper, Full Text RSS, Term Extraction. |
| Norman museum’s movie night looks ‘Up’ - Daily Oklahoman Posted: 12 Jan 2010 10:02 PM PST ©2009 Produced by NewsOK.com. All rights reserved. NORMAN — The Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural History plans to show the Pixar animated film "Up" Friday night for this month's Movie Night at the Museum. More Info
Movie Night at the Museum will continue every third Friday evening through June. Film titles will be announced two to three weeks before each screening. For more information, call 325-4712 or go to www.snomnh.ou.edu.
Leave a CommentNews Photo Galleriesview allFive Filters featured article: Chilcot Inquiry. Available tools: PDF Newspaper, Full Text RSS, Term Extraction. |
| Poor execution stakes vampire movie - Daily Trojan Posted: 12 Jan 2010 10:59 PM PST Amid the number of vampire films emerging from the recent craze, it has been hard to find a true vampire story. While vampire movies released lately do pertain to blood-sucking creatures, they lean toward one of two ends of the vampire myth spectrum. On one end of the spectrum are the Anne Rice and Twilight vampires, where sappy romance rules and horror is gone. On the other are the monstrous, dehumanizing vampires of 30 Days of Night and Blade, where mysticism and romance is cast aside for gore, deadly viruses and more gore.  Night stalker · In Daybreakers, starving vampire, devoid of human blood, transform into animalistic creatures called sub-siders (above). - Photo courtesy of Lionsgate Films That is not to say these tales don't provide good stories but, compared with the more traditionally-haunting, suspenseful vampire stories — like Carmilla and Dracula — they are inferior. This brings us to Daybreakers. Written and directed by Michael and Peter Spierig, Daybreakers falls on the science-fiction horror end of the aforementioned vampire-myth spectrum. Set in modern-day society, the movie supposes that vampirism spread across the world, leaving humans as a rapidly dwindling minority. Ten years later, however, blood supplies begin dwindling and vampires face extinction as they start mutating into Nosferatu-like subsiders. Edward Dalton (Ethan Hawke) is the head researcher looking for a blood substitute for Bromley-Marks, a megacorporation specializing in the blood industry and chaired by Charles Bromley (Sam Neill). Dissatisfied with the condition of society and sympathizing with the humans, Dalton looks for a way to help the hunted minority, which he soon finds in the miraculously cured ex-vampire Elvis (Willem Dafoe). Despite its science fiction premise, Daybreakers is not a standard vampire horror film. With its apocalyptic overtones and fatalistic view on society, it is reminiscent of 2006's Children of Men — except with vampires. The movie excels at creating a futuristic 2019: cars are modified for "daytime driving" with UV filters and cameras to see the road, while coffee shops offer blood-infused lattes to the masses ("20 percent real human blood," the signs read). Daybreakers also looks at the motives people had for becoming vampires — namely immortality — and shows the downsides to that decision with teenage vampires commiting suicide by sunlight rather than going on trapped in a body that doesn't age. The most interesting concept in the film is the treatment of blood as a natural resource. In many ways, Daybreakers is an allegory for the haste and overuse humans have shown with our own natural resources. To the filmmaker's credit, however, the metaphor is handled subtly and is very effective. News reports of blood starvation in the third world and increased hording of blood haunt the film, adding to the sense of doom. The brief glimpses of the sub-siders are particularly chilling. Weta Workshop, the team behind the visual effects in The Lord of the Rings and District 9, lent the somewhat low-budget film — it was made for $21 million, $9 million less than District 9 — impressive designs and prosthetics. The CGI used in the film, however, is disappointing, with many of the vampire deaths spoiled by ineffective graphics. The Spierig brothers' directing is solid for most of the film and even excellent in the world-building segments. But when it comes to drama and action scenes, the film falls apart. Most of the fights — with overdone and somewhat crude effects — are laughable at best. Similarly, the scene showcasing Elvis' recovery comes across as slapstick, rather than dramatic. An early scene involving a test on Dalton's blood substitute should have been chilling and effective, but was instead hilarious, with over-the-top blood spatters and comedic pauses. All that was missing was a laugh track. Meanwhile, the acting is hit or miss. Hawke presents a subdued performance, giving Dalton a disconnected, pitiable air, and making him the highlight of the cast. Neill's refined, patrician approach to Bromley's character thankfully avoids overacting and keeps the character from becoming cliché. Not so lucky is Dafoe, whose character is given awful lines. Compared to Dafoe's work in the excellent vampire film Shadow of the Vampire, it seems he