Something I´m watching (or about to)

Let´s start with a brief disclaimer. I´ve never been such a big fan of David Finch. I´ve always thought that his style was ok. I mean, I can go for his baroque and sometimes over charged art, but he certainly doesn´t Rank in my top 10 of favorite artists, not even close. But if the guy can draw something like this, he´s ok in my book.



I´ve known his work since de Image days, going later to be milked away and thrown to super massive stardom at Marvel to his current affair with DC. He´s always been working on top characters and attracting a lot of people in conventions. The lines at his table were always huge, but so were the ones at Rob Liefeld´s.

Anyway, I came across a series of instructional dvds made by him and some other Image guys. Now, one thing I do love it´s the process of making comics and seeing other artists do their craft. That to me it´s some sort of nerd porn.
So after this brief intro here´s a rundown on the titles I found:


Dynamic figure drawing: the body with David Finch:
This is just one of many dvds he has made with the people at Gnomon Workshop. There are three more that I know of but this was the only one I could find with the links working. Here he show us how to draw the body accurately. It´s NOT and anatomy lesson, he just talks about the process of creating the figure and the methods he used to learn about the human body. It´s almost three hours long and it can get a Little boring from time to time, but it´s great to see what this guy can do. Not bad for a lefty.













Comic book inking with Joe Weems:
This one is a follow up to another one made as a team with Finch and colorist Steve Firchow. Finch draws a picture, Weems ink it and finally Firchow colors it. This one is particularly good for aspiring inkers, Weems shows you the whole process and mind set he has to tackle such a piece. He shows you techniques and instruments to use while he talks about his experience in the field.











Comic book Pin-ups with Joe Benitez:
Benitez it´s now making a creator owned book called “Lady Mechanika” at Aspen, so that´s what drove me to get this one also. To be fair I haven´t watched it yet, but from what I can gather he expleains what to keep in mind when doing a pin-up illustration. Y´know, how to use the space, be dramatic and stuff.








All in all they seem to be very interesting for the comic book artist. Since I don´t have anyone near to talk about comics with this comes as the next best thing.

Now let´s see if I can find the one about inking from Tom Nguyen.

P.s: We are getting close to the blog´s second birthday, so I´m trying to work on something to celebrate. I also notice that the number of visits keeps increasing, but it still is the land of no comments. Will it kill someone to drop a line or two?

A short CAPTAIN AMERICA review

This past weekend I got to watch CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE FIRST AVENGER, and let me tell you that this is a significant improvement over Cap´s last foray into the silver screen.
The movie has a lot of exposition pieces and whatnot because it is, of course, an origin movie. Most of the origin movies suck because they waste too much time telling us (fans) stuff we already know about characters we already are familiar with. Maybe for the casual movie goer that´s fine, to me it gets kind of boring. Even so, this movie takes a small step away from that path. If by now you haven´t figured it out yet this is supposed to become a piece of a bigger picture, this is another one of the pieces that will form the puzzle known as THE AVENGERS.

Right of the bat we are facing the discovery of the frozen body of Steve Rogers, and from then on we go on a journey back in time to see how the super soldier Project came about. That to me was pretty cool. Then it turns into a WWII movie with a touch of Sci-Fi, all in all a smart and well handled combo. One thing that I will defend this movie for its because it doesn´t take itself too seriously. I don´t mean by this that the movie is ridiculous or camp or anything like that, what I say here is that it relays a bit more on the fantasy that fuels the comic instead of becoming too grounded like the Batman films by Chris Nolan. For once it´s actually fun to watch what´s going on on screen without thinking too much about that what you are basically watching it´s a single guy taking on an army of nazis with just a shield. I dig that.



The movie is filled with winks to the reader and the Cap conoisseur, I even came up with the Little doddles of how many times and how they manage to reinterpret the whole “man & shield” idea. Thor was a very good movie about gods, this is about a soldier becoming a man out of time, if this helps to set the tone for the avengers in any way, I think we are in the clear. Also, this one was a lot better that Green Lantern, which I´m sure looked really neat on 3-D and what have you, but as a movie, it blows.

Chris Evans has now turned into some sort of household name for movies based on comic books, and even when he was pretty cool as the Human Torch in both FF movies I don´t see him putting too much into poor old Steve Rogers here. He just fits the role, let´s see what happens when Joss Whedon pairs him up with Robert Downey jr as Tony Stark in The Avengers.

My advice: go watch it, bring a bucket of pop corn and a large soda and prepare to have some nice 100 mins. Or so.

My thoughts on Inking.

Well, let´s put it this way, inking its a part of the comic book process as much as lettering it, there are great inkers on the business. I just don´t enjoy doing it.
That being said, once you´re in the ballroom all you can do is dance. It becomes fundamental when you are making black and White comics, but in the overall picture of the industry today it has become sort of an unnecessary trait.


It is true that back in the day it was mandatory in order to get the book to print because of the printing tecniques at the time. It wasn´t posible to reproduce pencil and make it look nice, especially when you consider that the artwork had to be reduced, hence the lines resulted thinner.

Anyway, technology overcame that problem and nowadays we can print straight from the pencils and even tweak them to give them a feel of ink. To me (personally) find inking to be a very taxing matter because it is actually drawing everything twice. It´s not only redundant but very time consuming.

On the other hand, when you face an inked page in your hands it looks just gorgeous. It adds some drama and even gravitas to the line, making it pop out of the page. If you happen to be doing comics in Black and White like I am, then you are in dire need of inking your work. Not only because it makes it look better, but because it helps you to become a more integral artist. So if you haven´t acquainted yourself with the media, you need to get at it, pronto.


Brushes become an obsession, you are constantly looking for the one that suits you better. You buy them in all sizes and shapes. Short bristles, long bristles, synthetic or real hair, flat or sable, you name it, it´s gonna end up in your bunch. When you are not familiar with the whole process it´s good for you to study a bit. Read a book or two, maybe even watch a few videos that you can find online, but above all…PRACTICE!

If you are not sure just make a search of some pencilled artwork on the net and then trace over it using india ink, a brush, a crow quill and/or some technical pens. Choose your poison and get to work.

Here you have a couple of examples I´ve made over time to get fluid when ink needs to be spilled. I chose two of my favorite artists and then traced over their sketches. Maybe if you don´t like the first time you do it you can do it again a couple more times, the thing it´s to become good when it comes to choosing the right line and line weight as it is your decision if you have more tan one posible option to go with.


Sometimes you just click and it flows, others it becomes a pain in your butt. I suggest that if you are trying to become a better inker just practice and then practice some more. You might not like it, but someone has to do it.

One thing I do to keep me interested in the process it´s keeping the page clean. By this I mean just working on a very loose layout when I´m inking my own work, that way I can finish the page on the inking stage. This allow me to keep drawing, even it is with the brush instead of the pencil. If I´m working with someone else then it´s a completelly different ball game. Then I try to keep very tight pencils, leaving room for the inker to choose the thickness of the lines and maybe dropping some shadows.


I don´t know, here I am, rambling about something no one asked me about. Well, I guess that´s the Price for having a voice and something to say. Boy, having a blog sure it´s fun [and it can be educative as well]!!!!
More to come.

Cautionary tale.

Ok lads, here´s a very good example of WHAT NOT TO DO when you suck at inking. You can have a pretty decent drawing in pencil and then, because of your lack of skills as an inker you completely ruin it.

Ok, maybe that´s one step too far, but you get my point.

