Random Factoid #385

17 08 2010

Just when you thought I was done talking about “Eat Pray Love,” I come back with ANOTHER factoid.  I am not obsessed with it on an “Inception” level, just to clear the record.

Today’s discussion piece comes courtesy of The Big Picture over at The Los Angeles Times. The post was “What does this say about U.S. manhood: Male critics actually like Eat Pray Love,” and author Patrick Goldstein gave this shocking statistic of the movie’s critical opinion:

Men who liked the movie: 27.

Men who hated the movie: 44.

Women who liked the movie: 15

Women who hated the movie: 24.

Here’s my take on these results.  Looking at them for just what they are, you might assume that male critics have been emasculated or a kind of gender swap happened.  Although I’m not taking statistics next year, I know (perhaps through reading Malcolm Gladwell, perhaps through 15 years of education) how to look at data and interpret it.

Just to point out, male critics don’t like it more.  The percentage of people who liked the movie was nearly identical among the genders, with just a fraction of a percentage point more for women.  The surprising fact is not so much that they liked it at all so much as it is that they liked it just as much as the target gender.

As a self-declared movie critic, I know that more than the quality of the movie itself factors into the grade I bestow upon it.  Preconceived notions play a HUGE part.  If I think I’m going to hate a movie, and it winds up being average, I will probably give it a higher grade than an average movie I thought I would love.

Take, for example, the movies I gave a B this summer.  I was expecting “Robin Hood” to be amazing, and it wound up being just OK.  On the other hand, I was preparing for a disaster with “Despicable Me,” which I actually mildly enjoyed.  Had I seen “Robin Hood” with the expectations of “Despicable Me,” I probably would have given it a higher grade; the same goes for the other way around.

As much as we try to stay subjective in reviewing, we can’t help but let surprise and disappointment play a big part in our feelings.  And I think the surprise of seeing a decent chick flick makes guys more inclined to like a movie, while women would feel disappointment for the same movie.

My conclusion: male support of “Eat Pray Love” doesn’t reflect the quality of the movie; rather, it is evidence of the influence of gender-based stereotypes on the opinion of a movie.


Comments : 1 Comment »
Tags: ,
Categories : Random Factoids

Random Factoid #384

16 08 2010

How’s this for a disturbing report?  Listen to this excerpt from a Cinematical post:

As if you needed another reason to stay home with your hundred home entertainment options instead of seeing a movie in the theater, Gothamist shares a story about bedbug infestations at some of NYC’s cinemas, including the tourist-friendly AMC Empire 25 near Times Square and another AMC up in Harlem (the Magic Johnson Harlem 9). One anonymous reader was attacked by the pests during a showing of “Scott Pilgrim vs. the World” last night and was even told that the theater staff knew about the problem and had an appointment for an exterminator this week but stayed open without warning (an update to the article now says the theater’s general manager is denying any such knowledge or admittance of fault at all).

I kid you not, the problem extends much farther beyond New York City.  Houston friends, I believe a local theater may have a very dire problem.

Before I go too far into that, I have to provide some crucial information about the way I sit to watch movies.  I change positions a lot, rarely remaining in one for a long time.  I usually tuck one leg under the other at a right angle (the way guys cross their legs), often switching which leg is underneath.  Really, the area around my ankles are the only exposed parts of my body that touch the theater seats.

You may recall a factoid several weeks ago, Random Factoid #358, in which I described a particularly painful experience watching “Salt” from the front row.  I failed to extend the story beyond watching the movie, but there actually is more.  I came out of the theater itching my ankles and lower knees.

When I got out into the light, I looked down at these areas and found my ankles to be covered in what appeared to be big red bug bites.  Since this is the part of my body that touches the theater seat, and I was sitting on the oft-neglected front row, I suspect bedbugs could be the culprit!  And what negligent theater, my dear local readers, could possibly let such a thing happen?

The Edwards Marq*E.


