Black and White, Neo Noir, Pulp Comic Book Movie? My ass is planted on that uncomfortable folding leather seat with the sticky cup rests come 2009. Stow the “Untouchables” score, though.

Bookmark to:
     

6 Comments »

• This scenario sounds like someone on a fan board threw names together to goof on remakes and an exec from Hollywood decided to act upon it. Take a brilliant science fiction film like “The Incredible Shrinking Man,” put it through the Hollywood grinder, and you’ll get:
  “Brett Ratner is in negotiations to direct Universal Pictures and Imagine Entertainment’s remake of “The Incredible Shrinking Man.” Brian Grazer is producing the project, which has Eddie Murphy attached to star.

  An updated version of the best-selling novel and 1957 sci-fi classic starring Grant Williams, “Man” is taking the comedic approach to the fantastical material, telling the story of a famous Las Vegas magician who is put under a spell that causes him to shrink. He must find a way to reverse the spell before he gets so small that he “disappears.”
  Source: The Hollywood Reporter
  Doesn’t that sound like a barrel of laughs. I mean, Murphy did “Norbit,” so this has a good chance of being a riot.

• I’ve always said that “Teen Witch” was a movie I could get behind being remade. I mean, have you seen it lately? It’s awful. Beyond awful. Watching white boys rap to a horrible rap song is just the epitome of terrible. But as expected, Disney has it, Ashley Tisdale (the hot blond from that musical about the high school) will star, and voila, an instant vehicle for a fading child star. I’m on the fence.
• DC Universe vs. Mortal Kombat. Bwah? Batman vs. Liu Kang…? Superman vs. Sonja Blade…?
• And finally, I beg George Lucas to stop whining like a bitch, and be the bigger man and suck it up:
  Entertainment Weekly: So Why Resurrect Indy after all these years?
  Lucas: “We’re doing it to have fun. We don’t need the money. We’re only going to get aggravation. The fans think it’s gonna be the Second Coming. And it’s not the Second Coming. They’ve already written the story [in their heads], and lemme tell ya, it’s not that story. So they’re going to be very disappointed. I went through this with Phantom Menace. Believe me, I’ve been there, I’ve done it, I know exactly the way they react …We’re not gonna have adoring fans sending us e-mails saying how much they loved the movie. We’re gonna have a bunch of angry people saying, ‘You’re a bunch of assholes, you should never have done this. You’ve ruined my life forever. I loved Indiana Jones so much and now it’s ruined.’”
  Spielberg: “Uh, he needs to speak for himself here. [Laughter all around] You need to put in parentheses, ‘George Lucas is totally speaking for himself.’ And I absolve myself of any connection with that last statement about fans not liking it.”
  Lucas: “All I’m saying is, I have been there, and I have walked through the valley of death on highly anticipated sequels.”

Bookmark to:
     

3 Comments »

Honest to god, this isn’t an attempt at a plug of any kind, but “Attack of the Show!” is one of my new favorite guilty pleasures. If you were watching last night, then they signed off with one of the funniest (impromptu?) stunts on the set I’ve seen since I started watching. I was in literal tears, and rewatched it twice.

If you didn’t see “Attack of the Show!” then notice Kevin trying to play off his pain, and doing it well:

Munn looks shocked. And who can blame her?

Bookmark to:
     

8 Comments »

For years, I was puzzled as to what name Bastian screams at the end of “The Neverending Story.” Thanks to Wikipedia, and a clip from YouTube to confirm, I now know that the little shit screams “Moon Child!” This was a mystery of my life dispelled by Wikipedia. The power of the internet truly revealed!

Bookmark to:
     

1 Comment »

I’m a big fan of Gus Van Sant’s films. Be it the films themselves, the courage he shows in hop-scotching styles and genre or the simple power of the images and stories he brings forth, Van Sant never ceases to follow his muse. I also love the way he dares to make non-mainstream fare and then back it up with a studio project. I don’t know why more filmmakers don’t do that. Aside from boo-boo’s like the pointless “Psycho” remake and the inherently doomed “Even Cowgirls Get the Blues,” Van Sant always brings something interesting to the screen. However I’ve noticed a rather disturbing trend in some of his recent films and I want to see what everyone else has to say.