decided to forgo seriousness and instead gave his character a wonderfully stereotypical redneck accent and swagger. Still, the actors, script and directors managed to keep the film interesting, at least until the ending. For all the wonderful buildup the first 80 minutes provided, the climax of Daybreakers is disappointing and, once again, comically violent. It's a shame, really. The most engaging concepts in the film — the intriguing futuristic society and the consequences of a cure for vampirism — get tossed out the window for a gory finale. For fans of the grittier, science-based vampire genre, Daybreakers presents a unique and creative look at what would happen in the aftermath of a vampire outbreak and displays thoughtful consequences to trivial aspects of the myth. The poor handling of the dramatic action scenes in the film, however, effectively kills any of the tension it builds up, and the Spierig brothers seemed to throw out their complex world for cliché action in the end. Five Filters featured article: Chilcot Inquiry. Available tools: PDF Newspaper, Full Text RSS, Term Extraction. |
| Movie masterpieces and the road to greatness - Seattle Post Intelligencer Posted: 12 Jan 2010 10:52 PM PST Is box-office juggernaut Avatar a masterpiece? No, of course not. It's too soon to make such a call, and I say this with full self-awareness that I personally called it a "visual masterpiece" -- aiding and abetting where the hyperbole machine was concerned. But it got me to thinking. How does something become a "masterpiece" within our culture? What are the qualifications? And when can we know? Then, with all of that considered, can we make a legitimate call of the potential of "masterpiece-dom" for James Cameron's epic? There's a lot to do. Let's get to it. Merriam-Webster defines a masterpiece as:
Within this definition we have some room to reward exceptional films. Movies that inspire, movies that subtley change our culture, the movies they show to the film class in 50 years. And yes, "intellectual" is in the mix, so you won't be seeing anyone wax poetic about Spider-Man 3 as a masterpiece once enough time passes. What are the steps to gaining "masterpiece" status? As with canonization, it takes time, effort, and a few small miracles. Here's the process as I see it. Standing the Test of Time Films in the AFI Top 100, by decade Over half of the "Top 100" films were made between the years 1950 and 1979. A quarter of the films named were released prior, and less than a quarter have been made since. So it looks as though, based on the AFI's list, it takes about 30 to 50 years to get a "true" take on a film's influence there too. But what about a more populist list? I speak of IMDb.com's top 250, and for comparison's sake we'll look at the top 100. Films in the IMDb.com Top 100, by decade The IMDb.com list is almost a bizarro version of the AFI list. 56 percent of the films on the IMDB list were made in the past three decades, which makes sense given Internet demographics. 41 films appear on both lists, though only eight are from the past 20 years. It looks as though the IMDb.com list is a "first step" toward being considered a masterpiece. Some films, like Pulp Fiction and The Shawshank Redemption have already made the leap toward classic status. Others, like Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Memento, and Fight Club are still in a holding pattern. Will their clear Internet popularity earn them grudging respect with the decade's finest films as we reach 2020, 2030, and 2040? That question brings us to... Does Box Office Matter? Top 100 Box Office, AFI, and IMDb.com But there are over 160 films that only appear on one of the lists. There are all sorts of reasons a film can make money but not be considered a masterpiece, the easiest of which to explain is that they are simply different goals. A film that gains instant credibility financially isn't necessarily a film that's viewed with adoration decades later. Special effects movies are always a way to make a quick buck, but they're rarely constructed to last. Jurassic Park comes to mind, 17th all-time at the box office, but 100 percent unlikely to ever make any critical list. Shrek 2, Home Alone, and Beverly Hills Cop are examples of films that are perfect for a night at the theater ... but not something you're demanding others see 30 years later. Then there are the films that didn't make any money in the theater, but have become Internet favorites, movies like Requiem for a Dream and Oldboy. Thus, while making money is the goal of the people in the moviemaking business, it's not a "masterpiece" prerequisite. Your film can be missed on its initial theatrical run, only to gain a foothold as the years pass. Instant judgment isn't the same as accurate judgment. Have Prominent Champions For instance, would Synecdoche, NY have been in the news in December without good ol' Roger naming it the best of the decade? Which brings us to my final point... Innovation of Story, Not of Appearance The other moving part is context. Context matters. A film like Network could lose prominence as media becomes more