Comments : 3 Comments »
Tags: , , ,
Categories : Random Factoids

Random Factoid #383

15 08 2010

Yesterday, I went to my first wedding in well over a decade.  That being said, I don’t really remember much, if anything, about those holy matrimonies.  If I recall correctly, I was a ringbearer at one of my aunt’s weddings…

But while at the ceremony, I felt like I had been going to them my whole life.  As I thought about it more clearly, a thought hit me – I had been going to weddings, just at the movies!  They are a dime a dozen at the cinema nowadays, the blessed sacrament so commonplace that we rarely stop to think about the importance of it.

Really, everything I know about weddings comes from the movies.  Is it a horrible fault when all we know about something comes from a movie?  I’ve learned plenty from cinema – how to make up after cold feet (“Up in the Air”), how to be a good bridesmaid (“27 Dresses”), how to be a good father of the bride (“Father of the Bride”), how to deal with bridezillas (“Bride Wars”), how to break up a wedding (“The Graduate”), how to shine all the attention away from the bride (“Rachel Getting Married”), and how to fit in at any wedding (“Wedding Crashers”).  And that’s just a fraction of what I could say.

Are there any fields of knowledge wonderfully filled in by movies for you?

P.S. – Life’s better with company.


Comments : 2 Comments »
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Categories : Random Factoids

Random Factoid #382

14 08 2010

You are probably questioning my manhood after two straight factoids have been about “Eat Pray Love,” but this has very little to do with the actual movie.  This factoid deals with the first ten to fifteen seconds of the movie – the Columbia Pictures logo.

For years, I’ve wondered, “Who the heck is that lady?  What does this logo even mean?  Why the heck is this stone-faced lady standing on a pedestal holding a torch significant in the slightest?”  After “Eat Pray Love,” I decided it was time to do some searching.

Here’s what Wikipedia had to say (and all those scared of the site, this sentence had four references):

Columbia’s logo [is] a lady carrying a torch and draped in the American flag (representing Columbia, a personification of the United States.

I would never in a million years have guessed she was holding an American flag.  Maybe we would get that if we saw some color other than blue!  Most American flags don’t have that much blue on them, and there would be starts all over the blue area.  There’s always the possibility that the flag is big enough that all we can see in the logo is blue space between stars.  But that flag would have to be as big as Rhode Island!  The logo designers back in the 1920s really should have thought that through.

So who would have thought the lady in the Columbia Pictures logo is quite the patriot?  Have any great enigmas like this puzzled you for years – and have the answers surprised you?


Comments : 1 Comment »
Tags: ,
Categories : Random Factoids

Random Factoid #381

13 08 2010

There are influential movies, and then there are influential movies.

Sound like a profound observation?  It’s really not.  I just think it’s a fancier and more mysterious way of saying that there are two types of influences movies can have on us.

The more deep, lasting influences come from movies I dub “lifestyle influential.”  These movies change the way we think and the way we see the world.  These movies can be as profound as “Requiem for a Dream,” the movie that makes you never want to do drugs, or as hard-hitting as “Schindler’s List” and “Hotel Rwanda.”  On the other hand, I also place into this category movies that have a long-lasting impact on the way you do things.  So I place “Julie & Julia” here because it started me on the whole blogging journey.

Then there are the movies likely only to inspire a spontaneous change; I dub these “behavioral influential.”  The effect of seeing one of these movies is a sudden impulse to act like a character or do something they did.  “Eat Pray Love,” which I saw on Wednesday, can now officially fall into this category.  As Julia Roberts’ Liz Gilbert munches on some delicious Italian food, our mouth waters thanks to some lavish camerawork fondly known as “food porn.”  So when my family went out for dinner yesterday, I insisted on Italian food only because of seeing the movie.  I had a delicious seafood pasta that totally hit the spot.

What movies have influenced your behavior recently?


Comments : 1 Comment »
Tags: , , , , ,
Categories : Random Factoids

Random Factoid #380

12 08 2010

Well, folks, it looks like I have just attended my last free movie screening of the summer.