This is what I get from trying to pull out a MIGNOLA and try to work with blacks in a way I´m not used to. Live and learn I guess.

Here you have the page in pencil stage, before my hand decided to deface it with a bush held hostage.



It´s not AMAZING but I kinda liked it. Well, another case of ´trial and error´

Movie Talk #8

SKYLINE [Don't look up alright, hell.. if you can don't look at all]

When I saw the trailer I remember thinking: “wow, that looks cool, it might be a good movie”

Boy was I wrong.

This his, hands down the stupidest movie I’ve seen this year. Not the worst mind you, but the most idiotic way of spending money I’ve seen in a long time. The worst movie of the year title goes to ‘The A-team’.

I still don’t know what the story of SKYLINE is all about. We are invaded by aliens that kidnap us to eat our brains. So I’ll take it that now we have taken the concept of the zombie one step further. Now they come from outer space.

Wow, I mean what a waste of resources and time, I demand that hour and a half of my life back. On the bright side, it wasn’t as long as the other stupidest movie ever, Avatar, that took three hours of my precious life away from me. I tell you, I’d rather die smoking than wasting my time in movies like this.

This is so based on the visual aspect of filmmaking that instead of Skyline it might as well been called “INDEPENDENCE DAY 2”. It’s equally stupid, poorly acted and filled with eye candy as that dreaded and miserable excuse for a movie as the other one.

It’s worthless to spend words talking about this piece of crap. The only thing I can suggest is for you to stay away from it for as long as you can. I wish they had placed a warning in the beginning saying something:

Disclaimer: the following movie was made for no reason. We didn’t have an idea of what we were doing other than showing up some neat special effects. Be warned that after it is over you might feel the need to punch something. As for the ticket money, well…we tricked you out of it, now it’s ours bitches.

Jesus, I was expecting to see the name Alan Smithee at some point, because let’s be serious, Who in his/her own mind would like to be associated with this?
Apparently they all did. Brett Ratner was somehow involved. That’s about all you need to know. I wish I’d known before hand just to skip it at once.

My advise: Don’t watch it under any circumstances. Not even if you like BAD movies.
I’ll recommend it as much as playing with a vile containing a sample o ebola.

We keep complaining that there are no new ideas in Hollywood (to me this is clearly not an original, because as I said before its Independence day 2) but if you plan to release new ideas like this one, I’ll happily sit and wait for the remake of ‘Gone with the wind’.

‘Nuff said.

EL OJO ENTRENADO, reseñas en español #2.

SCOTT PILGRIM vs THE WORLD (2010)
Que es lo que hace a una pelicula una Buena pelicula?
Que este bien actuada, bien dirigida, bien producida, bien fotografiada, que sea entretenida?
Cada uno tiene su propia idea al respecto, yo particularmente considero que lo minimo que se le pide a una peliula es que entretenga. Se supone que el cine es escapismo, que es abrir una ventana que nos permita salir de nuestra propia realidad por un espacio de entre 90 o 120 minutos.
Hay gente que no espera nada de nada cuando mira una pelicula y cada vez que terminan de verla exclaman mas o menos el mismo comentario: Que porqueria!

A que viene esta perorata?
Yo leo comics, juego video juegos, dibujo, tengo un vocabulario visual bastante amplio y trato de ver adaptaciones de materiales ajenos al cine con una mirada mas bien subjetiva.
Bien porque he leido el libro, o jugado el juego o leido el comic, lo que me hace estar familiarizado con el producto original y al final me predispone a generar una idea sobre como ha de lucir el producto terminado.

Basta de vueltas, Scott Pilgrim vs the world es un muy buen comic pero es una pelicula bastante dudosa por no decir mala (es que soy muy parcial por el director).

Incluso hoy donde 4 de cada 5 peliculas estan basadas en un comic uno ve una noticia de una nueva produccion y no puede evitar emocionarse. Esto mismo me paso cuando me entere que Scott pilgrim iba a ser una pelicula, dirigida encima por Edgar Wrigth (Shaun of the dead, Hot Fuzz, Spaced) pero mi duda fue la siguiente:

Como van a poner todo lo que pasa durante 6 tomos del comic en una pelicula que no dure 6 horas? (ademas, a la hora de filmar el ultimo volumen no habia salido a la venta, de manera que se puede decir que la historia no estaba terminada)

Scott es un vago canadiense de unos 25 años que se enamora de una chica americana que se llama Ramona Flowers. El problema es que la chica tiene 7 exe’s malvados que Scott tiene que derrotar en una pelea si quiere seguir saliendo con ella. Es asi que con la estuctura de un video juego los ex se van presentando y Scott tiene que pelear con ellos a la vez que va madurando cosas sobre la vida, pues al derrotarlos uno gana puntos de experiencia.


Al ver la pelicula me di cuenta que no es buena idea adaptar cualquier cosa, ni aunque se tenga la mejor intencion del mundo. Esta es una pelicula muy rara, tiene muchos altibajos, de a ratos es muy vertiginosa y por momentos se arrastra. La accion descolla, pero si uno no sabe el trasfondo de la historia del comic queda todo como muy descolgado. Wright hace el esfuerzo de explicar lo mas que pueda, pero para mi se queda corto, lo que causa que la pelicula sufra a largo plazo.

El nivel de produccion es impecable, el cuidado al detalle es asombroso, no es una pelicula improvisada hecha por el mero hecho de provechar una moda que parece dar resultado, de hecho le fue muy mal en la taquilla forzando un apurado lanzamiento en DVD y Blu-ray, mercado donde el director triunfa desmesuradamente. Es aqui donde sus peliculas encuentran a su publico y generan verdadera ganancia. Justo como le pasa a Kevin Smith.

Volviendo a la peli, mientras la veia yo mismo no podia creer lo que estaba viendo. No sabia que hacer, que sentir, que pensar, me descoloco. Una cosa siempre tuve en claro: esta historia funciona perfecto como comic book, pero no funciona ni un poco en el cine.
Ya sabemos que ambos medios manejan lenguajes diferentes y que aunque se las relacione porque son similares en ciertos aspectos un comic es algo que te permite hacer MUCHAS cosas que al hacerlas en vivo y verlas en la pantalla son habiertamente ridiculas.

Scott Pilgrim vs the World hubiera sido un exito y hubiera funcionado mucho mejor si en lugar de usar actores la hubieran hecho en animacion. Lo mismo le paso a “Kick Ass” mas temprano este año. Como comic fue una experiencia radicalmente nueva, como pelicula fallo miserablemente. No porque estuviera mal hecha, sino porque el concepto expuesto en un contexto mas realista en realidad no funciona. Creo que el ‘approach’ tendria que haber sido como esta haciendo Spielberg con Tin tin (ojala no le salga el tiro por la culata).

En ambos casos son dos peliculas que no recomiendo que vean a menos que les guste mucho el genero de las peliculas de comic o que sean familiares con los personajes o los conceptos que manejan. Gente normal va a quedar perpleja y/o digustada pues no estan hechas para un publico masivo. A la persona que mira una pelicula con Julia Roberts le digo que la deje pasar de largo, que ni la descargue pirata de internet y se ahorre el agravio.

Ahi se habre todo un debate en el que no me voy a meter ahora, pero si hacemos una pelicula basada en un comic es para abrir el mercado y tratar de que mas gente se acerque al material impreso gracias a lo amistoso del filmico; no?

