It’s safe to say Valentino is considered an emperor to fashion lovers. Even those of us who don’t know the difference in colour between fuchsia and magenta (myself included) can appreciate a man whose successful career in the fashion industry has lasted over 45 years.

Directed and produced by Matt Tyrnauer, Special Correspondent for Vanity Fair magazine, “Valentino: The Last Emperor” gives viewers a candid look at one of the most famous fashion designers, Valentino Clemente Ludovico Garavani (aka Valentino).

One of the first things the famed Italian designer says in the film is “I love beauty, it’s not my fault.” And who can blame him? It turns out Valentino was inspired to become a designer by the stars of the silver screen. After seeing movies starring Hollywood leading ladies like Judy Garland, he set out to make clothes for women. So it would only seem fitting for the designer of the stars to get his own flick on the big screen – and it doesn’t disappoint.

The documentary was shot between 2005 and 2007, where over 250 hours of footage was captured of Valentino and his entourage, giving viewers a “fly on the wall” exploration of his lifestyle.

As you’ll see in the movie, whether it be highs or lows, every year of Valentino’s life seems to include a great deal of theatrics, and 2005 to 2007 was no exception. Aside from Permira acquiring shares of Valentino – making it the largest investor in the company – Valentino himself was going through a struggle anyone over 50 can relate to: when to retire.

For a man who hasn’t spent more than three days in one city for the past few decades, retirement can become a horrifying thought. This film shows how Valentino lives, eats and breathes fashion and because as he himself admits, he’s “a disaster at everything else.”

And it’s a good thing Valentino has Giancarlo Giammetti, his business partner and companion of 50 years, by his side. Giancarlo may be overshadowed by Valentino to the general public, but this documentary is bound to change that. During their extensive career in the fashion world, Giancarlo was the mastermind behind the Valentino brand and as the documentary shows, he still took care of the behind-the-scene aspect of the company over 40 years later.

This film is as much a tribute to Valentino as it is to Giancarlo. It shows that without one, the other wouldn’t get too far in the fashion world or anywhere else. It also helps that Valentino has a tight-nit staff and an extensive roster of celebrity friends as a support system, including Elton John, Gwyneth Paltrow and Elizabeth Hurley – all of whom make appearances in the film. But at the end of the day, Valentino doesn’t design dresses in order to get famous friends, he designs clothes due to his love for beauty and fashion.

Sure, that may sound cliché, but the documentary also shows many aspects of Valentino’s life that are far removed from a fairytale story. As Giancarlo points out, Valentino can be quite stubborn. His inability to share his problems with others may make him come off as powerful, but it also isolates him.

It’s clear in the film that Valentino doesn’t always acknowledge the work Giancarlo puts into the company, and it’s sometimes the catalyst to many of arguments (most of which are very humorous and engaging). His lifestyle – including the European palaces he calls home and a family of pugs that follow him wherever he goes, will definitely bedazzle. Watching this film is like taking a five-star vacation without leaving the country – always a plus.

Finally, the film ends with the 45th anniversary celebration of Valentino in the fashion industry that took place in Rome, a celebration fitting for an emperor. As pointed out in the movie, Valentino hasn’t changed with fame and fortune because before all that he was first and foremost a beauty-lover, and a dreamer.

stars: 3.5/5

Read more at andPOP. andPOP - POP Culture with Substance

Ben Stiller’s “Tropic Thunder” rolled over “The House Bunny” and “Death Race”, finishing off in the No. 1 spot for the second weekend in the row.

According to E! News, “Tropic Thunder” made an estimated $16.1 million, bringing its total gross to $65.7 million. “The House Bunny” came in second place by debuting with $15.1 million and Jason Statham’s “Death Race” opened in third with $12.4 million.

Although “The Dark Knight” failed to break any more records, the movie finished in the No. 4 spot with $10.3 million, bringing the domestic total to $489.2 million in just six weeks.

“Mamma Mia!” broke a record by becoming the highest-grossing movie-musical of all time. The movie made a total of $124.5 million in over six weeks, beating out “Hairspray” which brought in $119 million in the same time span.

Read more at andPOP. andPOP - POP Culture with Substance

There were no reports of giant vampire bunnies rampaging through Hollywood, but it was still a pretty scary Easter weekend at the box office.

Reuters reports that Sunday studio estimates have put horror movie spoof Scary Movie 4 at $41 million, setting a new Easter record. The previous champion was Panic Room, which bowed at $30 million in 2002.

Although it’s no franchise high (it’s behind 2003′s Scary Movie 3 and the 2000 original), distributor Weinstein Co. is pleased. “We’re really elated with this opening,” said Steve Bunnell, chairman of distribution. He added that plans are afoot for a fifth movie, which is truly frightening news.

Disney’s The Wild failed to excite audiences, however. The animated comedy opened in fourth place with $9.6 million. Perhaps critics found it to be too similar to DreamWorks’ 2005 hit Madagascar.

Previous champion Ice Age: The Meltdown, the first blockbuster of 2006, fell to #2 with $20 million, taking its total to $147 million.

The Rob Schneider baseball comedy The Benchwarmers slipped one place to #3 with $10 million.

Meanwhile, Fox Searchlight tripled the theatre count of Thank You For Smoking and was rewarded when the acclaimed satire jumped two places to #8 with $4.5 million.

Read more at andPOP. andPOP - POP Culture with Substance

What exactly is a movie in your mind? Let us see if we can get on the same page here. When you think of your mom, does a picture come to mind? You bettcha she does, why you ask? It is kind of like this, when you think of a person or a time in your life that you would consider great a mental picture comes to mind.

Why it?s proven that the mind works in pictures, when someone says something to you, the mind immediately moves to bring the picture to mind, good or bad it doesn?t matter, the pictures will be there. Now how do we go about making and bringing the movies in your mind, positive and not the alternative?

It has proven that for you to change the picture, you must first get the picture you want to see. How do we go about it? For lasting change to take place we must start to see a new picture every night you need to put the picture you want to see, for thirty straight days. That is the point we it becomes habit.

Now once you start to see results, you may want to change the picture in your mind to something else. Now you may need to do matinees on the one movie you have achieved that you want maintain, you must meditate on that picture five days a month to keep that picture in your mind, fresh and keep up with the right picture?

