Video Game Movies

The first blog I posted for the semester was entitled "My First Love". I named it that because I had fallen in love with the movies at a fairly early age. I had become fascinated and intrigued by the stories that were being told on the big-screen. But if the movies were my first love, then I'd have to say video games were my second. I grew up in the 80's and the video game industry was nowhere as popular as it is today. Graphics were nothing but a few blips on the screen. Yet, I was as equally entertained by video games as I was with the Hollywood movie industry.

"Super Mario Bros." is considered one of the worst movies ever made.

Today, video games resemble Hollywood movies in almost every way. The most cinematic titles are pretty much interactive versions of Tinsletown's biggest blockbusters. Games like "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3" and "Uncharted 3: Drake's Deception" rival Hollywood's best in terms of sheer spectacle. They manage to engage the player with action segments inspired by scenes shown in "Raiders of the Lost Ark" and "The Rock". So I find it ironic that Hollywood has turned to video games for source material.



Mark Wahlberg starred as the titular character in the visually stylish, but bland "Max Payne".


Of course, "video game movies" have never been critically acclaimed endeavors. "Super Mario Bros." was the first one and it is generally regarded as one of the worst movies of all time. In addition, more recent titles like "Max Payne" and "Doom" were also critically reviled. For the most part, video game properties are filmed only to capitalize on their own success. However, "Lara Croft: Tomb Raider", "Silent Hill" and "Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time" are exceptions. They were made by filmmakers who were passionate about the original ideas.


"Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time" is arguably the best movie adapation of a video game.


In the fall, "Silent Hill: Revelation" and" Resident Evil: Retribution" will be released in 3D. I doubt either of them will win the Oscar, but I'm sure they'll entertain their respective audiences. Personally, I'm a fan of "Hitman" (2007) which starred Timothy Olyphant as a bald assassin who is a clone. It captured the essence of the game while being similar in style to Luc Besson's "The Transporter". I also liked "Silent Hill" thanks to director Christophe Gans' artistic apporach to the dark material. It's a very bizarre horror film that holds up well on its own. If there's a game I'd like to see adapted to the silver screen, it would be "Gears of War". I could see it being done in the style of "300".


The first image of "Silent Hill: Revelation" (2012) features actress Adelaide Clemens.




  

The City of Los Angeles

My mom and sister will be leaving to sunny California next week. If all goes well, they'll be arriving at the Greyhound station in Los Angeles on Friday, April 28th. Of course, L.A. is the home to Hollywood and has been featured in many of its films. When I first visited the Big Orange in the early 90's, it was quite an experience. I was a tourist, yet the city seemed a little familiar to me. Slick action films of the era such as "Speed" and "Lethal Weapon 3" showcased the urban development of the city. And as I walked through it, I thought, "Hey! That's where Mel Gibson and Keanu Reeves chased down the bad guys".

"Speed" is one of the best L.A. action films of the 90's.

L.A. is the second biggest city in the nation and one of the things I find amusing is how it's depicted in movies. I personally like how director Michael Mann photographs the city. In his films, the City of Angels is almost a character in itself. He gives it a very vibrant and evocative look bringing to mind postcard-type pictures. This is most evident in his 2004 action-drama "Collateral" which starred Tom Cruise as an ice-cold killer and Jamie Foxx as his meek cab driver. The city's skyscrapers literally shine brightly in the background.


Tom Cruise is a white-haired assassin visiting L.A. in "Collateral".

Most recently, Los Angeles was prominently featured in "Drive", a 2011 indie action flick with Ryan Gosling as a stuntman/getaway driver. I liked how it maintains a sense of visual beauty while revealing L.A.'s less glamorous side. The film also showcases the city streets with aerial shots and close up camera angles of nighttime driving. Director Nicolas Winding Refn's portrait of the the City of Angels is startling because it revisions the city with an almost dream-like atmosphere.

Ryan Gosling drives through the streets of Los Angeles in "Drive".