Aca fallan las dos, despues de ver las peliculas en si estoy seguro que nadie se va a acercar a un comic por tener miedo a que sean “un bolazo” como las peliculas. Me remito al caso de Watchmen. Tambien una pelicula que si bien es fantastica no esta hecha bajo ningun concepto para el publico casual.

Yo tengo mis reservas, no se si la vere de nuevo pronto gracias a esto de dejarme perplejo por la montaña rusa narrativa a la que somete al observador.

En un mercado donde faltan ver: RED, Thor, Capitan America, Avengers y que se yo que mas, solo se me ocurre decir lo que decia Tu-sam...

...puede fallar.

P.D: Este ultimo poster fue hecho por mi amigo Martin Ansin para el estreno de la pelicula en la "Alamo Draft House", mano de obra Oriental de exportacion.

EL OJO ENTRENADO, reseñas en español.

MOVIE TALK #6 (or#7)
Buenas y bienvenidos a una nueva oferta donde obtienen DOS criticas de peliculas por el modico precio de una. Y porque llega a ustedes directo de fabricante en esta ocasion les agrego el hecho de estar escritas en español sin cargo adicional. Y por ser esta la primera vez le agrego a esta catarata de oportunidades muchas imagenes, para entretener la vista, porque como dice el dicho: mas vale DOS fotos de Milla Jovovich que Una de la mole Molly. ^_^’

Las victimas de esta edicion son dos peliculas de genero, una que tenia ganas de ver y una que no. Los nombres de las peliculas los voy a mantener en ingles, si surge alguna confusion para con ellos los invito a remitirse a los posters y de alli sacar como corno le han puesto a la pelicula en vuestro pais de origen.

Ahora a los bifes.

Arranquemos con MONSTERS, una pelicula que se podria encasillar en el genero de Survival/Horror (supervivencia/horror) cuyo mayor merito es que es una de esas peliculas que de vez en cuando llegan de la nada a sacudir el status quo de hollywood y todos los dinosaurios que hacen peliculas. De lugares como estos surgen los directores de la proxima camada, los que dentro de unos años van a estar dirigiendo el exito pochoclero del momento. Lo bueno del caso es que aca los podemos ver antes de que la corrupcion masiva del sistema los asimile. (ej: Matt Reeves y Cloverfield)

Esta es la sinopsis de la historia: “Hace seis años una sonda de la NASA que regresaba a la tierra con muestras de formas de vida alienigenas se destruyo sobre America central al ingresar en la atmosfera. Poco tiempo despues una nueva forma de vida aparece y Mexico es cerrado bajo cuarentena como zona infectada. Hoy, las fuerzas militares americanas y mexicanas luchan por contener a las “criaturas”...la historia comienza cuando un periodista americano debe escortar a una pobre turista americana a travez de la zona infectada para llevarla a la seguridad de los EE.UU” (sacado de imdb)

Bien, ahora resulta que la pobre turista es una joven que ademas es la hija del dueño de la publicacion para la que trabaja el periodista. Situacion que lo pone contra las cuerdas cuando el padre de la joven poco menos que lo obliga a llevarla de regreso aunque el prefiera quedarse a fotografiar bichos. Las cosas se complican cuando luego de una noche de tequila les roban los pasaportes, alejando asi las posibilidades de ingresar a America, o como la pintan sin decirlo “la tierra prometida donde todo esta bien y todos estan a salvo”. Alli es donde la unica opcion que les queda es hacer el viaje a lo mexicano; tratando de cruzar la frontera de manera ilegal.

La pelicula esta llena de alegorias sobre lo que es america y como la ven los mismos americanos al estar fuera. Tambien habla del permanente racismo y de los incontables esfuerzos que han hecho los gringos para mantener a los mexicanos del otro lado del rio grande. Gracioso es que gracias a la amenaza extraterreste los gringos se dieron el gusto de hacer aquella famosa muralla para mantener la frontera cerrada. Una muralla que hace quedar a la muralla china como una construccion playera.

Tambien tiene un nivel importante de efectos especiales que si bien se notan, no estan mal hechos. Que aporta este comentario? Historia de fondo. La pelicula es una idea del joven director Gareth Edwards, quien luego de haber dirigido unos especiales para la BBC se tiro de cabeza a filmar su primer largo. Siendo una compañia de produccion mas que minima, el escribe, dirige, es director de fotografia y encargado de efectos especiales. La forma de filmar fue mas bien al estilo guerrilla, donde metia a los actores y un par de tecnicos en una combi junto con las camaras, llegaban a un lugar y ahi nomas filmaban, a veces usando gente local como improvisados extras. A la noche, en su cuarto de hotel el joven director se abocaba a la confeccion de los efectos en su laptop con programas que se encuentran disponibles en cualquier Best Buy o su equivalente latinoamericano. Que quede claro, aca no hay Industrial light and magic o Digital Domain, ni siquiera Pixel liberation front, solo un tipo con su laptop. El producto es mas que digno, para hacer una comparacion vernacula, es parecido a lo que se hizo con “Ataque de panico”, pero se ve mucho mejor.

El unico punto flojo que yo le encontre es que la pelicula depende mucho de los personajes, de su relacion entre ellos y de nuestra posible empatia para con ellos. La verdad es que si bien hay quimica la que se come la pelicula es la chica. No hay nunca mucha onda de parte del muchacho, ya que nunca queda claro si el es como es porque ya es de naturaleza apatica o porque la vida lo ha golpeado mucho, la cosa es que se me hace un poco infumable. En conjunto hacen lo que pueden para llevar el peso de la historia y hacerla avanzar durante la hora y media que dura este experimento visual.

A los fanaticos del cine de aliens y explosiones ya les aviso que la pasen por alto, esta entra en la categoria de esas peliculas donde no pasa nada. No esperen explosiones y persecusiones ni nada de eso. La historia esta encarada desde otro angulo y contada de otra manera. Es mas, dentro de su propios margenes es increiblemente poetica, con muchos momentos de calma y silencios que nos dejan sordos al llenar la pantalla. Con grandes logros en el campo de la fotografia que ayudan a crear el ambiente opresivo que los rodea. De hecho hay un momento donde dos “monstruos” parece que copularan, y eso esta hecho con tanto tacto y belleza que hace que la verdad valga la pena.

No se cuando ni como se estrenara esta pelicula por estos lares, para mi tiene pinta de ir derecho a DVD. Como quiera que sea, yo la recomiendo, es una buena pelicula pero aun mejor, es un excelente esfuerzo por salir de lo comun y mostrar lo cotidiano dentro de un mundo que no existe...al menos no con extraterrestres. Muchas similitudes tematicas y tonales con “DISTRICT 9”, digo para el ojo mas entrenado.


Y ahora si...a lo bueno (sonrisa diabolica) RESIDENT EVIL: AFTERLIFE.


Yo me considero un critico, le guste a quien le guste, tengo muchas horas de peliculas y muchas criticas leidas como para tener una idea al respecto. Gracias a esto yo soy de seguir Directores, productores, guionistas, etc. Con esto quiero decir, para mi el actor es solo un elemento mas que se pone frente a la camara y se puede reemplazar tanto como un foco quemado, lo que realmente me importa a mi es quien esta detras de la camara.
Tambien a lo largo de los años y gracias a personas como Tarantino me he vuelto fanatico del Escritor/director, ya que el puede estar mas en control de todo lo que respecta a la historia pues la conoce intimamente.

