|
Connect with Facebook
|
By Collin, on May 18th, 2011
Netflix is king and increasing paid content online
 I fucking <3 Netflix
I totally called this back in an article I wrote last year. Obviously it wasn’t hard to call, but I like to toot my own horn when I’m correct. Now that thousands of BitTorrent users are getting butt-fucked by the whole Expendables thing - a worthy “bf” if you ask me – I think Netflix is going to take over completely. In a great article from CNN they stated the following:
Netflix accounts for 22.2% of all U.S. broadband traffic compared to BitTorrent’s 21.6% share. And at peak times, Netflix hits 30% of all traffic, a bounce of 44% over results from the fall.
Netflix is doing more to actually combat the problem than suing some nobody douche. It encourages people to pay for their content. If production companies would just get with the program and realize the their million dollar, straight-to-DVD movie starring some washed-up C-lister isn’t going to encourage people to buy it. They should just put it on Netflix Streaming.
Many of the companies suing over copyright involve indie movies, which is understandable. Small movies don’t have huge opening weekends and they certainly don’t encourage people to get their exclusive Blu Ray with tons of extra content, as in they don’t have one. What they have is a shitty DVD that would be a waste for people to spend $15 bucks on or $4 at Blockbuster.
The excuse they can “rent” it on Netflix doesn’t apply anymore. My generation wants their content fast – meaning right this minute.
Netflix streaming isn’t lucrative, but it is a fucking reality. A Netflix Streaming subscription is almost free…almost. Between sites like Hulu and Netflix, they’re changing the way we pay for and watch content. It is exciting. Youtube has a pricey subscription feature. I’ll have to look into that.
-Collin
By Collin, on May 12th, 2011
The Film: District B13
 One of the better stunts ever performed by a film's lead actor. I thought that District B13 was actually called “District 13″, but mistaken as “B13″? On Netflix, as I see it right now, it is listed as “B13″. But regardless of that brain diarrhea, let’s talk Distrcti B13. In my opinion, (check the dictionary fanboys, the word exists) B13 is by far Luc Besson’s best movie.
It is a kind of a masterpiece. Why do I champion Luc Besson so much? Easy, because his movies are fucking awesome and, best of all, short. Yes, Besson didn’t director this movie, but he’s got his little fingers in dozens of great action movies from the past decade.
B13 is a simple story of rebellion in a post-apocalyptic France. The two main characters are trying to fight corruption and the leveling of their section of the city. Despite your Francophobia, French ghettos are really fucking dangerous. See the great French film Hate (La Haine) for further information.
Why to watch it: The parkour (obviously)
Has another movie ever been such a vehicle for showcasing parkour outside of a documentary. The lead actor, David Belle, helped invent the sport/art/skill. Parkour is the art of having spatial awareness and running through space – I think.
Parkour is cool. Any kid loves it and B13 contains some of the best sequences ever put on camera. This includes Belle jumping building to building with no assistance, Jackie Chan-style. Belle would go on to be a consultant on the dismal Prince of Persia and his partner in creating Parkour, Sebastien Foucan, appears as Mollaka in the beginning (and best) sequence of Casino Royale.
 Why can't the bamf be in more movies? Pay attention to this: The difference between French action movies and American action movies
I’m not saying one is better than the other, I’m saying they’re different. America’s style is that of cutting forty times during a single punch. The French love choreographed fights and real-time special effects (my favorite). While Hong Kong loves wired-up, flying, crazy shit. The French stuntman and lead actor, Cyril Raffaelli, steals the show, showing Americans and the Asians how a real action star fights. The only guy I might enjoy more is Tony Jaa and last time I checked he was a monk. Unless things have changed?
-Collin
By Collin, on May 11th, 2011
The Film: Blade Runner
 The Replicants supposed couldn't feel empathy...hmm.
I’ve had varying degrees of love for Blade Runner since I first saw it when I was in 7th grade. I know the precise age because I wrote an essay on how much I liked it for a writing contest. My teacher lambasted me, saying I was too young to be watching such movies. (She was a Christian) I began to dislike Blade Runner as I moved into my teenage years, the story is kind of thin, but then fell back in love with it again about a year or two ago.
I arrived at Philip K. Dick through Blade Runner, so I owe it that much as well. Dick’s novel Do Androids Dream of Eletronic Sheep? is masterful in a way only Philip K. Dick can be. How one work turned into the other is hard to say, but perhaps no other human being could have made Blade Runner what it is aside from its director, Ridley Scott.
The story follows Rick Deckard as he’s assigned to take down renegade Androids who have escaped an off-world colony and come to Earth illegally. A plot, and maybe its just me, that science fiction fans only dreamed would come to the big screen with such style and grace.
Why to watch it: The most timeless visuals ever made.
 One shot shows just how organic this world felt. For some reason nothing has ever come close since. (Maybe Dark City) It might be the greatest visionary achievement in filmmaking history. Fritiz Lang would have stared in awe at the textures, depth, and power of Blade Runner‘s images. But haven’t we seen this before? Doesn’t Avatar look more epic and Star Wars more awesome? I’m not sure – that is for you to decide. But something that George Lucas stressed in his first Star Wars film has been lost in modern special effects. The idea of the “used future”. Star Wars felt very real and organic because the environments felt “used”.
