Being a fan of the original, iconic film, I had high expectations for the long awaited (an overused phrase, but 23 years is too long) sequel to "Wall Street." Unfortunately, they weren't met. With the original director and the two leads from the first returning, this could've easily been one of the best films of the year....could've been.
Oliver Stone is a talented director, effectively guided the first film, but never seems to connect with this script as he did with the first. It lacks the "zing" the first film glided on. Stone tries, he does try, and he does succeed here and there, but he's buried by the ill-fated script. And speaking of the screenplay...
Some truly witty lines of dialogue are in there some places, but a film can't be built on good dialogue every other page. In simple terms, the actual Wall Street storyline is pretty dull and extremely uninteresting. It's boggled down by the film's pretentious "business world talk" and loses the audience. You can feel the barrier set between the film and yourself.
However, Gordon Gekko side of the spectrum trumps the money/business story. The drama of the past 23 years is what the fans of the original want to see. When we get to see that the film is much better and grabs you into the story. But lets you go in the big gaps where the GG story falls behind the curtain. But then again, how much credit of the Gekko section is due to the script and not Douglas himself?
Michael Douglas is back in the role he won his second, but only acting, Oscar. The role has become iconic, and Douglas still has the magic touch that won him the golden man. His supporting role from the 1987 original has been minimized (big mistake). But the scenes he does have soar thanks to nothing else but Douglas' fine acting skills. He fits comfortably back into the role that was tailor made for him. Where's his second acting nomination?
Aside from Douglas, he has what looks like a good group of cast members backing him up: Shia LaBeouf, Carey Mulligan, Josh Brolin, Susan Sarandon, and Frank Lagella. Heck, Charlie Sheen even has a cameo reprising his role from the first film. The problem is, why can't this film work? Great performances, talented director, and a pick-up from a juicy storyline.
On a final note, despite it's problems (and weird editing which I haven't mentioned), Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps is worth seeing just to see Michael Douglas back on top.
About Me
Name: Ryan
IMDb Aliases: RCSPs3, Scream_Saga101; SidneyPrescott2000; smg101, ScreamGellarCruzNine
Twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/RCScream1234
Courteney Cox and Sarah Michelle Gellar
Favorite TV Shows
Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Ringer, Angel, Friends, Cougar Town, The Good Wife, The Young and the Restless, Veronica Mars, Sex and the City, Dirt, Guiding Light , Bones, Charmed, Gilmore Girls, and 30 Rock
Favorite Movies
Scream 3, Scream Scream 4, Scream 2, Veronika Decides to Die, The Hours, Aliens, Psycho, The Return, The Air I Breathe, Cruel Intentions, Suburban Girl, Black Swan, Sex and the City , Sex and the City 2, Nine, Moulin Rouge!, Halloween, Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2, Breaking Dawn Part 1, The Silence of the Lambs, NightScream, Alien: Resurrection, Halloween H20, I Know What You Did Last Summer, Derailed, The Interpreter, Erin Brockovich, Nothing but the Truth, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Inception, Chicago, American Beauty, Titanic, The Dark Knight, Fargo, Revolutionary Road, The Reader, A Fish Called Wanda, Pretty Woman, Who's Afraid of Virigina Woolf?, Rebecca, The Wizard of Oz, Sound of Music, Volver, The Upside of Anger, Pleasantville, Mean Girls, Changeling, Closer, Lord of the Rings: Return of the King, Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, Kill Bill Vol. 1 + 2, November, Halloween II, A Nightmare on Elm Street, A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors , Carrie, Duplicity, Final Destination, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1, Twilight, Eclipse, New Moon, Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl, Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest, Dreamgirls, The Family Stone, Red Eye, Flightplan, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, To Kill a Mockingbird, The Departed, Doubt, The Family Stone, Inglourious Basterds, Adaptation, Juno, The Kids Are All Right, Little Children, Michael Clayton, Grease, Se7en, Precious, Rabbit Hole, Vicky Cristina Barcelona, Crash, and Up in the Air
***Indicates the loves of my entertainment life
My Ranking of the Scream Saga
Scream 3***
Scream***
Scream 4***
Scream 2***
My Ranking of the Buffy Seasons
Season 6***
Season 2***
Season 3
Season 5
Season 4
Season 1
Season 7
My Ranking of the Angel Seasons
Season 3
Season 4
Season 2
Season 1
Season 5
My Big Four Film Performances
Neve Campbell, Scream 3
Nicole Kidman, The Hours
Sarah Michelle Gellar, Veronika Decides to Die
Natalie Portman
Why Scream 3 Is The Best Of The Scream Saga:
. The complete second half of the film is literally flawless (post-Sidney comes out of hiding). The first 25 minutes are also pretty flawless, too, but not in the same park as the second half's brilliance. The only time it makes any mistakes is the 20 minute gap between Sarah Darling and Jennifer's house explosion <- it's not bad ...it's like 65% great, 35% flawed.
. The three intertwined storylines (Sidney's metal heath, Maureen Prescott's past, and Stab 3) makes for a very strong driven narrative.
. Has the strongest message of all four films (even though Scream 4's is very strong.) The message of the movie -> the first two asked the question are movies responsible for people killing? Most blame Hollywood for influencing the youth of America to be violent murders. The movies themselves don't, but the drama behind the scenes is enough to start a murdering bloodbath. Scream 3 shows us Sidney Prescott, a woman has lived through two killing sprees and has her life intertwined in this Hollywood drama. She, also, is in a bad mental state as a result. Yet, she is able to put the darkness aside from her past and move on with her life. You kill because you chose to...the movies, the people behind the movies, don't matter...it's your journey....you're decision.
. The role of Sidney was handled the best. Her scenes were crucial to her character development; there was no scene that felt like they edited in as a "filler" to get to the finale like the previous films.
. Scream 3 was the most emotional of the four.
. It was more brave than the first two and the fourth by having a male opening victim, let alone a recurring character who was the hero of the previous film.
. Neve Campbell's performance was flawless. The best acting I've ever seen.
. It was the funniest of the four without using the "spoof" to be funny.
. I think it’s the scariest of the four. Very thrilling, as much as terror (Blood doesn't matter...this is Scream not Saw).
. It was without a doubt the most surprising.
. I like the "adult society" plot it has compared to the first two and fourth who were about high school world and college life.
. It was the most plot heavy of the four, and I like plot; twists.
. The best climax/finale of the series. Brutal.
. Best production values: film editing, art direction, sound mixing, sound editing, visual effects, and the score! Scream 2 had slightly better cinematography and costume design.
. Contains the best supporting character in the entire series (excluding the trio in the earlier films), yes I'm talking to you Jennifer.
. The whole deja vu to Woodsboro and Sidney on the Stab 3 set was creepy and very effective. It goes back to the original and pulls out the unseen.
. Finds the equilibrium that 1, 2, and 4 couldn't find. It was terrifying, but you thoroughly enjoyed it.
.The killer had the best and most motivation to want Sidney dead out of the seven killers.
. The character development with the main three was a perfect epilogue. Wrapped up the story with loose ends being cut off while incorporating a little bit of "let the viewer decide." The new cast was different from the first sequel and the third sequel; in Scream 2 and Scream 4 the characters were so sketched out to be likeable with quirky personalities, it made them unlikeable. In Scream 3 they weren’t designed to be likeable; the audience was allowed to like new characters in Scream 3 on their own.
. The fact that it was original. This is more-so pointing to Scream 2, than the original even though in some ways the original was vastly similar to Halloween. Scream 4 was making fun of remakes so, I'm not sure if I can fault it for homaging the first three in every scene. The clever plot with the Stab 3 cast being offed as they are in the script; life imitating art.
Thursday
Rabbit Hole (2010)
Nicole Kidman has an outstanding resume collected in the past 25 years. The Hours, Moulin Rouge!, Eyes Wide Shut, The Interpreter, Margot at the Wedding, The Others, Birth, Dogville, Nine, Cold Mountain, the list goes on. She's proved herself to be the best working actress out there, today, but has had a bit of a rough patch since her Oscar win with many films flopping critically and or financially. "Rabbit Hole" reiterates the fact she's the best there is.
Kidman plays Becca with intense, explosive motivation. She really gets under your skin; you see Becca, not Nicole Kidman. It really is a landmark in her career. She's bound to get a well- earned Oscar nomination and will go head-to-head with Natalie Portman for the win (Don't you wish there were more ties?) She transforms into the role and drenches it in realism. sorrow. It's beyond words can describe and mothers who've gone through such a horrible loss will thank Kidman left and right.
The script plays a character itself. Its dark subject matter was a risky one, but it unflinchingly succeeds at all costs. It displays accurately the process of grief and does justice to the sorrowful topic. The much needed comic relief moments are in there as well, which lightens up the mood. Some dialogue will stick with you as you leave this film and will haunt you. You'll find yourself repeating what's said in the film. The direction goes hand-in-hand with the script. The delicate approach is perfectly matched. With a film like this, it could be over- the-top and obnoxious, or flat and lifeless, but the director finds just the right note and strikes it right for 90 minutes.
Aaron Eckhart plays opposite Kidman as the husband, Howie. He is dignifying in his depiction of a grieving father in need of conquer this tragedy. Diane Weist is also a wonderful standout as Becca's mother who has also lost a child. She has her dramatic moments which are the weight of her performance, but has so much warmth to her character which really makes you care for her.
Rabbit Hole isn't to be missed. It's a fascinating, deep, and moving film that will knock you on your feet. Kidman is terrific, but not without the support of Eckhart and Weist. The score is also brilliant and beautiful. At a nice, short running-time, Rabbit Hole will have an impact on your day. 10/10
Kidman plays Becca with intense, explosive motivation. She really gets under your skin; you see Becca, not Nicole Kidman. It really is a landmark in her career. She's bound to get a well- earned Oscar nomination and will go head-to-head with Natalie Portman for the win (Don't you wish there were more ties?) She transforms into the role and drenches it in realism. sorrow. It's beyond words can describe and mothers who've gone through such a horrible loss will thank Kidman left and right.