I’m going to come right out and say something that might not be popular or politically correct but I have to ask, what’s up with Van Sant’s fetishising of teenage boys and why is it acceptable? The shower scene in Van Sant’s Columbine inspired “Elephant” where the two young, unknown actors strip down, take a shower together while making out seemed oddly tacked on and rather lecherous. Now in Van Sant’s latest film “Paranoid Park” the director chooses to show his star, young Gabe Nevins (another unknown teen actor who was apparently cast via some myspace ads looking for young actors…gross) stripping down and taking a nice, long hot shower. The camera lingers on his wet face and hair and travels down his body with the streams of water. It just feels kind of wrong to me and yet no one else seems to care or feel it’s inappropriate. Or maybe they do and don’t feel comfortable saying something about the elephant in the room. Pun intended.

After “Paranoid Park” ended, I started to walk home and tried to tell myself I was just being too overcritical and sensitive. There was nothing to what I had just seen and what I had seen in “Elephant” I thought. Plus it feels homophobic to even say such a thing which is a shame because there’s nothing homophobic about not being thrilled at seeing sinewy teenage boys in various states of undress. I wouldn’t want to see teenage girls portrayed this way either. Yet, as I walked on I realized I had also caught something in the shooting style of “Paranoid Park” that was equally off-putting and finally lead me to write this piece.

As someone who spends way too much time studying film, I caught some pretty clear references in “Paranoid Park” to Kenneth Anger’s “Scorpio Rising” which is a really cool, Brechtian styled short film from the 1960’s. In the film Anger features popular music of the day with really languid, fetishised shots of greaser guys working on and riding their motorcycles. “Scorpio Rising” is like a sexless gay porn featuring the Fonz or better, a really arty Queen video and it’s very clear in its intentions.

Yet the homosexual overtones of “Scorpio Rising” don’t bother me because the men in the film are just that, adult men and they consented to looking sexy for Anger as they slowly lubed a chassis or their hair or shined some chrome. Cut to “Paranoid Park” and Van Sant repeatedly uses similar techniques as Anger as we see toned young boys skating shirtless in slow-motion or we see Alex’s face softly lit and focused on like a film star from the 1950’s. In another scene a conflicted Alex slowly walks down the hallway, the camera focused on his face while Billy Swan’s classic seventies pop song “I Can Help” croons in the background. These are all clear parallels to “Scorpio Rising” yet here the focus is on young boys instead of young men. The males in the frame are not yet at the age of consent so by definition (and, well, law) they cannot be considered able to consent. Can they?

I hate to come off like a neo-con, but Van Sant’s use and eye for young teenage boys seems exploitative and it’s really starting to creep me out. These are teenage boys under the age of 18 and I don’t see why this camera gaze is acceptable or at least not questioned. Again, maybe I’m just being too sensitive or maybe even reading too much into the film. But then again, a pattern is a pattern and an homage is supposed to speak to it’s predecessor and I feel “Paranoid Park” and “Scorpio Rising” are too similar for it to be a mistake. What do you say Film Threat readers?

Bookmark to:
     

12 Comments »

So, I never closed out the “Cloverfield” Investigation properly and for many reasons. Mainly it was because I may continue the viral explosion if there happens to be a sequel, but mostly because I could never figure out how to go out on a high note.

In lieu of the April 22nd DVD release, I thought it would be only proper to close out the investigation and send my regards and thanks to people, and explain that, yes, I loved “Cloverfield,” and I’ve seen it three times. Clovey is a creepy monster, and there will be many more surprises to be had, if you’ve kept up with Reeves and Abrams’ explanations of what Clovey is and why it stomped onto New York one night in January.

The viral marketing had almost nothing to do with the movie beyond the hammer, the horse, Slusho, and stomach bursting, but hey, I had fun; I can never get enough of Viral Marketing.

Now here comes the sap.

The following people have to be thanked for contributing to the success of this blog frenzy that resulted in one particular blog entry garnering a little over two hundred responses; if I miss anyone, apologies:

Mike Watt, Movie Marketing Madness
Don Lewis
Phil Hall
Jeremy Knox
Michael Ferraro
Cloverfield News
Cloverfield Clues
Rory L. Aronsky

And especially: Mark Bell, who allowed me to write about the first teaser trailer, sat for two hours tailoring the the article as Film Threat’s very own stunt, and pretty much co-writing the piece with me. As well, he allowed me to run rampant on the blogs, posting theories and articles leading up to the movie, and I’m in his debt.