Now let?s not forget about the new movie, you are spending to much time contemplating and receiving that or whatever it is that you want, remember it takes thirty days to create a new habit. When that habit gets started, you only need to spend 5 times a month one the victory to keep the movie to be a positive one.

Now in the long run you won?t have to go over all the movies in your mind, every day to achieve you may need to see the movie once a month when it really becomes entrenched in your mind. So do not think that you are going to be spending your whole life trying to get that perfect picture in your mind.

Once a movie becomes second nature the subcontinent will take over and this will keep the movie in your mind functioning in the proper, time, speed and it will know when to exactly extract what movie and when to extract it. Remember you are the director and you can create any movie that you want, this is totally up to you. Yes you must first see the new picture for at least 30 days for it to become a habit and then just five matinees, playing in the months to come and when they reach your subcontinent them will become automatic and this is where the real change takes place.

So we can basically can revolutionize our life?s by seeing movies in out mind just follow the simple plans that I have laid out to you in the words above and in thirty days you will see results and the moir? time you put into thinking about the picture, the faster the results will come.

Most people avoid thinking as much as they can, they would rather go to work be told what to do and not think at all, well guess what you are going to get? That is right you are going to be told what to do all the time and you will shy away from the movies that you need to change things. Now if you will take some time in concentrated effort for thirty days you will see some really positive results, so se the movies in your mind!

About The Author

Listen to Arthur Buchanan on the Mike Litman Show!
http://freesuccessaudios.com/Artlive.mp3 THIS LINK WORKS, LISTEN TODAY!

By: Arthur Buchanan

Read more at andPOP. andPOP - POP Culture with Substance

Sundance is hanging on to its indie cred.

Reuters reports that the film festival wants to downplay the glitz and glamour this year after criticism that the attendance of too many Hollywood stars have made Sundance too commercial.

The Sundance Film Festival, backed by Robert Redford’s Sundance Institute, is the top venue for independent filmmakers to showcase their work. Held in Park City, Utah, the 10-day event begins today, with 120 movies lined up.

Festival director Geoff Gilmore wants small films to be able to find the right distributors. “I’ve always cared about expanding the market, not catering to it,” he said.

However, the promise of low-budget, high-quality movies with famous actors has lured many a studio to Sundance. Successful films from last year’s festival include March of the Penguins and The Squid and the Whale.

One of the most anticipated titles is the beauty pageant spoof Little Miss Sunshine, starring Steve Carell. The opening-night film Friends With Money also packs considerable star power, with Jennifer Aniston and Frances McDormand toplining the comic drama.

Other films generating buzz include Michel (Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind) Gondry’s The Science of Sleep, the turn-of-the-last-century thriller The Illusionist with Edward Norton, and Winona Ryder’s comeback movie The Darwin Awards.

There are also plenty of controversial political documentaries to provoke discussion. Among them are two films about the Iraq war.

Read more at andPOP. andPOP - POP Culture with Substance

Normally I don?t go out on New Year?s Eve.

I?m not a big drinker, I?m not a big partier, and I don?t much care for drunk people with “an excuse to party” as New Year?s Eve is so often described.

Normally, my habit is to put a movie on at about 11:15 p.m. and be happily past midnight by the time the credits roll.

However this year, for various reasons, I was persuaded to go to a jazz club called The Rex in downtown Toronto. My uncle and his girlfriend were in from out of town, and wanted to dance, dance, dance the night away. My father was conscripted to take them out, and I was invited so that my father wouldn?t be a third wheel.

Not wanting to be the only person in our party under 50, I brought my girlfriend along (sorry ladies, I?m taken,) and we went out for New Year?s Eve.

My girlfriend (Manda) and I were supposed to meet my father, uncle, and my uncle?s girlfriend there at ten o?clock. We arrived at 10:15 and couldn?t find them anywhere.

What we found instead was a bar where at first glance, the youngest person on the place was 30, and the average age of those on the dance floor was probably closer to 45.

As it turned out, the youngest person in the place was a little girl who couldn?t have been older than six. I could only assume she was a regular there, because shortly before midnight, I saw her behind the bar pouring herself a glass of what I hope was orange juice.

Manda and I stood around waiting for probably half an hour, watching what had to be, without a doubt, the worst dancing I have ever seen.

The band was pretty good; the lead singer, who also played saxophone, was incredible. But they played these ?70s and ?80s dance hits that really got the 45 year olds going, to the point where they looked something like a cross between a 1950s high school dance, and a room full of people having seizures.

Manda and I picked out a spot where we could watch the door, which also gave us a good vantage of the dance floor, and proceeded to wait, and discuss which 45-year-old was the worst dancer.

Manda had a beer and decided she wanted to get me to dance; I hadn?t had anything to drink yet, and was having none of it.

Truth be told, by 10:45 we were thinking about leaving.

Manda isn?t really a New Year?s type either, and if the others weren?t gong to show up, we weren?t staying.

Then they showed up and things got worse. They ordered their drinks, and suddenly I found myself with four people pressuring me to dance. I gave up and ordered a beer; I was probably going to have to dance, but it would never happen if I was completely sober.

Midnight rolled around, and I was sufficiently buzzed that I had been dancing with Manda for the last fifteen minutes.

We counted down, all eyes on the TV which was tuned to Citytv and the party going on in Nathan Phillips Square.

We shouted “Happy New Year” and I kissed Manda. I took a sip of the really cheap champagne that the servers were handing out.

Then we went back to dancing.

At this point I know what you?re asking yourself: Was my uncle a good dancer? No, he was easily the worst dancer in the place, and his amusingly terrible dancing was what saved the whole evening for me, and actually made it fun.

I know what you?re actually asking yourself: What the hell does all of this have to do with movies? Well, at about 12:05, the Citytv coverage of the New Year?s celebration ended. I looked up from dancing, and on the screen was Edward Norton with a gun in his mouth.

Because it was muted, it took me a couple of minutes to figure out what it was. Citytv was playing Fight Club.

Suddenly the whole evening took on a surreal quality. Of all the movies for them to play, Fight Club seems to be one of the least fitting for New Year?s Eve. I mean, it?s a great movie and all; it just doesn?t really fit with the mood of the night.

We left just before 1:00a.m.; we didn?t even stay long enough to see Edward Norton punch Brad Pitt in the ear.