There are plenty of films that show L.A.'s extreme variety of locations. 1993's "Falling Down" is a film I remember due to its effective use of the city's urban sprawl. But there are also films that give the city a very exaggerated look. For instance, in the sci-fi sequel "Predator 2", L.A. is featured as a semi-comic urban hellhole. It's not a pretty vision to say the least. I haven't visited the city in over 10 years, but I plan to this summer. And when I get there, I think I'll do a Ryan Gosling by driving through the streets with 80's-inspired music playing in my car.               

Movie Revisions

I just recently watched “Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace” in theaters for the umpteenth time. The film was presented in 3D and included a few additional scenes as well as a newly-enhanced Yoda. This was not the first time a “Star Wars” movie has been changed and it certainly won’t be the last. Series creator George Lucas is well-known for updating his franchise on a continual basis. And since it’s his property, he has every right to change it. Or does he really? To the eyes of many, a completed film is considered to be finished, warts and all.  

Yoda in "The Phantom Meance". In the 1999 version (right) and the 2012 release.

A change to a finished film often sparks debate because a movie’s final cut is what the public ultimately remembers. But when a filmmaker alters a movie in any shape or form, we are somtimes told it is the definitive version. I personally have no problem with that if the film originally proved to be flawed. For instance, in 2007, Ridley Scott released an enhanced version of his 1982 film “Blade Runner” with the subtitle “The Final Cut”. His changes were subtle refinements that automatically improved the film. New dialogue, sharpened special-effects and a re-shot scene perfected his dark, masterful vision of the future. 

"Blade Runner: The Final Cut" included subtle refinements that improved the film.

While I am grateful for the “Final Cut” of “Blade Runner”, I believe Lucas’ enhancements are a bit self-indulging and unnecessary. At first, I accepted his “Special Editions” (of the original trilogy) since they were conceived to re-introduce the series to a new generation. But then Georgie fell in love with the idea of updating the older films. His reason? To bridge the technological gap between the two trilogies. The director has always felt the technology of the late 20th century limited his vision of a galaxy far, far away. So he has constantly gone back to the old films to add new scenes, dialogue and special-effects. And while "Star Wars" fans have come to accept this, they generally feel his changes tarnish the films' legacies.



The 1997 version of "Jedi" included a musical segment not shown in the original film.

Many filmmakers release "director's cuts" and "extended cuts" to either make an extra buck or to show a film as it was originally intended. But there's never been a series of films that have been continously changed throughout the years. Well, other than "Star Wars" that is. Love it or hate it, Mr. Lucas has chosen to tinker with his films long after they were completed. If only he allowed the original films to live on beside the new versions. Then he'd have a little more respect from the fanboys.       

                

Almost Famous

The last time I visited LA, I stood right beside Grauman's Chinese Theater and was immediately struck by the poster hanging right across me. It featured the face of a blond woman wearing sunglasses which reflected...something. I couldn't tell what it was. So I just stood there, transfixed for several minutes as I tried to make out the image. It was a person. But, what were they doing? When my mind gave up seeking answers, I asked my mom who replied with, "it's a person on stage". The movie's title was "Almost Famous" and the tagline read: "Experience it. Enjoy it. Just don't fall for it." It was quite pragmatic. Was it about Broadway, sex, drugs or rock n' roll? About a month later, I was back at home and read the Friday paper. The movie had been released and I found the answer I had been looking for.

The theatrical poster for "Almost Famous" (2000)

The movie was about 70's rock 'n roll. It starred Patrick Fugit as a dorky high school kid who is given the chance of a lifetime: writing for Rolling Stone magazine. Unfortunately, I didn't see this film when it premiered. But when I did, I instantly fell in love with it. The hero, William Miller, is an unpopular student who has an overprotective mother and a passion for writing. He's a character that I immediately identified with. Like William, I had always felt like I was an outsider. I never did fit in with the popular crowd in high school. And I wanted my educational experience to come from the real world. That's exactly what happens to William Miller in "Almost Famous".



William Miller is an aspiring rock journalist from the 1970's.