saturated. All The President's Men loses strength as Nixon fades from memory. The Silence of the Lambs becomes less important due to Hannibal's average reception. And so on. We can't predict the tides of history, can't know how religion, rights, and economies will evolve. A film that seems marginally significant during the decade could gain massive prominence due to external factors. And so, a look at the "popular" films of the past 20 years, with an eye toward their legacy. Conclusion: The Fate of Potential Modern Masterpieces Shawshank Redemption: Keeps rising in esteem as this generation's great story. Pulp Fiction: Will likely rise in stature as Quentin's prominence becomes cemented, but will eventually falter as it's not his best movie. Inglourious Basterds is. Plus, it's built upon aggression, but it looks tamer as the years pass. In 50 years Pulp Fiction will be considered vital, but not a masterpiece. Schindler's List: Probably locked into "masterpiece" status for at least 50 more years. The Dark Knight: This really depends on how the film is spun as the years progress. Was it a searing look into terrorism (as I claim)? Or is it simply a loud comic book movie? Whoever wins that battle determines where Dark Knight will fit in. The Lord of the Rings Franchise: A toughie. The Godfather and Star Wars were able to spawn massively successful sequels, but in general people choose *one* of the films to fully support. In the case of L.O.T.R., I'm not sure the films are distinguishable as stand-alone products. Two Towers was my favorite, but that's a minority view. If I had to hazard a guess I'd say The Fellowship of the Ring has the best shot. Fight Club: Faces the same issue as Pulp Fiction. Our culture has become so taken with Fight Club that it no longer seems exceptional or new. The Usual Suspects: This generation's Third Man? Seems to be gaining momentum as the years pass. The Matrix: The story is dynamic, but the reliance on "wow" effects probably dooms it. Memento: Nothing but innovative spirit. Would probably be helped with a Guy Pearce Academy Award win at some point. Se7en: Well executed and riveting, but slips with every CSI show that's greenlit. American Beauty: I still maintain that Magnolia was a superior film, and from the same year. WALL-E: I think in 50 years people will watch this one and will still be taken aback by the artistry. It could depend on Pixar's record, though. Ideally (for WALL-E's legacy) they would start cranking out clunkers, giving WALL-E some emotional distance and room to gain social relevance. And finally, the biggie, the thrust of this article: Avatar. We've distilled what it takes for a film to become a masterpiece down to: 1) Time 2) Champions 3) Innovation and 4) Context. I can't make time pass more quickly, so we'll ignore that one. The film certainly has its champions, and it's off-the-charts innovative, at least visually speaking. The story has been (not kindly) compared to Pocahontas. Contextually, it could very well change the way movies are made, so it's certainly an important movie, a landmark happening. But hear/read this: Avatar is not a masterpiece, and it never will be. And that's fine! Less than half a percent of the films made ever sniff the lofty heights I'm talking about here. It's a very popular film. It's a very profitable film. With every minute that passes, more money pours in, bringing Avatar closer to Titanic's record. Without question Avatar is a genius work of the moment. But that moment will be over soon enough, and we'll go back to searching. Searching for that special film that rises to the level of masterpiece, after all the clamor has died down, in that quiet space where cinema begins to shape culture. Five Filters featured article: Chilcot Inquiry. Available tools: PDF Newspaper, Full Text RSS, Term Extraction. |
| Avatar: It's just a movie, right? - West Central Tribune Posted: 12 Jan 2010 10:38 PM PST The Vatican has lambasted it and other groups cite racist themes ... but at the end of the day, isn't it just a movie? The film "Avatar" is wooing audiences worldwide with visually dazzling landscapes and nature-loving blue creatures. But the Vatican is no easy crowd to please. The Vatican newspaper and radio station are criticizing James Cameron's 3-D blockbuster for flirting with the idea that worship of nature can replace religion — a notion the pope has warned against. They call the movie a simplistic and sappy tale, despite its awe-inspiring special effects. "Not much behind the images" was how the Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, summed it up in a headline. As the second highest-grossing movie ever, "Avatar" is challenging the record set by Cameron's previous movie "Titanic." Generally it has been critically acclaimed and is touted as a leading Oscar contender. However, to Vatican critics, the alien extravaganza is "bland." Cameron "tells the story without going deep into it, and ends up falling into sappiness," said L'Osservatore Romano. Vatican Radio called it "rather harmless" but said it was no heir to sci-fi masterpieces of the past. Most significantly, much