Hay poca gente que sea constante, hay muchos directores que cambian de estilo segun el proyecto y hay algunos que no cambian nunca ni aunque les pongan una pistola en la cabeza. Aca entra en escena PAUL W.S. ANDERSON, un director cuyo mayor merito ha sido el de casarse con Milla Jovovich. El es un ejemplo de constancia...todo lo que hace apesta. Es un experto en tomar una idea medianamente interesante y convertirla en una basura total.

Parte de su filmografia incluye boñigas como: Resident Evil, Mortal Kombat, Soldier, Event Horizon, Alien vs Predator y la proxima a estrenarse Los tres Mosqueteros.
Para redondear, el tipo es un muerto que no puede dirigir ni el trafico en una pista de karting.

Esta entrega nos lleva a ver lo que ocurre luego de que un grupo de supervivientes huyera buscando un lugar seguro al final de la tercera, Resident evil: Extinction. Alice (Milla Jovovich) sigue viva y mas buena que levantarse tarde, y aun sigue buscando venganza sobre la terrible Umbrella corporation, culpable de la creacion del Virus-T y etc, etc.
Si nunca has visto ninguna de las otras peliculas o nunca has jugado ninguno de los video juegos lamento decirlo en este tono, pero: no tienes nada que hacer aqui, asi que vistete y largate.

Desde ya te adelanto, la pelicula no es buena ni a palos, no es tan infumable e insoportable como la tercera pero es de regular para abajo. El guion es una estupidez desde el primer momento en que alguien habre la boca con una linea de dialogo (no cuento voz en off) y a cada minuto se vuelve mas y mas imbecil. Como ya es clasico de Anderson roba de todo y lo hace de todos lados. Hay cosas de otras peliculas que van desde Indiana Jones, Duro de matar, Dawn of the dead y mucho, pero mucho de Matrix.

El dialogo es tortuoso, lleno de cliches de toda indole y va super bien acompañado por un nivel de actuacion que es lisa y llanamente desgarrador. No es que tenga ningun actor de renombre, pero parece que a nadie le importa un choto lo que estan haciendo porque no estan viendo mas alla del cheque con el que les van a pagar. La unica que tiene un minimo de onda es Jovovich, que se ve que la pasa barbaro haciendo volar cosas, cagando gente a patadas y tirando tiros con cara de mala. Tambien se ve que en este futuro las pistolas de mano van a poder disparar 400 tiros antes de recargar. Eso, y una pistola como la Desert Eagle tiene un poder de fuego del real carajo. Eso si, cuando la uso en Call of Duty no mata a nadie, pero bueh, se ve que en Hollywood todo es mejor.

La historia en si ya hace rato que se alejo de la historia de los juegos y sigue de esa manera, el unico punto que mantienen en comun son algunos de los personajes. Estan Claire Redfield (RE2), Chris Redfield (RE5) y el malo, Albert Wesker (RE4 y 5), en los creditos figura Jill Valentine (RE3), que ya habia aparecido en la segunda pelicula RESIDENT EVIL: APOCALYPSE, pero o no es la misma actriz o aparece como adorno en algun lugar. El otro personaje que hace su aparicion en esta pelicula es uno de los malos del juego RE5, el grandote del hacha gigante que no se como se llama. Un detalle que tiene en contra (si, otro mas) es que ya ni los personajes se parecen a sus contrapartidas en los juegos (bueno, el del hacha si) pero los demas no. Mirar foto por ejemplo, esos son los Redfield cinematograficos. NADA QUE VER!!!!


Aca la historia es un chiste, llena de lugares comunes y de momentos totalmente predecibles, no da respiro a la idiotez. Eso si, se notan mucho los momentos que tiene hechos pensando especialmente para el 3-D, pero como siempre, el 3-D no agrega nada, es solo un recurso mas para hacer algo un poco mas interesante visualmente. Pero en este caso ni eso la salva de ser una porqueria. Encima termina con un final tan abierto que solo le falta el ...CONTINUARA.
Una leccion que anderson nunca aprendio en la escuela de cine es la de cerrar una pelicula, sistematicamente TODAS las que ha hecho terminan abiertas, dejando lugar a una posible continuacion... Eso es tenerse fe canejo!
Otro detalle, la pelicula dura hora y media, pero si le descontamos todos los momentos que tiene a camara lenta y los ponemos a velocidad normal seguro que dura unos 45 min.

Si es tan mala para que la viste?
Simple, las he visto todas, RESIDENT EVIL, RESIDENT EVIL:APOCALYPSE, RESIDENT EVIL EXTINCTION, incluso RESIDENT EVIL DEGENERATION (la de animacion que hicieron los japoneses, que para mi gusto es la unica que merece llevar el nombre de RE), soy sobreviviente de Racoon City, 3 veces, tambien termine varias veces el RE4 y hasta jugue el RE5, me gustan los zombies y Milla, y siempre que puedo veo lo que hace este muerto de hambre del diretor para despues bardearlo (pero con propiedad)

Lamentable, una perdida de tiempo y dinero de esas a las que el costado mas verdulero de Hollywood nos tiene tan acostumbrados. No vale la pena en el cine, no vale la pena en DVD, no se si en cable, tal vez valga la pena cuando algun canal de aire la de un domingo a las tres de la tarde, doblada al español, despues de comer...

...como?
Que afuera esta lindo?
Deja entonces, no vale la pena ni ahi entonces.

En fin, asi esta la cosa, una de cal y una de arena.
Hasta que salga algo mas para ver los dejo con la frase de siempre...

...more to come.

ECLIPSE review.

Yay! Because nobody requested it, because nobody cares what I have to say; here's my two cents.

Just watched “ECLIPSE”, the third installment in the Twilight saga. Now, as a short disclaimer I haven’t seen anything form the other two besides the trailers.

This is the third one and I’m pretty sure that I got most of the story, what does THAT has to say about it?

So vampires are white and elegant and werewolves are Indian and poor (because they can’t afford shirts). A leading character of each side is in love with a regular girl, so in order for them to get her they fight each other and put their clans against one another. Except that the vampires of the clan Cullen are good hearted and they really don’t want to ruin the young girl’s life.

The whole thing is plagued with sexual innuendo because the girl it’s kinda horny but the one she chose to be with wants nothing to do with sex because apparently, he can really hurt her physically if they have intercourse before she gets turned (into a vampire, not ON). So instead he proposes to her and tells her that after they get married he will turn her into a vampire and just then they will consummate the relationship (because he is OLD school, I really don’t know if the pun is intended)

The wolf guy is horny for the chick but she wants nothing to do with him because she is in love with him but she refuses to admit it. So the guys struggle (with words) about a girl that loves both of them but wants to get laid with the one that can’t touch her.

I wouldn’t call myself a scholar or anything but I have seen and read my share of vampire stories and I think I have their mythology pretty well understood. That said:

I’ve never seen vampires that glitter in the sunlight.
Except counted cases I’ve never seen vamps that can walk freely under the sun.
I’ve seen them countless times burn down and turn to ashes. I have NEVER seen them break down like porcelain (is it because they are sensitive beings?)
I’ve never hear of someone turning into a vampire because he had a hand cut from a bloodsucker.
I never heard the expression: A newly born vampire is one of the most powerful entities in the universe…

…until now.

There’s a couple of things more, the vamps are loaded, presumably because they had such long lives and they might have learned a thing or two about money and the benefit of saving/investing. Also, they are beautiful, men and women, and oh, yeah, they are mostly young, even the elder ones look like they just graduated from high school.

Werewolves on the other hand are savages, walk around ‘naked’, have shitty cars and presumably no money. Not to mention brown skin and strong features. Also, they seem to stink. I hope I didn’t leave anything out.