In the film, the 15 year-old writer travels the country with a rock band named Stillwater. He eventually develops a crush on a girl, experiences heartbreak, saves a person's life and finishes his project on time. The picture is a comedy-drama that covers its subject lightly. It's not a heart-edged movie, but a heartwarming portrait of a teenage boy's coming-of-age. There's not one unlikeable character in the movie. Russell Hammond, the lead singer, cheats on his wife and has an ego the size of Mount Rushmore. But because he's played by the charming Billy Crudup, we don't feel his character is "bad", just a bit misguided. With just a little help, Russell could see things more clearly and be a better person.

Billy Crudup plays Russell Hammond, the lead singer of Stillwater.

"Almost Famous" is one of my favorite movies because it struck a chord within me. William's adventures are like the daydreams I had as a teen. High school was boring. I wanted to move to Los Angeles and experience a "higher learning". William Miller experiences exactly that. He is transported from the world of high school into the world of rock. And on the day of his graduation, he is in New York City and saves the woman he loves from certain death. I'm sure he didn't regret missing one of the most "important" days of his life.

Kate Hudson won a Golden Globe for her performance as "groupie" Penny Lane.

              

Summer Blockbusters

This weekend, the action fantasy “Wrath of the Titans” will battle “The Hunger Games” for the top spot at the American box-office. Both films are big-budget spectacles that provide a prelude to the upcoming season. On May 4th, Hollywood’s summer officially kicks off with the release of “The Avengers”, the highly-anticipated adaption of the popular Marvel Comic. It is a film that will certainly break box-office records and enter the pantheon of pop culture entertainment. The summer blockbuster movie has been an annual event for more than three decades now. Their inception began with the arrival of Steven Spielberg’s “Jaws” back in 1975, and a few have provided me with some of the most cherished memories of my childhood.     



"The Avenger" kicks off the Hollywood summer season on May 4th.

I was raised in the 1980’s and I remember the “decade of excess” to be a much a simpler time. Rotary phones were the dominant form of communication. Tacky clothes were the style of the day and big hair was extremely popular. But I also remember the Hollywood blockbusters of the era. Steven Spielberg and George Lucas were the top pioneers of the genre thanks to the “Indiana Jones” and “Star Wars” movies. I’d even skip school to see the first showing (with parent approval) , but boy, was it worth it! The films delivered on a level previously unseen before. Today, special-effects movies are as common as dirt. But in the 80’s, Hollywood’s big-budget films were mainly restricted to the summer season. So at the end of every school semester, the highlight of school vacation (at least for me) were the movies.



The theatrical poster of "Return of the Jedi". It was released on May 25, 1983.

 

Today, I still get excited at the prospect of the latest blockbuster. Last summer, I watched a total of 13 “first-run” movies; five were presented in 3-D. And if all goes well, I'll be attending the Hollywood premiere of “The Dark Knight Rises” in July. This summer also sees the arrival of “The Amazing Spider-Man”, “Prometheus”, “The Bourne Legacy” and “Snow White and the Huntsmen”. It's an exciting lineup of summer films and soon multiplexes across the country will be packed with movie fans of all ages. Some will be seeing a Hollywood summer film for the very first time. And others (like me) will be getting autographs and pictures of Christian Bale and company at the Batman premiere. Well, at least I hope so. I can't wait.




"The Dark Knight Rises" is the most anticipated movie of the year. It opens on July 20th.

 

                         

Nicolas Winding Refn

The name of Nicolas Winding Refn is unknown to many casual movie fans. But that's about to change very soon. Refn is a Danish director who just recently made the transition to American films. He was awarded the best director prize at the 2011 Cannes Film Festival for his gritty action flick "Drive". And presently, he's filming a low-budget revenge thriller entitled "Only God Forgives". "Drive" is undoubtedly a personal favorite of mine. It is a very stylish film that certainly placed Refn on the road to stardom. The movie stars Ryan Gosling as a quiet stunt driver/mechanic who moonlights as a getaway driver in L.A. He falls in love with a single mother and risks everything to protect her from the local mob. Despite its conventional plotline, the film is quite unique and equally compelling due to Refn's unusual choices. It plays almost like a modern day fairy tale with sudden bursts of ultra-violence and a thriving 80'-s inspired soundtrack.

