Random Factoid #400

1 09 2010

As you might have noticed, I watch a lot of movies.  Just how many?  I’ve found myself wondering the same question on multiple occasions.  However, I never actively pursued a guesstimate number of how many movies I have seen in my lifetime until I saw Cinematical‘s post on the death of Gwilym Hughes.  Recognize the name?  Perhaps you should, and here’s why:

The world record-holder for movie watching has died. Gwilym Hughes, 65, watched more than 28,000 movies in his lifetime and held the Guinness World Record since 2008, according to BBC News. Hughes didn’t see his first film until he was 8 years of age, but more than made up for lost time, averaging 10 to 14 films per week in his later years. That works out to an average of 500-700 movies per year (?!). Hughes, a painter and decorator, kept detailed records on every movie he saw.

Can you imagine?  2 movies per day!  Don’t get me wrong, I love to watch them as much as anyone.  But movies are a nice treat for me, something that I enjoy doing to escape from the stress of my normal life.  If I watched them that much, I think they would lose a certain entertaining quality that is quite crucial.

Here’s a special confession on this my 400th day of blogging.  I’ve been waiting for the right time to reveal this side of my obsession, and Hughes’ death seemed to be an appropriate time to bring this part of me to the surface.

I keep a VERY detailed record of my moviewatching activity in a series of PowerPoints.  I make one for every year, keeping a track of all the movies I see released in that year.  I order them first by date, then in alphabetical order.  A slide looks something like this:

The color scheme is on a three-year rotation.  I also add animation to the slides for the rare occasion that I actually want to browse the PowerPoint in slideshow mode.  Heard enough?  I think I’ve written enough…

Anyways, I have kept one slideshow per year for every year of the 2000s (I only started in 2004) and have one slideshow for the three decades prior.  From each of these slideshows, I’ve come up with a rough estimate that I have seen between 1,500 and 1,800 movies in my lifetime.  I’m not going to go through and count each one because that would be an incredibly time consuming, and fairly unrewarding, process.

So what’s your estimate?  At almost 18, do you think you had seen as many movies as I have?





Random Factoid #399

31 08 2010

I’m a huge Lost fan (and this whole movie blogging gig has kept me from watching the final season … grr), but I would never be THIS obsessed.  According to Entertainment Weekly, a theater in Britain will be showing all 80 hours of the show in one sitting!  I can’t even imagine sitting in a theater for more than 3 days.

Although some people are willing to take their love to the extreme, everyone shows it in some way.  Face it, we all have our obsessive moments when it comes to pop culture.  Don’t try to hide it.

My ultimate feat is watching an entire season of “24” in one day, virtually uninterrupted.  But when it comes to movies, my binges are less impressive.  I have always wanted to do the Best Picture Showcase at AMC, but it always interferes with rehearsal (this year, however, the ceremonies are a week earlier, so it might just work).

I can’t think of any inspired movie marathon that I’ve done, unfortunately.  I wanted to do a “Lord of the Rings” marathon over the summer, but the time just never presented itself.  Maybe when life settles down some this spring…





Random Factoid #398

30 08 2010

Are you keeping track of how your favorite movie characters are dying?  Daniel Engber at Slate is.  In an impeccably well researched article “Terra Infirma,” he charts the decline in the use of quicksand in movies for the past few decades.  Really, the only movie I can remember that employed the natural phenomena is “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.”

I feel like quicksand has become, in a way, an antiquated cinematic device.  It was something simple to replicate, and people just expect more for their money with an army of computer graphics engineers available.  If you have the time, I highly recommend you read the article (confession: I’ve only skimmed because I have so little time).  Here’s an excerpt from the beginning:

The fourth-graders were unanimous: Quicksand doesn’t scare them, not one bit. If you’re a 9- or 10-year-old at the P.S. 29 elementary school in Brooklyn, N.Y., you’ve got more pressing concerns: Dragons. Monsters. Big waves at the beach that might separate a girl from her mother. Thirty years ago, quicksand might have sprung up at recess, in pools of discolored asphalt or the dusty corners of the sandbox—step in the wrong place, and you’d die. But not anymore, a boy named Zayd tells me. “I think people used to be afraid of it,” he says. His classmates nod. “It was before we were born,” explains Owen. “Maybe it will come back one day.”

