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 #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.”





Random Factoid #355

18 07 2010

Relax, no “Inception” spoilers here.  Although if you were like me a few days ago and want to know literally nothing about the movie, I’d stray away from this post.

And if you were expecting me to shut up about “Inception” once I saw the movie and posted my review, dream on.  I’m just getting started.

What a crazy ending.  Didn’t want to talk about it in the review, but it has everyone talking.  The internet is aflutter with theory after theory, and all I can say is woah.  I could barely take in the plot in one sitting, and you all were able to take this away?

Moviegoers like that absolutely astound me.  And by that, I mean that I don’t understand how people can get so deep into the core of a multi-layered movie like “Inception” in one setting.  No, I am not one of them.  I can only look with amazement at the people on the open InContention thread or the EW PopWatch post.

I doubt I will ever be able to come up with a sophisticated theory on a movie, mainly because I’m just not that kind of a person.  I can piece together my own theory but only after reading several others.  I’m not capable of watching a movie and then coming up with my own with only what I have ingested as my guide.

If anyone wants to post their thoughts on the ending, I guess I can open up the comments to theories and what not.  Spoilers are fair game and welcome, in fact, there.  So if you haven’t seen the movie, DON’T LOOK AT THE COMMENTS BECAUSE THERE WILL BE SPOILERS!





Random Factoid #354

17 07 2010

This picture was taken from the post.

This is a question mainly for WordPress bloggers – mainly because I don’t know how Blogger/Blogspot does things.

You know that weird section on your “blog stats” page called INCOMING LINKS?  It’s where you see who has linked to you; I guess a sort of alternative pingback.  Mine is usually filled with LAMBscores, LAMB Chops, etc.

But recently, there has been a strange link in there that just will not go away.  It’s a post from a sketchy looking site called “The Blog Conglomerate” called What Are New York’s “Boyfriend Politicians” Doing to Single Women…

Now, I don’t write about anything other than the movies, so it struck me as very strange that I would be linked to from this post.  I looked around and eventually found that my Random Factoid #325 was listed under their “Related Websites.”  That factoid, for everyone’s information, was about the late Pixar animator Joe Ranft.  Nothing to do with politics.

So I have to ask – has this happened to anyone else?  This is just really, really strange, and I don’t quite know what to make of it.





Random Factoid #353

16 07 2010

To your left is a sight that I’ve been waiting to look at for nearly a year – my ticket for “Inception.”  In a little less than four hours, I will be basking in the glory of Christopher Nolan’s latest feature.  At the time this post is published, I would be in the theater at the midnight showing of the movie.  But life has a way of surprising us.  If everything went according to plan, it wouldn’t be life.

So I guess I’ll use this factoid to kind of wrap-up everything leading up to “Inception.”  Thanks to everyone this week that has been reading all of my reviews of Nolan’s films; I’ve been seeing the stats and reading the comments, and everything has just been incredible.

You may recall that back in April, I described my desire to avoid all things “Inception” leading up to the release.  I’ll quote that post, Random Factoid #275, here:

I am attempting to do the impossible: avoid the media blitz surrounding Christopher Nolan’s “Inception” and walk into the theater on July 16th without knowing anything about the plot.  I am not going to read plot summaries, watch trailers, or read any sort of specific review.

I am prepared to do whatever it takes not to have this movie spoiled.  I will start bringing either headphones or earplugs to tentpole summer movies where previews will most assuredly play.  If I see any feature on the movie, I will shield my eyes and go away.

First of all, I want to issue a blanket apology to any friend of mine who put up with my obsession for the last few months.  Particular apologies go out to anyone who has seen a movie with me, where during an “Inception” trailer, I would plug my ears, close my eyes, and hum to drone out the noise.  This was a good way to clear out the other folks on my row, but my friends never abandoned me.  Another apology to anyone who has watched TV with me because I would often demand a channel change when a commercial for “Inception” came on.

But hopefully my persistence pays off tonight.  I have not watched a trailer since the teaser, and I know next to nothing about the plot.  I avoided looking at posters and slogans, didn’t look at any plot descriptions, and have only seen about 10 stills from the movie.  I think that’s pretty impressive.

And I’m so ready to absorb the movie that I’ve bought several magazines with spotlights on “Inception,” including the American Cinematographer, which features a discussion with DP Wally Pfister.  (Trade tidbit: DP is short for “director of photography,” which is another way of saying cinematographer.)

And all my technology has been decked out in “Inception.”  Both my phone background and computer desktop are artwork from the movie.





Random Factoid #352

15 07 2010

I just finished my first book of summer reading, “Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close” by Jonathan Safran Foer, today.  The first of four.

I really do love to read, and I used to use my free time to do a whole lot more of it.  It’s such a therapeutic thing for me to do, and it’s great for building vocabulary as well.  I have a huge bookshelf in my room filled with shelves of books I haven’t read.  I really do intend to get to them some day, but it’s hard to find the time.

And reading is another thing that gets pushed to the side doing movie blogging (like TV, which I described in Random Factoid #259).  It’s so hard to resist the temptation to get the full satisfaction of watching a plot arc develop in around two hours in a movie, while it takes days and days to read through a book.  Reading a book has less immediate gratification, something I’m constantly told my generation has a problem with.

Just so you know, the blogging may be slowing down a tad so I can finish up my summer reading.  It won’t be too noticeable, but I really do need to get this reading done.





Random Factoid #350

13 07 2010

Is it worth it to see animated movies in 3D anymore?  That’s the question Cinematical posed on their site, and it’s the question I’m answering in the random factoid.

18 out of the 28 weekends this year have been dominated by 3D movies, 8 of which were animated movies.  The latest to claim the top spot was “Despicable Me,” which exceeded each and every expectation the industry laid out for it.  However, only 45% of its profits came from bloated 3D ticket prices.  This is good news to me because it gives me hope that America doesn’t just blindly drink the 3D Kool-Aid.

Seemingly every animated movie being released is in 3D, and often times it does add something.  But how do you know when to go and when not to?  I haven’t paid for 3D since “Clash of the Titans;” however, through free screenings I have had the opportunity to see “Shrek Forever After” and “Toy Story 3” in 3D.  Had I paid extra to see them in 3D, I wouldn’t have been too happy.  It’s cool but not worth $3.50 because it doesn’t really add much to the experience.

So my new rule of thumb is unless I have heard that the 3D is spectacular, or the movie is shot in 3D, I will not be paying those premium ticket prices.  Even if it does make the unicorn look fluffier.