On that, I go out on this note:

For further proof that “Cloverfield” was truly an experience worth having, it’s been revealed that there were three subliminal stills inserted into the DVD Release of the movie that occur during the course of the film. There are stills of King Kong, Them, and the Beast from 20,000 Fathoms. In this climactic scene (possible spoilers), a particular king of the apes can be seen:

It was fun kids. See you again…?

Bookmark to:
     

2 Comments »

I’ve been noticing a trend for a long time on various movie related blogs and today, I finally decided to say something about it. No, it’s not the fact that many of these well known bloggers think we give a shit about their political views or their witty insights into the Democratic primaries as that’s for another blog. No, I’m talking about net bloggers and reviewers who use their blog for leverage in order to get things for free. It’s pandering, annoying and childish and I’ve had enough.

My first example, and the one that really keyed me into this annoying net movie reviewer habit comes courtesy of the Kings of the Free Hand-Out, Ain’t it Cool News. “Moriarty” (one of the many pseudo-named writers for them) posted a little article as an open letter to Sony and his intentions couldn’t have been more clear. The free PS3 they gave him wasn’t working properly even after he sent it back to Sony and now, he’s having a temper-tantrum because he can’t watch his multitude of free Blu-Ray DVD’s sent out to him by various companies that AICN has sucked up to over the years. Reading the piece it’s laughable how you can sort of sense Moriarty’s meltdown phase by phase.

First, Moriarty’s free PS3 didn’t work, then he sent it back. This admittedly, for a movie geek, is tough to do. Go a whole few months without your newest toy? I honestly feel for the guy. But, the system was a free gift for a “critic” in the industry with some apparent pull. Obviously the PS3 came with an unwritten note reminding Moriarty how much he loves it and to scream it from the mountaintops. And he does so when in the piece he writes, “Here’s the thing… I’ve been positively evangelical about the PS3 since I got mine. I know I’ve talked at least four friends into buying the machine, and I’ve repeatedly discussed my evolving admiration for just how adaptable and versatile machine it seemed to be.” Did he also talk his friends into wiping the brown from his nose? But when his free gift didn’t work, Moriarty got huffy. He probably called and emailed them daily and reminded whichever poor lackey at Sony initiated conversation with this mooch that he writes for Ain’t it Cool and his minions and readers will not be happy if he’s not made happy. Then, Moriarty proceeds to show screen caps of all the amazing (free) Blu-Ray DVD’s he won’t be able to watch because Sony dropped a nerd turd in his punchbowl. Rather than rehash the whole thing, I’ll let you check it out here.

My issues with this are as follows. First, why do Blu-Ray DVD’s need to be “reviewed?” It’s Blu-Ray…all the discs look fucking great. That’s the point of Blu-Ray. And second, since you’re getting them for free, you’re sure as hell not going to say otherwise, are you? Which gets back to the whole central issue with AICN as a website to begin with, but that too is for another blog. Third, Moriarty’s article is clearly an attempt to not only cover his ass for not reviewing the Blu-Ray discs he was sent, for free to “review,” but also an attempt to strong arm Sony for making his life of free hand-outs a little harder. It’s not cool. It’s childish and it’s looking a gift horse in the mouth.

The other blogger who I’m taking issue with here is somehow more nefarious. Probably because he isn’t being a petulant child who didn’t get his way. Well, at least not in this case anyway.

Hollywood go-to blogger Jeffrey Wells of Hollywood Elsewhere likes to get that special treatment. Be it advanced copies of scripts, nude outtakes from movies (I keed, I keed…sorta) or advance screenings, Jeff has an almost pathological need to be first. In the oh-so-mature pissing contest that goes on between David Poland, Nikki Finke and Wells, it’s Wells who seems to be the one with the least amount of class or at best, the least amount of delicacy. For instance if he wants a script, he throws out a random blog entry that’s not only pure speculation, but also a clear cry for an advance copy of said script.

On Saturday, April 5 Wells blogs, “In my very limited readings and discussions about David Fincher’s “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button,” which is certainly, I’ve begun to tell myself, a formidable contender for the ‘08 Best Picture Oscar, it never hit me that Eric Roth’s original March 2005 script is 205 pages long. I’m sure it’s been compressed and pruned down, like any other script that goes before the cameras, but it does seem as if the final film, which comes out 12.19, has a chance of being on the longish side.”

