Random Factoid #370

2 08 2010

One only has to see “(500) Days of Summer” to know that great things can begin in an elevator.

As a kick-off to their “31 Days to Build a Better Blog” series, Anomalous Material inspired all participants (which include yours truly) to write an elevator pitch for their site.  According to a quote on Wikipedia which they so kindly posted, an elevator pitch is “an overview of an idea for a product, service, or project. The name reflects the fact that an elevator pitch can be delivered in the time span of an elevator ride (for example, thirty seconds or 100-150 words).”

They suggest several practical uses for this pitch, but I have an entirely different (and potentially unique) one: it will help me talk about it in college interviews and applications.

You can do either a long pitch or a shorter one.  The abridged version is meant to get bluntly to the point of what your blog is about.  So here’s my short pitch: “Marshall and the Movies is about me sharing my obsession with movies with everyone who will listen.”

Here’s my longer pitch: “I’ve always been the movie guy, and I’m trying to use all my knowledge for good.  Whether it’s alerting people to good movies or steering them clear of bad ones, sharing my moviegoing experiences, or just writing thought-provoking pieces about the Oscars or whatever pops into my mind, Marshall and the Movies is a blog about those two things but written for you.”

Be honest – would you visit my site if I came up to you and told you that in an elevator?





Random Factoid #369

1 08 2010

Have you ever demanded it?

The new system of getting little-known movies to theaters everywhere requires viewer participation at a new high. They have to go to the site Eventful and literally demand to get the movie played in their town. The only movie worth noting that has been released through this strategy is last fall’s horror surprise “Paranormal Activity.”

But the real question is how much of the success of that campaign was the movie and how much was the strategy. I’m more inclined to think it was the movie, or rather the trailer, which spooked YouTube audiences and became a phenomenon. Before you knew it, everyone was buzzing about the movie, mostly because of the audience reactions shown in the trailer.

Even I myself hailed the strategy as a winner back in October, but it’s getting a real test now. Did you know there’s a “Grease” sing-along that plays only in the towns that demand it? I’m pretty sure that endeavor has been a pretty big misfire. Sure, the last thing someone wants to pay $10 to see nowadays is something they can watch for free on ABC Family, but do the woes of “Grease” spell the doom of demanding?

What do you think? Will there be another “Paranormal Activity” to remind us that the demanding works? Or is the success merely an anomaly and demanding is headed the way of the dinosaur and the VHS?





Random Factoid #368

31 07 2010

One year ago today, I ran Random Factoid #3.  That seems like a long time ago, at least for me.  Back then, the factoids were all about me, me, me, and not the movies.  Here’s some of what I wrote:

My theater of choice is the Edwards Greenway Grand Palace 24 in Houston, Texas. It opened in 1999, and I frequent it because it is close to my house and it is always clean. The theater is now owned by the Regal Entertainment Group, which thankfully offers a rewards program for frequent guests called the Regal Crown Club. Points are awarded for each dollar spent on tickets and concessions, with occasional bonuses thrown in every once in a while. My family got the card in late 2004, and as of this posting, we have accumulated 2,156 points. And I have only been to the theater a handful of times in the past year.

I figured now would be as good a time as ever to unveil how many points I have now with a year of blogging under my belt.

I have … 2,647 points, a whopping 491 points more than this time last year.  That includes some bonus points thrown in there, but that’s at least several hundred dollars spent on the movies.  It’s a costly habit we have, isn’t it?





Random Factoid #367

30 07 2010

Christopher Nolan inspired me to a personal first today during my second viewing of “Inception.”  I took notes during the movie.

That’s right.  I took notes.

As I’ve been saying for the past two weeks, I’ve been hesitant to embrace a theory until I had seen the movie again.  I find myself still a little befuddled as to how everything happens, but what happened was definitely a lot clearer.  It was clear enough, in fact, that I was able to formulate my own theory as to what could be happening in the movie.  I’m not sure if it’s entirely valid, yet it’s a theory nonetheless.  I’ll throw it after a jump so an unsuspecting visitor doesn’t find that they’ve had the ending of the summer’s most talked about movie ruined for them.

So needless to say, THERE WILL BE SPOILERS after the cut.

Read the rest of this entry »





Random Factoid #366

29 07 2010

I read a fascinating post over at Kaiderman’s “The List” today entitled “Films You Didn’t Know I’m Never Going to See.” It was so great that it inspired a factoid on a slow Thursday evening.

Kai listed three movies he just won’t see, all of which are pretty darned scary.  I’m not too easily spooked, but I do have a line of what I will and won’t see.