These screenings are a luxury, and due to their mid-week timing, it’s certainly hard to make them work during the school year.  I have amassed quite a stash of promotional material this summer, some just from luck and others from skill.  Here’s a giant list of some of the prizes I’ve won:

  • A “Splice”-themed Drenvolution T-shirt
  • A “Toy Story 3” poster and Space Shooter Target Game (see Random Factoid #323)
  • A giant “Salt” poster and two smaller ones
  • A “Step Up 3D” T-shirt with a boombox on it
  • A “Dinner for Schmucks” bottle-opener along with other various prizes from the radio station sponsoring the screening
  • A whistle with “The Other Guys” written on the side, which I won for answering another Will Ferrell trivia question
  • A T-shirt for “The Other Guys,” which was too small so I promptly gave it away
  • 3 “Eat Pray Love” themed bookmarks
  • A giant “Eat Pray Love” poster and a smaller one
  • A women’s T-shirt with “Eat” written in pasta on the front, which I gave to my mother
  • A copy of “Eat Pray Love,” the book

It’s been a good summer, folks.  Maybe the quality hasn’t been there in spades, but I’ve been rolling in the merch..andise.


Comments : 2 Comments »
Tags:
Categories : Random Factoids

Random Factoid #379

11 08 2010

In my first post, I talked a little bit about obsesssion:

I love movies, but I don’t want everyone who reads this to become as big of a movie lover as I do.  Then I will have manufactured a society of obsessive movie fanatics, and as fun as it would be to have people that I could really relate to, I don’t know if I would wish my level of infatuation with movies on anyone else.

I’m always interested in seeing how other people are obsessed with movies too.  I can’t find it now, but I remember reading about a woman who saw the movie “Walk the Line” over 70 times.  Now that’s dedication!  And thanks to a link on Cinematical today, I found other people who aren’t afraid to show their obsession – at a wedding, no less!

The author of the post seems to deplore their “Up”-themed wedding, but I totally dig it!  Not even kidding, I would actually have a wedding like this because it’s simple, tasteful, and not to mention absolutely adorable.  It’s not over-the-top obsessed, but they aren’t afraid to show their influence.  Compared to some of those awful weddings alluded to in “27 Dresses,” this is not bad by any stretch of the imagination.

Here’s Lynette, the bride, on the wedding:

We wanted the wedding to be unique, personal, intimate and beautiful which it turned out to be all of those things! We wanted every aspect to represent “us” from the handmade save the dates and invitations to the picnic blankets and baskets we used in lieu of chairs at the ceremony. We had one of our best friends perform the ceremony which meant so much to us. It was so special saying our own self written vows and “crossing our hearts” to love each other rather than saying “I do”.

According to The Wedding Chicks, “Lynnette and Jame’s wedding was loosely based on our favorite Pixar movie ‘Up!’ Some fun items that they included was picnic baskets, grape soda, a painted mailbox and a few balloons!”  I surely hope that they find the same kind of love that Carl and Ellie had for each other.  Check out some other great wedding photos below!


Comments : 1 Comment »
Tags: , , ,
Categories : Random Factoids

Random Factoid #378

10 08 2010

Have you seen the trailer for “The Switch?”  Looks kind of ehh, right?  Typical late summer fare that will have to pass for entertainment (at least for those of us not fortunate enough to have an independent theater).  Just so we are all on the same page for the rest of the post, I’ll embed the trailer below.

The poster to the left doesn’t really make you want to see it much either.  The gasp on Jennifer Aniston’s face and the pretentious-looking sniffle that Jason Bateman is doing sure doesn’t tell you much about the movie.  But look closer…

Did you notice the pedigree of the movie?  It’s from the people who brought us “Juno” and “Little Miss Sunshine.”  Does that add to your anticipation at all?  It shouldn’t, given the murky relationship between “The Switch” and the two Best Picture nominees.  I probably wouldn’t have thought twice about the reference given that Jason Bateman was in “Juno,” but The Los Angeles Times did some investigating:

The studio’s marketing wizards are plugging “The Switch” as being the movie “From the people who brought you ‘Juno’ and ‘Little Miss Sunshine.’ ” But who are these “people”? The film’s directors, Josh Gordon and Will Speck, had nothing to do with either of those films. Nor did the film’s screenwriter, Allan Loeb. The film’s producers, Ron Yerxa and Albert Berger, were producers of “Little Miss Sunshine” but had no involvement at all with “Juno.”