As you all know the Twilight saga is intended towards an adolescent crowd, conformed mostly by girls. It doesn’t surprise me the fact that the story or the characters tell NOTHING to me, but that shouldn’t shock me or anyone because I’m not a teenager no do I have a vagina.

For some reason chicks love the idea of two handsome fellows fighting over them without getting any of it in return (but they are more than happy to give some of it away). In my times it was a lot easier to get laid or to get romantically involved, but has the movie succeeds pointing out: times change.

Also, there seems to be a sub-plot involving a series of murders in Seattle that lead into the creation of an army of vampires with the sole intention of getting Bella. It seems that there is always a reason to go after her, but that, like Luke Skywalker trying to be devoured by some creature, it’s just a given. Anyway, we care about the romantic plot, not the rest, don’t we?

A few years back we had a similar reaction from the female crow when ‘Interview with the vampire’ opened in theaters across the globe. It starred TWO very hot guys (Cruise and Pitt) and it also showed a sensitive side of these troubled creatures that drove them completely nuts. I mean, they even got turned on by Antonio Banderas as a gay vampire.
Of course, “Interview—“ is a great movie that I will happily watch at any time, while I will try to steer away from eclipse for the rest of my life. And to top the good news, they plan to end the saga by splitting the last book "Breaking Dawn" into TWO movies. Yeah, because we really need more!

Did I ever mentioned that the author of the books is a woman?

As sad and little and pathetic a human being as I can be I’m totally down for a romantic movie. Hell, I’ll take my girlfriend to see them if I had one. In this particular case, I feel sorry for the innocent guys that get driven into a theater to watch this because of the girlfriend.

All in all this is not a complete waste of time, even though the ‘special’ effects are laughable. It might be worth watching it in a Sunday afternoon, on the cable, locked in your house because a blizzard won’t let you out. Other than this scenario, don’t waste your time and specially your money on this.

Now, if you happen to be a teenage girl, like you should totally go and watch it…

…but let’s be real, girls like that don’t read this blog.

ECLIPSE.
Released by Summit Entertainment. 2010.
With: Kristen Stewart, Robert Pattinson, Taylor Lautner, Bryce Dallas Howard.
Directed by David Slade
Based on the novel by Stephenie Meyer.
Runnning time: 124 mins.
Format: Scope.

P.S: One good finding in this movie was Anna Kendrick, the girl I fell in love with in ‘Up in the air’, who also happens to be in ‘Scott Pilgrim Vs. the world’
The review comes late thanks to the retarded release schedule of movies in south America, a place where a movie titled “The expendables” winds up named “The indestructibles” Oh, the humanity!

About the End of LOST.

The journey it's over, but what happened really?

So LOST finally ended. Now what?!

After watching the ending I felt confused to say the least. I, like millions of people more was also a big fan of the show, and as much as I regret it, not from the very beginning. I started watching it halfway through season 2, right when they were coming back from the mid-season break. I wasn’t familiar with ANY of the concepts or any of the characters from the show, and to be honest I hadn’t met anyone who was actually following the show. But I started anyway and got hooked right away. So much so that after watching season’s 2 ending I went out and got me season 1 on DVD. I haven’t let go since then.


But then it ended, and instead of giving us straight answers it open more doors and let a lot of loose ends. To be honest, after the show ended I felt stupid. I wasn’t sure if it was me that just wasn’t able to follow the story or if they were way too smart and [the writers] crammed the finale with references and allegories that where evading my mind. It was like watching Evangelion all over again, following 22 episodes of robots fighting each other to suddenly being thrown into the mindscape of the characters. It didn’t make any sense at all.

I mean, I knew right there that I was stupid enough to realize that there were a million psychological implications to that ending that were fleeting me because of my inexperience in that field in particular and in life in general.

Flash forward to this, it baffled me to be in the same spot so many years later, after getting more experienced, after living and seeing so much. Was it me or was it them then?

Evidently there was something wrong. After the event pixels poured over the internet, they where the voice of disgruntled viewers, not only hardcore fans, but people that have been following the show over the years and now were left alone, clueless.


Truth be told, after investing yourself into a show for six years, you want something a little more fulfilling. Battlestar galactica comes to mind, after four seasons they managed to give you a better ending. It might or might not be the ending you where expecting or you might have wished for, but one thing was for sure, it was more solid than the one we got after six years of lost.

Yes, there are things that you have to find out for yourself. The thing with the good and evil, the recurrence of certain characters, the traits of the candidates and so on. It was all fun and games, until episode 6-17/18 – The End. Yes, they are all dead, but why and when did that happen?

I’m not gonna postulate any thoughts or ideas of my own, my head’s still trying to wrap itself around the whole thing (you see, I don’t want to feel robbed and disappointed, I just don’t) but I found this online. This is supposedly an explanation made by a guy who had allegedly worked on the show as a writer. Apparently he was sacked like three years ago but still knew what was going on from the inside.

There are too many if’s and loose ends and maybes, I hope this can shed a little light on the ones like me had a rough time with this. There are a few statements in this body that contradict some points of the show, but over all seems like a fine assessment over this convoluted finale.

I still wonder though; Why was Penny with Desmond in purgatory? ^_-

Here comes the whole chunk written by this guy (not me) with no name.

First … The Island:
It was real. Everything that happened on the island that we saw throughout the 6 seasons was real. Forget the final image of the plane crash, it was put in purposely to f*&k with people’s heads and show how far the show had come. They really crashed. They really survived. They really discovered Dharma and the Others. The Island keeps the balance of good and evil in the world. It always has and always will perform that role. And the Island will always need a “Protector”. Jacob wasn’t the first, Hurley won’t be the last. However, Jacob had to deal with a malevolent force (MIB) that his mother, nor Hurley had to deal with. He created the devil and had to find a way to kill him — even though the rules prevented him from actually doing so.
Thus began Jacob’s plan to bring candidates to the Island to do the one thing he couldn’t do. Kill the MIB. He had a huge list of candidates that spanned generations. Yet everytime he brought people there, the MIB corrupted them and caused them to kill one another. That was until Richard came along and helped Jacob understand that if he didn’t take a more active role, then his plan would never work.
Enter Dharma — which I’m not sure why John is having such a hard time grasping. Dharma, like the countless scores of people that were brought to the island before, were brought there by Jacob as part of his plan to kill the MIB. However, the MIB was aware of this plan and interferred by “corrupting” Ben. Making Ben believe he was doing the work of Jacob when in reality he was doing the work of the MIB. This carried over into all of Ben’s “off-island” activities. He was the leader. He spoke for Jacob as far as they were concerned. So the “Others” killed Dharma and later were actively trying to kill Jack, Kate, Sawyer, Hurley and all the candidates because that’s what the MIB wanted. And what he couldn’t do for himself.
Dharma was originally brought in to be good. But was turned bad by MIB’s corruption and eventually destroyed by his pawn Ben. Now, was Dharma only brought there to help Jack and the other Canditates on their overall quest to kill Smokey? Or did Jacob have another list of Canidates from the Dharma group that we were never aware of? That’s a question that is purposley not answered because whatever answer the writers came up with would be worse than the one you come up with for yourself. Still … Dharma’s purpose is not “pointless” or even vague. Hell, it’s pretty blantent.
Still, despite his grand plan, Jacob wanted to give his “candidates” (our Lostaways) the one thing he, nor his brother, were ever afforded: free will. Hence him bringing a host of “candidates” through the decades and letting them “choose” which one would actually do the job in the end. Maybe he knew Jack would be the one to kill Flocke and that Hurley would be the protector in the end. Maybe he didn’t. But that was always the key question of the show: Fate vs Free-will. Science vs Faith. Personally I think Jacob knew from the beginning what was going to happen and that everyone played a part over 6 seasons in helping Jack get to the point where he needed to be to kill Smokey and make Hurley the protector — I know that’s how a lot of the writers viewed it. But again, they won’t answer that (nor should they) because that ruins the fun.
In the end, Jack got to do what he always wanted to do from the very first episode of the show: Save his fellow Lostaways. He got Kate and Sawyer off the island and he gave Hurley the purpose in life he’d always been missing. And, in Sideways world (which we’ll get to next) he in fact saved everyone by helping them all move on …