The American poster ad for Nicolas Winding Refn's "Drive".

Refn had previously made independent films in his native country. He also directed "Bronson", a critically-acclaimed stylized drama based on the life of a real-life British prisoner. The movie not only showcased the immeasurable talent of actor Tom Hardy, but proved to be a spiritual successor to Stanley Kubrick's "A Clockwork Orange". I saw the film after I watched "Drive" and immediately recognized a re-occuring theme in Refn's work: transformation. Both films deal with men who slowly change into a diffrerent kind of character. For "Drive", it is about a psychotic man who becomes a hero, and "Bronson" tells the story of a normal person who mentally disintegrates. Of the two, "Bronson" is certainly the darker tale; at times it has the feel of an "underground" movie. While "Drive" combines the asthetics of a 70's road rage flick with the artistic sensibility of a 1980's Michael Mann film. It goes without saying that Refn is a visionary director that pushes the boundaries of the genre.



The critically-acclaimed "Bronson" was based on the life of "Charlie Bronson", a notorious British criminal.


Although I've only seen two of the director's films, I'm already a major fan. Refn is an extremely talented and profilic director. He has made films about the Danish criminal underworld (the "Pusher" trilogy) as well as "Valhalla Rising", a tale about a Nordic warrior who escapes from his Viking captors in the year 1000 A.D. His next film, "Only God Forgives", re-teams him with Ryan Gosling and is set in the world of Thai-boxing. But their third film project will undoubtedly launch Refn into the Hollywood stratosphere. It will be a remake of the 1976 sci-fi cult film "Logan's Run". The movie will be financed by Warner Bros. and Refn has said it will have a budget of around $200 million. If he can be allowed to flex his artistic muscles with the film, Refn will most likely be compared to his contemporary Christopher Nolan (director of "Inception"). I, for one, cannot wait for his next film.


The first photo image from "Only God Forgives" features a very intense Ryan Gosling.



Independent Films

It’s no secret that Hollywood films often lack the depth of independent motion pictures. While there are exceptions to the rule, movies made within the Hollywood scene generally resemble products off an assembly line: they are undistinguished material made for the masses. Unfortunately, these films (while extremely popular) are stripped of any sort of artistic merit or creative risk. On the other hand, independent movies are the flip side of the coin. Known as “art films” in certain circles, these pictures relish in their own uniqueness.

"The Artist" won the Oscar for Best Picture of 2011. It is a throwback to the silent era of movies.

Unbound by conventional Hollywood “guidelines”; independent filmmakers make up their own rules and focus on the “art” side of the movie business. As a result, indie films feel profoundly personal. One of the most powerful films I've ever seen was Darren Aronofsky’s “The Wrestler”, a film which earned Mickey Rourke an Academy Award nomination for Best Actor. The movie is about an aging professional wrestler whose glory days are long gone. Suffering from old age and loneliness, Randy (Rourke) makes a last ditch effort to salvage relationships and find some peace in this world. The film is gritty and unflinching, and feels very true to life.

Mickey Rourke and director Darren Aronofsky on the set of "The Wrestler".

What I love most about independent films is their intimacy that big-budget movies lack. Some are character studies that feel authentic in their depiction of the real world. “The Wrestler” doesn’t have a happy ending. In fact, it is a very sad film that almost brought me to tears. Where dramatic Hollywood films can seem manufactured; independents feel almost organic in comparison. They feel “alive” because of their emphasis on character, time and place. Another great indie, “Crazy Heart”, is about a down-and-out country singer set in the American Southwest. It is a film that accurately captures the look and feel of the region by being shot on-location.   



Jeff Bridges won the Academy Award for his portrayal of a down-and-out country singer in "Crazy Heart".

