Did a Movie Exec Ruin Passengers?

I really wanted to see the movie Passengers, about two hibernating passengers on a spaceship headed to another planet, who wake up 90 years too early and face life and mortality aboard an otherwise person-less vessel--a vessel that may be breaking down. I'm a sci-fi buff, and the script has generated buzz for years before finally making it to the big screen this December, with likable leads Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence. The writer, Jon Spaihts, was regarded as such a rising star that he was immediately hired to work on the reboot of the Alien franchise and other high profile projects.



Then the reviews came out:

"The major creative players either didn’t realize that they were essentially making a feature-length ad for Stockholm syndrome, or... they didn’t really care. And with Tyldum so glibly dismissive of (or oblivious to) what on paper might have seemed like interesting moral questions, the script doesn’t matter that much anyway. What matters here is the film’s effect. And the effect of Passengers is to turn frothy sci-fi romance into an astonishingly retrograde statement on autonomy and consent, and to turn one of the most likable actors in Hollywood into a total fucking creep."

Wait what? Not knowing anything about the finer plot details, this of course fascinated me. I wanted to know more.

How was it that this highly prized sci-fi project could ignore the fact that-- SPOILER ALERT -- when Pratt's character, Jim, sabotages the pod of Lawrence's character, Aurora (so he won't have to live out his days on the ship alone)  he's essentially committing a mixture of murder and rape? After all, according to the plot points I read... he essentially lies about why she woke up, and gets her into bed. What's worse--at the end, Jim and Aurora get over their "rape-cute" and fall in love.

Intrigued at how the script attempted to justify this (and how studio execs could let it slide) I sought out the script online, And I found not the movie that made it into theaters, but John Spaihts actual original script, which you can read here, at least until someone takes it down.

The general plot is the same--but the film's final third, which follows Jim's self-centered act, differs in significant ways. Ways that I believe made Spaihts script superior (but still flawed) to the movie version.

Don't read on if you want to read the script for yourself first. SPOILERS ahead.

The biggest difference is pretty big. And you can see why a studio exec might have wanted to cut it. But in a way, it's the only ethical route out of the sin Jim's committed. And taking it out alters the movie in a fundamental way.

The difference is this: In the end, all the passengers aboard the ship--with the exception of Jim and Aurora-- are killed.

In the movie version, Jim fixes the reactor in a heroic act, saving everyone aboard, which redeems him in the eyes of Aurora, who decides that living aboard the ship for the rest of her life with the man who raped her is what she wants, because... love I guess?

In the original script, however, Jim and Aurora fix the reactor together... and then the system reboots. When it reboots, something terrible happens:

Or, at least the computer thinks the pods are empty.

It's a moment that suddenly casts everything before it in a new light. The villain of the movie, alluded to at varying times earlier in the film, is the large, soulless corporation that built this "asteroid-proof" spaceship and seemingly cut corners to maximize profits. Jim's earlier griping about the world no longer needing engineers like him... well, this shows the implications. No one thought through the dangers, and thousands of people in an instant are jettisoned into space, despite Jim and Aurora's frantic efforts to save them (there's a harrowing scene of the ship's captain, waking up a moment before he's shot out to his death).

Jim's rape-y act kind of starts to pale in comparison to the negligence and greed that just murdered thousands of people. 

Lest you think the movie leaves us on this horrifying note, there are still a few minutes to go. And that running time establishes Jim and Aurora as something quite different than they were before. Now they truly are alone. But they don't want their lives to end. They don't want their time remaining to be in vain. 

Now at least, you can see a valid reason why Aurora might dismiss what happened earlier. The two form a new kind of partnership. If before was simply lust and romance, now it's parenthood. It's guardianship.

The script establishes earlier that on-board the ship, there is a storage facility with the genetic material of every passenger. For the rest of their lives, Aurora and Jim use this genetic material to bring to life the children (or clones, I guess) of everyone who was lost in the tragedy. Aurora uses her writing chops to pen a book about the massacre and building a livable world on the ship. With this context, Aurora's decision to forgive Jim, and their ensuing romance, becomes, in a "tangled" way, at least justifiable. The characters have motivations that transcend shallow romance. The world they create aboard isn't for them-- it's for those who died, and the generation raised in their honor. At worst, it's their way to survive.

Now, you can think this ending is just as bad--some studio exec certainly did. But it's certainly less of a Stockholm-syndrome story/Bro-fantasy and more in the vein of other sci-fi epics which address the coldness and cruelties of corporations and delve into morally complex issues.