Huh? So…you admittedly know no one involved with the film and haven’t heard much about it which means you aren’t getting your daily supplement of ass-kissing love from the films production. So rather than sit back and wait like the rest of the world, you write that a script you read three years ago seems long? What’s so bad about a film possibly being long, you ask dear reader? Well for whatever reason, long films seem to be as popular as a staph infection. If you don’t believe me that a films length is an issue, ask the producers behind “The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford” or even “There Will be Blood,” both of which were moronically deemed irrationally lengthy. In the United States of A.D.D., leaking word that a movie is “long” is akin to saying it’s boring. No matter how stupid that sounds, it’s the truth. So Wells saying he heard that the script is 205 pages (which would make for a 3 and ½ hour film…which isn’t happening) is a mini-salvo clearly designed to get Jeff an advance copy of the script. It’s as if he said, “maybe if someone would send me the script, I could report back at how long it really is and put peoples minds at ease.”

Further proof that Jeffrey Wells seems to need everything handed to him on a silver platter in order for him to do his job and when it isn’t, we get a blog entry like this one last week regarding the new film “Sex and Death 101.” In the entry, Wells quibbles, “Sex and Death 101 opens the day after tomorrow (4.4.). Directed and written by Daniel Waters Heathers”), and starring Winona Ryder and Simon Baker. A malevolent R-rated comedy. If only someone had persisted in offering me a chance to see it.”

Again, like Moriarty, Wells is using his blog and his “pull” therein to make a play for free stuff and when he doesn’t get it, a fit is thrown. Plus, doesn’t it seem that Wells is implying that since no one offered him a free chance to see the film ahead of time, he now won’t give it any coverage? With all the grousing about the state of movie criticism and with so many “influential people” crying in their popcorn, is it any wonder the movie studios are getting sick of online movie critics and finding less and less use for us?

I’m not going to lie and say I don’t like free stuff or film festivals that are paid for in order to get me to attend and give coverage. I do. However I was also taught common courtesy early on which says you don’t beg or mooch for handouts and you say thanks for what you get (and don’t throw a fit). Plus, free trips to film festivals paid for by the festival don’t guarantee positive film reviews, they just assure someone will (or should) cover a bunch of films at the festival. What these guys are doing here is rude and reflects poorly on the community of net movie writers as a whole. It’s especially galling when it comes from two sites that, for whatever reason, have become touchstones of the internet film review business. I think that with such sensitivity about the state of affairs with film criticism, pandering and whining about freebies and perceived mistreatment should be called out and extinguished and a little more grown up behavior should be demanded. If internet film industry people want to be treated with respect, they should try showing some.

Bookmark to:
     

5 Comments »

Words the promoters will very well hear after theatergoers have finished watching “Prom Night:”

“That prank scared me more than that stupid movie did.”

But still, funny.

You have to love the expression of the first victim.

Bookmark to:
     

No Comments »

This morning started out… wait, wrong, it wasn’t morning: it was 2 in the afternoon. Why do I think it was morning? Because my sinuses had started bugging me Friday, and when I turned in Friday night, I took copious amounts of allergy medication that knocked my ass right out. So it felt like morning, as I was still in a bit of a haze, but it was the afternoon. Anyway…

The day started out with a set of roundtable interviews with “Battle in Seattle’s” Stuart Townsend, Michelle Rodriguez, Charlize Theron and Martin Henderson. Stuart and Michelle went first, and when they came into the roundtable (with me, Cinematical’s Kim Voynar and Reelz Channel’s Heather Huntington) they were followed by a town of photographers. This was new to the three of us, as we’re normally not doing roundtables while folks take pictures, but what’re you supposed to do? Michelle joked that they could take pics as long as they didn’t shoot her fingering herself, so I informed them that they could shoot me fingering myself, Stuart said he didn’t want to see that, so I offered to let him smell my finger instead. Yeah, this is why I don’t do many roundtables, most likely.

Charlize and Martin’s roundtable was pretty playful, as they joked around back and forth. She was under the weather, though, so I felt bad that she had to sit and talk to us. Plus, my sinuses were acting up again so I was sitting, arms-crossed, sweating, eyes watering and trying my best not to sniffle, sneeze or cough.

After the roundtables, and some more allergy medicine, I made my way over to the Nasher Sculpture Center to moderate my panel on the New Generation of Filmmakers; essentially all about the the up-and-comers, focusing on some high school programs in Texas and the Mobile Film School. I got there early, and got to see some of Michael Addis, Jewel (yes, THAT Jewel) and Dolph Lundgren (yes, THAT Dolph Lundgren) do their panel on audience influence on films.