Just a few weeks ago, I watched "Shame" at the Bijou theater located inside Crossroads Mall. It's a powerful, harrowing film about sexual addiction that earned an NC-17 for explicit sexuality. The movie stars Michael Fassbender as a successful New Yorker who suffers from the sickness. The picture is uncompromising and bleak in its depiction of the subject matter. I found it to be sad and true, if not very enjoyable (how could it be?!). Independent films are projects of passion that revel in creativity and artitisic expression. And since I am a movie nut, I'm always interested in seeing one.



Michael Fassbender portrays a man who suffers from sexual addiction in "Shame".



                      

  

Act of Valor

This past weekend, the number # 1 movie in America was the military action-thriller “Act of Valor”. A patriotic portrayal of U.S. Navy SEALs, the film managed to pull in $24.7 million at the box-office. That’s a pretty impressive haul considering the movie doesn’t feature any major stars. Instead, the cast is comprised of active duty Navy Seals in the leading roles. The ads state as much, but I was surprised they were the stars of the show and not the supporting players. On Tuesday evening, I saw “Act of Valor” and it was pretty much what I expected; a big-budget, non-stop action flick with plenty of “flag waving”. In terms of story and tone, it’s no different than “The Expendables” or “Rambo”, but the film unabashedly honors the true life heroics of our nation’s soldiers.

The thing I find interesting about “Act of Valor” is that it was originally intended as a recruiting film. Eventually, it was embraced by the Navy and evolved into a full-length motion picture. As I watched it, I was well aware of the flat acting; the line readings are bland and the emotional scenes are in a word, laughable. Of course, the performances aren’t meant to be the highlight of the film (the same can be said of action movies in general). But regardless of the lack of any real drama, I thought “Act of Valor” featured some impressive action scenes. They certainly felt authentic, if not entirely accurate. The film was directed by Mike McCoy and Scott Waugh and their intent was to depict a realistic portrayal of the SEAL’s work.

In a sense, I think the directors only got it half right. On one hand, there hasn’t been a film like this since 1993’s “Sniper” which starred Tom Berenger as a U.S. military operative living in Panama. It (I thought) accurately captured the details of a real life military sniper. On the other hand, this movie’s action scenes play out like a non-interactive “Call of Duty”. At times, I almost felt like my controller was missing. The action is too slick when it should be harrowing. This, in effect, defeats the purpose of such a movie. If a film wants to accurately portray the lives of active duty military personnel, it should do without resorting to romanticism. I highly doubt that real-life combat is fun. After watching “Act of Valor”, I didn’t think the filmmakers felt the same way.

                                                                

The Academy Awards

I have to admit that I use to be a sucker for the Academy Awards. As an avid movie fan, I’d always watch the entire telecast with a certain amount of giddiness. Why wouldn’t why? After all, it is the “Super Bowl” of the Hollywood film industry. Everyone knows that on Oscar night, movies are celebrated to the highest degree. It’s a spectacle to be sure with its grand presentations, and movie stars at their most glamorous. But after several years, I noticed that I became irrevocably bored with them. In fact, the last time I watched the Oscars in its entirety was when “The Departed” won for Best Picture of 2006. And I'm not alone, viewership of the Academy Awards has steadily decline in the past decade. It has become a stale event due to its overlong running time, lack of innovation and overall predictability.

Needless to say, the 84^th Annual Academy Awards will air on Sunday night, and I’m not the least bit excited. I mean, Billy Crystal as host, again? This alone causes my disinterest. Pardon my expression, but isn't it the same ol' song and dance? Now Billy is a master host, but his presence shows a lack of creativity on behalf of the producers. Is it really that hard to find someone new and interesting for the job? I thought Hugh Jackman was a great choice that brought plenty of energy and charm to the dutiful role. Now imagine if Oscar producers could try to replicate that effort every time. Yes, they bombed it miserably last year in an attempt to reach a younger audience, but at least it was something new. And due to low buzz, Sunday's award ceremony isn't expected to be a ratings winner either. If the show's producers want to win back the audience, they should continue to take creative risks.  

Yes, if there's anything in Hollywood that needs a reboot, it's certainly the Oscars. 



The 84th Annual Academy will air on ABC on Sunday, Feb. 26th.