I wonder what Jon Spaihts thinks about the changes. In the meantime, I guess I'll wait for the film to come out on Netflix.

Dammit Gary Oldman. Why'd you have to say those things?

Dammit Gary Oldman. Why'd you have to say those things?


http://www.avclub.com/article/controversial-gary-oldman-interview-blasts-fifth-e-206163

Oldman has long been one of my favorite actors. I dare anyone to watch The Professional and then the Batman movies, and find any resemblance between the evil cop Stansfield and the hero cop Commissioner Gordon. Oldman imbues each role with a personality that goes beyond what's written in the script. One is a monster, the other a saint, but they both feel real, thanks to Oldman's acting talents.

And now he says this:


"No one can take a joke anymore. I don’t know about Mel. He got drunk and said a few things, but we’ve all said those things. We’re all fucking hypocrites. That’s what I think about it. The policeman who arrested him has never used the word nigger or that fucking Jew? I’m being brutally honest here."

And this:


"Mel Gibson is in a town that’s run by Jews and he said the wrong thing because he’s actually bitten the hand that I guess has fed him—and doesn’t need to feed him anymore because he’s got enough dough. He’s like an outcast, a leper, you know? But some Jewish guy in his office somewhere hasn’t turned and said, “That fucking kraut” or “Fuck those Germans,” whatever it is?"

Oh boy. Are people really still using the whole "The Jews run Hollywood" line? Forget about "political correctness," this is just a stupid, meaningless thing to say. What exactly are you getting at? That the titans of Hollywood don't decide which summer blockbuster to promote until they first consult with their rabbis? That because somebody's ancestor didn't stop the Romans from crucifying Jesus, they gained a superhuman ability to control the box office? That every Jewish child is guaranteed to get a starring role on the silver screen, so that movies can brainwash the populace into eating kosher? What do you mean that the "Jews run this town?" Did I miss the city ordinance that requires Christians to stitch crosses to their clothes if they want to walk the streets of L.A.?

Many of those in the entertainment field are Jewish. So what? I am Jewish and I am not in showbiz (yet). My grandfather was a taxi driver. His brother was an auto mechanic. Both Jewish, and yet, far from the limelight of Hollywood. (Although my great uncle did retire to southern California).

The line, "the Jews run Hollywood," is so inherently bigoted because of what it implies--a brainwashing agenda of some sort--that there's no defense for it. There are those who long for the days when nobody worried about being "politically correct." These people are racists and bigots.

Because that time those people are talking about? It's a time where nobody but white, male, Protestant people were in positions of power and influence. As long as you didn't insult THEM, you weren't at risk of consequences. Calling an Italian guy or a Polish guy or a Jewish guy by a derogatory slur was of no consequence--because no one was in a position to do anything about it.

Make no mistake though, if you had slurred your white male Protestant employers, you'd face consequences. At your job and in society.

Our society has changed. People in power are still mainly white male Protestants, but it's a more mixed lot. A racist joke faces greater scrutiny because more people offended by that joke are in a position to have their voice heard.

We have freedom of speech in this country, but not freedom from consequences. Mel Gibson had every right to say the shameful things he did-- and the Jewish people who often hired him for their movies had every right to say, "listen, you anti-Semitic fuckhead, we don't want to hire you again." There is nothing hypocritical in this arrangement. If you act like a complete ass in public, insult people, and sound like a raving lunatic, you probably don't deserve to be broadcast on a platform that reaches millions of people.

I am a Jewish guy, sitting in an office, and I can tell you, I've never said those words Gary Oldman assumes everybody says in private. People who say those things in private, and seriously mean them, are racists and bigots. Is Oldman saying EVERYBODY is a racist or bigot?

Keep in mind, Mel did not say this stuff in the privacy of his office either, and wasn't responding the the ethnic cleansing of his people by another ethnic group. In one case, he was insulting a police officer he assumed to be a Jew. In the other, he was threatening a woman with violence. This is defendable? People are hypocrites if they punish this behavior?

Now, with Alec, I can maybe see a point. Full disclosure, for many years, I used the f-g insult... Directed at straight, heterosexual douchebags who were itching for a fight. I justified using the term because I deemed it a bigger insult to a straight male than a homosexual one... There were few things you could say that would insult some meathead hothead more. I wasn't using it against gay people.