For now, quicksand has all but evaporated from American entertainment—rejected even by the genre directors who once found it indispensable. There isn’t any in this summer’s fantasy blockbuster “Prince of Persia: Sands of Time”or in last year’s animated jungle romp “Up.” You won’t find quicksand in “The Last Airbender” or “Avatar,” either. Giant scorpions emerge from the sand in “Clash of the Titans,” but no one gets sucked under. And what about “Lost”—a tropical-island adventure series replete with mud ponds and dangling vines? That show, which ended in May, spanned six seasons and roughly 85 hours of television airtime—all without a single step into quicksand. “We were a little bit concerned that it would just be cheesy,” says the show’s Emmy-winning writer and executive producer, Carlton Cuse. “It felt too clichéd. It felt old-fashioned.”

Engber may have hit on this, but here are my conclusions on the sucking dry of quicksand in cinema.  First, Americans want blood.  They want bloody satisfaction, something that can only be delivered in the form of a body.  Quicksand robs us of that joy by sucking the victims under the surface of the earth.  Second, there’s no way to vitalize the quicksand escape.  There’s no creativity involved; you either pull yourself out, have someone help you get out, or you die.  Pretty simple stuff.

But going even farther beyond quicksand, looking at the chart of the decline of quicksand made me realize how little I actually remember movies, particularly action movies.  They just all run together.  I can barely remember “The A-Team” from two months ago; anything around five years ago is a muddled mess.  So in my mind, does it really matter that the art of death by quicksand is dying?  Is anyone lamenting this?





Random Factoid #397

29 08 2010

Is this a joke?

The Angelika Film Center, the biggest “art house” theater in Houston, unexpectedly shut its doors today.  Apparently it was plagued by problems with the landlord. Grrr.

With 8 screens, most of which were dedicated to independent cinema, it was definitely a huge resource as a blogger.  Now Houston, the fourth biggest city in the country, is left with 3 SCREENS to show independent movies (at the River Oaks Theater).  Please tell me I’m dreaming?!

I fully intend to write letters to theater owners in Houston telling them that they need to pick up some of the movies that the Angelika was going to show.  If I don’t get to see “I’m Still Here” or “The Tillman Story” because of the theater’s negligence, I will erupt like Vesuvius.  I’m already having nightmares of December whenever everyone else can see awards movies but Houston will have no screens to show them on!

I’m very distraught, as you can tell.  On a blogging level, this is like a death in the family.





Random Factoid #396

28 08 2010

How’s this for an exciting proposition?  This according to Cinematical

Would you go out to the movies more if you got something out of it? I mean other than the movie, of course. Say you also got a free Scott Pilgrim t-shirt for seeing “Scott Pilgrim vs. the World?” Or the complete graphic novel collection if you saw it a certain number of times? Or some other Universal Studios-related swag for seeing Pilgrim and “Charlie St. Cloud” and “Nanny McPhee Returns?” These are some incentive ideas related to a proposal by (former Cinematical writer) Chris Thilk at Ad Age that Hollywood studios reward moviegoers based on their check-ins on location-based social network apps like Miso and GetGlue. And of course Foursquare, Twitter and Facebook.

It’s an interesting suggestion, though there is the problem of fake check ins. You can easily put yourself into a location you’re not in or say you’re watching a movie you’re not. For studios to trust the concept, these apps would require some means to prove you’re telling the truth.

I am a huge fan of this idea because it rewards me for doing two things I do very normally – social network and go to the movies.  I don’t movie hop or watch pirated movies because I respect filmmakers, and I wouldn’t use the system to cheat the studios.  I’d treat it like I treat the Regal Crown Club or AMC MovieWatcher programs.

My suggestion: perhaps to verify that the people actually see the movies, they could put a code in the pre-show entertainment or on the theater door that would allow them to be checked in.  Or maybe in the ending credits to make sure that they stay the whole movie.

What do you think, bloggers?  I expect a resounding yes because we all go to the movies so often.





Random Factoid #395

27 08 2010

Avatards, reassemble today!

