Read + Write + Report
Home | Start a blog | About Orble | FAQ | Sites | Writers | Advertise | My Orble | Login

CINEMATRIX - by LuckyWill

 
Cinematrix is movie goer central bringing everything from the Big Screen to your screen.
Willis, Ford, Stallone
Not as young as they used to be
Its mid-life crisis time in Hollywood as some of the greatest actors return to reignite the old flames that once made them famous and let everyone know they still know how to kick ass. Sylvester Stallone, at age 60, gave ‘Rocky Balboa’ one more round in 2006 and two years later saw ‘Rambo’ don the camo gear once again as he did back in 1988 for ‘Rambo III’. In 2003, a 58 year old Arnie also turned back the clock in one of his final films before a self imposed exile to politics; rounding out the terminator trilogy as the lovable cybernetic assassin almost 20 years after first famously proclaiming he’d be back. Last year John McClane, aka Bruce Willis, was out to ‘Die Hard’ for the 4th time since his character’s conception back in 1988. Understandably it was a much older, wiser hero than we were used to this time, even cutting back the trademark swearing for the cinematic release.


The list goes on with Harrison Ford cracking the whip once again as the 66 year old treasure hunter returning for a fourth Indy instalment. Even the ‘Ghostbusters’ are making progress towards a return after spending 20 years delaying the inevitable. Dan Aykroyd has been pushing the idea for a third film for years, as have the fans, but some of the old crew, Bill Murray in particular, were reluctant to get on board. But now everyone is looking keen to get things moving again. The writers from ‘The Office’ have begun work on the script and it’s rumoured that the old boys will be adding some new talent to their team of proton powered spiritual exterminators so we could even see a 4, 5 and 6.


So with all these comebacks going on, who else should seek to recapture their youth?

Jim Carey is one of my favourite actors and while I think he does a great job with the serious roles, i.e., ‘The Truman Show’, ‘The Majestic’ and ‘The Number 23’ (fantastic film), he is really in his element playing some kind of bouncy, nutty, lunatic, i.e. ‘The Mask’, ‘Liar Liar’, ‘Ace Ventura’. For anyone who has seen an event that Carey has participated in, he is usually the one who randomly breaks into song or dances with strangers to ensure all eyes are on him. Jim Carey unleashed can be extremely funny. However there are now three films in which he has starred, that have gone on without him to produce a sequel of lesser quality. ‘The Mask’ did very well upon its release and was nominated (and received) a host of awards; the sequel, ‘Son of the Mask’, foolishly went on without Carey and fell harder than the careers of those involved. Jim Carey also played Bruce Nolan in ‘Bruce Almighty’, a film in which he is given the power of God after criticising his creator’s work ethic. His then co-star, Steve Carrel, took over in the sequel ‘Evan Almighty’ which was still good, but not in the same style as the first.

Now they are making ‘Ace Ventura 3’, reviving one of the films in which Carey was at his irreverent best as the Pet Detective with no regard for anyone but himself and his animals. The style of humour was slapstick at times but Carey stole every scene that he was part of with topical impersonations, witty insults and behaviour verging on the insane for most of the film. He was so good that he actually made a sequel, reprising a role for the first and only time in his entire career. Unfortunately ‘Ace Ventura 3’ is actually called ‘Ace Ventura Jnr’ and no, Jim Carey will not be in it. So it appears this franchise is heading down the same path as ‘Son of the Mask’; a film that revolves around Jim Carey, continuing without him. Why else would you see it?

If anyone should be making a comeback to revive past roles it should be Jim Carey. Forget about ‘Son of the Mask’ and, most likely, ‘Ace Ventura Jnr’. Take a page from the makers of the recent ‘Incredible Hulk’ film and just pretend the other one didn’t happen. It would be great to see the Pet Detective or the masked hooligan reek havoc on the world once again but only the best will do. Either bring back the star or don’t even bother.