The moral of the story is threefold:
1) Don?t spend New Year?s Eve at The Rex if you?re under 40.
2) Don?t try to drag me out next year
3) And finally, go rent Fight Club, that movie is totally awesome.

Read more at andPOP. andPOP - POP Culture with Substance

On the one hand, I hate to let down my faithful readers, but this column will be published on Boxing Day, and that means that I have to write it on Christmas Eve, or Christmas Day.

I probably could have spun something together anyway ? a review of The Family Stone, or The Ringer, or something else that came out recently ? but I?ve been dragged to a farm in the middle of nowhere, and I?m sort of cut off from the movie theatres.

When we arrived, the house smelled like death, because a mouse had died a week ago, and nature had taken its course. Briefly, I considered doing column on the rotten movies of 2005, but there are just too many of them, and too little time.

So, instead, I?m going to briefly talk about a few movies that I would have liked to talk about in the last few months, but for one reason or another, I didn?t.

And if you?re not satisfied, then get off my back you ungrateful so-and-so, I should be sipping eggnog and kissing under the mistletoe, and instead I?m writing for you, so just be thankful for whatever I give you!

Okay, first up is Rent/The Producers, two top-notch musical adaptations that were released in the past couple of months. Rent is a heart-wrenching story about bohemians living in New York, struggling to make a living, find someone to love, and deal with the HIV/AIDS epidemic.

The Producers, on the other hand, is a comedy about two unscrupulous Broadway producers who try to make a fortune on an abominable musical called ?Springtime For Hitler? (complete with a chorus line of Nazi stormtroopers doing kicks in fishnet stockings.)

What these two have in common is that they?re both excellent adaptations of stage musicals for the big screen. And while I realize I?m usually pretty dismissive of adaptations, these two for whatever reason avoided all of the pitfalls, and were excellent. The best way to describe how this was achieved is by saying that the makers of both of these films didn?t find themselves drawn in by the so-called ?magic of film.? Each one was made in such a way that it was basically shot like a Broadway musical, except with the most kickass set any Broadway director could hope for.

Without spending a whole column talking about these two, I will say that they are both worth seeing, and if there hadn?t been other equally important things coming out at the same time, I would have written a whole column about each of them

Next up is Harry Potter and The Goblet of Fire. I will confess right at the outset that I am writing about this movie without having seen it. J.K. Rowling (the author of the Harry Potter series) and I are on bad terms right now. I loved her work until I read the fifth book in the series, Harry Potter and The Order of the Phoenix; I hated that one so much that I swore myself off the Harry Potter series altogether.

I really can?t say anything about The Goblet of Fire. I?m simply mentioning it because I would have liked to see it, especially since several reviewers who I respect have said good things about it.

I really only point it out because on a list of movies I would have liked to talk about, but didn?t, it is definitely one I should mention.

Finally, I absolutely must mention Crash. When I first saw this movie, a few months ago, I was blown away. The movie is a bunch of disparate stories in Los Angeles, all somehow connected, and all dealing with the intricacies of racism.

Among others, the movie stars Brendan Frasier, Matt Dillon, Sandra Bullock and Don Cheadle. At the time, without seeing any of the other Oscar contenders, I called Cheadle to win best actor.

While this is seeming less likely, since Jake Gyllenhaal has starred in a whole slough of Oscar potentials, and a couple of other candidates have since made Cheadle less likely, but here?s my logic:
Cheadle should have won last year for his performance in Hotel Rwanda, but got passed over in favour of Jamie Foxx for Ray. Also, his performance in Crash is good enough to justify the win anyway.

I?m still laying my money on Cheadle, but Gyllenhaal may get it, I?ll probably be hedging my bets by the time the Oscars come around.

Anyway, that?s all for this week, come back next week for my look ahead to 2006.

Read more at andPOP. andPOP - POP Culture with Substance

Harry Potter moved over for a lion, a witch and a wardrobe this weekend.

Disney scored a much-hoped-for box office hit as The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe debuted at $67.1 million, the second-biggest December opening ever, reports EW.com.

The movie, based on C.S. Lewis’ children’s fantasy, fell short of the $72.6 million record left by The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, but it managed to surpass the first two films in the trilogy. It is also the third biggest opening of 2005 so far.

Reuters reports that Disney has high hopes for a Narnia franchise that can reinforce its reputation for top family movies.

“This is one of those movies that’s playing to everybody, and everybody is loving it,” said Chuck Viane, Disney distribution chief.

The political thriller Syriana expanded into more theatres and climbed to second place with $12 million, says Comingsoon.net. In third place, Harry Potter added $10.3 million to his Goblet of Fire, for a total of $244.1 million.

Meanwhile, Aeon Flux did a belly flop, dropping 63.5% in its second weekend to sixth place.

In limited release, Ang Lee’s Brokeback Mountain made $545,000 from just five theatres – the ninth highest per theatre average ever for a film.

Read more at andPOP. andPOP - POP Culture with Substance

Get out your binoculars and start considering your bets – the Oscar race is on.

The Los Angeles Film Critics Association and the Broadcast Film Critics Association have respectively announced winners and nominees, Reuters reports.

The LAFCA declared Ang Lee’s Brokeback Mountain the best picture of 2005, and also honoured Lee as best director.

Capote was also a multiple winner, with Philip Seymour Hoffman picking up a best actor award for the title role and Catherine Keener being named best supporting actress. Writer Dan Futterman also tied for best screenplay with Noah Baumbach of The Squid and the Whale.

The most surprising win went to Vera Farmiga as best actress for her performance in indie film Down to the Bone, so remember her name. The movie, directed by Debra Granik, won a special jury prize at the Sundance Film Festival.

William Hurt’s short appearance in A History of Violence garnered him a best supporting actor nod.

The awards noticeably neglected big-budget studio films, because although movies like King Kong, Memoirs of a Geisha and Munich did receive votes, none came close to the final playoffs, so to speak.

The LAFCA also hands out a New Generation award, which goes to a newcomer in cinema. This year’s breakout actor is Terrence Howard, who was also recognized by the Broadcast Film Critics Association with a best actor nomination for his starring role in Hustle & Flow, a supporting actor nomination for Crash, and a best song nomination for performing the title song in Hustle.

Brokeback Mountain dominated the 11th annual Critics’ Choice Awards, which are voted on by the BFCA. The movie received eight nominations including best picture, best director, best actor (Heath Ledger), best supporting actor (Jake Gyllenhaal) and best supporting actress (Michelle Williams).