James Cameron gives us 9 new minutes of his global phenomenon “Avatar” in 3D and IMAX exclusively today. Here’s what we’re getting:

Cool stuff. All cool stuff. There’s a big rousing sequence where they’re hunting these herd animals called sturmbeests. There’s another new creature that you haven’t seen before called the stingbat. There’s a really powerful emotional scene toward the end of the film where the leader of the Na’vi is dying after a battle. There’s a bit more in the love scene with Jake and Neytiri. There’s more bioluminescent stuff in the night forest. Little bits and pieces here and there.

He had me at “more in the love scene.”  I mean, who wanted that scene to end SO soon?!  (There’s a hint of facetiousness that I hope you picked up on.)

But seriously, 8 months for a re-release?  It seems a bit soon, even for the biggest movie in recent memory.  Cameron describes it as “a limited special edition. It’s just an experience you can have with your family at the end of the summer. The last hurrah in theaters.”  Judging by the lineups at the theater this weekend, it’s probably the best thing out there besides “Inception.”  Just the sad state of Hollywood this time of year.

I think that after the past 6 months have brought nothing but 3D controversy and argument, maybe “Avatar” will remind audiences of what good use of the technology looks like.  Perhaps they will then apply that sentiment and make a ruckus for all the false 3D filling theaters recently.  I can dream, can’t I?

I’ve been to two re-releases in my lifetime, “E.T.” back in 2002 and “Grease” in the ’90s.  Both of those were fun to see with my parents because we were able to share in the theatrical experience together as they relived the wonder and the excitement of the first time they saw it.  I feel like “Avatar” holds that same sense, and I can’t wait to one day watch the movie with my kids whenever its 3D technology and groundbreaking effects look like rubbish.  But, in a purely hypothetical situation, if I had conceived a child the day “Avatar” was released, it would still be in utero for this re-release!  So perhaps it is a little too soon, yet everyone could use the escape to Pandora in order to escape the dismal titles on the multiplex marquees.





Random Factoid #394

26 08 2010

Can you enjoy a film if you “hate” the filmmaker? That’s the question posed over at Cinematical, who examined the work of three controversial directors.  Here’s what was said on Roman Polanski, whose rearresting this past year has caused quite a stir:

Crimes: Giving drugs and sex to an underage girl; fleeing from indictment and avoiding America forever.

This is the big one among movie geeks. Polanski’s crimes were committed in 1977, and since then he’s produced films both good and not so good … every time one of his new films hits cinemas, the movie world is abuzz with opinions on Polanski’s legal problems. Given that Polanski’s latest was actually produced while he was under house arrest, well, that just gave Polanski’s detractors another reason to hate the guy.

Frankly I’m not qualified to judge a man like Roman Polanski. This guy escaped the Warsaw ghetto and lived to see his pregnant wife murdered by the Manson family … so clearly he has some emotional issues. Obviously that does not excuse a man from committing statutory rape and then fleeing from justice, but I just see Polanski as a tragic figure altogether. A truly gifted filmmaker who’s survived some horrible things (and committed some unpleasant acts)…

I’ve been lucky enough to surround myself with people who are more interested in the value of the art than the values of the people creating it.  I separate life on and off the screen because they are two entirely different forms of reality.  I’m in no position to judge these people’s lives, only the art that they create.  This even goes for Roman Polanski.  I’m not going to condone the actions he allegedly committed, but it’s not my call to decide how he should face judgement.  From my experience, I have found that there is passing judgement on others, particularly based on incomplete information, only produces anger and resentment.

I once had a teacher who wouldn’t see “Mission: Impossible 3” because she didn’t like that Tom Cruise was open about his belief in Scientology.  I think it’s a little silly to boycott a movie when an actor takes on a role that doesn’t espouse his beliefs.  When the actor or actress does, however, it’s an entirely different ballgame.  If someone told me they didn’t want to see “Capitalism: A Love Story” because they don’t appreciate Michael Moore’s outspokenness, then I’d be more comfortable with that decision.

To close, I’ll leave you with the article’s final stance, which pretty much sums up my feelings.  Sometimes it’s best not to reproduce something that already hits the nail on the head.

But ultimately … I don’t have to like a person to admire their films. And I guess that’s where I stand in general: my job is to evaluate and appreciate a film. Anything beyond that is simply not all that interesting to me.