If Michael J Fox were not suffering from his unfortunate condition I would have expected his character, Marty McFly, to continue hopping Back to the Future as we saw him do almost 2 decades ago. A similar time frame has passed since Bruce Campbell (Ash) did battle against the ‘Army of Darkness’ in the Evil Dead Saga in 1992. Number four of that franchise is set to be on its way as early as 2009, as Campbell once again battles the undead, with boom stick in one hand and chainsaw in the other. Mel Gibson killed off any hopes of a ‘Mad Max’ or ‘Lethal Weapon’ revival despite scripts and producers being ready for action. ‘Mad Max 4: Fury Road’ will still go ahead but it seems they will just follow in the terminator foot steps and let someone else take it from here as the star.

Did I forget anyone? Who do you think will be next to venture down memory lane?
27
Vote
Shared on
   


If film is simply escapism why do we watch war films?



Additionally if watching a movie is to relax or 'chill out' how can widespread violence be comforting. Unless you're a homicidal masochist, this genre of film doesn't apply to the usual standards. However, these are the two most popular responses to reason watching a film, e.g. escapism and to relax. For the majority who have experienced war they'd want nothing more than to evade war films that seemingly glorify genocide, misguided patriotism or bodily aggression against another. For the rest of us, why selectively watch war films to endure a type of portrayed torture on-screen?

Admittedly there are many types of war films that can be segregated and categorised, due or based on historical fact, fiction and to scales of local, national and international magnitude. Wars can be between countries or groups of religious, governmental or daresay 'ideological', persuasions. There can be sociological wars fraught between members of ethnicity, gender, sex, class and race that may underpin warring relations among thinkers, or similar feelings towards 'actors' that take up arms. For a more traditional context we could see them (depending on your persuasion) as freedom fighters, dissenters, liberators, government militia, defense forces or more cohesively as soldiers. So if there's such an assortment of wars and inclusively war films can they still be viewed under an all-encompassiong banner of promoting the visual stimulation of oppression, struggle and pain?

Just today I hired out "Flags of our Fathers". Having not yet seen it I know very little other than it looks a) American-made b) concerned with an American war/battle c) probably pro-American. Glimpsing at the cover I saw Clint Eastwood had something to do with producing it, either directing or as a financier. I presume he's too old to be thrown into the action of a war film and plus, he's done his fair share in westerns over the years. Yet, I put it to you (Orble reader or the broader outer community), I chose this particular movie over all other 'new releases' for something quite contrary to escapism or relaxing. I wanted something real. I didn't fancy a war film like that of modern horrors of werewolves vs vampires (Underworld) or even half-bloods vs vampires (Blade/s). Similarly something like a Hellenic version wouldn't do either (See: Gladiator, 300). Nor, a war against the capitalist society (The Corporation, Supersize Me) or one on global warming (An Inconvenient Truth) or even one on speech (F*ck).

I wanted something real. Moreover, something relative to my life had I been born less than 70 years ago and could reasonably imagine the circumstances surrounding this un-enviable position. Usually I admire stories of hardship against odds - it's where the greatest victory lays. Things done simply net the least rewards. Sometimes bearing a grimace, flinching at the starkness or feeling dour at the event to transpire makes me feel an uneasiness that I never would have encountered otherwise and for that I'm glad. Not that I'm advocating war but the grounding principles therein are of perseverence, stamina, resolution and qualitatively, 'action', are found in their most rawest forms. No one leads by complacency and therefore none will follow. War films are arguably the best source to find the most savage, honest and brutal depictions of human nature. You may say they are the worst of human emotions but nevertheless they are real. The only lies are found in politics.

This reality, I hope, to find in more war films and hoping furthermore to find it in "Flags of our Fathers". More broadly I don't feel like comedies, horrors, drama's, thrillers or manga's. I feel like something real. Something tangible to a piece of history and to ourselves as animals of Earth, that do and will get caught up in war that is as evident to us now as as it was when we first started out, creationist or evolutionist speaking. War - as a part of us as humans and a part of our life.



Do you like war films?
Or do you dislike war films?


(Neither is right or wrong and is generally contingent upon our mood.)