Now…
Sideways World:
Sideways world is where it gets really cool in terms of theology and metaphysical discussion (for me at least — because I love history/religion theories and loved all the talks in the writer’s room about it). Basically what the show is proposing is that we’re all linked to certain people during our lives. Call them soulmates (though it’s not exactly the best word). But these people we’re linked to are with us duing “the most important moments of our lives” as Christian said. These are the people we move through the universe with from lifetime to lifetime. It’s loosely based in Hinduisim with large doses of western religion thrown into the mix.
The conceit that the writers created, basing it off these religious philosophies, was that as a group, the Lostaways subconsciously created this “sideways” world where they exist in purgatory until they are “awakened” and find one another. Once they all find one another, they can then move on and move forward. In essence, this is the show’s concept of the afterlife. According to the show, everyone creates their own “Sideways” purgatory with their “soulmates” throughout their lives and exist there until they all move on together. That’s a beautiful notion. Even if you aren’t religious or even spirtual, the idea that we live AND die together is deeply profound and moving.
It’s a really cool and spirtual concept that fits the whole tone and subtext the show has had from the beginning. These people were SUPPOSED to be together on that plane. They were supposed to live through these events — not JUST because of Jacob. But because that’s what the universe or God (depending on how religious you wish to get) wanted to happen. The show was always about science vs faith — and it ultimately came down on the side of faith. It answered THE core question of the series. The one question that has been at the root of every island mystery, every character backstory, every plot twist. That, by itself, is quite an accomplishment.
How much you want to extrapolate from that is up to you as the viewer. Think about season 1 when we first found the Hatch. Everyone thought that’s THE answer! Whatever is down there is the answer! Then, as we discovered it was just one station of many. One link in a very long chain that kept revealing more, and more of a larger mosiac.
But the writer’s took it even further this season by contrasting this Sideways “purgatory” with the Island itself. Remember when Michael appeared to Hurley, he said he was not allowed to leave the Island. Just like the MIB. He wasn’t allowed into this sideways world and thus, was not afforded the opportunity to move on. Why? Because he had proven himself to be unworthy with his actions on the Island. He failed the test. The others, passed. They made it into Sideways world when they died — some before Jack, some years later. In Hurley’s case, maybe centuries later. They exist in this sideways world until they are “awakened” and they can only move on TOGETHER because they are linked. They are destined to be together for eternity. That was their destiny.
They were NOT linked to Anna Lucia, Daniel, Roussou, Alex, Miles, Lupidis, (and all the rest who weren’t in the chuch — basically everyone who wasn’t in season 1). Yet those people exist in Sideways world. Why? Well again, here’s where they leave it up to you to decide. The way I like to think about it, is that those people who were left behind in Sideways world have to find their own soulmates before they can wake up. It’s possible that those links aren’t people from the island but from their other life (Anna’s parnter, the guy she shot — Roussou’s husband, etc etc).
A lot of people have been talking about Ben and why he didn’t go into the Church. And if you think of Sideways world in this way, then it gives you the answer to that very question. Ben can’t move on yet because he hasn’t connected with the people he needs to. It’s going to be his job to awaken Roussou, Alex, Anna Lucia (maybe), Ethan, Goodspeed, his father and the rest. He has to attone for his sins more than he did by being Hurley’s number two. He has to do what Hurley and Desmond did for our Lostaways with his own people. He has to help them connect. And he can only move on when all the links in his chain are ready to. Same can be said for Faraday, Charlotte, Whidmore, Hawkins etc. It’s really a neat, and cool concept. At least to me.
But, from a more “behind the scenes” note: the reason Ben’s not in the church, and the reason no one is in the church but for Season 1 people is because they wrote the ending to the show after writing the pilot. And never changed it. The writers always said (and many didn’t believe them) that they knew their ending from the very first episode. I applaud them for that. It’s pretty fantastic. Originally Ben was supposed to have a 3 episode arc and be done. But he became a big part of the show. They could have easily changed their ending and put him in the church — but instead they problem solved it. Gave him a BRILLIANT moment with Locke outside the church … and then that was it. I loved that. For those that wonder — the original ending started the moment Jack walked into the church and touches the casket to Jack closing his eyes as the other plane flies away. That was always JJ’s ending. And they kept it.
For me the ending of this show means a lot. Not only because I worked on it, but because as a writer it inspired me in a way the medium had never done before. I’ve been inspired to write by great films. Maybe too many to count. And there have been amazing TV shows that I’ve loved (X-Files, 24, Sopranos, countless 1/2 hour shows). But none did what LOST did for me. None showed me that you could take huge risks (writing a show about faith for network TV) and stick to your creative guns and STILL please the audience. I learned a lot from the show as a writer. I learned even more from being around the incredible writers, producers, PAs, interns and everyone else who slaved on the show for 6 years.
In the end, for me, LOST was a touchstone show that dealt with faith, the afterlife, and all these big, spirtual questions that most shows don’t touch. And to me, they never once waivered from their core story — even with all the sci-fi elements they mixed in. To walk that long and daunting of a creative tightrope and survive is simply astounding.

Movie Talk #5 (this time it's two for one)

Shutter Island & The Book of Eli.

So, here is the deal, because I now live in a ‘third world country’ the release dates for the movies are not quite the same as the ones for the states. I also happen to work in a small theater and that means that unless the company that makes the distribution of the pictures has enough number of copies available I don’t get the movie right away. Point in case, last week I was able to see ‘Shutter Island’ and this week it was the turn of ‘The book of Eli’. Just to paint you a better picture, apparently here ‘Where the wild things are’ hasn’t even been released yet, oddly enough ‘Iron man 2’ opened here 1 WEEK before than in the USA.


Anyway, I was more than happy to finally watch the latest Scorsese movie, being that he is a tremendous director and I’m a big fan. Now, what is there to say about a psycho-thriller? That there is going to have suspense? A twist at some point? That it’s going to be scary?
Well, yes, mark all of the above, it’s all there. What we can also say by this point in life is that Scorsese it’s not a writer/director, he’s like Ridley Scott, he takes a book or a play or even another movie from someone else and then remake it/adapt it to make his own vision. In that sense he is in a whole other league than people like Tarantino, Kevin Smith, Robert Rodriguez and the likes. Of course this doesn’t mean that any of the listed above lack talent or anything like that, just that their M.O. it’s different, hence the final product has a different taste in your mouth.

