|
June 23, 2009 |
Animated Links
The 50 Greatest Simpson Movie References
TotalFilm.com has assembled collection of side-by-side style comparison screens of 50 movie references pulled from 20 years of The Simpsons. It's an impressive effort, despite the shaky quality of the screen-grabs. "The beautifully observed homages vary from blink-and-miss single frames to shot-by-shot recreations of entire scenes."
The Chairs
Pixar lovin' furniture nerd Jim Unwin has put together a single-page showcase of chairs from The Incredibles. "I loved the depth of the world, the buildings, the gadgets and most of all I loved the chairs."
The Terrible Thing of Alpha-9!
The powerfully entertaining Alpha-9 is illustrator Jake Armstrong's thesis for the School of Visual Arts. Details here. Jake's blog here.
Up Color Script
Former-Pixar production designer Lou Romano has posted his "color script" for the movie Up. It is indeed glorious material. Also tossed in sketches from his research trip to Tepui Venezuela, rough video tests, desktop dioramas, development materials from The Incredibles, etc etc.
|
|
June 16, 2009 |
Conan is God
From vimeo: "Civilization is a video installation we created with artist/director Marco Brambilla for the elevators Standard Hotel in NYC. It's comprised of over 400 video clips and it takes elevator passengers on a trip from hell to heaven as they go up or from heaven to hell as they go down."
From the Marco Brambilla site: "Civilization depicts a journey from hell to heaven interpreted through modern film language using computer-enhanced found footage. This epic video mural contains over 300 individual channels of looped video blended into a multi-layered seamless tableau of interconnecting images that illustrate a contemporary, satirical take on the concepts of Heaven and Hell."
Photos + details right here
|
|
June 3, 2009 |
Squirrel!
Pixar's Up puts a cap on the Many Movies of May series (Wolverine = 1st, Star Trek = 2nd, Terminator: Salvation = 3rd). There's a sort of geek prerogative to nitpick these sci-fi/action/adventure comic book movies. It's why "the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" isn't "the Good, the Pretty Good, and the Bad". Movies in the genre of Up, however, don't lend themselves particularly well to the GBU format. Still:
The Good:- Characters, story, music, visuals - it all sparkles.
- Refrained from fart and poopy jokes and pop culture zingers that are the usual bread-and-butter of (non-Pixar) CGI films these days. I'm all for fart/poopy/zingers, but it's nice to get an animated break once in a while.
- The talking dogs were terrific. That sorta thing takes a light touch, and these guys were handled just right.
- The "Partly Cloudy" animated short that plays before the feature was one of Pixar's best.
The Bad:- The details of Russell's family life were too hazy and superfluous.
The Ugly:- Not a fan of the goofy easter eggs Pixar puts in these movies. The half of my brain searching for the Toy Story pizza delivery truck (which it never found) prevented me from being completely absorbed by the story.
Overall, Up is another fine Pixar work. These guys are crankin' out art wrapped protective sheath of family entertainment. The talent that company has amassed boggles the mind.
Against the other Pixar films, it loses points for not involving superheroes, robots, monsters, or animated toys. It's a goofy story, brilliantly executed.
Against the other Many Movies of May, we'd put Up right behind Star Trek, (then Terminator, then a distant Wolverine).
See Also:
Lou Romano blog Production Designer - not to be missed.
Pixar official site
Up official movie site
|
|
June 1, 2009 |
You are the resistance.
Batting third in our Many Movies of May series is Terminator: Salvation (Wolverine = 1st, Star Trek = 2nd). T:S packed a punch, but failed to achieve the heights of the first two Terminator movies. Blew that third Rise of the Machineschapter straight out of the water, however.
The Good:- Finally, a Terminator set in the post-apocalyptic future. It took three of these things (and a TV series) to get us when we should've been after the first.
- No deficiencies to report in the following departments: robots, explosions, fightin'.
- The action sequences didn't needlessly suffer from extreme close-ups and choppy editing that's so trendy these days. There's a chopper crash in the first act goes down in one long, continuous shot that's a marvel to behold. Safety Tip: when boarding a helicopter, check for John Conner. If Conner = true, brace for impact.
The Bad:- Anton Yelchin as Kyle Reese is an odd choice, though he's better here than as Chekov (in the JJ Abrams Star Trek).
- Connor is portrayed as a legend in his own time, which felt erroneous. The guy is mysteriously plagued by the Neo-like burden of having his Savior of Humanity status called into question by High Command. Irritating.
- The Skynet-run terminator HQ featured computer and control interfaces designed for humans. Convenient. Pretty nerdy you even noticed.
The Ugly:- Christian Bale screen time is entirely too short.
- There's a spunky little kid named Star who should've been left on the cutting room floor. Thankfully, she was mute, which kept the damage to a minimum.
- Did not need the ridiculous Matrix Reloaded-style chat-with-your-machine-maker exposition.
Overall, Terminator: Salvation was more fun than expected. Familiarity with the franchise will greatly increase overall enjoyment.
The final May Movie is Up. Trailers for this guy fail to appeal on any level. The Pixar track record, however, must not be ignored.
See Also:
Terminator: Salvation Official website
Anton Yelchin
Skynet Research (viral cleverness)
Terminator Files
|
|
May 15, 2009 |
The Computational Knowledge Engine
Wolfram Alpha has launched.
It's a new-fangled "computational knowledge engine". And possibly an early version of the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. The premise is deceptively straightforward: ask a question, get answers. Wikipedia explains Wolfram Alpha as "an online service that answers factual queries directly by computing the answer from structured data, instead of providing a list of documents or web pages that might contain the answer".
