Current Movies Blog

via Wikipedia

In a breaking exclusive that’s more like a facepalm, it turns out the Academy Awards is going to become “progressive” and add another shocker to its’ new ten-films-for-best-picture-nomination: they will ask voters to vote in order of importance and weigh the numbers differently. Also, water is a liquid and the sky is above us.

The Wrap sums up this glorious development with  exclusive reporting on what many would argue is obvious:

Instead of just voting for one nominee, the way Academy members have almost always done on the final ballot, voters will be asked to rank all 10 nominees in order of preference — and the results will be tallied using the complicated preferential system, which has been used for decades during the nominating process but almost never on the final ballot.

But don’t forget, this is the Academy of Motion Picture and Sciences. This only effects Best Picture, so it isn’t the most ground breaking of changes as “changing the color of a carpet” or “nixing that one unfunny music number” would be. Despite sounding like a sure-fire way to be fair, one voter’s number one choice can easily be a major film not seen by 3/4s of the Academy Voters who–let’s be fair–don’t see nearly enough movies throughout the year. Sure, they’ll watch whatever is released in the October/November months.

But earlier this year? You better hope firms are enclosing cash fees with their DVD screeners.

Anyway, my favorite part of the article comes at the very end:

Academy voters, by the way, don’t know about this yet.

Chances are, they still won’t notice any change and a Paul Haggis film will win because that is “deep.”

[TheWrap]

-John Lichman

This is the single most illegal and horribly wrong video I have ever put on this blog. Brett and Josh have no idea they are in it. I use every transition in my editing program. I steal content. I stole music from a YouTube clip.

Everything about this video is morally and professionally bad.

And that is what Wednesdays are like: morally and professionally bad.

So go home now.

-John Lichman

Now that I’ve properly digested and thought about the latest sugar-coated production from Stephen Sommers–and read the requisite F.A.Q. from Topless Robot–I’ve started thinking more about G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra. Sure, it made a lot of money and caused Sommers himself to renounce film critics as being uncessary.

Who needs a critic when THE PEOPLE are more than willing to pony up their hard-earned cash to see Marlon Wayans act like an idiot while wearing knock-off Iron Man armor that Sommers designed ten years ago.

So, in effect, Stephen Sommers is right: “mainstream critics [aren't] relevant here, they have criticized themselves into irrelevancy.”

The Yearly Averages of Stephen Sommers' Films (via RottenTomatoes.com)

What difference does it make that his career Tomatometer is a defiant 10 percent? It means nothing because critics cannot judge the talent and spirit needed to adapt films like The Jungle Book (94 percent) or The Adventures of Huck Finn (58 percent.) Critics can’t comprehend the work that Sommers produces, such as the classic Catch me…If You Can, which has no rating. That doesn’t mean that it is so awful no critic wants to watch it, rather Sommers’ genius cannot be comprehended by anyone who labels themself as such a contrarian.

Sommers’ (and Paramount’s) ultimate goal became clear: if Critics want to give negative reviews to something, then it only makes sense if they are forced to pay for being so negative. This is only common sense in today’s economic climate.

Screening for select critics generates semi-positive buzz, such as on Rotten Tomatoes,  especially it’s legendary drop from 100 percent to 91 and then below. And again, both Sommers and Paramount are right–the only catch is it isn’t at all what they mean. In their ideal world, shitty and lazy filmmaking for a consumer so culturally dead is the goal. When I was joking with Matt Prigge on Twitter about #GIdiocracy. There is such mindless fun in this movie that indulging your inner ten-year old isn’t such a bad idea. In fact, it’s such a great idea that “ it was already dead.”

Joe has nothing of merit and a plot that’s easily picked apart, but this is argued as “a kid’s movie” so it can be lazy when it comes to explanations and things like making sense. But think of Jon Favreau’s Zathura, Elf and Iron Man: all three are kids’ films and/or designed with a fanbase firmly in mind. And of course you can make the argument that Sommers is no Favreau.

That’s fine. But don’t argue these are movies made for “the common person” when they’re so dumbed down that it is almost offensive in wrapping up plot details and “them vs. us” before putting your main villains behind bars to justify their “comeuppance.” Critics are a necessary evil for Paramount and the Stephen Sommers of the world because without them complaining about how evil and mean a Critic can be, people will become satiate with G.I. ASS: THE MOVIE. THE EXPLOSION. THE SEQUEL in 2012.

Which really isn’t all that much of a coincidence.

-John Lichman

Apparently Paramount is a-okay with video game tie-ins to their terrible summer films be given unfavorable reviews by people in the U.S. as long as they haven’t seen the film. But this tie-in game looks like it’ll be an hour of fun before crushing reality sets in, like with most movie tie-in games (i.e. Iron Man, Transformers, Transformers Revenge of the Fallen and Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer. Also, E.T.)

But still, the realization that the only actor to voice his character from the film in the game is Marlon Wayans? Depressing-er.

[Topless Robot]

-John Lichman

HEY. YOU GUYS LIKE CAPITAL LETTERS, RIGHT? MAN, I LOVE CAPITAL LETTERS. IT MAKES SURE PEOPLE CAN UNDERSTAND THE SUBTLTIES OF MY IRONY.