The script plays a character itself. Its dark subject matter was a risky one, but it unflinchingly succeeds at all costs. It displays accurately the process of grief and does justice to the sorrowful topic. The much needed comic relief moments are in there as well, which lightens up the mood. Some dialogue will stick with you as you leave this film and will haunt you. You'll find yourself repeating what's said in the film. The direction goes hand-in-hand with the script. The delicate approach is perfectly matched. With a film like this, it could be over- the-top and obnoxious, or flat and lifeless, but the director finds just the right note and strikes it right for 90 minutes.
Aaron Eckhart plays opposite Kidman as the husband, Howie. He is dignifying in his depiction of a grieving father in need of conquer this tragedy. Diane Weist is also a wonderful standout as Becca's mother who has also lost a child. She has her dramatic moments which are the weight of her performance, but has so much warmth to her character which really makes you care for her.
Rabbit Hole isn't to be missed. It's a fascinating, deep, and moving film that will knock you on your feet. Kidman is terrific, but not without the support of Eckhart and Weist. The score is also brilliant and beautiful. At a nice, short running-time, Rabbit Hole will have an impact on your day. 10/10
Wednesday
My predictions for Scream 4
Anthony Anderson (Perkins)
David Arquette (Sheriff ‘Dewey’ Riley)
Kristen Bell (Unknown)
Alison Brie (Rebecca)
**Adam Brody (Deputy Hoss)**
Neve Campbell (Sidney Prescott)
Courteney Cox (Gale Weathers-Riley)
**Rory Culkin (Charlie Walker)**
Shenae Grimes (Unknown)
Lucy Hale (Unknown)
Marielle Jaffe (Olivia Morris)
**Erik Knudsen (Robbie)**
Mary McDonnell (Kate Roberts)
**Hayden Panettiere (Kirby Reed)**
Anna Paquin (Unknown)
Emma Roberts (Jill Roberts)
Brittany Robertson (Unknown)
**Marley Shelton (Deputy Judy Hicks)**
Aimee Teegarden (Unknown)
**Nico Tortorella (Trevor Sheldon)**
We have anywhere from 4-6 dying in the first 20 minutes. Even if all 6 don't die in the opening, we know they'll die somewhere in the first half. Then add Rebecca and Olivia dying as the 30 minute kills and possibly one hour kills. Then Kate will die at the beginning of Act 3. 9 deaths pre-finale. These names are in red, I'm about 95% sure will die.
I've bolded the surviving trio, I don't think they'll die, but many people do. Too much negative reaction to characters like Laurie Strode, Ripley, Nancy, ect dying. Plus that'd be breaking the biggest cliche of them all, having their main characters survive more than 4 events. Gale will probably be the most injured of the three from the Stab-a-ton, but there's no way she's going to die after they showed her in compromising positions in the teaser and first photo. So, we have 9 other suspects at most. I think it's safe to take Jill out of the mix and Anthony Anderson. Jill has been seen attacked, and I doubt if she was the killer, she'd be under the bed hiding and Anderson, we'd be able to tell if its him in the ghost costume. Trust me. Both names in blue.
That leaves 6, in **green**. Wes said Scream 4 will have the highest body count, does that mean with Stab actresses, too? With Stab actresses, we only need 2 more to die to exceed Scream 2 & 3. Without Stab actresses, we would need 2-4 to die + the 2 that already needed to die if Stab actresses weren't included.
It's pretty much just a guessing game from here. My guess is, we'll have at least one female killer, and Marley was already a big suspect before it started filming. Shelton is one of the bigger names of the cast, and is a police officer, so strength isn't an issue. I pretty much have my heart set on Kirby being one of the killers. In the character descriptions, she's said to be a jock-turnered-film geek for about a year before the events take place. They've never had the best friend be the killer yet, not to mention how creepy it'd be for the killer to be the person that is with Jill constantly and ther person she confines most in. Though she's been said to be on set during the days of the big chase scenes, she hasn't been seen attacked by the killer. I'm also pretty sure Nico survives. We've never seen the boyfriend survive yet in the Scream series, but even with that, the boyfriend is always a suspect (thanks Billy). Adam Brody is getting special attention with his name being included on the Weinstien's newsletter. This could be just like Tyson on the poster in Scream 3, or he could play a significant role in the finale. M Last but not least is Charlie and Robbie, the film geeks. With all these females dying, some guys need to go as well and with all these strong male characters, the movie geeks would be the first to go. I'm sure Robbie will bite it, don't know why. Of everyone here, he's the least suspecting. Charlie got the same treatment as Hicks did when character descriptions were released, that he was one of the killers. He is more suspicious and looks stronger than Robbie, but that's just a hunch. We did see him attacked in front of Kirby at the Scream awards. Kirby and he are friends, that's for sure, I'm sure if I'm right Kirby was just playing along so her close friend wouldn't go out of this world remembering her as a killer.
My final killer prediction is: I know there's at least 2 killers, and more than 3 seems like too much. So, I'll say Kirby, Hoss, and if there's a 3rd, Hicks.
My finale body count prediction: The 6 WB actresses, Rebecca, Olivia, Kate, Robbie, Charlie, **Dewey IF they should kill off one of the survivors which again, I highly doubt**, the two-three killers.
My final survivor count: Sidney, Gale, Dewey, Jill, Trevor, Perkins, Shelton (if she's not one of killers)
David Arquette (Sheriff ‘Dewey’ Riley)
Kristen Bell (Unknown)
Alison Brie (Rebecca)
**Adam Brody (Deputy Hoss)**
Neve Campbell (Sidney Prescott)
Courteney Cox (Gale Weathers-Riley)
**Rory Culkin (Charlie Walker)**
Shenae Grimes (Unknown)
Lucy Hale (Unknown)
Marielle Jaffe (Olivia Morris)
**Erik Knudsen (Robbie)**
Mary McDonnell (Kate Roberts)
**Hayden Panettiere (Kirby Reed)**
Anna Paquin (Unknown)
Emma Roberts (Jill Roberts)
Brittany Robertson (Unknown)
**Marley Shelton (Deputy Judy Hicks)**
Aimee Teegarden (Unknown)
**Nico Tortorella (Trevor Sheldon)**
We have anywhere from 4-6 dying in the first 20 minutes. Even if all 6 don't die in the opening, we know they'll die somewhere in the first half. Then add Rebecca and Olivia dying as the 30 minute kills and possibly one hour kills. Then Kate will die at the beginning of Act 3. 9 deaths pre-finale. These names are in red, I'm about 95% sure will die.
I've bolded the surviving trio, I don't think they'll die, but many people do. Too much negative reaction to characters like Laurie Strode, Ripley, Nancy, ect dying. Plus that'd be breaking the biggest cliche of them all, having their main characters survive more than 4 events. Gale will probably be the most injured of the three from the Stab-a-ton, but there's no way she's going to die after they showed her in compromising positions in the teaser and first photo. So, we have 9 other suspects at most. I think it's safe to take Jill out of the mix and Anthony Anderson. Jill has been seen attacked, and I doubt if she was the killer, she'd be under the bed hiding and Anderson, we'd be able to tell if its him in the ghost costume. Trust me. Both names in blue.
That leaves 6, in **green**. Wes said Scream 4 will have the highest body count, does that mean with Stab actresses, too? With Stab actresses, we only need 2 more to die to exceed Scream 2 & 3. Without Stab actresses, we would need 2-4 to die + the 2 that already needed to die if Stab actresses weren't included.
It's pretty much just a guessing game from here. My guess is, we'll have at least one female killer, and Marley was already a big suspect before it started filming. Shelton is one of the bigger names of the cast, and is a police officer, so strength isn't an issue. I pretty much have my heart set on Kirby being one of the killers. In the character descriptions, she's said to be a jock-turnered-film geek for about a year before the events take place. They've never had the best friend be the killer yet, not to mention how creepy it'd be for the killer to be the person that is with Jill constantly and ther person she confines most in. Though she's been said to be on set during the days of the big chase scenes, she hasn't been seen attacked by the killer. I'm also pretty sure Nico survives. We've never seen the boyfriend survive yet in the Scream series, but even with that, the boyfriend is always a suspect (thanks Billy). Adam Brody is getting special attention with his name being included on the Weinstien's newsletter. This could be just like Tyson on the poster in Scream 3, or he could play a significant role in the finale. M Last but not least is Charlie and Robbie, the film geeks. With all these females dying, some guys need to go as well and with all these strong male characters, the movie geeks would be the first to go. I'm sure Robbie will bite it, don't know why. Of everyone here, he's the least suspecting. Charlie got the same treatment as Hicks did when character descriptions were released, that he was one of the killers. He is more suspicious and looks stronger than Robbie, but that's just a hunch. We did see him attacked in front of Kirby at the Scream awards. Kirby and he are friends, that's for sure, I'm sure if I'm right Kirby was just playing along so her close friend wouldn't go out of this world remembering her as a killer.
My final killer prediction is: I know there's at least 2 killers, and more than 3 seems like too much. So, I'll say Kirby, Hoss, and if there's a 3rd, Hicks.
My finale body count prediction: The 6 WB actresses, Rebecca, Olivia, Kate, Robbie, Charlie, **Dewey IF they should kill off one of the survivors which again, I highly doubt**, the two-three killers.
My final survivor count: Sidney, Gale, Dewey, Jill, Trevor, Perkins, Shelton (if she's not one of killers)
Monday
The Entire Cast of The Scream Trilogy By The Numbers
I do in fact have too much time on my hands...I've timed every cast member of the series performance in my desperate Scream 4 state.