The story is based on a novel written by Dennis Lehane and it’s set in 1954. With this comes a crime noir sort of style that works as a compliment to the story. An U.S. Marshall (Di Caprio) gets via ferry to an island/prison to investigate the disappearance of an inmate. As soon as he reaches shore he is greeted by looks of mistrust and defiance, that’s never good.
As he starts the investigation we are presented with all sorts of ‘colorful’ characters ranging from inmates, guards, nurses and doctors. The atmosphere there is a mix between Mengele’s lab and Arkham Asylum, as the story unfolds we start thinking about what is real and what’s not, and as we fall into Di Caprio’s shoes we also start to doubt everything about that and those that surround us.

Now to the meat of the whole thing, if you give a tailor sheets you can’t ask him to make a tuxedo for you out of it, now can’t you? With the distinction between director and writer/director I made before I was trying to make a point; Scorsese is clearly a film maker, and a damn good one too, but the story falls short (for my taste, that is). The atmosphere he creates it’s very oppressive, he carefully selects the shots that will help to that end, managing the soundtrack to match and using the lights to convey different emotions (hats off to the photographer too), he knows the tricks on the book, and he has a very good and big book.

The main problem here is on the acting level, there is very little of that in this Island, and if there is some I’m afraid that it isn’t very good. Di Caprio is doing the same character he’s been doing since circa ‘The Aviator’ and I’m extremely sure that is the same character he’s playing in ‘Inception’ after doing something like ‘What’s eating Gilbert Grape’ it’s very sad to see that he became a one trick pony. Ben Kingsley hasn’t done anything even close to remarkable since ‘Ghandi’, so, sorry Sir. And all the rest are just filling gaps here and there.
There is one though, the talented one that gets better and better every time and still has his name out of the marquee; Mark Ruffalo proved once that he can sustain a movie without having the lead role (he did that in Fincher’s ‘Zodiac’) and here he does it again. Eat your heart out Bill Paxton!

Now whether you should or shouldn’t watch this movie it’s as usual entirely up to you. It is a little predictable when it would have been better it wasn’t, the acting is poor but it looks gorgeous. I’ll say that it might work of you want to see it on DVD, and maybe more than once, because as you watch it over and over you start to see things you missed the first time and now they make all the sense in the world and in this twisted game.
Like I said before, a tailor can’t make a tux from sheets, but maybe he can give you some damn good shirts and summer trousers.
I like Scorsese better when he comes sans Di Caprio.



Now for the other one. There is something unexplainable about post-apocalyptic landscapes that I find extremely alluring. Every time I see a movie with this premise I watch in awe and I’m amazed by the sheer beauty of total desolation and utter destruction. What doctor? I’ll be right wit’cha.
I mean, I as an artist believe that it takes twice the effort to create destruction than it takes to create something nice and perfect, but that's just me.

Earlier this year (or close to the end of last) we had two movies set in the same post-apocalyptic future; on one hand we had ‘The Road’ and on the other ‘The book of Eli’. Now, as ‘The Road’ was a sort of ‘reaction’ film ‘The book of Eli’ is an ‘action’ one. Why so?
In the first one the characters did everything they did when they were reacting to what was happening around them, in the second one they take action as a way to make things happen, now THAT’S a difference.

Also, this happens to be an Action flick, with arms, knives and nine ways to blow up stuff ‘till Sunday. The other thing about this movie that I liked is that it ALSO has a story.

Denzel Washington is a man with a mission in more than one way. He is carrying a book, a copy of the last bible in existence (if you couldn’t guess it, then it is a spoiler) trying to take it to the west, where the little voices he hears in his head tell him to go. He comes across a little town run by Gary Oldman, who happens to be on the hunt for a certain book, heh heh, wink, wink.
Now, Mr. Oldman says; I want that book,
Mr. Washington says: well, you can’t have it.

And there you have the conflict. It is very clear that when the world comes to and end the answer is to walk, to walk a lot and as Mr. Walker would say it, keep walking. So Eli (Denzel) does just that. I the way he finds other people, because let’s face it, what would it be of a post-apocalyptic future without people trying to eat each other?
Let me tell you, when the end comes the vegetarians and vegans are gonna regret being the way they are.

Anyway he travels around carrying this book and killing in order to protect it, we see how he eats, lives, moves and ‘showers’ in these desperate times. Somehow he has an ipod, a generation one or two that still works (with the longest battery life in human history) and a little device he uses to charge it (you don’t wanna walk forever without music) and that drives him into the aforementioned town ruled by Carnegie (Olman).

What is the thing that you can’t get easily and the more you have the more you want?
If you said sex, shame on you!! If you said Power, bingo. Oldman is looking for this particular book, a book that gives you the power to make all the ignorant people that survived the last 30+ years do your biddings without asking, the kind of book with the power to transform a group of ignorants into a flock of believers, you catch my drift?

So they exchange wits and gun shots all thought the movie. The directors are the Hughes brothers (Albert and Allen), the same ones that raped and mutilated ‘From Hell’ back in 2001, but this time they seem to have learned something and they use it in this movie. There is a clear influence from the “Michael-Bay-school-of-blowing-stuff-up-adorning-it-with-fancy-camera-moves” but there is also a lot of road movie, pardon me, good road movie. They made such an improvement on their work that today they are making the kind of action movie that I’m sure people like Paul W.S. Anderson or Roland Emmerich would like to do themselves (If they had any trace of talent).

The religious tone of the movie is not that bad, at least not as bad as to make me want to ignore it, and although it is ‘preachy’ it never gets to the point of getting annoying.

All in all it’s fun to watch, and it also has a message, not necessarily the one you might think at first but still a valid one. In fact I think that depending from what standpoint you decide to see it it might actually have more than one. I choose to take this one: “there is hope even when there isn’t”
Totally worth having it on DVD, not a masterpiece but at least entertaining, and with a lot more acting on it that ‘Shutter Island’.

Here I leave you with my favorite line of the whole movie. It comes from an exchange between Carnegie and his right hand man, Redridge:

Carnegie: To his men "Search for them"
Redridge: For a fucking book?
Carnegie: IT'S NOT JUST A FUCKING BOOK, IT'S A WEAPON AIMED AT THE HEARTS AND MINDS OF THE WEAK AND DESPERATE, IF WE'RE TO RULE ONE MORE SMALL FUCKING TOWN, WE NEED THAT BOOK, PEOPLE WILL COME FROM ALL OVER THE WORLD IF THE WORD'S FROM THE BOOK!

Up next: Robin Hood by Ridley Scott (I hope)

Movie Talk #4

IRON MAN 2
small review by yours trully.


So I got to see Iron man 2 and in spite of what other critics might say, I give it two big thumbs up. Let’s do something really easy here and stipulate that this is not the first Iron man. That’s obvious you might say, well, for some people it’s not.

The first one was fun and entertaining and what not, so far all I’ve read about it it’s that it’s not like the first one. Well, DUH! That’s the first mistake a lot of critics do, they compare it right away with the previous one because it requires less thinking…way to go!!!

This one is very good on its own feet, I think that Jon Favreau (the director) is doing on hell of a job on this franchise, and leading up to ‘The Avengers’. Looks like it will be HIM the one directing it, so I’ll say: kudos to you Jon, kudos.

There are a million things for the fan in this one, more so that in the first one, they are too many to enumerate without spoiling the movie, but here’s one you can see in the trailer; remember back in the day when Tony traveled with the suit in a briefcase? Well, that’s in the movie, updated to today standards of course, but it’s there. What it’s not there specifically but you can feel it in spirit it’s the whole thing from “Demon in a bottle”, with Stark falling into a down ward spiral of self destruction because he becomes a drunk, something like that happens here and just like it happened in the comics it leads to the creation of War-Machine.