LIKE THIS SHORT, HIPSTER JOB. BECAUSE, LIKE, IT’S A RE-TELLING OF THE BOOK OF JOB.

AND LIKE, THE SAME DUDE TALKS THROUGHOUT IT. AND GOD IS ZIGGY STARDUST. AND SATAN IS A DUDE WHO LIKES TO PEE IN BEER AND MAKE YOU DRINK IT.

AND THIS TAKES PLACE IN WILLIAMSBURG BECAUSE THAT IS WHERE IRONY AND BUZZFEED AND INTERNET JOKES LIVE.

CAPITAL LETTERS SURE DO MAKE ME FEEL BETTER. AND YOU FEEL BETTER BECAUSE YOU GOT THIS JOKE.

ALSO YOU TOTALLY THOUGHT IT SAID “JOB” AND NOT “JOBE.” FUNNY HA HA ANDREW BUJALSKI WTF LOLZ THE YOUNG.

[BUZZFEED]

-JOHN LICHMAN

The irony when you lay off a lot of people? Your product will start to suck, New York Observer.

Even with the keen, Defamer approved critical insight of Rex Reed.

[NYO]

-John Lichman

Man, do I love press junkets. They’re like tiny little bastions of bat-shit crazy wrapped around a movie release. If you’re not aware of how a majority of the quote-whore sausage is made, allow me to rip back the curtains like a curtain ripper. A press junket is basically a day’s worth of dog and pony show where PR firms bring out talent for an upcoming film, namely a director and some actors among others, feed journalists and then have a Q&A session.

It’s really quite harmless: think of it like a White House Reporter Pool but then everyone runs onto the Internet screaming “EXCLUSIVE QUOTES FROM A STAR ABOUT A MOVIE THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE MADE!”

Back in New York, the little sandwiches at The Regency were fantastic. When I was a younger man, a press junket was like a treasure trove of meals and free bottled water for me. Sure, there’s a comparison to be made about struggling reporters and college students, but that’s for another post.

This past Saturday, there was a junket whose horror only was hinted at. Todd Gilchrist attended the junket for Orphan. And so did two supposedly whacked-out reporters who babbled inane questions at the talent. But my favorite?

I wanted to ask, it seems like this movie has really two incredibly stupid people in it. The shrink, who doesn’t get anything and is totally clueless, she’s the total opposite of what we might see on In Treatment or this Kevin Spacey movie called Shrink, and is that a conscious thing to sit there and discredit psychiatry. You talked about psychological aspects of the movie, and so you wanted to say that these people are jerks and stupid and don’t get anything. And also the dumb daddy, the stupidest white person we’ve seen in a movie in a long time…What about that? Was that always a part of the script? Was that something you added and is it meant to be slightly humorous or campy as part of the story?

Genius. Definitely check out the rest. Between this one, Andrew O’Hehir’s Lord of the Rings whirlwind and the Onion A.V. Club’s Idle Hands Junket Experience, there is definite proof junkets are fantastic–at failing. Read the other four gems at Cinematical.

-John Lichman

Routinely on the Internet, people comment on articles. Sometimes, they may even know how to write a sentence or two. Maybe they can even use “teh HTMLZ” and know how to run a script or two. Other times, it involves basic ettique and knowing how to use your website.

On the Movies page at Current, I like to think that we completely outline what we want submitted there. From my little bio:

[B]reaking movie news, interviews with the industry, trends in film, new trailers and film-related conversation. but just because you have a moving set of pictures, or a gaggle of gossip shots, doesn’t mean it’s right for us.

One assumes that speaks for itself. And if it doesn’t fit with the format I want for the Channel, then I merely untag your article. It is that simple. So what’s good? Details about the God of War movie, Natalie Portman starring in Thor, or even the 10 Deadliest Creatures in Movies. What we don’t want are things that just have moving pictures, no matter how blunt your definition of “Movies” is.

What isn’t applicable is something like this submission from a user that features a video presentation from a speaker. Now this is relevant for News and lord knows what else. But it isn’t relevant to Movies and attempting to argue that with the following comment is why this is a GREAT MOMENT IN INTERNET COMMENTING from User IAmFree:

jlichman..actually a movie is motion picture..nothing more nothing less…just because you have your limited scope on doesnt [sic] change the fact..does the content have pictures in motion along with audio?yes adding a movie tag is not inappropriate at all…btw its just a tag man..stop abusing your little current powers douche..thanks

Remember everyone, people who use your website know more about it than you do. Also, don’t abuse your little current powers douche or else something bad will happen.

-John Lichman

So, Michael Jackson has died. While we should all take a moment in honor of Captain EO, which Karina points out is available entirely on YouTube, I felt it was important to remember the King of Pop in his own way.

By posting the hilarious post-mortem collection of groups dancing to Thriller.

Enjoy the Zombie Dance!

In Prison!

In Movies!

In Weddings!

In India!

-John Lichman

As you’ve likely heard, Farrah Fawcett is dead. But the saddest thing is that she will only be remembered for two reasons.

1. Charlie’s Angels.

The Second After The Jump.