Scream
Sidney: 41:44 (38%)
Billy: 21:26 (19%) [About 13 mins before identity reveal]
Gale: 14:09 (13%)
Stu: 13:25 (12%) [About 7 1/2 mins before identity reveal]
Tatum: 12:12 (11%)
Dewey: 10:50 (10%)
Casey: 10:08 (9%)
Randy: 9:06 (8%)
Kenny: 4:03 (4%)
Himbry: 3:11 (3%)
Steve: 0:27 (1%)
Cotton: 0:19 (1%)
Billy: 21:26 (19%) [About 13 mins before identity reveal]
Gale: 14:09 (13%)
Stu: 13:25 (12%) [About 7 1/2 mins before identity reveal]
Tatum: 12:12 (11%)
Dewey: 10:50 (10%)
Casey: 10:08 (9%)
Randy: 9:06 (8%)
Kenny: 4:03 (4%)
Himbry: 3:11 (3%)
Steve: 0:27 (1%)
Cotton: 0:19 (1%)
Scream 2
Sidney: 40:02 (33%)
Gale: 22:19 (19%)
Dewey: 16:25 (14%)
Derek: 13:18 (11%)
Hallie: 10:00 (8%)
Cotton: 9:31 (8%)
Mickey: 8:50 (7%) [About 5 minutes before identity reveal]
Mrs. Loomis: 8:53 (7%) [About 2 1/2 minutes before identity reveal]
Randy: 8:24 (7%)
Cici: 6:54 (6%)
Joel: 6:42 (5%)
Maureen: 6:04 (5%)
Phil: 4:21 (4%)
Gale: 22:19 (19%)
Dewey: 16:25 (14%)
Derek: 13:18 (11%)
Hallie: 10:00 (8%)
Cotton: 9:31 (8%)
Mickey: 8:50 (7%) [About 5 minutes before identity reveal]
Mrs. Loomis: 8:53 (7%) [About 2 1/2 minutes before identity reveal]
Randy: 8:24 (7%)
Cici: 6:54 (6%)
Joel: 6:42 (5%)
Maureen: 6:04 (5%)
Phil: 4:21 (4%)
Scream 3
Sidney: 33:06 (28%)
Gale: 28:19 (24%)
Dewey: 26:43 (23%)
Jennifer: 14:54 (13%)
Roman: 10:21 (9%) [About 4 minutes before identity reveal]
Kincaid: 9:36 (8%)
Angelina: 6:19 (5%)
Cotton: 5:54 (5%)
Sarah: 5:30 (5%)
Tom: 4:50 (4%)
Stone: 3:53 (3%)
Milton: 3:37 (3%)
Tyson: 3:01 (3%)
Christine: 2:24 (2%)
Randy: 2:18 (2%)
Bianca: 1:12 (1%)
Gale: 28:19 (24%)
Dewey: 26:43 (23%)
Jennifer: 14:54 (13%)
Roman: 10:21 (9%) [About 4 minutes before identity reveal]
Kincaid: 9:36 (8%)
Angelina: 6:19 (5%)
Cotton: 5:54 (5%)
Sarah: 5:30 (5%)
Tom: 4:50 (4%)
Stone: 3:53 (3%)
Milton: 3:37 (3%)
Tyson: 3:01 (3%)
Christine: 2:24 (2%)
Randy: 2:18 (2%)
Bianca: 1:12 (1%)
Courteney Cox in "The Longest Yard"
Cox is my favorite actress. Fact. She's been in two of my top 3 favorite TV shows of all-time and my three of favorite films of all-time. Not to mention deliver my favorite supporting actress performance ever. She's family. She's had another great show and a few good to great movies here and there. I'm trying to go through and hit all her smaller films I saw a while ago again to refresh my memory.
I watched her 2:18 uncredited performance today in "The Longest Yard". She's hilarious and sexy as Lena and makes the biggest impression of the entire film in the first 8 minutes with under 2 1/2 minutes to do it. Bravo Coxy!
I watched her 2:18 uncredited performance today in "The Longest Yard". She's hilarious and sexy as Lena and makes the biggest impression of the entire film in the first 8 minutes with under 2 1/2 minutes to do it. Bravo Coxy!
Sunday
Horror Movie Heroines (4+Films)
Have there been any other women roles where they've played the same character in the same franchise?
These are my favorite heroines, either way. Over the past couple weeks I've timed each character's screetime in each of their four films. Both Laurie and Ripley have died in the series, hopefully Sidney and Gale don't follow
Here are the results:
Gale Weathers:: 14:09 (13% of 'Scream'), 22:19 (18% of 'Scream 2'), 28: 19 (24% of 'Scream 3'), TBA for Scream 4; TOTAL SCREENTIME: 64:47 (19% of entire trilogy--so far)
Sidney Prescott:: 41:44 (38% of 'Scream'), 40:02 (33% of 'Scream 2'), 33:06 (28% of 'Scream 3'), TBA for Scream 4; TOTAL SCREENTIME: 114:52 (33% of entire trilogy--so far)
Laurie Strode:: 31:29 (33% of 'Halloween'), 22:03 (24% of 'Halloween II'), 32:16 (37% of 'Halloween H20'), 04:17 (4% of 'Halloween Resurrection'); TOTAL SCREENTIME: 90:05 (25% of entire "Laurie Strode" Quadrilogy)
Ellen Ripley:: 44:14 (38% of 'Alien'), 68:48 (45% of 'Aliens'), 46:35 (41% of 'Alien³'), 35:11 (32% of 'Alien Resurrection'); TOTAL SCREENTIME:194:08 (39% of entire quadrilogy)
Some may argue that Cox shouldn't belong with these other three ladies since she isn't the main focus, but she was the second main character for all three films (maybe 3rd main for 1) and will most likely follow for Scream 4.
These are my favorite heroines, either way. Over the past couple weeks I've timed each character's screetime in each of their four films. Both Laurie and Ripley have died in the series, hopefully Sidney and Gale don't follow
Here are the results:
Gale Weathers:: 14:09 (13% of 'Scream'), 22:19 (18% of 'Scream 2'), 28: 19 (24% of 'Scream 3'), TBA for Scream 4; TOTAL SCREENTIME: 64:47 (19% of entire trilogy--so far)
Sidney Prescott:: 41:44 (38% of 'Scream'), 40:02 (33% of 'Scream 2'), 33:06 (28% of 'Scream 3'), TBA for Scream 4; TOTAL SCREENTIME: 114:52 (33% of entire trilogy--so far)
Laurie Strode:: 31:29 (33% of 'Halloween'), 22:03 (24% of 'Halloween II'), 32:16 (37% of 'Halloween H20'), 04:17 (4% of 'Halloween Resurrection'); TOTAL SCREENTIME: 90:05 (25% of entire "Laurie Strode" Quadrilogy)
Ellen Ripley:: 44:14 (38% of 'Alien'), 68:48 (45% of 'Aliens'), 46:35 (41% of 'Alien³'), 35:11 (32% of 'Alien Resurrection'); TOTAL SCREENTIME:194:08 (39% of entire quadrilogy)
Some may argue that Cox shouldn't belong with these other three ladies since she isn't the main focus, but she was the second main character for all three films (maybe 3rd main for 1) and will most likely follow for Scream 4.
Saturday
I'm not buying that Sid, Gale, and Dewey won't be in Scream 5 & 6
Many people are claiming that Sidney, Gale, and Dewey are just in Scream 4 to hand over the torch to the younger crowd and that all three will either be written out or killed off.
It's different with Halloween, Nightmare on Elm Street, Friday the 13th, ect because what people see in the Scream trilogy is the performances from Neve, Courteney, and David and the characters Sidney, Gale, and Dewey. Not the ghostface killer. Sure is the mask iconic now from the series, yeah, but the Scream trilogy is special because of it's underlining story and same heroines throughout.
Killing them off or changing the main characters would be the biggest cliche of all. I still think that they will follow in the sequels. And if Sidney gets the ax, then Gale will lead since she was the second prime target from at least one of the killers and has been the second main character for all three films (maybe 3rd MC in Scream 1).
And plus, it's not even written in stone that there will be 5 & 6. Just assumptions. And if Sidney isn't killed in 4, then you can bet your arse she'll be in 5& 6 if Jill is supposed to be" the new lead" (which I still think is BS). Jill is Sidney's cousin. They will be in constant contact if there are killings. And if Kate dies (which I think she will), Sid will be the closest family jill has. And with Sidney, Gale and Dewey come along too. It's a package deal. And if Dewey dies, Gale it'll give Gale a reason to go back into Entertainment reporting.
It's different with Halloween, Nightmare on Elm Street, Friday the 13th, ect because what people see in the Scream trilogy is the performances from Neve, Courteney, and David and the characters Sidney, Gale, and Dewey. Not the ghostface killer. Sure is the mask iconic now from the series, yeah, but the Scream trilogy is special because of it's underlining story and same heroines throughout.
Killing them off or changing the main characters would be the biggest cliche of all. I still think that they will follow in the sequels. And if Sidney gets the ax, then Gale will lead since she was the second prime target from at least one of the killers and has been the second main character for all three films (maybe 3rd MC in Scream 1).
And plus, it's not even written in stone that there will be 5 & 6. Just assumptions. And if Sidney isn't killed in 4, then you can bet your arse she'll be in 5& 6 if Jill is supposed to be" the new lead" (which I still think is BS). Jill is Sidney's cousin. They will be in constant contact if there are killings. And if Kate dies (which I think she will), Sid will be the closest family jill has. And with Sidney, Gale and Dewey come along too. It's a package deal. And if Dewey dies, Gale it'll give Gale a reason to go back into Entertainment reporting.
Thursday
They aren't going to die in the new trilogy!
I know, I still think they will lead the next trilogy. Maureen's story is over, the killer could be after them for something new. And Sidney at least makes it to the finale. We know this. It's fact. The finale is the footage shown on ET. Gale and Dewey make it until at least the end of act 2. Fact.
I don't believe any of them will die, but y theory is that Gale is the safest to survive and carry 5 & 6. Courteney Cox is hot with her career right now. She has a TV role that's just as good, if not better, than the one she had in the 90s. Cox is the big celebrity of the series that can be recognized for something other than the legendary Gale Weathers. Plus, they show her being stabbed in the trailer when Bob and Harvey know that the public is expecting one of the trio to die, and it's working. Everyone is jumping to conclusions that she'll get it. That's what they want us to think. Also, she's been the second main character in the series so far. If Sidney does die, then Gale will be the leader.