When individuals move around Blade Runner‘s world, everything looks used; grimy and unkept. It is one of the few times when watching a science-fiction film I don’t feel I’m watching a cartoon or grand adventure, but a gloomy, dark future on the brink of destruction.
If cyber punk ever leapt out of the imagination of William Gibson’s mind, down to the textures, lights, characters, and griminess, this film would be its realization.
Pay attention to this: Soundtrack
 How did they do this shot almost thirty years ago? The movie’s soundtrack might be its strongest element. Not because it is the best music you’ve ever heard or that it was groundbreaking (which it was), but because it was just so…appropriate. For a movie that attempted to look so organic, its music is the exact opposite. It doesn’t seem from this world or to come from recognizable instruments. It just feels futuristic.
It has a grand scale to it, but stays grounded in the noir style that was so important to the overall feel of the movie. The soundtrack, by Vangelis, has all these things, but remains an experimental work that even the most modern, progressive DJ would admire.
Final note: Blade Runner does have its flaws. The story, which is supposed to be about what makes us human, is never fleshed out. It got lost somewhere in the fray. Also, the plot doesn’t move forward in a very logical way. Which is fine, but the “Tears in Rain” speech never feels right. I never got the need to have birds flying away and shit like that. Moreover, the cliff hanger with Deckard being a Replicant doesn’t really feel right either. It hints at very little.
That there has been so many Director’s Cuts and rereleases suggests Scott’s finest movie has never satisfied him. He knows the flaws and has tried to fix them. It is still one of the best science-fiction films ever made, second only to 2001 Space Odyssey, a movie which will sit pretty at #1 forever. But Blade Runner could have been one of the crowning achievement of all filmmaking. A movie that realized worlds and stories we only read about in books and see and experience in our imaginations. It came close though.
-Collin
By Collin, on May 3rd, 2011
The Film: Following
I was fascinated with Christopher Nolan after I saw Momento. After that he went on to become the most important and financially successfuly director of his generation, however, he began with a modest little film-noir movie called Following.
I somehow got my hands on a bootleg years ago in college and was surprised at really how modest the movie ended up being. This movie has no budget to speak of. It even used the aspects of film-noir to stylistically swing black and white film – which is a cheaper stock.
Despite its budgetary constraints, the movie ends up being pretty damn good. The movie is crime drama about a man who follows people for ideas for his new book, however, he ends up getting wrapped up in crime and with a devilishly clever criminal.
Why to watch it: To see Nolan forming his famous narrative style.
You can tell in this film that Nolan was bound for greatness and not just because of his visual style, but because of his ability to build a story out of an unusual, jarring narrative.
The most obvious example is, of course, Memento, but the narrative structure can even be seen in Batman Begins and certainly Inception.
Pay attention to this: The way Nolan sidesteps his budgetary constrictions to make a movie.
The best way to gauge a filmmakers talent is the way she or he is able to make a pretty good movie with not much money. Even for low-budget, Following is cheap.
Nolan uses camera techniques, a b/w film stock, street locations, and, most of all, a really unqiue, odd story structure. This makes the movie watchable. A lesser filmmaker, with similar resources, would have made complete shit.
Lastly, don’t expect the best movie you’ve ever seen. The movie feels long, even at like seventy or eighty minutes. The acting also isn’t fantastic because they couldn’t really afford to do multiple takes. First features of great directors are always fun to watch, this is one of the better ones.
-Collin
By Collin, on April 18th, 2011
#37 We just watched this on Netflix streaming: You Only Live Twice
The Film: You Only Live Twice
I’m a huge fan of the Bond series, you may not be. My favorite of all time is Goldeneye, but that is only because it was the first time I’d ever seen a Bond movie and had my mind blown by how he could operate any vehicle, bang any women, and always seemed to be relaxed as he did it. I’ll probably end up dong a huge article on all the bonds, maybe like a top fifteen Bond movies or something, but I chose You only Live Twice because it is the most fun…I think. It is somewhere between the legendary Sean Connery movies and the ludicrous Roger Moore flicks.
Why to watch it: It might be the best Bond film….maybe.
Most people say the Goldfinger is the best of all the bond films. They may have a point, but still, I think You Only Live Twice is better. It is just so…silly and good. I’ve read a couple Bond novels and realize they were written to be pretty serious works. It contains all the classic moments: The opening sequence, flirting with Moneypenny, meeting with M, etc, but You Only Live Twice was the first venture into the sillier elements of Bond that would make the Moore films so enduring.
Pay attention to this: The Japanese marriage sequence.
Your guess is as good as mine as to why this huge sequence is in the movie. I’ve read somewhere, maybe Wikipedia, that the sequence was actually supposed to be longer, but just didn’t work. I’m still not sure whether or not the decision to include this sequence was a good one (probably not), but that sequence, along with it being Connery’s last good Bond movies, makes it the best in my opinion. The best part is when he kicks the shit out of that dude with a couch and the goes right for the bar and grabs a drink. That is who Bond is. The more I re-watch the classics I realize that Quantum of Solace might not be a Bond movie. I’m not sure…
-Collin
Page 1 of 712345»...Last »
|
Recent Comments