Billy Crystal will host the show for the 9th time. 

The Kodak Theatre is the home of the Academy Awards

              

The Comic Book Movie Genre

On July 14^th, 2000, the cinematic rendition of Marvel Comics' “X-Men” was released in movie theaters across the country. Not since 1989's "Batman" had there been a comic-book adaption so heavily anticipated. It opened to big business. The film had grossed $54.5 million on opening weekend. And it went on to earn a worldwide total of $296 million. Big business indeed. During the aftermath of its success, Hollywood movie studios began to place comic-book properties on the fast track. In the years that followed, iconic characters like "Spider-Man", "The Hulk" and "The Punisher" received the big-screen treatment. Even lesser known comic-books such as "Hellboy" were adapted to the silver-screen.

There is no question that "X-Men" is the film that spawned a major emergence of the superhero movie. Prior to its release, there had only been but a few comic-book movies made. While "Batman" and 1978's "Superman: The Movie" were both major cultural events, there were no other comic-books adapted in their immediate wake. While some could argue the technology was too archaic to make credible adapations, I'd beg to differ. Case in point, Hollywood producers went on to make other big-budget affairs like "Star Wars", "Indiana Jones" and "Jurassic Park" during the era. Hollywood special-effects of the late 20th century were more than capable of bringing other comic books to life. It was quite simply not the time for them to flourish.

So what was it that made the "comic book movie" so popular? Was "X-Men" really that good? Or did the arrival of the new millennium have anything do with it? Certainly "The Matrix" had shown what a superhero movie for the ages could look like. While that popular film was not based on a comic-book per se, it certainly had the asthetic of one. The hero of "The Matrix" was like a kung-fu, gun-toting version of Superman. It was released a year before "X-Men" and its martial-art skilled protagonists were clear inspirations for the movie version of Marvel's mutants. While I can't pinpoint why comic-book movies finally resonated, I can say that 12 years after "X-Men", they are still going strong. This Friday, "Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance" will be in theaters. While "The Avengers", "The Dark Knight Rises" and "The Amazing Spider-Man" are all slated for summer release. As for 2013, filmgoers will be treated to the return of "Superman", "Iron Man" and "Thor". Yes, the comic-book movie genre is thriving and its end is nowhere in sight. 




 The live-action version of Marvel Comics' "X-Men" was released in 2000.




In 2005, the Batman film franchise received a much-needed reboot with "Batman Begins"



                              The 2012 Super Bowl ad of "The Avengers".

Hollywood's Creative Bankruptcy.

As a child of the 1980’s, I remember when Hollywood films were mainly original creations. Today, audiences are treated to a number of movies based on comic books, video games, and old television shows. While filmmakers have always used other sources for inspiration, this practice is more commonly used today than ever before. The same can be said of remakes. Up until about 10 years ago, remakes were fairly scarce productions made several decades after the original films. For instance, the 1983 version of “Scarface” was a remake of a 1932 film, and the first remake of “King Kong” (1933) was released 43 years later. Presently, a total of 50 remakes are in some form of production. Many of them are based on 1980’s action classics such as “Robocop”, “Lethal Weapon” and “Commando”. So how exactly did original ideas become such a rarity in Hollywood? I have no idea. But I do know that even the highest-grossing movie of all time, “Avatar”, is basically a re-skinned “Dances with Wolves”.

The “reboot” is also another form of recycled material. According to the freedictionary.com, the term means to restart. That’s exactly what Sony Pictures is doing with the live-action version of Marvel Comics’ “Spider-Man”. In 2002, the company released the first big-screen incarnation with Tobey Maguire as the titular character. Two sequels (and a decade) later, the studio is releasing “The Amazing Spider-Man” which tells the origins of Peter Parker’s superpowers. That’s the same scenario depicted in the ’02 film. Why is there a need for this? Undoubtedly, it is because Hollywood has entered into a period of creative bankruptcy. Need proof? The classic board game “Battleship” will be released this summer as a big-budget sci-fi flick from Universal. That’s right, a board game for inspiration. Oh, and the movie version will feature aliens invading earth for good measure. I rest my case. Oh well. At least there's plenty of quality television shows nowadays.