Now if Wes states (which I know he won't), that one of the survivors dies, it would be narrowed down to Sidney or Dewey. Maybe Sidney has a better chance of surviving since she is the main character and Neve didn't want to come back just to die. On the flipside, it took Neve a long time to agree to this. She has stated before she doesn't want to be handcuffed to this character forever. She may have made an agreement to come back if Sid gets it in the finale, but I doubt this. I think Neve realized and accepted that the Scream series is her career. Now, Dewey. He's been "dead" twice before and came close in Scream 3. After he saves Gale at the Stab-a-thon, he may die in the finale where he goes to save Sid, Kirby, and Jill, but it could go either way. I don't think he will, but if anyone does...it'll be him.
I don't believe any of them will die, but y theory is that Gale is the safest to survive and carry 5 & 6. Courteney Cox is hot with her career right now. She has a TV role that's just as good, if not better, than the one she had in the 90s. Cox is the big celebrity of the series that can be recognized for something other than the legendary Gale Weathers. Plus, they show her being stabbed in the trailer when Bob and Harvey know that the public is expecting one of the trio to die, and it's working. Everyone is jumping to conclusions that she'll get it. That's what they want us to think. Also, she's been the second main character in the series so far. If Sidney does die, then Gale will be the leader.
Now if Wes states (which I know he won't), that one of the survivors dies, it would be narrowed down to Sidney or Dewey. Maybe Sidney has a better chance of surviving since she is the main character and Neve didn't want to come back just to die. On the flipside, it took Neve a long time to agree to this. She has stated before she doesn't want to be handcuffed to this character forever. She may have made an agreement to come back if Sid gets it in the finale, but I doubt this. I think Neve realized and accepted that the Scream series is her career. Now, Dewey. He's been "dead" twice before and came close in Scream 3. After he saves Gale at the Stab-a-thon, he may die in the finale where he goes to save Sid, Kirby, and Jill, but it could go either way. I don't think he will, but if anyone does...it'll be him.
Wednesday
SCREAM 4: Gale always ends Act 2. All three films.
'm almost positive that Gale's Stab-a-thon ends act 2. Gale's always ended act 2, all three films...
Scream 1: She and Dewey find Sidney's father's car
Scream 2: Act 2 to Act 3 is tricky to see in the second film. It's either 1) When the killer traps her in the sound studio and "kills" Dewey OR 2)After the sound studio chase scene, and Hallie's death, he finds Cotton and then runs to Mrs. Loomis
Scream 3: Tyson, Jennifer, "Roman", and Angelina die, she gets jumped by the killer and is pulled into the basement. Dewey falls down the stairs, Gale goes to his side, and the killer draws the knife
My Prediction for Scream 4: Gale goes to the Stab-a-thon, sets up her cameras. The focus of the party is taken off her for a while, then when she comes back to get her cameras, she realizes that she's being taped by the actual killer. She has a big chase (bigger than her shining moment in Scream 2), the killer finally traps her, she is minorly stabbed in the gut, she catches the killer's arm as he's about to stab her again, says her line "Go ahead if you have the guts!". Dewey pops up from behind the stack of hay shoots at the killer, misses, and then runs off. This releases panic and everyone leaves the Stab-a-thon in a hurry.
Scream 1: She and Dewey find Sidney's father's car
Scream 2: Act 2 to Act 3 is tricky to see in the second film. It's either 1) When the killer traps her in the sound studio and "kills" Dewey OR 2)After the sound studio chase scene, and Hallie's death, he finds Cotton and then runs to Mrs. Loomis
Scream 3: Tyson, Jennifer, "Roman", and Angelina die, she gets jumped by the killer and is pulled into the basement. Dewey falls down the stairs, Gale goes to his side, and the killer draws the knife
My Prediction for Scream 4: Gale goes to the Stab-a-thon, sets up her cameras. The focus of the party is taken off her for a while, then when she comes back to get her cameras, she realizes that she's being taped by the actual killer. She has a big chase (bigger than her shining moment in Scream 2), the killer finally traps her, she is minorly stabbed in the gut, she catches the killer's arm as he's about to stab her again, says her line "Go ahead if you have the guts!". Dewey pops up from behind the stack of hay shoots at the killer, misses, and then runs off. This releases panic and everyone leaves the Stab-a-thon in a hurry.
Friday
Scream 3 hate is disgusting by Scream fans.
I'm sick of this *beep* that Scream 3 was a huge critical failure. Did it do AS well as the first two, but didn't "fail". It got mixed reviews.
This thing about 38% of RT. Do you know how accurate RT is? It gets reviews from the big critics, but TONS of bloggers. AND the fact that they either call a film positive or negative is what killed S3. If it's marginally positive then it goes into the stash of extremely positive and if it's marginally negative it goes into the pile of horrible reviews. Hence Scream 3.
Metacritic is a much more fair website of judging reception. It actually calucates the critic's actual grade (not just if they liked it or didn't like it). Metacritic is only the real critics...not bloggers, which also makes it more fair. The Metacritic scores for all three films:
Scream 1: 65
Scream 2: 63
Scream 3: 56 Scream 3 *beep*-head don't believe me? http://www.metacritic.com/movie/scream-3
They are all in a range of 10 points. It didn't fail at all
So it's BS how people use the 38% is just an unfair way to make their own bias against the film seem more realistic.
AND as for it not doing as well at the box office...so what? It made 90 million, that's only 10 off from the first. It didn't flop by any means. Plus the Scary Movie was just released which probably turned alot of people off. And it didn't have a great release date (Feb compared to Christmas).
You people act like Scream 3 compares to All About Steve. It makes me sick. Even if I didn't like Scream 3, but liked the first two I wouldn't bash a part of the series to my favorite films. That's pretty insulting to yourselves.
The last time I checked this was the Scream 4 board, not the "Do nothing but B!tch and complain that Kevin wasn't credited as a writer on Scream 3" board.
I'm all for having an opinion, but I'm not for being obnoxious as heck with it. JEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEZ! Holy balls.
This thing about 38% of RT. Do you know how accurate RT is? It gets reviews from the big critics, but TONS of bloggers. AND the fact that they either call a film positive or negative is what killed S3. If it's marginally positive then it goes into the stash of extremely positive and if it's marginally negative it goes into the pile of horrible reviews. Hence Scream 3.
Metacritic is a much more fair website of judging reception. It actually calucates the critic's actual grade (not just if they liked it or didn't like it). Metacritic is only the real critics...not bloggers, which also makes it more fair. The Metacritic scores for all three films:
Scream 1: 65
Scream 2: 63
Scream 3: 56 Scream 3 *beep*-head don't believe me? http://www.metacritic.com/movie/scream-3
They are all in a range of 10 points. It didn't fail at all
So it's BS how people use the 38% is just an unfair way to make their own bias against the film seem more realistic.AND as for it not doing as well at the box office...so what? It made 90 million, that's only 10 off from the first. It didn't flop by any means. Plus the Scary Movie was just released which probably turned alot of people off. And it didn't have a great release date (Feb compared to Christmas).
You people act like Scream 3 compares to All About Steve. It makes me sick. Even if I didn't like Scream 3, but liked the first two I wouldn't bash a part of the series to my favorite films. That's pretty insulting to yourselves.
The last time I checked this was the Scream 4 board, not the "Do nothing but B!tch and complain that Kevin wasn't credited as a writer on Scream 3" board.
I'm all for having an opinion, but I'm not for being obnoxious as heck with it. JEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEZ! Holy balls.
Tuesday
Scream 4 Trailer!
I'm getting annoyed with people who claim she's going to die. In my opinion, she's the safest of the three to survive.
I'm getting kinda annoyed with people who keep jumping to conclusions that Gale dies. It's completely BS. Do you really think Bob Weinstien would let one of the biggest survivors in Slasher History die in the teaser?
At the Scream Awards in the middle of the segment, there was a clip showing Dewey jump over Hay with a gun pointed at someone. He is most likely pointing at the killer after Gale says "Do it, if you've got the guts!" then the killer would just run into the crowd of masked kids becoming lost.
And, she's been seen shooting in several different outfits, so she at least makes it past the one hour mark. Plus, the barn scene in the trailer is the "Stab-A-Thon" which is most likely the finale.
And what's different from Cox shooting Friends with the first 3 and now Cougar Town. Cougar Town isn't all about her anyone. It's an ensemble lead by Courteney Cox. Not a Courteney Cox show. So it's very similar to Friends.
Best Supporting Actress Highlights By The Decade
1960's: Janet Leigh, Psycho
1970's: Piper Laurie, Carrie
1980's: Sigourney Weaver, Working Girl
1990's: Courteney Cox, Scream 2
2000's: Michelle Pfeiffer, White Oleander
Janet Leigh makes such an impact on the audience as Marion Crane, with only about 30 minutes of actual screentime. Sure, Perkins steals the show, Leigh supports him in every way possible. She's so good at showing the vulnerable side of Marion without showing it.
Stocking Channing for Grease comes soooooo close to beating Laurie for Carrie. Rizzo was such a nasty external appearance, and such a delicate broken internal appearance, but Mrs. White was terrifying. I had nightmares about her dragging Carrie into the closet for weeks.
How do you make someone so evil and manipulative seem so likable? Sigourney Weaver apparently knows. She has what, 15 minutes to introduce us the Katherine and make us fall for her then leave for the entire middle section, then reappear at the end showing her true colors. A performance of style.
Courteney Cox is fierce as Gale Weathers. She leaves her comfy zone (the control freak Monica Geller on Friends). Cox steps up the dramatic work when she finally lets lose and says 'I don't care," and gives into her love for Dewey, only to have him (what she thought) stabbed to death right in front of her moments later.
Michelle Pfeiffer is ferocious as Ingrid Magnussen. She has this charisma about her that makes you hate her to death (she is a pretty horrible person), but you feel for her when she tries to to her life around and you realize she really does love her daughter. Pfeiffer builds up tension throughout the film and when her character climaxes, it shakes the earth.
