I love musicals. A lot. It is very hard, where I live, to see good Broadway productions because I don't live in a "big" city. So, I have to rely in their movies adaptations where they make a lot of changes but I don't have any other choice.

Last night I saw Dreamgirls, based in a Broadway musical which tells the story of a Supremes-like group with a lot of songs based in the old R&B and motown sounds of yesteryear ^^




I also liked the story. Yes is not as happy or glamoruous like, Chicago, for example. But that's the beauty of musicals. Even the sad stories sounds beautiful with songs.

Bottomline:awesome movie. Definitely in my "must buy" list of DVD's ;)

Joel Schumacher..he's such an oddity. Sometimes he makes great movies like Falling down, Flat liners, Tigerland, St. elmo's fire, Phoneboot, The Phantom of the opera.., sometimes, he makes terribe films like, Batman and Robin, A time to kill, Bad company, The Incredible shrinking woman, 8mm, the lost boys. His last movie "The number 23" is a psychological thriller/drama with Jim carrey in one of his many underrated serious roles.




Is still a very good movie. Schumacher uses a mixture of styles ranging from Noir like colors to blurry ones that makes it seems dream like. Jim carrey and Virginia madsen gave excellent performances and the suspense builds pretty well.

8% in RT..jesus! what a bunch of...bitters! I personally recommend this movie. Don't expect another "sixth sense" or something. It is a very well made movie and it worths the price of admission.

I understand that many people has that dream of wanting to make a movie. Specially if they are, I dunno, billionaires, famous and/or influential. I mean, just see Howard Huges. The guy never went to film school or something but he learned and did his very best..of course he was billionaire, famous and influential but instead of saying "Fuck you I'll do what I want" he used his position to improve and not to abuse.


WOAH! THERE'S BLOOD DUUUUUUUDE


Unless you are a White zombie/rob zombie fan, like boobs, chicks, and blood, smokes pot and had the IQ of a 2 year old then watch that movie..and even so, only if there aren't better choices.

One of the issues of going to the movies with your 50-some father is that, normally, he tends to chose the most boring and odd movie just because "X actor" acts there.

Last night I went to the movies and saw "Perfect Stranger" one of the most boring movies I have seen so far this year. It is a thriller but it was so anti-climatic and boring that the directors had to "make" a stupid twist ending that really makes you say "are you fucking kiddin' me?!"


Does this turn you on?...No, really?


So far, the first crap of the year. Is nort even for rent. Unless you get shocked very easily.

Let's face: Hollywood doesn't make any good comedy movies nowadays. All of them, rely in poop jokes, farts, fat people, parodies and all that stuff. The last good comedy movie I saw was "Fun with dick and jane". Whic wasn't a masterpiece, must admit it, but at least it had good perfromances and dialogues.

But I never saw again movies like Tootsie, or Mrs. Doubtfire, or Ferris bueller's day off that had wit, excellent dialogues and awesome cast. No, no we have to see crap like Date movie, scary movie and, the worst of all, Shrek and similar clones.

Wild hogs, a comedy with Travolta, Lawrence, Macy and Allen has some of that stuff and even is a bit critical about the hollow american way of life..but too much slaptsick and gay jokes ruin the way.




So, in a nutshell, is a fun, hilarious movie that, honestly, deserves to be rented and watch it with your friends. It will make you laugh,nonetheless, but won't stick in your memory that much.

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles...wow! speaking of childhood memories..



"I'm fine, but what the hell is Joanna Dark doing here?!"


The final result is a very entertaining flick with a light hearted storyline and-I have to say-EXCELLENT action scenes that really makes worthy. It is a nice Turtles movie for kiddos and is a very nice nostalgic trip for the almost 30's people that, like me, were like those kiddos, almost 20 years ago, screaming and amazed with seeing big, muscled, reptiles kicking ass ;)

I remember when "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring" appeared in theatres on december 2001, many people started to say that it was too similar to "Star Wars". Others said that Star Wars, copied the Tolkien's book for his movie. Of course, the ones who said that are geeks that only lives in their tiny illogical world and doesn't seem more out of it, The same that loves Dungeons and Dragons gameboards and drooled with the neuronless 300.

The truth is, that when George Lucas created Star Wars, he wanted to make a fairy tale that was as well a homage to all those books, comics and movies he enjoyed as a kid, like Flash Gordon, Buck Rogers, The Hidden Fortress, and of course, The Lord of the Rings books. He never said he created all that from the ground. All the contrary, he acknowledged those influences and always mentioned. He doesn't mention the LOTR books nowadays because the movies, but he invited Peter Jackson in his SW documentaries because of it..and there, PJ acknowledged the infleunce of the Star Wars movies in his Tolkien film trilogy. Yes, it is, LOTR fan boy, see closely.

That's what artists do. They acknwoledge their influences and respect them. They know that nothings is created from zero and even so, they create an "original" work from them. Spielberg, Tarantino, Burton..all of them.

But of course, there's a HUGE difference between "influence" and "copy". And there's a very fragile line that separates them. Star wars was influenced by LORT..but Eragon is a copycat of Star wars...and a bad one.




Eragon - Episode 1: The Copycat menace


All on all..this is one of the most stupid movies I've ever seen in my whole life. Just little 12 year olds wil lenjoy such crap and fanboys of the genre. Fantays is a very delicate subject that shows any detail of error on it. No one can make fantasy, that's a fact.