Next review - Flags of our Fathers
67
Vote
Shared on
   


Far too much we are seeing "creative license", skew films to a biased end, dramatic subplot or fantasised love interest. I see why script writers - and if not, definitely - producers elevate certain areas of film for shock value, merchandise, traditionalise formula and tease out unpopular quirks to ensure the film-going audience all agrees and likes it. Whether or not this is a good thing it happens.

Films like Gladiator, Braveheart, Robin Hood, Enigma all show a tantalising fiction that's very loosely based on history.
Yet we are drawn in by them so much, not by their fictitious parts, but by their representations of connecting with prior figures in history and being a part of something while history is made. Then, after research into the area we come to learn the grievances of "editing". But isn't editing history, real life events, peoples lives an indictment on culture and history in the most deplorable terms? If you can't be represented as you lived and mocked by an alternate version, you've been coloured by your time, smeared by outside your living history and denied your truthful existence to generations to come


[ Click here to read more ]
123
Vote
Shared on
   


Which lightsaber would you choose?

October 26th 2006 01:44
Lightsaber cabinet


Taken from the fictional world of the books, films, games, toys, blogs, etc of "Star Wars" (although some have noted it as their religion too), the origin of the lightsaber here takes place. Primarily it's a combat tool and is created from the resources of special types of crystals, yet only few are allowed to wield them. But! If you could have any light-sabre you wanted, along with your preference of colour, which would you choose? I've often fantasised about having a lightsaber as a kid and still do now a bit - whirling it around the air, making that 'sssshh' sound. I guess it's kinda like using a coathanger to pretend you're playing guitar


[ Click here to read more ]
206
Vote
Shared on
   


Awkward sex scenes portrayed in film..

October 18th 2006 07:39
MATURE CONTENT
   


Here's an excersise to find your best fit of actor/ess for your biography in film!

We all have our favourite actors and actresses that symbolise something which we would like to emulate whether it be a characteristic trait, look or even someone who you think looks like you or who chooses similar roles in film as you would if you were an actor yourself


[ Click here to read more ]
99
Vote
   


Favourite Childhood Films

September 25th 2006 13:58
What are yours?
Do you still hold them as your current all-time favourites?


[ Click here to read more ]
70
Vote
   


Do movie sequels work?

September 13th 2006 00:30
Well, according to IMDB’s stats for the “All-Time Worldwide” box office sales it does!
Lord of the Rings 3
Ranked 2nd worldwide

A staggering 7 out of the top 10 films were sequels raking in more than $866,000,000 not including rentals, DVD buys and other miscellaneous promotional purchases. Out of the top 3 films were 2 sequels that grossed over A BILLION DOLLARS! What are these popular sequels you ask? Admittedly you’ll probably guess them. They’re all franchises and from the Harry Potter, Star Wars and Lord of the Rings license. Makes perfect sense now - almost common sense. Surprises included the Pirates of the Caribbean sequel (Dead Mans Chest) doing better than the first (Curse of the Black Pearl) and Shrek 2 being more lucrative than Shrek.
Pirates of the Carribean2
Ranked 3rd worldwide

[ Click here to read more ]
113
Vote
   


Film as art?

September 1st 2006 06:58
Can film be described as art? What is art anyway?

Andy Warhol once famously retorted on the question of art – “Isn’t that a man’s name
[ Click here to read more ]
75
Vote
   


Which actor is the best Batman?

August 21st 2006 05:25
“Wh-Who are you?”
“…I’m Batman.”
("But which one?")

[ Click here to read more ]
125
Vote
   


LuckyWill's Blogs

458 Vote(s)
9 Comment(s)
6 Post(s)
Moderated by LuckyWill
Copyright © 2006 2007 2008 On Topic Media PTY LTD. All Rights Reserved. Design by Vimu.com.
On Topic Media ZPages: Sydney |  Melbourne |  Brisbane |  London |  Birmingham |  Leeds     [ Advertise ] [ Contact Us ] [ Privacy Policy ]