This isn't a system for finding answers, or directing users to websites with answers (in the style of Google). This thing computes the answers - pulled right from its very own crackling labyrinth of circuitry and Tesla coils and vacuum tubes. TechCrunch has a pretty thorough low-down. Interesting stuff.
Takes a few minutes of fiddling about with it before the possibilities really come into focus.
|
|
May 13, 2009 |
"... disease and danger wrapped in darkness and silence."
Star Trek goes down as the second in our Many Movies of May series (Wolverine = 1st). The ST trailers promised super crazy sci-fi action, and the end result did not disappoint:
The Good:- The entire movie looked great - set designs, computer interfaces, ships, the whole futuristic enchilada - all very slick.
- Hardly a weak note in the cast. Spock and Bones were ridiculously spot-on. Kid Kirk filled Shatner's swarthy captain shoes admirably.
- The abundant special effects coupled with energetic cinematography and sound design formed a relentless three-pronged assault on the senses. Which was awesome. Dialing up the Nerd a bit, it felt like a two-hour version of the sensation I get the first few minutes after walking into an unfamiliar comic book store (sans the wonderful paper and cardboard smell).
The Bad:- The action sequences were occasionally too zoomed-in (with, quick shaky-cam cuts) to track, though not nearly on the level of the impossible-to-follow action in the Bourne Ultimatum or Quantum of Solace. Still, this is a trend that must be stopped.
- Chekov was kind of a weak note in the cast.
- Lacking anything in the way of a quiet moment allowing viewers to catch their breath and just bask in a big-budget future. Spock and Uhura share some down time (pun!) in an elevator, but I couldn't stop trying to scope the elevator menu interface or nifty lighting scheme behind them.
- The villain and his evil scheme felt a bit run-of-the-mill.
The Ugly:
- Not a fan of the Nokia product placement - even if it was part of an "antique" car. The "Slusho" reference was ok, though it whipped me right out the movie.
Overall, the Star Trek reboot (as it is known) gets an enthusiastic thumbs-up. Didn't mind the plot holes, certainly didn't mind the bad science - we signed up for lasers and explosions and fighting and snappy dialogue, and that's what was delivered - wrapped in a shiny, futuristic package. Looking forward to the sequel.
Terminator: Salivation is on deck the weekend after next. Directed by this "McG" fella, who has a shaky track record with those Charlie's Angels movies. The hip pseudonym fails to instill confidence. Still, hard to screw up a post-apocalyptic future brimming with killer robots. It's almost a winner by default.
See Also:
Star Trek Official website
The Star Trek Failure Generator
Slusho Official Site (JJ Abrams "viral" cleverness)
Bad Astronomy's Star Trek review
Voltron on Wikipedia (because this stupid review originally referenced a Voltron of sensory overload in the third "Good" bullet. Voltron, however, was comprised of five mighty lion robots, and FX + cinematography + sound design only amounted to three. The reference crumbled under my lazy inability to conjure two additional metaphoric lions)
|
|
May 6, 2009 |
Noma Spock
The May 2009 issue of Esquire magazine is going to run an extremely cool (and limited edition) Star Trek cover by illustrator Noma Bar. That's impressive simplicity. Works even without the Vulcan "What up?" hand sign (though quirky faces are kind of Noma's shtick).
XL version right here.
|
|
May 6, 2009 |
"Become the animal."
This May is a wallet-buster at the theaters. I say cash money be damned; here's the master plan: X-Men Origins: Wolverine (May 1st), Star Trek (May 8th), Terminator: Salvation (May 22nd), Up (May 29th). Would've been rockin' a movie every single weekend, but Angels and Demons is the big draw for the 15th, and that looks to be a renter. Big Man Japan is also out that weekend, but I'm doubtin' it'll see a release wide enough to encapsulate any theaters in the Detroit area. Therefore, "renter" status by default.
Last night ($6 Tuesdays at local theaters - cash money be not totally damned) we kicked off the month with Wolverine.
The Good:- Hugh Jackman continues to absolutely shine in the role - guy was born to play Logan. He's clearly enjoying himself, which makes him fun to watch.
- Completely fantastic opening credits (Wolverine and his bro fighting in various wars across time).
- Strong first act.
- Plenty of adamantium claw action.
The Bad:- Sabretooth's use of hands when "running" never looked right.
- More than a bit too heavy with the dramatic posing and screaming at the sky. Those items should be capped at one each.
- The script could be painfully clichéd at times. Example: "Are we having fun yet?" and "Well, well, well, look what the cat dragged in."
The Ugly:- I assume they've been working on this movie for 20 years, because half the special effects looked as if they were made in 1989. Reminded me of one of those el cheapo Sci-Fi Channel original movies. Nobody saved the "AwesomeSteelClaws.fx" files after the other three X-movies?
- They play it pretty loose with the origin. The comics don't actually fare much better in terms of a back-story for the character, though they manage a way better job with the memory loss issue than the lazy, clumsy device used in the movie.
Overall, Wolverine was right on par with X-Men 3. The character deserves better but as comic book movies go, while it failed to achieve Batman 2 or Iron Man heights, it wasn't nearly so bad as Ghost Rider or Elektra. io9 has a (spoiler filled) review that's pretty much on the mark.
Onward and upward to Star Trek.
See Also:
X-Men: Origins: Wolverine
Star Trek
Big Man Japan
Angels and Demons
Terminator Salvation
Up
|
| COLLECTING HQ | MORE NEWS
|
|