Paul Haggis’ Crash, also a best picture nominee, received six nominations. Walk the Line, Capote and Cinderella Man each got four.

You can see the rest of the nominees at http://www.bfca.org/NomineesWinners.asp before winners are announced on January 9.

Read more at andPOP. andPOP - POP Culture with Substance

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe opened this weekend and I think it?s safe to say that is? going to be the big movie to see over the holiday season for a few reasons.

First of all, it?s a great kid?s movie, with magical creatures, fantastic worlds, and epic battles with virtually no blood.

At the same time, while it is a kid?s movie, it?s great for adults to watch as well, (kind of like The Incredibles, or Harry Potter.)

But most importantly, this is going to be a big movie to see this year because as far as I?m concerned, it?s one of the best films that?s been made this year.

Without gushing about it, Narnia is one of the best fantasy movies I have ever seen.

The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe, adapted from the children?s book by C.S. Lewis of the same name, which has been a classic for more than fifty years.

The story follows four children who find a gateway to a magical world in the back of a wardrobe at their uncle?s house.

They find themselves thrust into a world of centaurs and talking horses, prophecies and magic and massive battles between good and evil.

The story is so good that it was already adapted into a movie once by the BBC back in the ?80s, but it was a low budget affair, and never achieved much mainstream popularity.

This time around, on the other hand, it seems like no expense was spared ? and the production budget of $150 million seems to confirm that.

However, it wouldn?t be fair to say that the money was wasted. Andrew Adamson was recruited to direct it, fresh off his twin successes of Shrek, and Shrek 2.

And while not everyone liked Shrek, it did win an Academy Award for Best Animated Feature, and anyone who can win an Oscar on their first feature film is OK by me.

The other notable member of the production team was WETA, the visual effects firm who racked up four Oscars for their work on the three Lord of the Rings movies.

I can only imagine how daunting the task for Adamson was when the movie started pre-production. As the saying goes, ?never work with children or animals,? but all four lead characters are children, and most of the supporting cast is talking animals ? computer generated animals at that.

That being said, Adamson did a stellar job, and somehow found four of the best young actors I have ever seen to play the four children who are the main characters.

The one factor which could change Narnia from a universally loved masterpiece, into a more controversial territory is the Christian overtones which people will undoubtedly find.

In the novel, C.S. Lewis thinly veils the Christian allegory; Aslan the lion, who is the King of Narnia, is killed on a mountaintop to save someone else, and then resurrected at dawn the next day.

Even that, though, is downplayed. The same events take place in the movie, but they aren?t played up with the same emphasis on symbolism and morality.

All in all, The Chronicles of Narnia is a top notch film for anyone and everyone. It is a perfect adaptation, remaining faithful to the book while still making the most out of the medium of film. It is also a testament to Adamson?s skill as a director, how well the film was shot, and edited.

The final thing to say about this movie is that I think we can all be thankful for once about Hollywood?s tendency towards sequels. I cannot wait for the next installment of what will surely become the Narnia franchise; I just hope it?s every bit as good as the first one.

Read more at andPOP. andPOP - POP Culture with Substance

It seems that there?s only one way of measuring success in Hollywood ? the almighty dollar.

I hope this doesn?t come as a surprise to anyone, and I hope I haven?t shattered anyone?s fantasies about movies as art.

Certainly, there are movies that are art, and film can be an art form, but when things are boiled down to their most basic level, if you can?t make a movie profitably, you won?t be making movies for very long.

I read (somewhere) that one of the big problems with the movie making culture is that everyone is obsessed with box office grosses, and opening weekend totals, and this all consuming fixation can ultimately be self-destructive.
I must admit, occasionally I buy into this as well.
In my column about Chicken Little (Nov. 16) I kind of obsessed over how much money it would make, and the results of that.

I also tend to scan through the newspaper on Monday mornings to see who won the battle for weekend supremacy at the box office.

However, I?ve been working in a video store for a couple of years, and I have since devised my own method of judging success in movies, which is as follows:
A successful movie is one that people consistently want to watch two, or three years later.

This may seem simple, but it flies in the face of the conventional, money-centred wisdom.
Here?s an example:

The Mummy, released in 1999, was wildly successful from an economic standpoint; it made $202 million, and spawned two sequels (The Mummy Returns, and The Scorpion King.) However, I can count on the fingers of one hand how many times it?s rented in the last year ? and that doesn?t include my thumb.

On the other hand, Three Kings, starring George Clooney and Mark Wahlberg and Ice Cube made a modest $60 million.
This one I watched over the weekend, it?s one of my favourite war movies, and it?s constantly rented out.
From a money point of view, the Mummy was the bigger success, but as far as I?m concerned, Three Kings takes the prize.

This brings me to this week. The Fantastic Four comes out on DVD this Tuesday, and it is already being hailed as a success.

It?s yet another big-budget comic book adaptation, this time dealing with the origin story of The Human Torch, The Thing, The Invisible Woman, and the man himself, Mr. Fantastic.

I wish I?d been at the Marvel garage sale when they sold off the movie rights to every single comic series they have. If there?s anyone out there who can explain to me why Stan Lee, already rolling in the dough as owner and founder of Marvel, found the need to sell his soul and make these mediocre movies, I?d like to hear it.

I won?t go on about comic book movies ? the subject has already been covered to death, and just in case it hasn?t, I might write about it in an upcoming column.

However, I will say that Fantastic Four is a cookie-cutter comic book movie with nothing new to offer. It?s an origin story, which means it follows of the exact same formula of: Getting new powers, experimenting with new powers, deciding to use powers for good, fighting super villain, defeating him, and leaving room for a sequel.

Of course, because how good a movie has nothing to do with how much money it makes, Fantastic Four was hailed as an unqualified success.

It came out in theatres in the middle of an historic 18-week box office slump, and grossed a total of $154 million.
In fact, it made so much money that we can look forward to Fantastic Four 2, (we can also look forward do me bashing my head into a wall if someone asks me to see it.)

My point is this: I am no fortuneteller, but I can confidently predict that within three years no one, anywhere, will want to watch Fantastic Four, and it will be completely forgotten.

So don?t be fooled by the hype, and don?t be fooled by the millions of dollars that people have spent going to see mediocre movies.