"Avatar" is basically a re-skinned "Dances with Wolves".

"Spider-Man" is being relaunched as "The Amazing Spider-Man".



A remake (or reboot) of "Lethal Weapon" is in the works.



IMAX, 3D or both?

It is a well known fact that filmmaker George Lucas likes to tinker with his "Star Wars" films by adding new special-effects and scenes initially impossible to produce. His latest update is the 3D release of 1999's "Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Meance", the critically reviled but highly profitable prequel to the original trilogy. It releases on Friday, February 10th. In the spring, James Cameron's Academy Award-winning "Titanic" will also be re-released in the third dimension along with "Wrath of the Titans", a sequel to the 2010 remake of "Clash of the Titans". Additonally, Warner Bros. Pictures will be giving "Wrath" the IMAX treatment. Both IMAX and 3D presentations are formats that filmmakers use to further immerse the audiences into the movie going experience. However, the question some movie fans have asked is: "Which is the better format to enhance a movie with?"

IMAX projection screens can be up to 60 to 70 ft. in height, while the speakers in an IMAX auditorium can produce up to 12,500 watts of sound. The higher picture resolution and extremely dynamic sound of an IMAX presentation is what truly envelopes the viewer into the movie "world". The action segments of "The Dark Knight" and "Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol" were shot on IMAX cameras to fill the entire IMAX projection screen. I found the results to be truly astounding as the really BIG screen maximizes the tension and epic scope of big-budget spectacles. On the other hand, 3D effects give the illusion of an added "depth" to the visuals on screen. As a result, certain images seem to "pop" out from the foreground. I personally believe CGI (computer generated images) and animated movies seem to benefit the most from the 3D format. Fantasy films like "Avatar", "Beowulf" and "Immortals" have all displayed the effectiveness of 3D images.

Of the two formats, 3D is the most critized as naysayers have complained that 3D dims the picture substantially and has no real value outside of animated movies. I personally like 3D, but feel that its most effective when its used as more of a tool of a filmmaker than a gimmick for genre films. I don't care to pay top dollar to see "Resident Evil" or "Underworld" in 3D, but Cameron's "Avatar 2" will be an event to see since the director is always striving for perfection. However, if I had to choose between the two, I'd say IMAX is the format I prefer. Even more than 3D, it brings out the drama to certain scenes that can only be possible through a larger than life screen. Watching Tom Cruise in "Mission Impossible" climb the tallest building in the world (with only one adhesive glove) on the IMAX produced a cringe-inducing sensation in my stomach. Yes, we all know he will live, but just the sight of it was slightly scary.        

My First Love

There are so many topics that can easily be blogged about. But I've chosen a relatively simple one; the movies. Presently, it is a well-established fact that Hollywood's biggest blockbusters are released during the scorching summer season. Most of these films are big-budget spectacles that entertain with their awesome special effects, over-the-top action scenes and larger-than-life characters. Some are animated family films and others are adult comedies. But in the early to late 70's, the summer blockbuster was a fairly new pop culture phenomenon. Beginning with Steven Spielberg's suspense thriller "Jaws", the Hollywood film industry would never be the same. Shortly after, George Lucas' 1977 sci-fi masterpiece "Star Wars" would follow it up with big business and change the industry for all time. "Star Wars" is the film that changed the way I saw movies.

An epic, opulent space opera with odes to "Flash Gordon" and various other influences, Lucas' imagination captured the audiences' imagination with a truly grand vision of good versus evil. With its unforgettable characters, groundbreaking special effects and astonishing set designs, it influenced many major filmmakers of today, and certainly had a profound effect on my life. Ever since I saw "Star Wars", I always looked forward to seeing the next "big thing". Today, I'm somewhat of a movie fanatic with my interest in the Hollywood industry at a high. The movies were truly my first love and it's all thanks to George Lucas and his crazy vision of a galaxy far, far away.