On my panel was Garland High School teacher Patty Schubert, Mobile Film School’s Lisa McWilliams and teen filmmakers Jorge Arzac and Joe Brittain. While the panel was a bit under-attended (it was 5:30pm on a Saturday right before the closing night film), I felt the panel was extremely interesting, informative and, overall, encouraging. Thanks to curriculum’s like Patty, students are learning much about both film history and production, while Lisa’s program brings filmmaking to those who may not have thought it possible. I was, and still am, honored that I got to moderate such an important panel, and can only thank the festival for taking a chance on a foul-mouthed film critic who just the night before was picking fights with audience members.

After the panel I made my way over to the opening night film, “Battle in Seattle,” and my favorite moment was when festival director Michael Cain mis-named director Stuart Townsend, calling him Stewart Copeland instead. Part of me REALLY wanted the drummer from the Police to suddenly show up.

The film? Full review to come, but I pretty much knew the ins and outs of the WTO protest of 1999 (as I lived up there at the time), so the film didn’t have much suspense for me because I knew how everything played out, but I hope it was a solid primer for everyone else though. Best quote from the film: “A week ago, nobody knew what the WTO was. Now… they still don’t know, but they know it’s evil.” Oddly enough, best quote I could come up with after the movie ended too…

After the screening it was closing night party time at the House of Blues with the band the Polyphonic Spree. Previously known for their cult-like robes, the huge band had recently gone in for a more militant look, calling themselves The Fragile Army. This scared me, because it meant the cult of happy was mobilizing, and as the show opened, my fears came true…

There was a giant heart on stage…

The band revealed themselves as a wall of choreographed march moves and sound…

Confetti fell from the sky and it dawned on me that this is what the Nazi rally of Nuremberg would likely look like, had it taken place today.

Band was a fun watch, and played about an hour before calling it quits, then returning for an encore in their original cult robes. At that point I refused to drink anything anyone gave me, for few that the closing night was to be a mass cinematic suicide.

Eventually the band invited people on stage, photographers mostly, and this guy…

Who showed his excitement, leaving me to believe that the cult of the Polyphonic Spree had recruited yet again. Can they be stopped?

Favorite pic: AFI Dallas Festival Director Michael Cain is a busy man. So busy, in fact, that even while rocking out on stage, he manages to take a cell phone call…

My evening ended back at the Filmmaker Lounge for some final Guitar Hero playing. Two challengers stepped up; one at Expert on “Holiday in Cambodia” and the other at Expert on “Knights of Cydonia.” How’d I do? The former I beat by 100K points, and the latter was beating me by 20K before I rallied mid-song and beat him by 40K. And thus, my legend remained intact. Serna beat me… but no one else…

Festival awards in 7 hours, and then I fly home. It’s been a great experience, and I’ll have more to say in my full wrap-up next week (including interviews and reviews). For now, though? Sleep.

Bookmark to:
     

2 Comments »

I’m behind in the blog entries, mainly in that I keep attending films and having fun, but I’m going to try and catch up with this re-cap of Friday’s fun.

The day started with a screening of “What Just Happened?” with Mr. Robert De Niro in attendance. Well, not completely in attendance, for either one of us. Since Jamie had seen the flick at Sundance, I decided to skip it and instead just head over for the Q&A to get some pics. After some BBQ lunch at the Smokehouse (Dallas’ equivalent of Iron Works in Austin) with my new friends at Reelz Channel, Jeff and Heather, I made it over to the theater. I arrived about a minute before De Niro did and, well, this picture says it all:

Hey, Mark! Did you just get here too? It’s me, Bobby!

I then went into the theater and caught the end of the film… which seemed funny, but very Hollywood insider. Still, it seemed to go over well, so maybe it crossed-over without issue. The Q&A with De Niro, Art Linson and Barry Levinson wasn’t the most exciting, but I didn’t expect it to be. I watched for about thirty minutes, and then realized that I had to leave the theater or risk missing the screening of “The Class” I wanted to attend. So I hopped into a shuttle and headed out.

I got into the shuttle at 3:30pm. Due to insane traffic, I got to the theater at 4:15pm, and that was thanks to the shuttle driver’s (I believe his name was Bill; looked like Santa Claus) knew all the backroads. Had we sat on the highway that wasn’t moving, I never would’ve made it for the 4:30pm screening. Thanks, Bill!