1970's: Piper Laurie, Carrie
1980's: Sigourney Weaver, Working Girl
1990's: Courteney Cox, Scream 2
2000's: Michelle Pfeiffer, White Oleander
Janet Leigh makes such an impact on the audience as Marion Crane, with only about 30 minutes of actual screentime. Sure, Perkins steals the show, Leigh supports him in every way possible. She's so good at showing the vulnerable side of Marion without showing it.
Stocking Channing for Grease comes soooooo close to beating Laurie for Carrie. Rizzo was such a nasty external appearance, and such a delicate broken internal appearance, but Mrs. White was terrifying. I had nightmares about her dragging Carrie into the closet for weeks.
How do you make someone so evil and manipulative seem so likable? Sigourney Weaver apparently knows. She has what, 15 minutes to introduce us the Katherine and make us fall for her then leave for the entire middle section, then reappear at the end showing her true colors. A performance of style.
Courteney Cox is fierce as Gale Weathers. She leaves her comfy zone (the control freak Monica Geller on Friends). Cox steps up the dramatic work when she finally lets lose and says 'I don't care," and gives into her love for Dewey, only to have him (what she thought) stabbed to death right in front of her moments later.
Michelle Pfeiffer is ferocious as Ingrid Magnussen. She has this charisma about her that makes you hate her to death (she is a pretty horrible person), but you feel for her when she tries to to her life around and you realize she really does love her daughter. Pfeiffer builds up tension throughout the film and when her character climaxes, it shakes the earth.
Wednesday
HUGE DAY! Scream 4 Covered on ET and Season Start of Cougar Town!
Entertainment Tonight just covered the set of Scream 4. I'm 100% in now! It's completely awesome!
They had interviews with Court, Neve, David, Emma, and Wes, and besides those five, Hayden was shown. Emma stated early this week that she thinks Scream 4 is the best of the series and she's watched the first three many times and loves them.
The actual ET segment isn't online yet, but they do have an article on their website and if you follow the link you can watch a clip of the cast talking about each other.
http://www.etonline.com/movies/101001_ET_First_Making_Scream_4_is_Like_Summer_Camp/index.html
In other news, be sure to watch COUGAR TOWN tonight at 9:30 and every Wednesday.
They had interviews with Court, Neve, David, Emma, and Wes, and besides those five, Hayden was shown. Emma stated early this week that she thinks Scream 4 is the best of the series and she's watched the first three many times and loves them.
The actual ET segment isn't online yet, but they do have an article on their website and if you follow the link you can watch a clip of the cast talking about each other.
http://www.etonline.com/movies/101001_ET_First_Making_Scream_4_is_Like_Summer_Camp/index.html
"It's like going back to summer camp," Neve tells ET. "The first film was such a blast for all us. At the time we had no idea how successful the film would be. … Coming back to it now after years of people enjoying them and seeing each other again, it's nice."
"You see some of the old, and some of the new, and something borrowed and something blue," says Wes of the fourth installment, which reunites Courteney, David and Neve onscreen and also introduces a younger generation of up-and-coming actors.
"A lot of the audience that will see this film were infants when we made the others," explains Wes. "I think the older actors are well-known, but they're a little bit at the parental layer of consciousness for a lot of the audience, so it'll be kind of fun to see where their stories are going, but it's also great to introduce new characters and see how they're going to factor in with things."
"We all reunite at the beginning of the movie," says Courteney, explaining that her character, Gale Weathers, has given up her job as a reporter to marry Deputy Dewey (played by David) and write books. "She's written six Stab books and she has writer's block, and she's pretty bored, pretty miserable, pretty desperate, and all of a sudden some murders start happening and her life starts to look up. She likes a good murder."
In addition to its huge success, the 'Scream' franchise also carries a lot of weight with Courteney and David because they first met and fell in love on the project.
"I can remember the day I met him like it was yesterday," says Courteney, who credits Wes as "really instrumental" in bringing them together. "'Scream' 1 was really an intense crush and all that stuff, and 'Scream 2' we didn't get along so well, and then 'Scream 3' we had just gotten married, and then 'Scream 4' we have [our six-year-old daughter] Coco, so it's just been an evolution of things that have happened to us."
"It's been good having the whole family here," says David, who reports that Coco is really into "Little House on the Prairie" right now. "That's been the biggest change I would say."
"It's really doubly lovely," adds Wes, "because I had a little bit to do with them getting together, and they got married, and they've had a good marriage and they have a wonderful little child, and it's great icing on the cake."
'Scream 4' is set to scare up some laughs in April of 2011.
In other news, be sure to watch COUGAR TOWN tonight at 9:30 and every Wednesday.
Saturday
Guiding Light....one year later.
I'd like to take a moment and recognize today for the show that was a part of my life for 10 long years, 5 days a week, Guiding Light.
Last year, it was cancelled (after 72 years making it the longest running show EVER) and the last episode aired on September 18th. This was an extremely hard thing to undergo and get over. These people were my second family. I saw them everyday from as far as I can remember. I used to watch it with my mom when I came home from school. My grandma subscribed to SOD just for me. I have so many memories. These people were a HUGE part of my childhood.
I saved the last episode on my TiVo, I just rewatched it and balled my eyes out....yet again. So, CBS, are you happy? The Soap Opera industry is slowly fading and you're the people who gave it's downfall the push.
Either way, Guiding Light I miss you! (Below is the final cast photo)
Last year, it was cancelled (after 72 years making it the longest running show EVER) and the last episode aired on September 18th. This was an extremely hard thing to undergo and get over. These people were my second family. I saw them everyday from as far as I can remember. I used to watch it with my mom when I came home from school. My grandma subscribed to SOD just for me. I have so many memories. These people were a HUGE part of my childhood.
I saved the last episode on my TiVo, I just rewatched it and balled my eyes out....yet again. So, CBS, are you happy? The Soap Opera industry is slowly fading and you're the people who gave it's downfall the push.
Either way, Guiding Light I miss you! (Below is the final cast photo)
Brothers (2009)
Brothers is the new film from six time Oscar nominee Jim Sheridan and surprisingly, his direction is the weak link here. If you seen the trailer and think it's about a huge affair, it's not. It's on a whole different key than that. It's about the brutal hardship of the effects of war on not just a person and their mind, but their family.
The acting is as solid as ensembles come these days. Natalie Portman enchants the screen playing Grace with her nuanced and astute performance which should've landed her, the second Academy Award nomination of her career. Of the three leads, Portman is the most relatable and I think that's why I was most taken with her.
It's safe to say Tobey MaGuire's performance (the complete opposite of Portman's subtly) is the most controversial performance of this past year. Some people claim it's Razzie Award quality, while others say it's the best of his young career. He worked for me, actually. The trick of his performance is the evolution of Sam.
Jake Gyllenhaal is the brother in question. He completes the trio of acting here and he really shines as Tommy. He is given the least to work with, but he gives it his all. Portman's daughter played by Bailee Madison is given meaty scene towards the end that will give you chills. Sam Shepherd, also satisfying in the supporting role of the father.
The writing works. It's gratifying the way it avoids the clichés along the road, it drives past it. It's special because it shows us the aftermath of war in a believable way. The problem here is Jim Sheridan's direction. He lazy with the substantial screenplay he's given.
One thing from the film I'd change though is the back and fourth from war to home life; Brothers feels off balance during the war time . I think Sheridan should've cut all the scenes where Sam is in captivity and just have flashbacks of it. It would've been more powerful, in my opinion.
Even with it's flaws Brothers is a must-see. The last 15-20 minutes are so gripping and emotionally intense....they shouldn't be missed; 8
The acting is as solid as ensembles come these days. Natalie Portman enchants the screen playing Grace with her nuanced and astute performance which should've landed her, the second Academy Award nomination of her career. Of the three leads, Portman is the most relatable and I think that's why I was most taken with her.
It's safe to say Tobey MaGuire's performance (the complete opposite of Portman's subtly) is the most controversial performance of this past year. Some people claim it's Razzie Award quality, while others say it's the best of his young career. He worked for me, actually. The trick of his performance is the evolution of Sam.
Jake Gyllenhaal is the brother in question. He completes the trio of acting here and he really shines as Tommy. He is given the least to work with, but he gives it his all. Portman's daughter played by Bailee Madison is given meaty scene towards the end that will give you chills. Sam Shepherd, also satisfying in the supporting role of the father.
The writing works. It's gratifying the way it avoids the clichés along the road, it drives past it. It's special because it shows us the aftermath of war in a believable way. The problem here is Jim Sheridan's direction. He lazy with the substantial screenplay he's given.
One thing from the film I'd change though is the back and fourth from war to home life; Brothers feels off balance during the war time . I think Sheridan should've cut all the scenes where Sam is in captivity and just have flashbacks of it. It would've been more powerful, in my opinion.
Even with it's flaws Brothers is a must-see. The last 15-20 minutes are so gripping and emotionally intense....they shouldn't be missed; 8
Mother and Child
nnette Bening is the MVP of the new indie, Mother and Child. Man, I think of all the films I've seen, this is the most improved film (as it moved chronologically). My anticipation level was through the roof being the Annette and Naomi fan I am, I got 30 minutes into it and just felt disappointed by it. I've never seen a film pick itself up as Mother and Child did after it hit the hour mark. It brought me to tears the last 15 minutes. I haven't had a movie cry like that for a good while.
The entire film is well-made. It's very soft, gentle, and subdue. The director is very thorough and the writing is bold with it's sensitive subject matter. Some of the conversations the characters have are so real and convincing, you'll sit back and raise your eyebrow. Very controlled screenplay in the sense of not being controlled. Mother and Child also is a sexually driven picture.
Annette Bening takes control of her character from the moment she steps on screen. Her character evolves so much, at first she's a rude woman to almost everyone, but her own mother, on the outside. On the inside she's brutally damaged from the affect of losing her daughter. Bening displays everything to perfection.
Naomi Watts has been wonderful in films such as Mulholland Dr. and 21 Grams, here she's not quite as good, but still nails the character. She's outstanding. Washington is the third central character and was good, yes but didn't do anything for me until the climax of her character, where she's heartbreaking.