It turns out that those “people” are the people at Mandate Pictures, the production company that was involved with both “Juno” and “Little Miss Sunshine,” as well as such films as “Whip It,” “Drag Me to Hell” and the “Harold and Kumar” series. I’m sure all the folks at Mandate are really nice people, but it feels like a big stretch to use such a tenuous connection to lure us into the theater to see a film whose writers and filmmakers had nothing to do with “Juno” or “Little Miss Sunshine.”

Do you feel cheated at all?  If you were really going to spend $10 to see this movie because you could mention it in the same sentence with “Little Miss Sunshine,” you ought to up your cinema smarts.  I don’t ever use poster connections to tell me what movies to see, largely because I will have figured out what movies my favorite filmmakers have chosen to involve themselves in.  I especially could care less for romantic comedies and mindless action movies, both of which are genres whose success is driven mainly be stars, not directors.  Sorry, David Frankel, I saw “Marley & Me” because I love dogs and Owen Wilson, NOT because you directed “The Devil Wears Prada.”  Meryl Streep is the reason that movie is good.

Fun little closing note: there is one movie that could have used “from the man who brought you ‘Little Miss Sunshine'” on its poster.  That movie?  “Toy Story 3.”  Clearly it didn’t need to tout that name to make any money.


Comments : 7 Comments »
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Categories : Random Factoids

Random Factoid #377

9 08 2010

Is it really going to come down to estrogen vs. testosterone at the theater this weekend?  It’s “The Expendables” vs. “Eat Pray Love” for the box office title (with “Scott Pilgrim vs. The World” looking to appeal to both sides), but some people seem to think it’s a battle of the sexes.  Just look at this over the top fan-made “The Expendables” trailer.

Over at the Los Angeles Times, Steven Zeitchik sizes up the weekend duel:

… a rare experiment will take place next weekend when the testosterone-heavy exploits of Sylvester Stallone’s “The Expendables” goes up against the journey of female discovery that is Julia Roberts’ “Eat Pray Love.”  It’s as close to a laboratory environment as you can get, since the two films’ subject matter and intended audience couldn’t sit on further ends of the gender spectrum. “The Expendables” contains few romantic interludes, while “Eat Pray Love” doesn’t feature many mercenary gunfights. Julia Roberts is interested in discovering a foreign country. Sylvester Stallone wants to blow one up.

Other factors, meanwhile, are controlled for. Both are mid-budget studio films coming out in the dog days of August. Both were made with the goal of pleasing crowds more than critics. Both pictures are driven by one huge-name star accompanied by a host of smaller ones. And the two are going head-to-head with very little competition. (“Inception” should have finally lost some steam; the more modest “Scott Pilgrim vs. the World” is the only other wide opener.) The film that wins the weekend should provide one gender with bragging rights and settle the box-office question (a point made amusingly in the below fan trailer for “The Expendables,” which implores men to turn out for the film next weekend to take back the mantle for all of masculinity).

… But we’ve heard for so long that movies can succeed by aiming at one group or another, and certainly can succeed if they lock down one gender. But according to the pitched battle between “The Expendables” and “Eat Pray Love,” that isn’t entirely true. One gender does hold an edge when it comes to determining a film’s fate. Women get more excited about movies, and they’re more willing to see movies that don’t specifically target them. Men, for their part, are more lukewarm and less flexible.

He also talks a little bit about how gender affect moviegoing:

There are plenty of theories about which gender is drawn more to the movies, and how they make their decisions about going to them. For a number of years it was all about the young males, then, after “Twilight” and “Sex and The City,” all about groups of women, we were told.

According to the MPAA’s research, when it comes to overall attendance, the genders are actually about even. In 2009, the organization found that the moviegoing audience in this country was 52% female and 48% male, pretty much reflective of the breakdown among the U.S. population as a whole, which is 51% female and 49% male. (Women did purchase tickets at a higher rate (55%-45%), but that’s a purse-strings statistic more than a filmgoing one. )

But it may not be that simple. With nearly every other form of entertainment (sports, books, you name it) one gender takes the lead in determining which products are successes and which are consigned to failure. Movies should, all things being equal, follow the same pattern.