Random Factoid #393

25 08 2010

Are all comic book movies not created equal from the start?  Seth Rogen apparently doesn’t think so.  In an interview with The Los Angeles Times‘ Hero Complex, the star of the upcoming comic book adaptation “The Green Hornet” had this to say:

“I like Marvel; I’ve kind of given up on DC at this point.”

The massive flaw of saying that DC sucks despite the fact that they have Batman notwithstanding, it’s an interesting prejudice/predilection.  Automatically judging a comic book – or movie – based on the comic book company behind it seems a bit over the top for me.  To me, a comic book movie is a comic book movie.  It’s up to the filmmakers, not the company, to make it good.  I bet Spider-Man could be just as cool at DC and Batman could rock at Marvel.

But then I got to thinking about the prejudices we all hold when we go to the movies.  Face it, we all have them.  I bet everyone has, at some point in their lives, used “Disney” as a pejorative term to describe something kiddy or campy.  That’s not to say they haven’t earned the association with their officially honed output of only animated and inspirational movies.

Beyond Disney, though, I don’t even give a hoot about the studio releasing a movie when it comes to quality.  I don’t think I’m the only one, but then again, is anyone going to say “Ugh, I’m not seeing ‘Takers’ because it was released by Screen Gems” this weekend?





Random Factoid #392

24 08 2010

Do you ever wish you were really creative?  I mean, like really creative.  Well, I do, and I think other blogging peers have the same wish.

Anyways, that desire serves as my segue into this Moviefone post of movies that would have been ruined by Facebook.  It’s funny because I was just thinking about how having certain technologies would affect events in the past – for example, being able to FaceTime on your iPhone 4 in 1944.

The only majorly spoiler-proof image they created was based on “The Empire Strikes Back;” that is, spoiler-proof in the sense that we all know the ending.

Does anyone else just look at other blog posts and just think, “Why didn’t I come up with that!?”  Or am I just some envious pig, all alone in my quest for innovation?





Random Factoid #391

23 08 2010

Sometimes when I need blogging inspiration, it’s best just to go to fellow amateur bloggers rather than the professionals.  Now that it’s officially the dog days of summer, there’s not much to write about for the mainstream that can captivate.  But we, as true film connoisseurs, can entertain our little niche audience with just about anything our little minds can dream.

Enter Heather of “Movie Mobsters” and Kai of “The List” to do just that when all I could find on my usual sources of inspiration, Cinematical and The Los Angeles Times, were stuck talking about “The Switch.”  They gave a list of 10 movie props they wished they owned.  What a great idea!  I think I’ll chime in with the movie prop I most want to own.

Their lists were both heavy on nostalgia, so I think I’ll lean back on that old friend as well.  Shamefully, I don’t think I’ve mentioned how in love I was with “Space Jam” as a five-year-old.  It’s an iconic movie of my childhood, one that I still enjoy watching today.  Basketball, the Looney Tunes, Michael Jordan, the ’90s – what’s not to love?

In the movie, the Looney Tunes challenge the pint-sized Monsters to a game of basketball, assuming that a game of height would ensure their defeat.  But the Monsters get smart and steal all the talent from NBA players, putting into one basketball that endows them with all the skills of a pro.  The Monsters then get very large like all basketball players are and proceed to dominate (that is, until the Looney Tunes whip out the tricks).

I want that basketball.  I’m not even a huge player of basketball, although I was once.  But to just be able to touch a ball and receive all the strength, agility, and coordination of an NBA star would be pretty sweet.





Random Factoid #390

22 08 2010

I watched “Magnolia” last night.  At a whopping 3 hours and 8 minutes, it’s definitely one of the longest movies I’ve seen in quite some time.  Most of it was worth my time, although the last hour bored me (up until it started raining frogs, that is).  And I bought Aimee Mann’s cover of “One” from the movie today.

It really is trying to watch a three hour movie.  For a movie to take that much of your time, it needs to hold your attention the entire time.  And the experience got me thinking about time.  It is very precious, especially for a student.  And being a blogger, there never seems to be enough of it to get everything that you want written.

Often times, my movie choice hinges heavily on the length of the movie.  Sometimes I know I don’t have the patience to sit through a really long movie.  Other times, I really do feel a great desire to be fully engrossed in the world of a movie, something I feel longer movies are more capable of doing.  (For those wondering, I watched “Magnolia” because the iTunes rental period was about to expire.)