The three story lines keep the film going. It's not drowned down by stretches of long depressions of one character. It's kind of copy-catting the brilliance of "The Hours" in that aspect, but still works. Though you may have to warm up to it a little, Mother and Child is a heartbreaking film you should grab onto as soon as you can; 8
The entire film is well-made. It's very soft, gentle, and subdue. The director is very thorough and the writing is bold with it's sensitive subject matter. Some of the conversations the characters have are so real and convincing, you'll sit back and raise your eyebrow. Very controlled screenplay in the sense of not being controlled. Mother and Child also is a sexually driven picture.
Annette Bening takes control of her character from the moment she steps on screen. Her character evolves so much, at first she's a rude woman to almost everyone, but her own mother, on the outside. On the inside she's brutally damaged from the affect of losing her daughter. Bening displays everything to perfection.
Naomi Watts has been wonderful in films such as Mulholland Dr. and 21 Grams, here she's not quite as good, but still nails the character. She's outstanding. Washington is the third central character and was good, yes but didn't do anything for me until the climax of her character, where she's heartbreaking.
The three story lines keep the film going. It's not drowned down by stretches of long depressions of one character. It's kind of copy-catting the brilliance of "The Hours" in that aspect, but still works. Though you may have to warm up to it a little, Mother and Child is a heartbreaking film you should grab onto as soon as you can; 8
Sunday
Courteney Cox Scream 4
Courteney could've shot her scenes for the finale, right? I mean in the end it doesn't matter how a film's shot because it all is edited in the end. Court needed to go back to Cougar Town so it's obvious that she was probably shooting nonstop July-Aug.
Now, it's been hinted that they are filming the finale now, up until Sept 24th. She isn't there to shoot her part in the finale, but she's always been involved in all three. In 1, she pulled a gun on Billy and Stu; in 2 she was led by Mrs Loomis and finished off Mickey with Sid, and in 3 she and Dewey were trying to get in the secret room to help Sid (and eventually was successful).
People are predicting she'll die now, like Randy in Scream 2 (the returning player getting knocked off). Isn't it possible she shot her part in the finale before she left? Absolutely. We don't know what order certain shots (not even scenes) are filmed in. Wes could've filmed the section of Scream 3 when Gale and Dewey are running through the house trying to get into the room with Roman and Sid the first day of filming and shot the actual fight scene of Sid vs. Roman the last day.
Even so, I don't think they'd slash Gale off. Besides Drew, Courteney was the only really well-known star (Friends) to drive people to the theaters. Now, newbie teens who never heard of Scream before (trust me...there are sad people like that), will say, "Hey Jules is this new scary movie. Let's go see it."
Courteney is going to have a BIG year this year. I just read the EW article for Cougar Town and their plans for it. Between that and the return of her biggest movie franchise, I'd say maybe this will be her career year.
Now, it's been hinted that they are filming the finale now, up until Sept 24th. She isn't there to shoot her part in the finale, but she's always been involved in all three. In 1, she pulled a gun on Billy and Stu; in 2 she was led by Mrs Loomis and finished off Mickey with Sid, and in 3 she and Dewey were trying to get in the secret room to help Sid (and eventually was successful).
People are predicting she'll die now, like Randy in Scream 2 (the returning player getting knocked off). Isn't it possible she shot her part in the finale before she left? Absolutely. We don't know what order certain shots (not even scenes) are filmed in. Wes could've filmed the section of Scream 3 when Gale and Dewey are running through the house trying to get into the room with Roman and Sid the first day of filming and shot the actual fight scene of Sid vs. Roman the last day.
Even so, I don't think they'd slash Gale off. Besides Drew, Courteney was the only really well-known star (Friends) to drive people to the theaters. Now, newbie teens who never heard of Scream before (trust me...there are sad people like that
), will say, "Hey Jules is this new scary movie. Let's go see it."Courteney is going to have a BIG year this year. I just read the EW article for Cougar Town and their plans for it. Between that and the return of her biggest movie franchise, I'd say maybe this will be her career year.
Saturday
Unfaithful
Diane Lane. Wow. She's magnificent! I just rewatched the film (which grew on me this time too), and I absolutely fell under her spell. She gave a two hour acting lesson on how to earn an Oscar nomination without any real Oscar scene. Something Vera Farmiga and Rachel Weisz have mastered with their nominated performances. I didn't think she deserved her nomination before, but now, she's my #3 in the best year for leading ladies of the decade, the two ahead of her in my all-time lineups, so that says a lot). She'd be my second choice for the Oscar, behind my actual winner, Kidman.
The film really is unique in the way it takes what was step up to look like a clichéd story and made it original. It's not really a thriller, it's a well-executed drama. The textured and dry photography made everything feel real, and that's what's great about it. This is a story, minus two huge flaws: Paul's death and the cop-out ending, is authentic and not dramatized and manipulated into (like I said before) a cliché. Roger Ebert describes it very well in his video review with Richard Roeper; she chooses to this lover not because she's forced or unhappy with her marriage, she and Gere have a happy marriage.
Gere was also very good, his best performance after Chicago and Pretty Woman, I'd say. His reaction, to his wife's affair, especially when he meets Paul is played very well by him. Both Gere and Lane show their range as the film goes on.
I also really was fascinated by the editing in the train station/after the first time they have intercourse. Lane adds a lot of power into it; it's probably her best scene in the film, but the editor really achieved something there. Very good pacing, too.
Through everything good, it has many flaws under it's belt, as well. The two I mentioned before stick out like sore thumbs. What I think the filmmakers were going for here was a realistic portrayal of an affair, but then when they killed off Paul....it broke it's perfect score, up until that point. It was horrible turn. I didn't believe for a second Edward would have killed him. After the play scene, where the body is in Edward's car, after all that, it's picks itself back up and continues with what it was aiming for in the first hour.
Now, the scene where Lane's burning the photographs was excellent and their conclusion of the situation. It should've ended with them dancing, the last shot before they were in the car driving home. It should've just faded out. The film would've been worth at least 9 if it would've just ended there, because the next scene was unsatisfying. Their final decision was pretty bad. It really leaves a bad memory in the viewer's mind of the entire film because it's the last thing they see from the film. It would've been so much more powerful if they would've cut that scene completely.
Still Lane is remarkable, and she's reason enough to see it. I gave it a 6 my first time through, now it's an 8-8.5
The film really is unique in the way it takes what was step up to look like a clichéd story and made it original. It's not really a thriller, it's a well-executed drama. The textured and dry photography made everything feel real, and that's what's great about it. This is a story, minus two huge flaws: Paul's death and the cop-out ending, is authentic and not dramatized and manipulated into (like I said before) a cliché. Roger Ebert describes it very well in his video review with Richard Roeper; she chooses to this lover not because she's forced or unhappy with her marriage, she and Gere have a happy marriage.
Gere was also very good, his best performance after Chicago and Pretty Woman, I'd say. His reaction, to his wife's affair, especially when he meets Paul is played very well by him. Both Gere and Lane show their range as the film goes on.
I also really was fascinated by the editing in the train station/after the first time they have intercourse. Lane adds a lot of power into it; it's probably her best scene in the film, but the editor really achieved something there. Very good pacing, too.
Through everything good, it has many flaws under it's belt, as well. The two I mentioned before stick out like sore thumbs. What I think the filmmakers were going for here was a realistic portrayal of an affair, but then when they killed off Paul....it broke it's perfect score, up until that point. It was horrible turn. I didn't believe for a second Edward would have killed him. After the play scene, where the body is in Edward's car, after all that, it's picks itself back up and continues with what it was aiming for in the first hour.
Now, the scene where Lane's burning the photographs was excellent and their conclusion of the situation. It should've ended with them dancing, the last shot before they were in the car driving home. It should've just faded out. The film would've been worth at least 9 if it would've just ended there, because the next scene was unsatisfying. Their final decision was pretty bad. It really leaves a bad memory in the viewer's mind of the entire film because it's the last thing they see from the film. It would've been so much more powerful if they would've cut that scene completely.
Still Lane is remarkable, and she's reason enough to see it. I gave it a 6 my first time through, now it's an 8-8.5
Tuesday
Lost in Translation
Ever see a film or read a book, have so many thoughts about it, but don't know exactly how to put your thoughts into words? That's how I feel about Lost in Translation. I liked it very much, and think highly of it, but just don't know how to describe my opinion of it. Lost in Translation is a mood piece, so isn't that how your supposed to feel after seeing one?
It's a very well put together film about two people lost from life and feel alienated. The story is intriguing, showing the audience the towering fears of staying in another country, as well as going through a mid-life crisis. I think it's safe to call this Sofia Coppola's directing and written mantelpiece, earning herself two Oscar nominations for it.
Bill Murray shows us his dramatic talents. His performance proves us that he can be more than just Bill Murray the comedian, he can also be Bill Murray the actor. There are a few moments in the script that give Murray the chance to be obnoxious with comedy, but he treats them with delicately.
Scarlett Johansson is a few bars above average actress who has never zapped me with a performance before. It seems like she uses the same character approach for each of her characters, except for Match Point and her work here. Both Oscar nomination worthy work. Johansson's role isn't as prominent as Murray's, although both are arguably lead. Scarlett is wonderful here. She has a scene towards the beginning that'll break your heart. It did mine.
The clever thing about this picture is that it's not conventional. People think Scarlett Johansson they automatically think of her sex appeal, and that she and Bill Murray are going to have a love affair, no. They are both extremely lonely and sad people, looking to connect with anyone in an atmosphere that's alien to them. Finely crafted mood piece; 8.5-9
It's a very well put together film about two people lost from life and feel alienated. The story is intriguing, showing the audience the towering fears of staying in another country, as well as going through a mid-life crisis. I think it's safe to call this Sofia Coppola's directing and written mantelpiece, earning herself two Oscar nominations for it.
Bill Murray shows us his dramatic talents. His performance proves us that he can be more than just Bill Murray the comedian, he can also be Bill Murray the actor. There are a few moments in the script that give Murray the chance to be obnoxious with comedy, but he treats them with delicately.
