Disaster Movie Trailer - Why?!
On theCast tonight a discussion about the new Disaster Movie trailer turned into an examination of the spoof film. Neil from FilmSchoolRejects had to remind me that spoof movies were not always the bottom of the comedy genre. Mel Brooks and Monty Python created highbrow (or at least highbrow in comparison to contemporary spoof films) films which were not only praised during their time, but have gone on to become classics.
What is the difference? What has become of this genre. Watching the Disaster Movie trailer you will quickly realize that the film doesn’t even stick to the core concept presented in the title. What does Iron Man, Juno, Enchanted or Hancock have to do with disaster movies? Modern spoof films rely too much on recent pop culture references, likely because the audience for these films have such small attention spans. Any core story elements are lost, and the pop culture overload results in the loss of timelessness. The movie is only funny (if funny at all) at this moment in time.
A film like Spaceballs will always be funny because it works on its own. Sure, it helps that the subject of the spoof - Star Wars, is timeless, but even if you lived in a vacuum where Star Wars was never made available, Spaceballs would still be funny. You invest yourself in the characters and story, and in effect the comedy is elevated. I seriously doubt much time was spent on the story or characters in any one of the spoof comedies that have plagued our cinemas for the last decade. They are shot and dumped into theaters in a fraction of the time that it takes a real screenwriter to produce a first draft. That said, enjoy the Disaster Movie trailer below. Tell me your thoughts in the comments.
You can watch the trailer in High Definition on MySpace. Disaster Movie his theaters on August 29th 2008.
Is “Nuke the Fridge” the New “Jump the Shark”?
The Urban Dictionary has added an entry for “Nuke the Fridge”, a contemporary replacement for the slang term “Jumped the Shark”.
Jump the Shark is a reference to a scene in an episode of Happy Days when Fonzie literally jumps over a shark while water skiing. The scene was considered so preposterous, and is considered by many to signify the moment in time when the show became unappealing to its core audience.
The new term Nuke the Fridge is based on an event in the opening sequence of Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Here is an explanation of the term from the online Urban Dictionary:
“Nuke the fridge is a colloquialism used to refer to the moment in a film series that is so incredible that it lessens the excitement of subsequent scenes that rely on more understated action or suspense, and it becomes apparent that a certain installment is not as good as a previous installments, due to ridiculous or low quality storylines, events or characters.
The term comes from the film Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, in which, near the start of the movie, Harrison Ford’s character survives a nuclear detonation by climbing into a kitchen fridge, which is then blown hundreds of feet through the sky whilst the town disintegrates. He then emerges from the fridge with no apparent injury. Later in the movie, the audience is expected to fear for his safety in a normal fistfight.
Fans of the Indiana Jones series found the absurdity of this event in the film to be the best example of the lower quality of this installment in the series, and thus coined the phrase, “nuke the fridge”.
The phrase is also a reference to the phrase “jump the shark”, which has the same meaning, only applied to a television series instead of a film series.
This phrase is not in common use.
“Star Wars didn’t really nuke the fridge until Jar Jar Binks was introduced.”
“Peter Parker dancing around the bar in Spider-Man 3? Kinda nukes the fridge!”
“The Godfather: Part III nukes the fridge.”
“Gremlins 2 more or less nuked the fridge.”
What do you think? Pretty funny but I think “Jumped the Shark” rolls off the tongue easier.
via: FilmDrunk
Radiohead In Rainbows, Not Insane
Radiohead is going to let good ol' capitalism figure it out next time.
Frontman Thom Yorke tells the Hollywood Reporter that his band's decision to let fans decide what to pay for a digital copy of In Rainbows was a "one-off response to a particular situation," referring to their split from longtime label EMI.
"It was one of those things where we were in the position of everyone asking us what we were going to do," he said. "I don't think it would have the same significance now anyway, if we chose to give something away again. It was a moment in time."
And because that moment has passed, Radiohead won't be offering up any more unpriced downloads. But Yorke seems encouraged by the increasing number of nontraditional routes becoming available to his group and other similarly successful acts to deliver their tunes and reach out to listeners.
"We are about that direct relationship, because we are big enough to establish that," he said.
Tribeca Movie Review: The Tree
The following movie was reviewed at the 2007 Tribeca Film Festival.
The Tree (El Árbol)
World Documentary Competition
2006, Argentina
Dir: Gustavo Fontán
Can memories of an entire lifetime be harnessed within one single object of affection? Can moments long ago experienced be recalled and relived with the help of a familiar companion? What happens when a family has to make a decision that could alter them forever? Writer-turned-filmmaker Gustavo Fontán attempts to carefully and lovingly answer these questions in his impressive and poetic film essay The Tree.
More a sketch of an idyllic moment in time than a documentary, the film experiments in painting the story of a family forced to come to grips with their own reality, and ultimately, their own mortality. Fontán returns to his homeland of Argentina where his parents, María and Julio, continue to live in the same house that has been in their family for generations. There, the parents ask themselves what to do about the decaying tree out in the front yard, while Fontán himself is there to capture it all.
Slowly detailed and intensely moving, the film chronicles the debate between María and Julio, without having the camera seem as though it’s intruding upon their lives. María is convinced that the tree on the front lawn is dried and that soon it will fall over, while Julio still believes that it is alive and beating. She urges him to cut it down before it collapses and hurts anyone, while he is totally against this and adamant in his stance. He planted it when his first son was born, and does not want to erase the significance of the tree. As a representation of the start of their lives as parents, the tree acts as a silent bond between María and Julio.
An ode to the ordinary, the film shows María and Julio in their waking moments, going along with their life, calmly enjoying their golden years. They recall friends and family members that are no longer with them and relive cherished moments during intimate dinner conversations, of which we hear only fragments. Rain falls upon them and the garden is watered constantly. We see the waves of time rush over, trying to take with them all signs and traces of remembrance, memory, and connection.
The tree holds in it pieces of the family’s consciousness, and to knock it down would be to knock down a piece of their own existence. At one point María, when speaking of a hole in the tree, says, “Remember that hole where the girls used to put love letters for Carlos? Now, there are no more letters, just slugs.”
Delicately, Fontán shows us the fallen tree and how sadly Julio approaches it. He understands what he must do, even though he does not approve. Dejectedly, we see Julio take the tree down. The film has come full circle.
A phenomenal piece of filmmaking.