I can’t find it anywhere online, but I swear that John Waters once said that a good movie should never be longer than an hour and 45 minutes.  Whether he said it or not, I think it provides a good question to discuss.  How much does a movie’s length impact its effectiveness?

I think certain movies should hover around that time length, like horror movies and comedies.  But an innovative drama like “Magnolia” or a sprawling epic like “The Lord of the Rings” should be able to take as much of our time as the filmmakers need to fully achieve their vision.  Really, I’m willing to sit out anything with vision.

Thoughts?  Can you sit through a three hour movie?





Random Factoid #389

21 08 2010

Smoking in movies.  The MPAA is cracking down on it like Congress is cracking down on steroids in baseball.

The movement to get cigarettes out of the fingers of our favorite movie stars has been going on for quite some time now, but James Cameron definitely threw some kerosene on the fire last December when Sigourney Weaver’s Grace lit up liberally throughout “Avatar.”  When I saw it, quite frankly, I laughed.  I saw it as James Cameron’s big “*&$% you, MPAA, I’m an artist and I’ll do what I want!”  Here’s what he actually said about it though:

“I wanted Grace to be a character who is initially off-putting and even unpleasant. She’s rude, she swears, she drinks, she smokes. She is not meant to be an aspirational role model to teenagers — in fact our young protagonist, Jake, through whom we experience this story, finds her to be obnoxious at first. Also, from a character perspective, we were showing that Grace doesn’t care about her human body, only her avatar body, which again is a negative comment about people in our real world living too much in their avatars, meaning online and in videogames. In addition, speaking as an artist, I don’t believe in the dogmatic idea that no one in a movie should smoke. Movies should reflect reality. If it’s O.K. for people to lie, cheat, steal and kill in PG-13 movies, why impose an inconsistent morality when it comes to smoking?

I do agree that young role-model characters should not smoke in movies, especially in a way which suggests that it makes them cooler or more accepted by their peers. In the same way that I would never show lying, cheating, stealing or killing as cool, or aspirational, I would never portray smoking that way. We need to embrace a more complex set of criteria than simply the knee-jerk reaction “smoking is bad, therefore cannot be shown.” It should be a matter of character, context, and the nature of the portrayal. I think the people who are earnestly trying to do some good in this area would be more supported by the artistic community if they were less black and white in their thinking. Smoking is a filthy habit which I don’t support, and neither, I believe, does ‘Avatar.'”

I agree with Cameron totally.  If smoking in movies sends a message, either blatant or subliminal, that cigarettes are cool, then that’s worth cracking the whip on.  But the purposes of historical accuracy or showing the true nature of tobacco, then I think it’s totally fine.  And also, as Cameron said, would you rather have a teen who picks up smoking from a movie or picks up murdering?  I think that choice is pretty clear.

It’s silly, in my opinion, for the MPAA to add worthless descriptors like “brief smoking” to the ratings of movies.  Are there really parents that concerned about their kids’ response to seeing cigarettes in movies that they need to know before seeing it?  There’s no replacement for good parenting and informing children of the danger of tobacco; you can’t let the MPAA do that job for you.

As long as the cigarette police don’t interfere with the art of film, I’m fine with the crusade.  For those of you who believe in the fight against smoking in movies, here’s some good news for you.

…smoking in high-grossing films fell to 1,935 “incidents” last year, down 49 percent from a recent peak of 3,967 in 2005. The study defined an incident as the use or implied use of a tobacco product by an actor, with a new incident occurring each time a tobacco product went off-screen then came back, or a different actor was shown with tobacco.





Random Factoid #388

20 08 2010

Today’s factoid serves as an entry to the Wet Blogathon over at “Encore Entertainment.” Andrew K asks us this:

Isn’t the rain lovely? And more lovely than actual rain….isn’t movie rain lovely? Gene Kelly devoted an entire number to it, after all. What’s your favourite moment of rain on screen? Don’t tell me…keep it to yourself and save it for the weekend. Nothing big, just a picture and a word, a line, a paragraph, an essay (if you’re loquacious) on why you like that particular moment of wetness.

I thought about my moment for a while, really just going through a list of my favorite movies and trying to remember if any of them had any scenes in the rain.  It took me a surprisingly long time to sift through all this information, and then the obvious answer hit me.  My favorite moment in the rain comes from one of my all-time favorite movies, “American Beauty.”