If I’m aware that a movie has a plot revolving around the devil or Satan, I won’t see it.  I wasn’t aware that “Paranormal Activity” had one (really, no one knew what the movie was about before they saw it), so that was one exception.  I may make an exception for “The Exorcist” because it’s one of the highest-grossing movies ever made and “Rosemary’s Baby” because it is Roman Polanski.  Other than that, I’m out.  It’s not a moral objection; I just don’t want to see any sort of Satanic horror.





Random Factoid #365

28 07 2010

Well, folks, Random Factoid #365 is my 666th post.  How’s that for a bad omen?

But I’m not one to be superstitious.  I am one to celebrate … umm, HOLY &*$%#!!!  How did I get here?  I can thank Julie Powell – and Julia Child as well.  So today, I decided to thank the latter for a change.

You’ll hear more about it later, but for my anniversary, I decided to make Reine de Saba, a chocolate-almond cake from the massive cooking anthology that Child authored, Mastering the Art of French Cooking.  I did it mostly on my own, and I dug in.  It was quite tasty.

Julia suggested decorating the cake with almonds.  Check out my design … and careful not to drool on your keyboard.





Random Factoid #364

27 07 2010

Remember when I talked about the changes in pre-show entertainment in yesterday’s factoid?  Funny enough, I found the perfect one tonight.

A friend and I went to a free early screening of “Step Up 3,” which was easily one of the nicest screenings I’ve ever attended.  To get in, we just had to find our name on the RSVP list.  There was no line to enter the theater, and although we did get wanded, they let us take in our cell phones and everything (something they can be annoyingly strict about).  Best of all, the crowd was sparse, and being there an hour early got us our choice of good seats – as compared to being turned away getting there at the same time for other screenings.

The most fun, though, was the entertainment they provided for us.  They brought in trained breakdancers, not unlike the ones in the movie, to do their routines.  It was a blast, and the very animated audience got into it.  Then, they brought down people and taught them how to do a simplified version of the routine.  Some people had rhythm, and some people were … well, white.

So, theaters, don’t waste your time playing ad after ad.  Give us breakdancers.





Random Factoid #363

26 07 2010

Just like a convict or Lindsay Lohan, the pre-show entertainment before your movies is doing some reform.  According to an article in The New York Times, Screenvision is trying to take “advertainment” to a whole new level.  They say:

“Instead of the usual assortment of trivia, banner ads and snack-bar enticements, the new advertising preshow will rely more on celebrity and sponsored entertainment.”

We will get to see exclusive content from NASCAR (because nothing says “sophisticated” quite like it, I can’t wait to get to the theater before a Best Picture nominee and watch their stuff), Timbaland, and Paula Abdul.  And rather than have us pretend like our cell phones don’t exist, they plan to incorporate the smartphone into the experience by providing exclusive mobile-only content, which could include coupons you can only download in the theater.

The real question is, will moviegoers care?  I won’t.  According to their research, about 23 percent of moviegoers are in their seats 16 minutes before the trailers start; about 50 percent of the audience is seated 10 minutes before showtime.  I have no set routine, I like to slip in just as the pre-show entertainment ends and the trailers begin.  I’m only there before if it’s going to be a crowded show, and I’m only intentionally there later if I know the movie will be pretty empty.  This isn’t likely to change my moviegoing behaviors unless the coupons are very substantial.

Will you change?  Do you care now and would you care if they changed?





Random Factoid #362

25 07 2010

Is a one-word title a tragedy?  That is exactly what the Chicago Tribune‘s cultural critic, Julia Keller, dares to suggest in the wake of the release of “Inception” and “Salt.”

Here’s her argument:

There’s a word for titles like these: Ugh.

The hot new summer films “Inception” and “Salt” may be entertaining and popular, but when it comes to the snipped-off monikers by which they’re known — the one-word title — they’re as disappointing as stale Milk Duds.

Trying to come up with an evocative one-word title is a challenge, a dare, a high-wire act without a net. It’s an all-or-nothing adventure without a Plan B. There’s no backup adjective, no cushioning adverb, no peppy little verb to take the pressure off. Neither a politely introductory “The” nor the helpful threshold of an “A” or an “An” is present to lend aid and comfort. No prepositions are in sight. No ampersand stands by.

Going with a solo word as a title is like risking everything on a single throw of the dice or spin of the wheel. It’s like betting the house on red 7 or black 17. It’s one-and-done. title is a challenge, a dare, a high-wire act without a net. It’s an all-or-nothing adventure without a Plan B. There’s no backup adjective, no cushioning adverb, no peppy little verb to take the pressure off. Neither a politely introductory “The” nor the helpful threshold of an “A” or an “An” is present to lend aid and comfort. No prepositions are in sight. No ampersand stands by.