It’s almost impossible to get a real-world snapshot of the battle of the sexes at the box office — most movies appeal at least a little bit to both genders — and there are usually other movies crowding theaters in a given weekend anyway.

The article made me think about how my gender affects my moviegoing.  Yes, I am a guy, and I’d much rather see an action movie than a romantic comedy – although I’m much more flexible since I am a “movie person.”  I’ll never see any of the “Twilight” movies or a “Sex and the City” movie on my own volition.

But do I feel defensive about my gender?  Unlike the fake trailer suggests, I don’t think that the box office “belongs” to men.  Julia Roberts is hardly a threat to manliness.  As much as I hate to say it, there is a place for movies like “Twilight.”  Everyone needs a movie.  If you have 30 screens at a theater, there’s no reason why you shouldn’t have something to appeal to any person who stops by the theater.  That means showing indies and foreign films, whatever it takes.

So in this weekend’s box office clash, I’m on team “Scott Pilgrim,” mostly because Sylvester Stallone needs to stop trying to be cool.  Heck, I’m still on team “Inception.”  Wouldn’t it be dreamy if it returned to the top?


Comments : 2 Comments »
Tags: , , ,
Categories : Random Factoids

Random Factoid #376

8 08 2010

Yesterday I talked about what makes me happy, but today you get what makes me mad.  I saw “Inception” again yesterday – that makes three, for those of you keeping score at home.

I happened to catch wind of an article this week from The New York Magazine (some of you might remember David Edelstein’s scathing review that was the first among the backlashing critics) that bashed Ellen Page’s character in “Inception.” Here’s Emma Rosenblum talking about what she calls the “asexual chic.”

Poor Ellen Page. While most everyone else in “Inception” looks ripped out of a fashion-magazine spread, she has to traipse around in Christopher Nolan’s version of graduate-student chic — ill-fitting corduroys, ratty jackets, and scuffed, oddly pointy motorcycle boots. When Page first shows up as a brilliant architecture student, dressed in baggy pants and, strangely, a neckerchief, she looks not only childish, but of a different movie altogether than Leonardo DiCaprio, who slinks through “Inception” in GQ-worthy custom three-piece suits.

… According to our very informal survey of grad students (er, our friends), neckerchiefs are not currently a staple of the PhD crowd, and yet she dons one in every single scene. She looks like a cross between a boy scout and the Swedish Chef. Perhaps this is just another Nolan subconscious trick — Page’s character is stuck dreaming about her youth spent as a boy sailor? Regardless, there are better ways to signify that Page is smart and not the female character whom DiCaprio wants to sleep with than sticking her in unattractive, earth-tone duds. Like, say, giving her a pair of glasses.

While I respect differing opinions, I have to say that baseless arguments like these make me mad.  She ignorantly reinforces the very gender stereotypes that she appears to deplore in the final sentence.  By saying that she’s asexual unless she dresses well, isn’t that saying that if she spiffed up, she would be sexual and thus an object of lust for Cobb?  Not to mention that in the process, she also implies that anyone with glasses is doomed to never have a guy look at her.

Page’s Ariadne is not supposed to fit in with Cobb’s team.  She’s new to the art of shared dreaming, and she’s added to the dream team that enters Fischer’s mind at the last minute.  Excuse her if in the real world she hasn’t had the time to buff up her wardrobe.  She stands out among them as a novice because of her actions; the clothes just complement what we observe about her.  If she dressed too nicely, that might read as her having a sense of confidence which isn’t present.

And she’s a college student, for goodness sake!  How many elegantly dressed college students could you round up on a campus nowadays?  It would send up a bigger red flag if she was dressed really nicely.  The “very informal survey” may not have found some of her accessories commonplace, but far less common would be your designer outfits and formalwear.

Since Rosenblum brought up the point, yes, her clothes aren’t meant to make her look like an object of lust to Cobb.  Yet she misses the more important point: Ariadne isn’t supposed to be an object of lust to US, the audience.  If we are fawning over how good Ellen Page looks, it would undoubtedly distract us from the movie’s labyrinthian plot.  The costume designer knows best how to use clothing to send a message to us, and they sent the right one with Ariadne.  If Rosenblum can’t handle that, there are plenty of Hollywood movies with models acting that should be “beautiful” enough for her.