These movies aren?t good, and every time you go to see one, and pump up its earnings, you just beg the Hollywood types to make another one.

Oh, and just in case it?s anyone?s wondering, Jessica Alba does get into underwear briefly, but it?s totally not worth it because it lasts three seconds, and if that?s all you?re interested in, you?re watching the wrong kind of movies.

Read more at andPOP. andPOP - POP Culture with Substance

It?s been a good couple of weeks for documentaries, which means it?s been a good couple of weeks for me.

Apart from being a movie freak in general, I?m a bit of a documentary fiend, and in the past few years documentaries have been very good to me.

In the beginning there was Michael Moore ? who I hate. He pretended to be a fat simple hick, but he was actually an ultra-left-wing activist in disguise. He made Bowling for Columbine, and won an Oscar for it.

I won?t go into too much detail except to say two things:
When I wrote my entrance essay for Ryerson Journalism, I had to write about the journalist who had inspired me to become a journalist. I said Michael Moore; I said he was the worst journalist on God?s green earth, and I wanted to do a better job than him.

I don?t know who read the essay, but it got me into the program.

Secondly, if you?ve seen Bowling for Columbine and believed one word Michael Moore said in it, I urge you to go to bowlingfortruth.com; it sort of corrects some of the falsehoods in the movie.

Don?t get me wrong, I love documentaries, and I hate guns, but whenever I see a documentary that isn?t telling the truth, it just makes me feel dirty all over.

After the success of Bowling for Columbine, documentaries became sexy again. These aren?t your parents? documentaries, here we?ve got guys eating nothing but McDonalds for 30 days (Super Size Me,) the genesis of surfing (Riding Giants,) and the birth of skateboarding (Dogtown and the Z-boys,) all of which are excellent and very edgy.

Two new ones come out this Tuesday on DVD, and each one is so good that despite my busy viewing schedule, I managed to see each one in theatres ? twice.

First of all, March of the Penguins.

This is sort of a classic old-school documentary, in what I tenderly dub National Geographic Style.

The whole thing is about penguins, and to the best of my knowledge there isn?t a single shot of a human in the whole thing.

Before you write it off as boring, let me tell you, penguins are fascinating and hilarious, especially when they fall over.

Did you know, for example, that they routinely go for months without eating? Or that in order to mate, they often walk more than 100 km?

If that?s not enough inducement, then maybe the fact that Morgan Freeman, fresh off his Academy Award winning performance in Million Dollar Baby, is the narrator.

If little birds in tuxedos seem a bit too tame for you, then perhaps I can tempt you with Murderball.

This one is my pick for Best Documentary at the Oscars this year.

It?s about quadriplegic rugby players, and these guys are
kind of crazy.

I recommended this one to a friend of mine a couple of months ago, and his initial response was, ?I don?t want to see another ?feel sorry for the disabled people? movie.?

I had a hard time explaining to him that Murderball couldn?t be further from that.

First of all, the quadriplegic players tend to swear ? a lot.

It?s an inspirational story about people overcoming disability and, in the end, competing at the Paralympics. But more importantly, it?s just a really cool story about guys who ride around in wheelchairs ramming into each other.

My favourite part about it was the fact that the movie focuses on the American paralympic team, and there?s sort of an ongoing grudge between the Americans and the Canadians.

They actually go to some length to portray the Canadians as the bad guys.

So through the whole movie, I got to cheer for the evil Canadians and secretly enjoy it every time they beat the Americans.

If neither of these docs suits your fancy, then I urge you to check out one of the excellent documentaries that have come out in the last couple of years. Each of the following docs are top notch, and while I don?t have time to go into much detail, take my word for it that each one is well worth seeing:
-Comedian ? About Jerry Seinfeld coming up with new material
-Standing in the Shadows of Motown ? About the band that was behind the Motown music movement
-The Corporation ? About corporations ? d?uh
-Spellbound ? About the freaky kids who compete in the National Spelling Bee in the U.S.
-Word Wars ? About semi-professional Scrabble players. These guys are really messed up
-Ringers ? a documentary about insanely obsessive Lord of the Rings fans.

I stand by each and every one of these movies. If you watch one and don?t like it, take my word for it, it?s not a problem with the movie, it?s a problem with you.

Read more at andPOP. andPOP - POP Culture with Substance

I just saw the trailer on Apple.com, (a great source of trailers for upcoming and past movies, by the way) and I am psyched.

Big Momma?s House 2 comes out on January 27th, and I am counting the days.

I should probably explain.

On my first real date with a girl (Julia,) we went to see Big Momma?s House, starring Martin Lawrence.

The movie is about a police officer who, for whatever reason, has to pose as a morbidly obese woman in order to crack the case and get the bad guys.

The movie was terrible.

I recall them not allowing me to take a beverage in a glass bottle into the theatre because they were worried about the damage glass might do to the screen if thrown.

I also remember wanting to throw something at the screen during several particularly terrible moments.

However, the news isn?t all bad.

I credit that movie with single-handedly teaching me how to kiss, (along with Julia, of course.)

I was fourteen, a bit of a late bloomer, and had yet to ever kiss a girl.

About twenty minutes into this terrible excuse for a movie, I got so bored with the bad comedy that I decided to engage in a much pleasanter pastime.

I screwed up all my courage, leaned in, and kissed her ? well, sort of.

My technique was dreadful and hers was just as bad.

Moreover, I had trouble making actual lip-to-lip contact because our noses kept hitting.

Embarrassed, I sat back in my seat and returned my attention to the movie. My first kiss (sort of) had been a disastrous failure.

I vaguely remember watching Martin Lawrence play basketball in a fat suit.

Ten minutes went by, and I was once again, painfully bored with the movie, and I could tell Julia was too.

Moreover, I?d only been half watching the movie; in my mind, I?d been analysing the kiss ? what had gone wrong, and what needed to be done differently.

Another five minutes went by; I summoned what courage I could find, leaned in, and kissed her again.

It went every bit as badly as the first time. All four lips were all over the place (hers and mine) and my tongue sort of lost track of where it was supposed to be going.

Needless to say, I aborted again, and leaned back into my own seat to deal with my embarrassment.

I won?t give you a play by play of how things proceeded over the course of the whole movie.

Suffice it to say that this song and dance of kiss and retreat repeated itself seven or eight times over the next hour or so, and by the closing credits, not only had we made it to full fledged making out, I managed to get to second base, (over the shirt.)