Scarlett Johansson is a few bars above average actress who has never zapped me with a performance before. It seems like she uses the same character approach for each of her characters, except for Match Point and her work here. Both Oscar nomination worthy work. Johansson's role isn't as prominent as Murray's, although both are arguably lead. Scarlett is wonderful here. She has a scene towards the beginning that'll break your heart. It did mine.
The clever thing about this picture is that it's not conventional. People think Scarlett Johansson they automatically think of her sex appeal, and that she and Bill Murray are going to have a love affair, no. They are both extremely lonely and sad people, looking to connect with anyone in an atmosphere that's alien to them. Finely crafted mood piece; 8.5-9
Monday
3 Films
Pieces of April: 7.5/10-- Great performances from it's entire cast, especially Patricia Clarkson who would've won the Oscar if Zellweger wouldn't have been there, and Katie Holmes. Some flaws, but a fantastic and very original screenplay.
Sexy Beast: 5.5/10-- Ben Kingsly's best performance. He is dynamite here and is all-time worthy, though he doesn't break Ian McKellen's Gandalf for my win. The rest of the film is pretty bad, though.
Don't Move: 4.5/10-- Perhaps the most disappointing film since "The Lovely Bones". I nominate Cruz now, the score is nice, and Castellitto is good too, but the rest of the film is messy and melodramatic. It's hard to believe my girl, Pe, learned Italian just to play this role.
Sexy Beast: 5.5/10-- Ben Kingsly's best performance. He is dynamite here and is all-time worthy, though he doesn't break Ian McKellen's Gandalf for my win. The rest of the film is pretty bad, though.
Don't Move: 4.5/10-- Perhaps the most disappointing film since "The Lovely Bones". I nominate Cruz now, the score is nice, and Castellitto is good too, but the rest of the film is messy and melodramatic. It's hard to believe my girl, Pe, learned Italian just to play this role.
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
Magical is the simplest way I can describe the finale to one of the greatest trilogies in film history. It's visually astounding with narrative focus, that's matched with masterful directorial effort. The Return of the King is the best of the three 'Rings' and turns the classic novel into something that will be treasured for years and years to come.
The film opens with a flashback to Gollum's past, it's a great move. We had an idea in our minds of how Gollum stole the ring, but we get a full-fleshed scene to how it happened. Great way to open the film.
The sets are amazing, the costumes are stunning, the cinematography is rich and stylish, the special effects will blow you away, the editing keeps everything alive. It's flawless. It's the most technically advanced film *ever* besides the recently released "Avatar". It's special effects create not only an adventurous fantasy tale, it's a completely different world. Peter Jackson takes you there and you have the time of your life.
Sean Astin really steps up his game for the finale, and deserves an Oscar nomination for Best Supporting Actor. Speaking of Oscars, Peter Jackson should've had his Best Director's speech written right after the editing was finished. It's his crowning glory.
The Return of the King is a grand film that should be celebrated not only for it's visual achievement, but also on acting and storytelling scales. It's emotionally powerful and has a sense of humor. It's too long like the past two films, which is a flaw, but I wouldn't lessen its overall grade because of it. It's such a landmark in film history, so authentic especially for a fantasy film. WOWZA! ; 10
The film opens with a flashback to Gollum's past, it's a great move. We had an idea in our minds of how Gollum stole the ring, but we get a full-fleshed scene to how it happened. Great way to open the film.
The sets are amazing, the costumes are stunning, the cinematography is rich and stylish, the special effects will blow you away, the editing keeps everything alive. It's flawless. It's the most technically advanced film *ever* besides the recently released "Avatar". It's special effects create not only an adventurous fantasy tale, it's a completely different world. Peter Jackson takes you there and you have the time of your life.
Sean Astin really steps up his game for the finale, and deserves an Oscar nomination for Best Supporting Actor. Speaking of Oscars, Peter Jackson should've had his Best Director's speech written right after the editing was finished. It's his crowning glory.
The Return of the King is a grand film that should be celebrated not only for it's visual achievement, but also on acting and storytelling scales. It's emotionally powerful and has a sense of humor. It's too long like the past two films, which is a flaw, but I wouldn't lessen its overall grade because of it. It's such a landmark in film history, so authentic especially for a fantasy film. WOWZA! ; 10
Sunday
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)
It's not completely easy to sit through a 3 hour movie, with at least one-fourth being action scenes. But with Peter Jackson's signature touch it works magnetically. It's visually intoxicating, there are some moments where you're pushed back in your seat gawking at the screen trying to get the word "How?" between you lips.
It's the second chapter from the legendary trilogy novel, and it's a magically entry in the landmark series in film history. Though it's a filler between "The Fellowship of the Ring" and "The Return of the King", it stands by itself as a iconic film.
Like I've said before, you'll be wowed by what you see. Dazzling visuals here--especially Gollum. The sets are unbelievingly rich and detailed. The cinematography is so beautiful, the photography looks like it could be featured in an art museum. The costumes are wonderful, as they were in the first film. Special effects had never been put to better use anywhere else, than here. Oh my goodness are the only words you'll be thinking. It's incredible what happens here whether it's computer generated or not...it's believable. It's worth seeing for that reason alone.
Ian McKellen's well-known role of Gandalf is minimized from the Fellowship, but McKellen does what he can with what's given to him, as usual. Besides, it'd be hard to top his original portrayal. It's one of the best the cinema has ever had. Gandalf's fate from the mysterious and misleading disappearance from the first opens the film, and it's a great move to remind the audience what happened in the original. To catch up so that they can begin the next part of what seems like the never ending journey. He also his a great entrance to the film itself after his intro.
There's a great cast effort here. Andy Serkis, who maybe had 60 seconds of time in The Fellowship delivers a knockout performance here. Viggo Mortensen also shines here. The rest of the cast is also very good. You become emotionally attached to the great love story of Aragon and Arwen. There part of the film is one of the many highlights.
The Two Towers contains intense and exciting editing. It's masterful and would've been perfect if some of the final battle could've been cut. We didn't really need a half hour battle scene, in my opinion. The only flaw, I'd say, is that scene. It's way too long, which makes the already lengthly film longer. Only flaw in a near perfect sequel.
It ends on a fantastic and suspenseful note from first a monologue from Sam, then a shorter monologue from Gollum. Darker and scarier than the first, but all so visionary, it won't disappoint fans. Jackson's directing is continued with great class for the most part. Essentially, there are three story lines in this chapter because all the Fellowship has divided and split up, but the transitions are smooth and well-done, creating a marvelous adventure; 10
It's the second chapter from the legendary trilogy novel, and it's a magically entry in the landmark series in film history. Though it's a filler between "The Fellowship of the Ring" and "The Return of the King", it stands by itself as a iconic film.
Like I've said before, you'll be wowed by what you see. Dazzling visuals here--especially Gollum. The sets are unbelievingly rich and detailed. The cinematography is so beautiful, the photography looks like it could be featured in an art museum. The costumes are wonderful, as they were in the first film. Special effects had never been put to better use anywhere else, than here. Oh my goodness are the only words you'll be thinking. It's incredible what happens here whether it's computer generated or not...it's believable. It's worth seeing for that reason alone.
Ian McKellen's well-known role of Gandalf is minimized from the Fellowship, but McKellen does what he can with what's given to him, as usual. Besides, it'd be hard to top his original portrayal. It's one of the best the cinema has ever had. Gandalf's fate from the mysterious and misleading disappearance from the first opens the film, and it's a great move to remind the audience what happened in the original. To catch up so that they can begin the next part of what seems like the never ending journey. He also his a great entrance to the film itself after his intro.
There's a great cast effort here. Andy Serkis, who maybe had 60 seconds of time in The Fellowship delivers a knockout performance here. Viggo Mortensen also shines here. The rest of the cast is also very good. You become emotionally attached to the great love story of Aragon and Arwen. There part of the film is one of the many highlights.
The Two Towers contains intense and exciting editing. It's masterful and would've been perfect if some of the final battle could've been cut. We didn't really need a half hour battle scene, in my opinion. The only flaw, I'd say, is that scene. It's way too long, which makes the already lengthly film longer. Only flaw in a near perfect sequel.
It ends on a fantastic and suspenseful note from first a monologue from Sam, then a shorter monologue from Gollum. Darker and scarier than the first, but all so visionary, it won't disappoint fans. Jackson's directing is continued with great class for the most part. Essentially, there are three story lines in this chapter because all the Fellowship has divided and split up, but the transitions are smooth and well-done, creating a marvelous adventure; 10
Friday
Craven talks Scream 4!!
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1647108/20100902/story.jhtml
The second project is "Scream 4." the long-awaited fourth chapter in Craven and screenwriter Kevin Williamson's hugely popular franchise, which not only reunites the original cast (David Arquette, Neve Campbell and Courteney Cox), but includes a slew of popular young stars, including Emma Roberts, Hayden Panettiere, Anna Paquin, Kristen Bell, Rory Culkin, Shenae Grimes and Lucy Hale.
When we caught up with Craven to discuss "My Soul to Take," we couldn't help but prod the man in charge for some "Scream 4" scoop, beginning with how he managed to assemble his original stars.
"Well, I could take credit for it, but it wouldn't be accurate," he said.
By the time Craven was asked to direct, Dimension studio head Bob Weinstein had already secured Cox, Arquette and Campbell.
"It was just a matter of me saying, 'Sure,' " Craven added.
For the director, the allure of rejoining the team to work on a good script was icing on the cake.
"I think all of us wanted to do something written by Kevin [Williamson] and to work together again," he said. "We all had such wonderful times on the first three. It has been a return to a great deal of fun — just the pleasure of working together again. We know each other inside and out. There's a lot of shorthand and a lot of fun memories from our past escapades."
Regarding the new additions to the franchise, Craven was full of praise for his young stars.
"The young cast is amazing," he said. "They're extremely bright and a very varied cast. ... They're just great to work with. It's fun to be doing that combination of the sort of classic actors of the first three and this new group of kids. [They] have very different and fresh personalities and great acting talent."