Comments : 6 Comments »
Tags: , ,
Categories : Random Factoids

Random Factoid #375

7 08 2010

As if a divinely sent sign after a melancholy morning, I discovered I was tagged in the “Happy 101” meme sweeping the blogosphere by fellow teen blogger Dan the Man.  Thanks, homes.

I have a bunch of time today to watch movies (although I will be finishing up summer reading and doing college application work too), and I was planning on watching some heavier stuff.  But after this morning, I needed a cheer-up movie or, at the very least, something that wasn’t going to be a huge downer.  So as I’m writing, I am watching “Almost Famous” for only the second time, a movie that I love and is raising my spirits some.

But in the spirit of the meme, here are ten movies that I’ve watched on TV recently fora good smile:

  1. Father of the Bride
  2. Mrs. Doubtfire
  3. The Little Rascals
  4. Amelie
  5. My Big Fat Greek Wedding
  6. Shrek 2
  7. Knocked Up
  8. Baby Mama
  9. Wanted
  10. Role Models

Sorry, but I’ll pass on tagging because everyone I read has pretty much been taken care of – and it’s really late.  My mind is tired after a third viewing of “Inception.”

Oh, and here’s the nifty little graphic thing that I should probably include.


Comments : 4 Comments »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : Random Factoids

Random Factoid #374

6 08 2010

A few days ago, Aiden R of “Cut the Crap Movie Reviews” asked what movie posters lurked in my closet when he humbly declined to accept my gift of posters.  Rather than reply in a comment, here’s a list of all the fire hazards I’ve picked up from movie theaters over the past couple of years. (NOTE: This isn’t counting the giant roll of posters from the ’90s I mentioned in Random Factoid #145.)

  • Changeling
  • Australia
  • Doubt
  • Yes Man
  • Marley and Me
  • Valkyrie
  • Angels and Demons
  • The Taking of Pelham 123
  • (500) Days of Summer
  • Whip It
  • A Serious Man
  • Invictus
  • Robin Hood
  • Get Him to the Greek
  • The A-Team
  • Knight and Day
  • Salt

“Toy Story 3” and “Scott Pilgrim vs. The World” are hanging up on my wall.  Of those in the closet, “(500) Days of Summer” probably had the longest tenure on the bulletin board.


Comments : 5 Comments »
Tags: ,
Categories : Random Factoids

Random Factoid #373

5 08 2010

I’ve left out a pretty significant part of my summer experience on the blog.  Sure, I’ve seen plenty of movies, but there’s something much more important going on at my house.

At the end of June, my dog (a miniature schnauzer) had six adorable little puppies.  So my family has been very busy taking care of them, spending much of our day – and night – making sure that they get enough food, that they have fresh paper, and what not.

Cinematic connection – I promise.  I’m a huge sucker for dog movies, and so is America ($144 million for “Marley & Me” doesn’t lie).  Even though I know that the dog will always die at the end, I still watch and usually cry, given that the movie is good enough.

I know why it is that we love these movies.  Dogs teach us so many lessons, such as how to be unconditionally faithful to someone. (I’ve been watching “Mad Men” recently and everyone on that show could watch a few dog movies.)  They also teach us responsibility and how to take care of someone (something everyone in “Precious” could have used).  And they also teach us that life is temporary, so we must appreciate it while it lasts.

That being said, I am going to enjoy these puppies for the three weeks until they go to their permanent homes.


Comments : 2 Comments »
Tags: , , , , ,
Categories : Random Factoids

Random Factoid #372

4 08 2010

Today’s 31BBBB (courtesy of Anomalous Material) assignment was to promote a blog post.  But rather than promote a blog post, I’m just going to promote my whole site.  I launched a Facebook fan page a week ago, and I was planning on plugging it with a giant post.  Unfortunately, I haven’t written that post yet, and I really can’t wait any longer to promote it.

So click on the link below to be taken to my Facebook page.  Become a fan and get updates as I deem them appropriate!  (I’m still working on setting up the mechanics of the thing, but be patient please because I’m working on it.)