The moral of the story is twofold. First, you might learn as much from a bad movie as from a good movie ? if you go into it with an open mind.

Second, Big Momma?s House is a terrible terrible movie, and does not deserve a sequel.

Unfortunately, franchise movies are all the rage right now and all manner of movies which don?t deserve sequels are getting them.

This is just a few of the sequels we can look forward to in 2006 (and as far as I?m concerned, none of these should have been made): Final Destination 3, Basic Instinct 2, Scary Movie 4, Mission: Impossible 3, The Fast and The Furious 3, Clerks 2, Garfield 2, Indiana Jones 4, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning, The Grudge 2, The Santa Clause 3, Ice Age 2, and Resident Evil: Afterlife.
It?s enough to make me want to puke.

The most depressing thing is that all of the movies these sequels are based on made decent amounts at the box office, despite being terrible, which means that each and every one of them is a blatant, painful, cash grab.

In fact, you can almost calculate how many sequels a movie will get by the amount of money it makes. (Shrek, for example made so much that we can look forward to Shrek 3, in 2007, and Shrek 4, in 2009.)

I look forward to seeing Big Momma?s House 2 for sentimental reasons; I plan on taking my current girlfriend and bumping my nose into hers once we get bored with Martin Lawrence, which shouldn?t take long.

Anyway, I hope no one?s too disappointed that I didn?t talk about Harry Potter and The Goblet of Fire.

The truth is that I?d probably have nothing insightful or original to say about it anyway, and I really don?t want to see it opening night.

I really hate people who dress up as Dumbledore.

Read more at andPOP. andPOP - POP Culture with Substance

Movie studios have been asked to include anti-smoking messages on DVDs, after studies show actors who smoke on the big screen entice youth to light up.

Attorney generals in 32 American states sent the message to Paramount Pictures, Fox Filmed Entertainment, Warner Bros., The Walt Disney Co. and five other studios this week.

“This is consistent with the state’s long-running commitment to reduce underage teen smoking,” said Janelle Guthrie, spokesperson for the Washington State Attorney General Rob McKenna.

A spokeswoman from the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) said the studios contacted would consider the request.

“There’s no collective decision at this point,” she said.

Under the study, by Dartmouth Medical School, 6,522 adolescents were asked about their smoking habits. Thirty-eight percent said they first tried smoking after seeing actors lighting up in films. Even if the youth’s family members and friends didn’t smoke, they were likely to try it after watching stars smoke on screen.

Read more at andPOP. andPOP - POP Culture with Substance

With nothing especially exciting in theatres this week, I?m going to talk about DVDs.

A few big ones come out this Tuesday: Madagascar, The Skeleton Key, Stealth, and Happy Endings.

Unfortunately, because I am only one man, I can?t watch them all and write about them all, but in the interest of making sure there?s something for everyone, I?ll focus on Stealth, and Happy Endings.

For what it was, Stealth was pretty good.

Imagine for a moment someone taking equal quantities of Top Gun, and Universal Soldier, and mixing them together.
Actually, because Stealth is about cutting edge airplanes, imagine those three movies crashing into each other at supersonic speed.

The resulting ball of twisted metal and explosions is pretty much Stealth.

But don?t assume that it?s bad just because it?s a twisted ball of explosive wreckage.

The movie takes place in the U.S. Naval Air Force of the near future. Three ace pilots are part of an elite counterterrorism program, whose purpose is to ?destroy the enemy wherever they are in the world,? using ?the most advanced and experimental technology.?

What it boils right down to is Josh Lucas, Jamie Foxx, and Jessica Biel cruising around in ultra-high-tech airplanes firing missiles at men with beards and turbans.

An unmanned airplane, the Extreme Deep Invader, or ?Eddie? joins the team, an artificial intelligence that performs better than the humans do.

Of course, as is always the case, Eddie goes haywire and starts killing indiscriminately, and from there, the rest of the movie basically writes itself.

Stealth is a big action, mindless movie, where the dialogue feels like filler between the multi-million dollar explosions.

It?s fun to watch, but it?s got no actual substance, following every action movie clich?.

(For example, Josh Lucas is the blue-eyed, team leader, complete with chiseled good looks, and a slightly rebellious attitude. Jamie Foxx is the black sidekick, and Jessica Biel is the hot chick.)

Stealth is good for what it is, and the action sequences were definitely fun to watch. I won?t waste my time pointing out the numerous plot holes or technical discrepancies, they?re plentiful but they?re also ignorable.

But for my money, if I want to watch a movie about airplane pilots, I?ll rent Top Gun. I always loved that kickass electric guitar theme.

Of course, if Stealth (or Top Gun) isn?t your speed, there?s always Happy Endings.

It follows three seemingly divergent stories that turn out to be interrelated, and while it bills itself as a comedy, the film deals with abortion, homosexuality, immigration, and marriage.

The acting is good, but the movie itself is obnoxious and mediocre.

Throughout the whole thing, little expository blurbs come up on one side of the screen, telling the audience what the characters are feeling, what they have done in the past, or what they are going to do in the future.

Moreover, despite the fact that the film deals with these contentious subjects, it?s really just fluff, and doesn?t address the issue.

The high point of Happy endings, depressingly enough, is seeing Lisa Kudrow’s nipple. It happens in the first fifteen minutes of the movie, it’s totally unexpected, and you only see one of them, (the left one I believe.)

In a larger sense, I?m tired of these romantic comedies that take a bunch of different plotlines and fuse them together into a single, half-decent movie.

Any one of the plotlines in Happy Endings has enough to it to be a movie in and of itself, if only it were properly written and directed.

Instead we?re treated to a mish-mash of emotion and exposition, without ever getting close enough to any one story to really care about it.

The only redeeming quality to Happy Endings is the acting. It?s solid all the way through, and Tom Arnold and Lisa Kudrow who both take unusual roles and pull it of beautifully.

Well, I guess that about covers it.

This week Harry Potter IV comes out, and I?ll probably be dragged to one of those damn midnight screenings, so I?ll tell you all about that.

I hate people who dress up as Dumbledore.

Read more at andPOP. andPOP - POP Culture with Substance

Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith comes out this Tuesday and rest assured, if you haven?t already seen it, you haven?t missed much.