“The Class” will get its proper due in a review soon enough, but the gut of this teen violence film set in an Estonia high school is that it is unrelenting in its portrayal of a high school cliche / hierarchy gone horribly awry. The end result is one that you could’ve guessed early on, but also one that, at the end, actually feels warranted. And that’s a hard feeling / thought to reconcile.

After “The Class,” I hopped a shuttle over to the Angelika for a screening of “Sonic Youth: Sleeping Wide Awake.” The film is part of an educational program, and was a Sonic Youth doc / concert shot by seven high school’ers (the high school theme of the day continues for me). And, well… it looks that way. I can’t fault them too much, they were shooting DV in low-light conditions and the screening wasn’t helped by the projection, which showed every pixelated, jaggy-edge. If you love Sonic Youth and want an intimate view, it is worth checking out though it may translate better to DVD then a full blow-up.

My final adventure / task of the night was the head back to the Magnolia to see “Heckler,” and then host the Q&A for director Michael Addis and star Jamie Kennedy. When I got to the theater, programmer extraordinaire Sarah Harris informed me that Jamie wasn’t going to be there because he was sick. That’s fine, I had seen Addis earlier and he’s more than capable of making things fun for a Q&A.

While I waited for the film to get going, Addis showed up and he and I sat in the lobby of the theater talking all about everything from the death of film criticism in print to the overall issue of human nature and value judgments. He’s a bright guy, and fun to talk to. Whether we agreed on everything we spoke about doesn’t matter; it was still a good conversation.

The new cut of “Heckler” screened and I enjoyed it as much as I did the last time. Despite being a kick to my critic’s nuts over and over, I still find the movie hilarious. And the crowd seemed to as well. The flick ended (it was midnight) and a healthy contingent stuck around.

I went down to the front and set the Q&A ground rules (no budget, production length or hours shot questions) and introduced Michael. We re-capped our previous Q&A adventure, and Michael informed me that I had misheard him back in LA when I thought he had fun of my weight by saying that I looked like “a guy who eats a lot of pizza.” According to Addis, what he actually said was, “he dresses like a guy who delivers a lot of pizzas.” More a slam on style, but funny is funny, so kudos.

Michael called Jamie up, and Jamie participated via speakerphone on Michael’s Treo. The Q&A started out well enough, and seemed to be pretty insightful / on point, but then someone asked a question along the lines of “how do you feel about the downward spiral on film criticism on the internet” to which I replied by flipping said audience member off with my right hand, then my left hand, then both hands. This set a precedent, no doubt, for what was left to come.

At one point, Jamie called me on a statement I made about “Malibu’s Most Wanted” and “Son of the Mask” being “easy targets” for criticism, and asked why they were held to different standards then, say, “There Will Be Blood.” I rambled a bit about apples and oranges, but at some point I pissed off a row of what appeared to be teenagers in the upper decks of the audience, as they felt that what I was saying was that anyone who liked “Malibu’s Most Wanted” is an idiot. I tried to explain myself but then the kid went into a “who do you think you are to tell me; you’re a nobody film critic, I’ve never heard of you” rant so I informed him that “I’m the guy with the microphone who was asked to host this Q&A and he’s some motherfucker sitting in the 50th row.” Again, not a good precedent to set, as he and I began to go back and forth with more and more verbal insults, culminating in his standing up as if to come down and fight me, to which I goaded him to do so. He never made it down.

After some other outbursts wherein it felt like I had stepped into “Heckler” and was defending myself with whatever ammunition I could find, the guy calmed down and, eventually, his bedtime rolled around and he and his cohorts left. At that point, though, the Q&A had turned back into insightful conversation and Michael, phone Jamie and I talked for probably 30-45 minutes (or so it felt). It started well, went off the rails, and then ended strong.

The best part? The entire thing was videotaped. I’m trying to get a hold of that tape so I can cut together a “Critics Gone Wild!” video for the site, so hopefully that’ll work out. Truly the most unique Q&A experience I’ve ever had (and I hosted Uwe Boll’s Q&A for “Postal” at the Hollywood Film Festival, so what does that tell you). Since “Heckler” comes out in July on DVD, this is likely my last notable adventure with the film, and I honestly was surprised everything went the way it did. As I informed Addis earlier, you can’t bottle conflict, at least not with me, and what happened in November was over and done with so I really didn’t know what the festival thought they were going to get out of having me host the Q&A. Figured it would be uneventful and, while not boring, not anything to write a lengthy blog about. I was wrong.

Bookmark to:
     

3 Comments »