And what about the plot? How does it fit within the franchise, and how does it differ?
"It's a clear and/or pretty well-known [fact] that it's a return to Woodsboro for Sydney Prescott, who is Neve's character," Craven said. "Courteney and David have, as they did in real life, have gotten married and are living in Woodsboro, so it's the story of Sid's return to Woodsboro and the series of events that take place there where those three are thrown together in a wild and crazy way, and then a group of kids that get meshed in the plot." Speaking of that group of kids, Craven went on to say that managing the appearances of all his young stars — most of whom are speculated to be making quick cameos — has been a pleasure rather than a headache.
"Well, that's the great joy — it's fun," he said. "A lot of these actors I didn't know that well or have not worked with most of them, or any of them, as a matter of fact," Craven explained. "They always say, 'It's great working with you. I've wanted to work with you for a long time,' but it's wonderful working with actors like this that are very young and have a large following already because of their talent, and just to spend one or two days with them to do these kind of set/bit pieces is a lot of fun."
With regard to those one- or two-day roles, we tried to get Craven to reveal a few specifics about two recently announced "guests" in particular: Anna Paquin and Kristen Bell.
"I don't know what I'm allowed to say," he laughed. "They do have a very significant and exciting role in the film, let me put it that way."
The second project is "Scream 4." the long-awaited fourth chapter in Craven and screenwriter Kevin Williamson's hugely popular franchise, which not only reunites the original cast (David Arquette, Neve Campbell and Courteney Cox), but includes a slew of popular young stars, including Emma Roberts, Hayden Panettiere, Anna Paquin, Kristen Bell, Rory Culkin, Shenae Grimes and Lucy Hale.
When we caught up with Craven to discuss "My Soul to Take," we couldn't help but prod the man in charge for some "Scream 4" scoop, beginning with how he managed to assemble his original stars.
"Well, I could take credit for it, but it wouldn't be accurate," he said.
By the time Craven was asked to direct, Dimension studio head Bob Weinstein had already secured Cox, Arquette and Campbell.
"It was just a matter of me saying, 'Sure,' " Craven added.
For the director, the allure of rejoining the team to work on a good script was icing on the cake.
"I think all of us wanted to do something written by Kevin [Williamson] and to work together again," he said. "We all had such wonderful times on the first three. It has been a return to a great deal of fun — just the pleasure of working together again. We know each other inside and out. There's a lot of shorthand and a lot of fun memories from our past escapades."
Regarding the new additions to the franchise, Craven was full of praise for his young stars.
"The young cast is amazing," he said. "They're extremely bright and a very varied cast. ... They're just great to work with. It's fun to be doing that combination of the sort of classic actors of the first three and this new group of kids. [They] have very different and fresh personalities and great acting talent."
And what about the plot? How does it fit within the franchise, and how does it differ?
"It's a clear and/or pretty well-known [fact] that it's a return to Woodsboro for Sydney Prescott, who is Neve's character," Craven said. "Courteney and David have, as they did in real life, have gotten married and are living in Woodsboro, so it's the story of Sid's return to Woodsboro and the series of events that take place there where those three are thrown together in a wild and crazy way, and then a group of kids that get meshed in the plot." Speaking of that group of kids, Craven went on to say that managing the appearances of all his young stars — most of whom are speculated to be making quick cameos — has been a pleasure rather than a headache.
"Well, that's the great joy — it's fun," he said. "A lot of these actors I didn't know that well or have not worked with most of them, or any of them, as a matter of fact," Craven explained. "They always say, 'It's great working with you. I've wanted to work with you for a long time,' but it's wonderful working with actors like this that are very young and have a large following already because of their talent, and just to spend one or two days with them to do these kind of set/bit pieces is a lot of fun."
With regard to those one- or two-day roles, we tried to get Craven to reveal a few specifics about two recently announced "guests" in particular: Anna Paquin and Kristen Bell.
"I don't know what I'm allowed to say," he laughed. "They do have a very significant and exciting role in the film, let me put it that way."
Monday
Bye Bye Gale.
Yeah, so I'm pretty sure I'll be sobbing hysterically in 227 days, because it looks like Gale is knocked off from Scream. Courteney finished her shooting to return to her hit show Cougar Town. Now anyone who is familiar with the Scream flicks knows the finale takes up about the third and final act and usually takes place at one setting (Stu's house, the theater, and Milton's house).
From screamtrilogy.net
From screamtrilogy.net
September is about to begin and Scream 4 will shoot for its third and final month. Eyewitness photos have been thin this week, as Bananadoc is on vacation (a rumor persists that it’s a front – he really slipped on a banana peel while photographing a major death scene and is now recuperating in hospital).
A firm outline of the remainder of filming, this public notice posted in Michigan was shared today by Before The Trailer:
Scream 4 will start filming on Tuesday Aug.31st and shoot through Friday Sept.24th (small chance we will end earlier). We will film mostly at 19223 Clement Rd. and will film about 3 days at 19260 Clement Rd. We will only film Monday through Friday – 14 hours each day (estimated 4pm to 6am) We will not film on the Weekends.ROAD CLOSURES:The township will be dropping off barricades on Clement Rd. at 7 Mile and at Frederick St. These will be Hard Closures and we will only allow film crew and the residents whose house is within the closure to enter. We will park the trucks along the side of Clement and use the road between the closure to push carts of gear and move our 80 ft. lifts with lights. We will ALWAYS have a Fire Lane available in the event of an emergency. We will also put a Local Access Only Barricade on Clement at Main St.
Please tell me I'm reading too much into this.
Sarah Michelle Gellar in "The Air I Breathe"
Many of people know, Gellar is my favorite actress. One of her biggest and best performances is The Air I Breathe. I just rewatched it to time her, she's incredible and compelling as Sorrow and the film is jaw-dropping too. I think I refound my roots tonight. I love TAIB.
Anyway, she earned her BSA win back from Tilda Swinton. I've gone back and forth between the two, but I think Gellar is the right choice. I have so much history with the film and a deep connection to her character.
Performance time: 28 minutes and 54 seconds
Anyway, she earned her BSA win back from Tilda Swinton. I've gone back and forth between the two, but I think Gellar is the right choice. I have so much history with the film and a deep connection to her character.
Performance time: 28 minutes and 54 seconds
Sunday
THE SCREAM TRIOS PERFORMANCES TIMED!
SCREAM 3
Sidney: 33 minutes & 06 seconds
Gale: 28 minutes & 19 seconds
Dewey: 26 minutes & 43 seconds
SCREAM 2
Sidney: 40 minutes & 02 seconds
Gale: 22 minutes & 19 seconds
Dewey: 16 minutes and 25 seconds
SCREAM
Sidney: 41 minutes & 44 seconds
Gale: 14 minutes & 09 seconds
Dewey: 10 minutes & 59 seconds
These all make sense, actually if you add in all the time of the kills and back stories and such. Yeah, everyone will be shocked by the Scream 3 times, I was at first, too. The reason why I think people think Sidney has less screentime then the other two is because Gale & Dewey are in the action with all the characters that get knocked off, in the first two films that was Sidney, but they made the change since Sid was in hiding. Really Neve only lost about 7 minutes of screentime due to her contract so I guess it's not that bad
Only heaven knows what's in store for the Scream 4 times.
My Scream Collage
I put together a collage of all the characters from Scream. I don't think I missed any besides Sidney's dad, Maureen, the detectives in Scream 2 and Steven Stone from Scream 3.
Saturday
Brothers Bloom
Rachel's role, Penelope, in The Brothers Bloom is far from her Oscar-winning effort in The Constant Gardener, but she elevates her role putting herself on par with Tessa Quale. Weisz steals the show here in a fun, energetic, elaborate tale, The Brothers Bloom.
You'll be bouncing out of you seats watching this film. The script is absolutely hilarious, the director moves fast keeping the material alive, and the performances are classy and strong, but what guides The Brothers Bloom (besides Weisz, of course) is the explosive editing. It's hyperactive, but not obnoxious. It's cool , fun and hip.
Like I've stated before, Weisz steals the show. Her character Penelope is one of the most memorable and well-written characters in recent memory and Weisz is up to the challenge of taking on that role. She's the most interesting character so you immediately take a liking to her. She's so adorable as the bright, lovely character, but the great thing about her performance is underneath all that lies great sorrow.
The rest of the performances aren't too shabby either. Adrien Brody is very good and convincing but it over-towered, by the other more colorful characters. Mark Ruffalo is charming and a ridiculous ball of fun. Rinko Kikuchi has almost no lines, but still gets big laughs.
There are dazzling visuals including some gorgeous costumes and set designs. This is a very funny film. Top that with the amount of energy and entertainment throughout, you're in a for a fantastic thrill ride. Not to mention the glorious performances, especially form the magnificent Rachel Weisz. A delightful thrill ride and the best comedy of 2009; 9
You'll be bouncing out of you seats watching this film. The script is absolutely hilarious, the director moves fast keeping the material alive, and the performances are classy and strong, but what guides The Brothers Bloom (besides Weisz, of course) is the explosive editing. It's hyperactive, but not obnoxious. It's cool , fun and hip.
Like I've stated before, Weisz steals the show. Her character Penelope is one of the most memorable and well-written characters in recent memory and Weisz is up to the challenge of taking on that role. She's the most interesting character so you immediately take a liking to her. She's so adorable as the bright, lovely character, but the great thing about her performance is underneath all that lies great sorrow.
The rest of the performances aren't too shabby either. Adrien Brody is very good and convincing but it over-towered, by the other more colorful characters. Mark Ruffalo is charming and a ridiculous ball of fun. Rinko Kikuchi has almost no lines, but still gets big laughs.
There are dazzling visuals including some gorgeous costumes and set designs. This is a very funny film. Top that with the amount of energy and entertainment throughout, you're in a for a fantastic thrill ride. Not to mention the glorious performances, especially form the magnificent Rachel Weisz. A delightful thrill ride and the best comedy of 2009; 9
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)