A bright three-year-old can fill in the gaps between episodes II and IV, but then, that?s not really why we watch movies, is it?

There are a lot of virtues and problems with Episode III, and for that matter, the Star Wars franchise in general.
I won?t dwell too long on either the virtues or problems ? everyone knows them already ? except to say that both can be traced back to one simple fact.

George Lucas is a great storyteller, mediocre writer, and awful director.

As far as the storytelling is concerned, I?m no expert, but I?m told that many of the plotlines are lifted from classical mythology, which is what gives them a timeless quality.

These timeless stories are what make the original three movies so popular.

Moreover, the characters are archetypes which people identify with, and which people sympathize with, even if it is happening a long time ago in a galaxy far far away.
However, Lucas definitely isn?t a good writer.
If he were, he wouldn?t have villains named Count Dooku and General Grievous.

If he were a good writer, the only two characters that run through all six movies wouldn?t be a grammatically incorrect green elf and a whistling garbage can.

And Lucas is a downright terrible director.

It?s widely unknown that Lucas directed neither Episode V: Empire Strikes Back, or Episode VI: Return of the Jedi ? the two movies widely cited as the best in the series.

For that matter, Lucas didn?t even write the screenplays for Episodes V or VI, other, better writers helped.

Unfortunately, Lucas took a much more dominant role in the filmmaking process when he made the new trilogy, this simple fact may be the single reason that the original trilogy succeeded and the new trilogy flopped.

However, there are other problems with the new trilogy movies, especially Revenge of the Sith.

Lucas would have done well to slash his special effects budged by 90 per cent. There are one or two scenes where the visual effects really add something to the movie, but the rest of the time, it?s totally gratuitous.

I realize, of course, that one of the main reasons people go to these movies is for the visual effects, but sooner or later people have to realize that it?s a passing thing.
At this point, filmmakers can do pretty much whatever they want with computer-generated images. From having a gecko sell insurance to creating whole planets, it has all been done.

The other major problem that runs through the new trilogy, and especially Revenge of the Sith, is that Lucas seems to become too much of a Star Wars fan himself.

The movie reads like a series of fan requests; a list of match-ups and settings that they were dying to see.

(The fight between Yoda and Emperor Palpatine, or the battle on the Wookie home planet, both of which were largely superfluous to the plot, but a lot of fun for diehard fans.)

But enough of the problems with Revenge of the Sith. It?s definitely nothing special in and of itself, but people will see it for the same reason people saw Matrix: Revolutions: because it completes the series.

Personally, I?m happy with how Revenge of the Sith concludes the Star Wars series, and I call upon the force to prevent Lucas from making any more Star Wars movies.

As it stands, not only does Episode III complete the series, it also totally changes the way we watch the original three movies.

Instead of being about the education and triumph of Luke Skywalker, all six movies are now about the rise and fall of Anakin Skywalker.

I think that?s really cool, and elevates it to a level far beyond the Buck Rogers B-movie that it originally was, (and, incidentally that justifies the changes Lucas has made to the original three movies, especially airbrushing Hayden Christensen?s face into the end of Return of the Jedi, which is what brings the whole thing full circle.

All told, I found Episode III: Revenge of the Sith every bit as disappointing by itself as Episodes I and II, but infinitely more worth watching because of it?s implications for the series at large.

And while you?re watching Revenge of the Sith, ask yourself this about Lucas:

Is the guy who just directed swordfights in outer space really the same person who?s going to revive the Indiana Jones franchise in 2007?

Read more at andPOP. andPOP - POP Culture with Substance

Movie fans rejoice! In celebration of the Sundance Institute’s 25th anniversary, an 11-DVD boxed set of festival favourites will be released on November 22.

Reuters reports that the collection, entitled “Sundance Film Festival Collection: Celebrating 25 Years of Sundance Institute,” includes 10 movies. There’s also an additional disc of interviews, behind-the-scenes footage and clips from the Sundance Film Festival.

There’s a whole bunch of films that were not only Sundance winners, but went on to become cult- and even Oscar-approved.

Featured in the collection are such movies as Boys Don’t Cry, Clerks, The Usual Suspects, In the Bedroom and sex, lies and videotape.

The boxed set will include a booklet with an introduction by Sundance founder Robert Redford. Special features on the bonus disc include interviews with Redford and assorted filmmakers, a documentary on the Sundance Institute and scenes from the Sundance labs.

Read more at andPOP. andPOP - POP Culture with Substance

It?s been a big week for franchise movies.

I spent the weekend binging on old Batman movies in preparation for Batman Begins which comes out this Tuesday.

In case your comic book obsessed friend hasn?t already told you, Batman Begins is really cool, and surprisingly good ? especially in light of all of the terrible comic book movies lately.

Batman Begins, as the name suggests, is the origin story of Batman/Bruce Wayne. It covers his parents? gruesome death, his training with a deadly ninja cult, and the motivations that led him to don the costume of the Dark Knight and become Batman.

Christian Bale, who previously starred in American Psycho and Equilibrium, plays Batman excellently.

Moreover, with an superb supporting cast (Micheal Caine as Alfred, Liam Neeson as the Villain, Katie Holmes as the Token Beautiful Woman, and Morgan Freeman as the Misunderstood Genius Scientist) the film is on solid footing.

All in all, Batman Begins is excellent and I would highly recommend it, although before I do, I have one major criticism which most of my fellow critics seem to have overlooked.

They completely destroyed the Batmobile.

Don?t worry, this is not a spoiler, I am not talking about the Batmobile blowing up or crashing or anything (although that does happen in Batman Forever.)

I?m simply talking about the fact that they completely ignored decades of batman history in building a monstrosity of a Batmobile.

It might seem like a trivial point, but the Batmobile is supposed to look a certain way ? kind of like a classic corvette ? I know this because I?ve been playing with toy Batmobiles since before I could walk.

I really resented them changing the Batmobile, it was unnecessary and it didn?t look especially cool.

Other than that, the film is great and I highly recommend it, I just feel the need to register my complaint.

Anyway, as I said, in preparation for Batman Begins, I went back and watched the previous Batman movies, and I not feel safe in saying that my favourite, without a doubt, is Batman Forever.

I can understand why most people cite Batman or Batman Returns as their favourites, since they?re both directed by Tim Burton and they?re sort of seen as the originals, the ones against which all other Batman movies must be judged.