It’s not so much a scene that takes place in the rain, more like the entire climax of the movie.  Obviously, I can’t talk about it without ruining the entire movie, but I can make a list of adjectives that describe it.  Really, the end of “American Beauty” perfectly recaptures every emotion that runs through the entire movie.  There’s happiness and tragedy, grief and sorrow, tumult and calm, satisfaction and disappointment.

But most of all, there is beauty.  My school did away with senior yearbook quotes this year, much to my disappointment, but I definitely would have included this remark from Lester Burnham at the end of the movie as one of my three:

I guess I could be pretty pissed off about what happened to me, but it’s hard to stay mad when there’s so much beauty in the world. Sometimes I feel like I’m seeing it all at once, and it’s too much. My heart fills up like a balloon that’s about to burst. And then I remember to relax, and stop trying to hold on to it. And then it flows through me like rain. And I can’t feel anything but gratitude for every single moment of my stupid little life.

I wouldn’t have used all of it simply due to length, but I just think that those words are some of the most truly profound things a movie has ever said to me.  To all of you reading, I hope that the quotation inspires you to seek out and appreciate some of the beauty lying all around your own life.





Random Factoid #387

19 08 2010

How much would you have paid to watch "How To Train Your Dragon" at home in May?

How comfortable is your home viewing environment?  Would you rather watch a new release there than at the theater?  Cinematical reported on a new development that has been rumored for quite some time now: major studios are going to test pilot a program that would allow you to watch new releases just 30 days after they are released in theaters.  For $50.

That’s a pretty steep cost, but then again, think of all the people that can watch the movie on your TV.  At night, that pays for about 4 people nowadays.  Most living rooms seat five or six; people lucky enough to have theater rooms can fit well over a dozen.  So there’s a certain point where the cost is worth it.

It’s a system that I see working only with families and young teenagers, who are the only demographics that constantly watch movies in groups.  For a family of five, it’s easier to plop down on the couch and watch a movie and pay less than the tickets, the parking, and the concessions at the theater.  Not to mention, it’s probably cheaper.

But many moviegoers like myself are pretty solitary folk, usually sticking to groups of four or less.  For the amount of money it would take my normal group to sit down at my house and watch a movie, we might as well go and have the theater experience.  I really see the system as being beneficial for those of us who just can’t find the time to make it to a certain movie.  However, $50 is a steep penalty for not making it on time.

In recent years, there have been more and more developments undercutting the old-time value of going to the movie theater.  Check out this statistic from Cinematical:

In 1997, the average gap was 172 days, or almost six months. In 2009, the window had shrunk to 131 days, with Fox pushing its DVDs into stores an average of just 119 days after they first hit theaters. A movie opening on March 1 needs to be on DVD by the end of July, or else people will forget that they liked it.

There are so many ways to watch movies now, be it on your laptop or phone, your video game console or iPod.  The act of going to the theater is become less necessary thanks to the availability of movies everywhere.  This just seems like the next logical step.  I will always go to theater, not necessarily for every movie, but with frequency.  Even when I’m the old geezer who insists on doing it the old-fashioned way.





Random Factoid #386

18 08 2010

Last night, for my last movie of summer, I watched “Date Night.”  But not just “Date Night” – I watched the extended version.  This is a pretty big deal for me because I normally hate watching unrated and extended versions.

Way before I had a readership, I wrote this in Random Factoid #11:

I hate watching unrated cuts of movies.  I always want to see the theatrical cut because after seeing “Bruno,” I found out that anything can get an R-rating.  The director could include practically whatever he wanted, but there is a reason that he did not include it in the version that the masses go see.  So I figure that the rated version, while tamer, is probably what the director wanted you to see.

I have a feeling that the word “3D” is headed the way of the word “unrated.”  About a decade ago, “unrated” was something fairly unique.  Now it has become a marketing gimmick to make a little extra profit off some unsuspecting consumers.  See the correlation?

Why did I decided to give this extended edition, basically a tamer way of saying unrated, a whirl?  The theatrical cut of “Date Night” was so short that I wanted to see more.  And more I got.  Not sure if it was worth the 13 minutes of my sleep, but I still enjoyed some of the extra bits.