There is one thing I really want to rescue from here, there is a sequence with Iron man, nick Fury and the Black Widow (never referred to as such) in a donut store that transported me into the future and gave me a tease of what the Avengers will look like. I tell you this right now, the Marvel universe being more fantastic and unrealistic that the DC one works better on film than anything else around, when the Avengers movie hits the ground it’s gonna remove Avatar from the top spot in the history of box office, mark my words.

It’s pointless to talk about what the movie its about, they all do it, what we should talk about it’s about how well done it is, how entertaining it is and what an excellent follow up it is to the first one. I think that if you are doing movies about/adapted from comics, these two should be a sort of template for directors to follow, because dear old Jon here it’s taking something old and making it fresh and new, entertaining and exhilarating to new viewers and old fans of good ol’ shell head.

Long story short, go see it, enjoy it and stay all the way till the credits end, if you do there will be a little something for you.

Note: as I played the movie in the theater I work it was dubbed in Spanish, and let me tell you this, you can perceive that the movie its good, but missing the voices of the actual actors makes you loose part of their performance. In that aspect, the movie sucked big time, the work on the voices of the Spanish actors it’s lame to say the least. Wherever you are, whatever language you speak, do the effort and go see it in English. Right now for me the movie it’s a solid 7, I’m sure that when I watch it in English it will bump it up to at least an 8.5 or 9. ‘Nuff said.

Here is a little token of my affection, the first official picture released from the THOR movie and the poster of Captain America, in order the next two Marvel movies before we get to see all of them together in the same frame in 'THE AVENGERS'

Chris Hemsworth as THOR, the god of thunder

and Chris Evans as Captain America, the first Avenger.

Movie Talk #3

Cloverfield Charrua style



You simply have to look at this video!

This is an internet sensation, made in Uruguay by a young commercial director. Reportedly the production cost was around 300 dollars, not including the software of course (3-D studio and After effects). This just shows than when you have what it takes (creativity) all you need is talent and support. Kudos to Fede Alvarez, the director, and the best of luck in his upcoming movie (he signed with Ghost House, Sam Raimi's production company).

Maybe he needs a storyboard artist?

Movie Talk #2

UP IN THE AIR
Everything changes.


I was finally able to watch the only movie I was expecting this season, and I have to say; ‘I was right’ it is the only movie worth watching right now.

Ryan Bingham (George Clooney) works for a company that fires people when their employers lack the backbone to do it themselves. This keeps him in a very busy schedule that takes him out of home for the better part of the year. He flies all the time, and has his whole life set around those parameters. He’s a very practical person detached of everything, that includes baggage, material stuff, people, even relationships. In fact, the only kind of relationship he has is with Alex Goran (Vera Farmiga) who also happens to be a road dog, just like him. Their scheduled meetings (product of their similar flying patterns) become the closest thing he has to a regular relation.

Everything changes when his company hires a young new talent just graduated from Cornell to improve the methods they use to do their job. Enter Natalie Keener (Anna Kendrick) who has devised a new system that uses web cams and an internet connection to do what was usually done in person, i.e.: fire people. Ryan feels threatened by this and before he knows it he is assigned to show Natalie the ropes of the business, and thus, they become road buddies.

Here we get to see the differences between both, and they go way beyond the mere age gap, they have very different approaches to both, life and work. Here we get to know each other and the way they act by themselves and around others.

The central theme of the movie is change and how it happens before our eyes even when we don’t want it or are not prepared for it. We can see change happening in Clooney’s face when something major happens or when he comes to the realization that something is not right.

The fact is that we all change, we are not the same person we were two or three years ago, but we are not always aware of how we have changed, this movie offers the chance to take a look at ourselves and explore the past with fresh eyes.

We are all three characters, Ryan, Alex and Natalie, we are or have been in their emotional shoes at one point or another of our lives. We were young idealists with a mapped out plan for our future, and as we come of age we discover that life doesn’t work in those terms, it doesn’t have deadlines, and just like everything else, life and its priorities change, and we also have to do it in order to keep up with it.

At one point Ryan says “moving is living” and that’s just what we have to do, we have to move on.

This is also about alienation, most importantly, about self-alienation and how it affects our lives and our relationships. We all need to make connections, because as they say, life is better with company.

This is what movies should be, for once we are able to care for the characters, when Natalie (in a groundbreaking performance by Kendrick) disappears from the picture for a while, I missed her. This is more than just mere escapism, these are real people, and as such, we care for them. I mean, how invested can you be about Sherlock Holmes when you know for a fact that he is going to solve the case and catch the bad guy? His name is on the title of the movie for crying out loud!

Here is an opportunity to go to the movies, have a good time and get something out of it.
At the end of it we can just go back to our daily routines, but it’s not the same, because in the end, we are the ones that changed.

Up in the air. Paramount pictures. Rated R (for language and sexual content). Running time: 109 minutes.
Directed by Jason Reitman (director of Thank you for smoking and Juno)

AVATAR, the last tree hugger?

Last night I was able to watch Avatar in a special showing. I’m not gonna tell you what the movie is about, as in the details of the story and the names of the characters and all that, you can find all that info somewhere else. My point is this, Cameron didn’t do anything since Titanic, like 12 years ago, or so, it’s the wait worth?



Is this the next best thing?

I’m not gonna lie, I was a little disappointed. I am a huge fan of James Cameron and everything that live in his little blue world. I was eager to see his latest ‘masterpiece’, or as the media puts it ‘the next best thing to ever happen to humanity’

And you know what?

I’m glad I did, so I got that out of the way. Now I can concentrate in movies that actually have meaning, ‘Up in the air’ here I come…

Avatar is just a visual feast running on steroids. I saw it in IMAX 3-D and all, and yet, It didn’t knocked me out of my boots. In a nutshell, it feels like going to church and being preached about saving the planet for three hours. The only difference is that here, things explode more often.



Yes, we are human, whatever we touch we destroy, we kill, we maim, we are materialistic machines driven only by greed, and we don’t have enough destroying our planet, we go around the universe destroying other people’s planets.

We go to Pandora, and because it has something shiny that we like we decide to kill everything in sight… and destroy the forest.

Cameron used Richard Taylor and all the people at Weta (the ones behind the effects on Lord of the Rings) to create an entire world filled with very weird and colorful creatures, the whole thing looks amazing, I mean, with this people involved that is a given, but still, it feels like a very nice looking egg with pretty much nothing inside.

It’s kind of sad for me to say this, but this movie feels more like a Roland Emmerich one, only with more money and talent.

Millions are going to watch it, the movie it’s gonna make a lot of money (although I doubt that it’s gonna cover the 300 million it cost to film) some people is going to hate it and some are going to love it. Hopefully most of us will walk out with our own impression and ideas about it after seeing it, and that is a good thing.



All I want to say is, if you are going to watch it, see it in IMAX, the difference it’s not gonna be too dramatic but at least the screen it’s bigger. If you are in doubt, let it pass, you can always watch it in DVD (it is going to look gorgeous in Blu-ray) in the comfort of your house, without paying 14 bucks a pop and the over priced candy, but it will still look good.

The rest, we can probably live without Avatar, the most expensive Greenpeace commercial ever shot.

Disclaimer: For those of you wondering. No, I'm not Roger Ebert, Axel Kuschevatzky, Guillermo Hernandez or even the ever lousy Jeffrey Lyons, but I like movies too and I'm not afraid to say what I think about them, if you don't like it, just don't read it.