Also, taking ideas from other sources is typical while making art. But there must be some kind of respect to the sources. They just have to be influential, not be copied.

Take note, Paolini dude.

Every year, there's always THE blockbuster. The one that everybody must see or else, it will be the one that's left alone in parties and chats.

Yeah people can be cruel =P

Of course, sometimes there are more than 1 BB. Specially when the first months of the year are very slow and we have to wait for the summer to catch the best ones. Normally starting on May and finishing in August..or July. This year won't be the exception, starting with "Pirates of the caribbean 32 and finishing with "The Simpsons movie". And then we'll have to wait until Thanksgiving to the last set of BB's of the year.

Therefore, spring and autumn normally has the movies that very few people want to watch. But yet, there's always ONE movie that EVERYBODY MUST watch. Because you see the trailer and drooled with it, because your dad/mom/brother/sister/boyfriend/girlfriend/friend/classmate/coworker/god saw it and told you that "it was f**g great!" and everybody is talking about it. This time it came in a movie based on a graphic novel, based in a real life battle, named 300.

Yup that one.



Piercings and necklakes? yeah that's soooo masculine Xerxes


So, in a nutshell, I did have fun watching it. Is the kind of movies one enjoy in a big theater with THX sound. DVD? meh..I dunno..time will tell. It was a very cool movie, but is not that great. I guess that 15-year olds (both phisically and mentally) or not too demanding adults will enjoy it more. Is nonetheless worth the admission price, but don't expect the next big thing.

Among all the bunch of happiness and disapointments that plagued the Oscar night, there were 2 movies that seemed very interesting since they announced them and I really though that they were goona be nominated: "Children of Men" and "A scanner Darkly". "Children.." got nominated in many categories like edition, cinematography and screenplay, but none in the acting categories nor Best picture nor Director. The same for "A scanner Darkly" except that it gotten nominated in ANYTHING! why? because it was an animated movie for adults..something that the academy can't stand.

Too bad, because these two movies were, without a doubt, one of the greatest highlights of the 2006.

These two movies had many things in common: they are based in a novel, are dystopian sci-fi stories with many current themes on it. The difference is that one is live-action with a very grimm treatment (almost nobe CGI effects nor other gimmicks) and the other is an animated movie, using an improved rotoscope technique.




"A scanner darkly" also talks about a dystopian future, in Los Angeles, where the war on drugs is almost lost. Richard Linklater made a very faitful adaptation of the Phillip K. Dick novel and was animated with Rotoscope to give it a "graphic novel" look and to address the drug theme more precisely.

Cuaron direction is superb. Using a lot one-shots sequences that gave the movie a documentary feel, very similar to "Saving Private Ryan". Clive owen did a great performance as Theo Faron, a pessimistic average guy that suddenly has the future of humankind in his hands. This movie is a terribly overlloked masterpiece that deserved way more attention than the one it deserved.

"Scanner" uses an animation technique that can like to others and dislike others. But wherever the reason, it can be denied that it fits superbly and it created an almost dream situation where things are not what they seem. Of course, is not for kiddos and therefore, mainstream audiences couldn't take it seriously. But this is a proof that there can be intelligent adult movies that approaches sserious themes.

Bottomline: the academy is full of old farts. There can't be another reason why they overlooked these two jewels in their prizes. Their funeral. If you can rent them, do it. They are worth watching and are two of the fewest shines in film of the last year.

Among all the bunch of happiness and disapointments that plagued the Oscar night, there were 2 movies that seemed very interesting since they announced them and I really though that they were goona be nominated: "Children of Men" and "A scanner Darkly". "Children.." got nominated in many categories like edition, cinematography and screenplay, but none in the acting categories nor Best picture nor Director. The same for "A scanner Darkly" except that it gotten nominated in ANYTHING! why? because it was an animated movie for adults..something that the academy can't stand.

Too bad, because these two movies were, without a doubt, one of the greatest highlights of the 2006.

These two movies had many things in common: they are based in a novel, are dystopian sci-fi stories with many current themes on it. The difference is that one is live-action with a very grimm treatment (almost nobe CGI effects nor other gimmicks) and the other is an animated movie, using an improved rotoscope technique.




"A scanner darkly" also talks about a dystopian future, in Los Angeles, where the war on drugs is almost lost. Richard Linklater made a very faitful adaptation of the Phillip K. Dick novel and was animated with Rotoscope to give it a "graphic novel" look and to address the drug theme more precisely.

Cuaron direction is superb. Using a lot one-shots sequences that gave the movie a documentary feel, very similar to "Saving Private Ryan". Clive owen did a great performance as Theo Faron, a pessimistic average guy that suddenly has the future of humankind in his hands. This movie is a terribly overlloked masterpiece that deserved way more attention than the one it deserved.

"Scanner" uses an animation technique that can like to others and dislike others. But wherever the reason, it can be denied that it fits superbly and it created an almost dream situation where things are not what they seem. Of course, is not for kiddos and therefore, mainstream audiences couldn't take it seriously. But this is a proof that there can be intelligent adult movies that approaches sserious themes.

Bottomline: the academy is full of old farts. There can't be another reason why they overlooked these two jewels in their prizes. Their funeral. If you can rent them, do it. They are worth watching and are two of the fewest shines in film of the last year.