of the Vatican criticism was directed at the movie's central theme of man vs. nature. L'Osservatore said the film "gets bogged down by a spiritualism linked to the worship of nature." Similarly, Vatican Radio said it "cleverly winks at all those pseudo-doctrines that turn ecology into the religion of the millennium." "Nature is no longer a creation to defend, but a divinity to worship," the radio said. The Vatican's criticism just scratches the surface. Some groups also see a racist theme in the movie. Near the end of the hit film, the villain snarls at the hero, "How does it feel to betray your own race?" Both men are white — although the hero is inhabiting a blue-skinned, 9-foot-tall, long-tailed alien. In the film (read no further if you don't want the plot spoiled for you) a white, paralyzed Marine, Jake Sully, is mentally linked to an alien's body and set loose on the planet Pandora. His mission: persuade the mystic, nature-loving Na'vi to make way for humans to mine their land for unobtanium, worth $20 million per kilo back home. Like Kevin Costner in "Dances with Wolves" and Tom Cruise in "The Last Samurai" or as far back as Jimmy Stewart in the 1950 Western "Broken Arrow," Sully soon switches sides. He falls in love with the Na'vi princess and leads the bird-riding, bow-and-arrow-shooting aliens to victory over the white men's spaceships and mega-robots. Adding to the racial dynamic is that the main Na'vi characters are played by actors of color, led by a Dominican, Zoe Saldana, as the princess. The film also is an obvious metaphor for how European settlers in America wiped out the Indians. Robinne Lee, an actress in such recent films as "Seven Pounds" and "Hotel for Dogs," said that "Avatar" was "beautiful" and that she understood the economic logic of casting a white lead if most of the audience is white. But she said the film, which so far has the second-highest worldwide box-office gross ever, still reminded her of Hollywood's "Pocahontas" story — "the Indian woman leads the white man into the wilderness, and he learns the way of the people and becomes the savior." "It's really upsetting in many ways," said Lee, who is black with Jamaican and Chinese ancestry. "It would be nice if we could save ourselves." Annalee Newitz, editor-in-chief of the sci-fi Web site io9.com, likened "Avatar" to the recent film "District 9," in which a white man accidentally becomes an alien and then helps save them, and 1984's "Dune," in which a white man becomes an alien Messiah. "Main white characters realize that they are complicit in a system which is destroying aliens, AKA people of color ... (then) go beyond assimilation and become leaders of the people they once oppressed," she wrote. "When will whites stop making these movies and start thinking about race in a new way?" wrote Newitz, who is white. Black film professor and author Donald Bogle said he can understand why people would be troubled by "Avatar," although he praised it as a "stunning" work. "A segment of the audience is carrying in the back of its head some sense of movie history," said Bogle, author of "Toms, Coons, Mulattoes, Mammies & Bucks: An Interpretive History of Blacks in American Films." Bogle stopped short, however, of calling the movie racist. "It's a film with still a certain kind of distortion," he said. "It's a movie that hasn't yet freed itself of old Hollywood traditions, old formulas." Cameron said in an e-mail to The Associated Press that his film "asks us to open our eyes and truly see others, respecting them even though they are different, in the hope that we may find a way to prevent conflict and live more harmoniously on this world. I hardly think that is a racist message." There are many ways to interpret the art that is "Avatar." What does it mean that in the final, sequel-begging scene, Sully abandons his human body and transforms into one of the Na'vi for good? Is Saldana's Na'vi character the real heroine because she, not Sully, kills the arch-villain? Does it matter that many conservatives are riled by what they call liberal environmental and anti-military messages? Is Cameron actually exposing the historical evils of white colonizers? Does the existence of an alien species expose the reality that all humans are actually one race? "Can't people just enjoy movies any more?" a person named Michelle posted on the Web site for Essence, the magazine for black women, which had 371 comments on a story debating the issue. Five Filters featured article: Chilcot Inquiry. Available tools: PDF Newspaper, Full Text RSS, Term Extraction. |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Add Images to any RSS Feed To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
.gif "OBAT KUAT")
.gif)
Something to say about this topic? Submit a Letter to the Editor online
Thank you for joining our conversations on newsok. We encourage your discussions but ask that you stay within the bounds of our terms and conditions. Please help us by reporting comments that violate these guidelines. To review our rules of engagement, go to Commenting and posting policy.
Log in below or sign up (it's free).