And speaking of Facebook, please tell me I’m not the only one who can’t wait for “The Social Network” to come out?  I’m OBSESSED with the new trailer; I listen to the cover of “Creep” all the time now.


Comments : 3 Comments »
Tags: , ,
Categories : Random Factoids

Random Factoid #371

3 08 2010

What’s better than seeing a movie in the theater?  Easy.  Seeing two movies in one day at the theater!  The art of the double feature is one that I have acquired over the past two years (although I haven’t been polishing it at all this summer).

And to clarify, I am not talking about the art known as theater-hopping or movie-hopping, which is a form of cheating and stealing.  Not to be a prude, but I respect the people who make movies enough not to cheat them out of much deserved profits (providing that the movie doesn’t stink.)

So here’s what I’ve learned from my double features and how to plan the perfect one.

  1. The movies have to be pretty close in quality.  If one movie is really good, the other has to be great as well.  And if one movie is bad … you need to see a good movie.  If they aren’t pretty evenly matched, the day gets pretty lopsided, and you leave with a bitter taste in your mouth from it all.
  2. Plan for the first movie you see to be worse than the second.  You want to end the day on a high note.
  3. Pick genres that mix.  Action and comedy go well together; drama and comedy sometimes don’t.  Think of how you will feel after each movie you want to see and what would be appropriate to follow it up with.

Way back in Random Factoid #25, I talked about my first double feature:

The first time I ever saw two movies in the same day at a theater was July 18, 2008.  Recognize that date?  It’s the day cinema was changed forever with the release of “The Dark Knight.”  Was that one of the two movies that I saw?  Of course not.  I saw “Wanted,” which was pretty tight, and “Hancock,” which was good at first but then became just plain dumb.

So here are my other double features, in chronological order, and how I either did or didn’t apply my own rules.

  • November 26, 2008: “Four Christmases” followed by “Changeling.”  I really wanted to see both of these, and it’s a really strange combo.  Yet it worked because the much heavier “Changeling” came last.  I wouldn’t have wanted to see anything afterwards had I seen it first.
  • April 17, 2009: “I Love You, Man” and “State of Play.”  I loved the first movie, man.  Not quite as big on the second one.  Kind of the same as “Changeling,” I probably wouldn’t have been excited to see something else after “State of Play” because it wasn’t that good.  A movie like “I Love You, Man” makes me want to see another movie.
  • July 21, 2009: “Cheri” and “Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince.”  I saw one movie in the morning and the other at night, so not your traditional double feature.  But it was a pretty dismal one because “Cheri” was a snoozefest, and I was seeing “Harry Potter” for the third time that week, which I found out was just too much.
  • November 14, 2009: “The Men Who Stare at Goats” and “I Am Love.”  Honestly, neither movie was good, so no lessons to be learned here.  “I Am Love” was a film festival event, and I had no idea what to expect.
  • November 21, 2009: “Couples Retreat” and “2012.”  Comedy followed by action is pretty solid.  “2012” is so long that you leave wanting to go home and take a nap, not wanting to see another movie.  So it really couldn’t have worked the other way around.
  • December 18, 2009: “Avatar” and “Up in the Air.”  A true exception.  Seeing two Best Picture nominees, and deserving ones at that, for the first time in one day is incredible.  Having my eyes treated by “Avatar” in the morning and then my brain treated by “Up in the Air” at night was absolutely perfect.
  • December 27, 2009: “Up in the Air” and “Sherlock Holmes.”  The downward slide made this double feature one to forget.  I should have known that you can’t top “Up in the Air.”
  • February 26, 2010: “Shutter Island” and “Crazy Heart.”  Both were very, very good, although in very different ways.  “Shutter Island” is such a crazy adventure that it definitely makes you want to see something else, whereas “Crazy Heart” leaves you with a more mellow content.

(P.S. – This is my “list post” for Anomalous Material‘s 31DBBB, as it can be conveniently abbreviated.)


Comments : 6 Comments »
Tags: ,
Categories : Random Factoids

« Previous Entries Next Entries »