However, for my part, I could never take Michael Keaton seriously as Batman; he just doesn?t seem tough enough.
I mean, I think I could probably beat him up (when he?s not wearing the costume of course.)

I will concede that there has never been a better Batman villain than Jack Nicholson as The Joker, but I never much cared for Danny DeVito as the Penguin.

All of that being said, for my money, Batman Forever has the whole package.

Val Kilmer makes for a great Batman (I could never beat him up,) and I really like how they work Robin?s origin story into the movie.

Moreover, either Jim Carey as the Riddler or Tommy Lee Jones as Two-Face would have been an excellent villain on their own, together they?re unbelievable.

However, you really can?t go wrong with any of these three, just please, please don?t watch Batman & Robin.
No matter how bad you?ve heard it is, it?s worse.

On a totally different subject, there was big news about another major movie franchise this week.

Betting closed on who would be named the next James Bond, and it?s Daniel Craig.

Craig surprised everyone by being handed the Bond tuxedo and the keys to the Aston Martin.

I?ll be very interested to see whether he turns out to be the next Pierce Brosnan or the next Timothy Dalton.

If you want to scope him out to judge for yourself, rent Layer Cake.

Craig starred in Layer Cake, playing a London cocaine dealer who tries to successfully navigate the criminal underworld and make it out alive.

Layer Cake is directed by Matthew Vaughn, who produced Snatch and Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels.
The film retains the same gritty, British criminal culture as Snatch and Lock Stock had, however it?s not comedic in the same way.

It?s top notch and very worth checking out.

I guess that?s all for this week.

In closing, I?d just like to say one more time: I could definitely beat Michael Keaton up.

Read more at andPOP. andPOP - POP Culture with Substance

There are three basic qualities that all great movies have.
First, a great movie must have a great writer.

Despite the fact that they?re rarely seen and infrequently talked about, movies are about writers, not directors, and certainly not actors. A brilliant director cannot save a bad script, but it takes a truly abominable director to destroy a good screenplay.

The second thing a great movie must have is a great director.

Despite what I just said above, a bad director can prevent a quality script from achieving greatness.

Whenever you finish a movie and say to yourself, ?It was a good premise, but it fell flat in the execution,? that is the fault of a bad director. Without vision and genius, a director cannot turn a decent script into a decent finished product.

The final, and most important quality of a great movie is unwillingness to compromise.

Without exception, every movie out there that achieves iconic status, compromises were made in the production process, but the artistic vision never wavered.

On this final point, I want to spend a bit of extra time, because I cannot stress its importance.

A while back, I talked about Sin City. As I recall, I gave it a glowing review.

In each case, their seeds of greatness were in their unwillingness go compromise.

Sin City?s creator, Frank Miller, refused 11 offers to make Sin City before he finally agreed to do it with Robert Rodriguez. When he did finally agree, he retained an iron-grip, stranglehold on the creative process.

I pity the people who had to work with Miller, I can only imagine how painful it must have been trying reproduce his comic books in live action and computer generated images.

However, the end result speaks for itself. No compromises (that I know of) were made in the creative process, and that is why it is so awesome to watch.

On the other hand, the most famous example of a cinematic compromise is Lord of the Rings.

In the first movie (Fellowship of the Ring) Liv Tyler had now business being on that horse in the middle of the river. It wasn?t her character that did that in the book, why should it be her character in the movie?

Similarly, where the hell was Tom Bombadil?

He was one of my favourite parts of the Fellowship of the Rings (the book) and he was killed with a flick of the pen.

If you haven?t read the book, and/or seen the movie, you won?t know what I?m talking about. But if that?s the case, read the books, then watch the movies, then let me know what you think.

I?ve been saying these things for years, so I know all of the standard rebuttals.
If they had made a completely faithful adaptation, the movie would have been five hours long.

So?

Am I the only member of my generation who?s watched Ben-Hur? Or Sparticus? Or Casino? Or Patton? These are not short movies, but that doesn?t make them bad movies.

The bottom line is that there are two types of movies.

Some movies are made for mainstream audiences (and I don?t even watch these movies anymore unless someone I trust tells me it?s good.)

These movies tend to make respectable amounts of money at the box office, but five years down the road, no one will ever remember them.

The other type of movie is the sort that?s made for people who really love movies.

When one of these is made, and it?s good, it becomes a timeless treasure.

But when it doesn?t work, the general public ignores it, and the film aficionados for whom it?s made, turn into a pack of jackals and rip it to shreds.

This is why so few of these movies ever get made ? they?re a gamble, and even if they do turn out well, there?s still the risk that they won?t make much money.

Over the weekend I was watching Casablanca; it?s one of my all time favourite movies.

However, watching it I realized that if the same movie were made today, Ilsa would probably end up with Rick, and Victor would probably die in a hail of gunfire fighting for the cause, or perhaps a really big explosion.

Because that (apparently) is what audiences want.

So I suppose what I?m trying to say is this:
For all of the great, uncompromising movies out there, here?s looking at you, kid.

Read more at andPOP. andPOP - POP Culture with Substance

Flightplan continues to fly high, pulling in $15 million despite a slew of other new releases, including swimsuit calendar Into the Blue, which sank rather sadly.

USA Today reports that the Jodie Foster thriller remained atop the box office for the second weekend in a row, with a respectable drop of less than 40 per cent. It has grossed more than $46 million in just 10 days.

“People love Jodie Foster and showed they’ll come out for the right thing,” says producer Brian Grazer.

Joss Whedon’s sci-fi western Serenity debuted in second place with ticket sales of $10.1 million, although it averaged more audiences per theatre than Flightplan. Tim Burton’s Corpse Bride fell to third place with $9.8 million. It’s taken in just under $33 million… and will face The Curse of the Were-Rabbit next weekend.

Comingsoon.net is happy to say that David Cronenberg’s A History of Violence, expanding into 1,340 theatres, had the highest per-theatre average of all the movies in the Top 10. It grossed $8.2 million – more than Cronenberg’s last three films made in total in their U.S. theatrical releases.

Into the Blue didn’t fare so well. It opened in the most theatres of any new movie this weekend, but only averaged $2,500 in each, for a weak total of just $7 million.

Ticket sales are down from the same weekend last year, but BBC News reports that 11-week-old Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is leading the global box office with roughly $201 million.

Read more at andPOP. andPOP - POP Culture with Substance