But whether it soars or it sinks, the one-word title is a constant reminder of the marvelous, astonishing, complex and unfathomable power of words. Words are a matter of nuance and texture, of memory and association, of linguistics, of history, of that ineffable magic attending any creative enterprise. With just a single word, an entire world may leap to life. A one-word title can imbue a work with the primitive, epic, thunderous power of eternity; indeed, some one-word titles — think of the film “Gladiator” (2000) — march forth and demand to be chiseled in granite. Other titles — think of the film “Sideways” (2004) — seem achingly fragile, ephemeral, as if they might blow away at the merest hint of wind and be lost forever, like first love.

She lists “Inception” as one of the worst one-word titles ever.  But I say, what’s wrong with the title “Inception?”  It perfectly communicates the mystery and power of the movie, and what more can you ask for?

Let’s brainstorm some other titles – “Subconscious Security?”  It sounds like a bad Martin Lawrence comedy.  “Dream Within a Dream?”  That wouldn’t sell because it sounds way too complicated.  “Limbo?”  Sounds like a raunchy beach movie.  “Inception” perfectly teases us, sounding sophisticated without giving too much away.

Is a one-word title really THAT bad?  Sound off below!





Random Factoid #361

24 07 2010

I’m good at catching errors.  I used to help my mom proof-read order forms, and I’ve helped many a friend edit for grammatical mistakes and what not.  And I love catching errors in professional work – although it also makes me cringe.  I’m not very good about catching errors in movies (as I said in Random Factoid #345), though.

So as a moviegoer, imagine how appalled I was at seeing this stand at Best Buy.  See if you can catch their mistake.  I feel like only someone like me would take offense to this.





Random Factoid #360

23 07 2010

As I said recently in Random Factoid #351, I have become obsessed with listening to segments of NPR on my iPhone.  I heard a fantastic one yesterday called “The Lost Art of Credit Sequences.” Either click on the bolded link or on the picture to go to NPR’s site to listen to the segment.

If you listen, and I hope you do, you’ll hear Bob Mondello wonder why directors have moved away from really utilizing an opening credit sequence.  The two highest grossing movies of the last decade, “Avatar” and “The Dark Knight,” gave us virtually nothing – a helicopter shot of Pandora and a bat symbol emerging from blue flames.  So why is it that we just have to jump straight into the movie now?  The credits sequences are fun, and I always enjoy seeing a good one.

Really, the only director I can think of that still utilizes them well is Jason Reitman.  All three of his movies have done a great job setting the mood for what is to come, particularly the lovable “Juno.”  I can’t find a full YouTube link, but here’s the animation and the song.

I also really love the credits for “The Kingdom,” but here’s my all-time favorite: “Monsters, Inc.”

So what’s your favorite?  And why are they dying?





Random Factoid #359

22 07 2010

It’s really a shame that “Inception” is going to have this stain on its legacy – the massive backlash and brawling between the movie’s ardent admirers and bitter detractors.

I’m not even going to try to capture what happened: the early acclaim, the backlash, the counter-backlash, and endless counter-backlashes.  Lisa Schwarzabaum at Entertainment Weekly did a great job of chronicling the strange critical saga, so I’ll borrow from her:

Critics and bloggers and blogger-critics and readers who like to post on Internet comment boards about those same critics and bloggers are spending a lot of time trashing one another.  The argument is about the early raves, and the critical backlash citing those early raves with disdain, and the reader backlash to the critical backlash, and the tyranny of aggregate scores on Rotten Tomatoes, and on and on and zzzzzz….

I wish I were dreaming this. Instead, the bickering is a waking nightmare at a time when professional movie criticism is being viewed more and more as a rude, elitist intrusion on the popular preferences of a public with greater opportunities than ever before to be your Own Best Critic and let the world in on your thoughts.

…Can we agree that those who love it aren’t brainwashed? Those who don’t like it aren’t snobs?

I will say that I’m not immune to backlash.  In the early months of 2009, as everyone else was discovering “Slumdog Millionaire,” I kept saying it’s good, but it’s not that good.  Maybe it was just pretentiousness as I had seen it months before these bandwagon fans.  Yet I know that hype has ruined many a good movie.  Anticipation really does mess with your perception of good and bad, often times putting your opinions at polar extremes.

You know where I stand on “Inception” (my A grade should say it all), but as long as someone can honestly give me a reason why they don’t like the movie, I’m okay with it.  But there is no place for people who choose not to like a movie just to spite everyone else.  No reason to lower the Tomatometer just because you want to.

It’s been an interesting lesson on the boundaries and limits of film criticism, although I hope that “Inception” hasn’t become a victim of it.





Random Factoid #358

21 07 2010

Last night, I added a new moviewatching experience to my extensive collection.  But it wasn’t one I wanted to add.

I was fortunate enough to receive passes to an advanced screening of “Salt” last night (review coming tomorrow), but I made the mistake of not reading the time of the screening on the pass.  I assumed it would be 7:30 like every other screening I go to, yet for some reason, this one was at 7:00.  My friend and I got there a little before 6:30 and stuck it out in the standby line until showtime.  We were two of the last three people let in and thus had to sit on … the front row.

I had sat up close before, as I described in Random Factoid #66:

I really like to get to movies early because I prefer sitting in the middle and towards the top.  Usually, I am able to get a reasonable seat.  I can, however, think of two horrible moviegoing experiences that were strongly affected by my seat.

  1. I have described this experience in a previous factoid, but for my 8th birthday party, the theater reserved us a row right behind the railing for “The Grinch.”
  2. I saw “The Reader” from the second row.  I had to crane my neck for two hours to watch a lackluster movie.  Also, Kate Winslet doesn’t look quite as good from such an angle.

But never had I been forced to endure the torture of sitting on the front row.  For those of you with a little bit of geometry under your belt, imagine looking up at the screen at a 60˚ angle of elevation.  Looking straight ahead, I could see the bottom tenth of the screen.  That’s how miserable it was.  It wasn’t watching a movie; it was looking up at a skyscraper that was Angelina Jolie.  It messes with your perception of things too.  People’s heads looked disproportionately small compared to the rest of their body.

Honestly, it makes so mad that theaters put in seats like that.  If I’m going to pay $10 (which I didn’t in this case), I want to be able to actually see the movie.  I feel like the theater should be paying me to sit there – or at the very least not make me pay full tilt.  Or maybe give me a neck massage or something because even today, my neck is SORE!

So has anyone else been the victim of the theater’s front row sadism?





Random Factoid #357

20 07 2010

George Grube (left) with wife Cherri (middle) and Tom Moroch (right)

I’ll be weighing in with more about my origins on my one-year-“blogoversary,” but I had to write about something that has been weighing heavy on my heart recently.  Yesterday, I found out that a man who played a large part in shaping my obsession of movies had passed away.

George Grube was a movie promoter in Oklahoma City, my childhood home.  I go back often and visit family that still lives there, and as a child, my uncle would always take me down to his office, knowing that I loved movies.  The annual visit was a day that I always looked forward to like Charlie anticipated going to Willy Wonka’s factory.  For me, his office was just as magical as any movie set.  They had contacts with Hollywood head honchos, and that was about the coolest thing in the world to me.

He always encouraged me, always applauding my latest efforts.  I wouldn’t be surprised if I came in there with a six-page script asking him to turn it into a movie.  I do know for a fact that in 2002, I came loaded with a sheet of movie slogans that I suggested that he run in his ads.  He was always kind to me and always showed me respect.  I’ll never forget the giddy rush of when he and Michelle, another benevolent movie lover working in his office, would dig into the promotional closet and shower me with all sorts of movie merchandise.  I remember in 2000, they gave me a whole set of stuffed chickens from the movie “Chicken Run,” and I still have one to this day.

George Grube was a man who loved movies and loved sharing that love with everyone else.   That included me, who saw him as not just a man but someone doing what I loved as a career.  While other kids wanted to be firemen or sports players, I wanted George Grube’s job.  His kindness whenever I visited his office was definitely something that kept my love of movies at such an extremely high level, and he is easily one of the early shapers of the fanaticism I still display to this day.

So here, I give a cheer to the incredibly influential man and the great life he lived.  Without him, you might not be reading this blog.





Random Factoid #356

19 07 2010

I thought that perhaps Christopher Nolan had performed inception on me and that I might start having dreams about the movie.  Surprisingly, it hasn’t happened.  Mal hasn’t jumped out to kill me … yet.

But I have started to feel like I’ve been hallucinating – or in a dream – a little bit more often than usual.  Almost as soon as I left the theater, I feel like a pedestrian came out of nowhere and walked in front of my car.  A projection?  Doubtful.

And then there was the other day when I was reading my book out in the sunshine.  A cloud had covered up the sun for a little while, but then I felt those rays hitting me with their fiery Houston intensity.  I looked up and saw the cloud – moving in the opposite direction as if it had just done a 180.  A paradox?  Perhaps.

No one try to shoot me to wake me up or anything.  Now I know all these weird moments from here on out I will blame on “Inception.”