But then one day, a friend mentioned, in casual conversation, that someone had "Jewed him down." Growing up in a pretty Jewish, liberal area, I never heard that term before. He didn't intend it to insult me--"the guy wasn't even Jewish," he explained--but nevertheless, I reconsidered using ANY racial, ethnic, or sexual slur ever again. Some people, like Gary Oldman, apparently, call this "being PC." I call it, "not being a prick."

I really hope Gary was simply not thinking before talking, and that he really didn't mean to defend the words and actions of bigots by implying that everyone acts the same way. I sincerely hope he wasn't agreeing with Mel that "the Jews run Hollywood" is anything other than a loaded, ignorant statement that only serves to reflect badly upon the person saying it.

But he also bashed The Fifth Element, so even if that were the case, I'm not sure I'd be ready to forgive him.

No Women In Star Wars? THAT'S PART OF THE PLOT

Amanda Marcotte, as well as many other well-intentioned female writers around the interwebs, has written an article bemoaning the fact that J.J. Abrams/Disney's new Star Wars trilogy apparently won't be adding new female characters to the mix.

Amanda quotes one of the other complainers: "Are we seriously still pretending that the universe is comprised almost entirely of men (and mostly white men at that)? Mythic tales are supposed to open up possibilities, not shut them down."

I wonder if any of these women have actually watched Star Wars.

The lack of women in the Star Wars universe is, arguably, the crisis that drives much of the action in the movies. It isn't just some happenstance of George Lucas' sexist mind. It's the result of a universe in which cloning technology, rampant violence and religious extremism has thrown life seriously out of balance--it's made women unnecessary.

Cloning means that no longer is a female womb necessary for reproduction. There are large swaths of planets, like the desert on Tatoonie, where women can't go out alone in fear they will be captured, enslaved, and raped by Sand People. And it's clear that however benevolent the Jedi forces may be, their views are decidedly paternalistic--to their detriment (Lucas doesn't shy away from showing that the Jedi council is far from as wise as they claim to be.  Heck, they preach celibacy!) The society of Star Wars is corrupt and on the verge of extinction, soon to be replaced by nothing but droids and clones-- the lack of women is a major contributing factor.

When Princess Leia uses a droid to send her desperate message, "Help me Obi Won Kenobi, you're our only hope," the word "our" is not only referring to the rebel cause. It's referring to life in the galaxy. The dark side that has infected the universe is not a side favorable to life--it's a side that develops planet-sized weapons of mass destruction.

To wit: what causes Anakin Skywalker to turn to the dark side and nearly bring about the destruction of all good in the universe? The deaths of the women he loves--first his mother, and then Queen Amedala.

And how do the rebels begin to turn the tide? Well, what transforms Han Solo, a faithless and ruthless smuggler (he shot Greedo first), into the hero of the rebel cause? The love of Princess Leia. Perhaps no scene better encapsulates the true battle at the heart of Star Wars than the one in which Leia, dressed as a slave girl, chokes that fat slob Joba the Hutt with her chains. Only by re-establishing women as beings with equal power, can the corruption and filth of this universe be cleansed (and that is not a housewife joke).

The end of Return of the Jedi does not, as some of the characters believe, restore balance to the force. The evil army is defeated, but life will take a longer time to balance out again. I can only assume the next three chapters will slowly build back toward this balance. After all, who is the new female character J.J. Abrams and Co. have added? A hero belonging to the next generation. None other than Han Solo and Princess Leia's daughter-- not a son, I should point out.

So when you read about women complaining about no women in Star Wars, ask yourself whether the movie would make any sense if it did have an equal number of women. There's just no way a gender-balanced universe allows something like Jar Jar Binks to exist.

Airline To Offer "Weep Warnings" To Passengers

Virgin Atlantic airlines announced today that they will flash "weep warnings" before the beginning of emotional films shown aboard their flights.

I could have used that before watching "Up" on one flight. I had to hide my tears from the hot chick next to me, and it wasn't easy.



Dammit, just cried again now watching this clip.

Thank you, Virgin Atlantic, for looking out for my tear ducts!

Of course, the weep warning system isn't quite perfected yet:

"The movies "Water For Elephants" and "Just Go With It" will be the first films to carry the warnings."

"Just Go With It?" Well, according to the reviews, I guess there's a chance you'll cry over the state of Adam Sandler's career.

Hot Lesbian Sex



Mila Kunis and Natalie Portman Have Ecstacy-Induced Angry Sex In New Darren Aronofsky Film

I want to see Darren Aronofsky's new film because... er... I liked Pi so much.

Of course, knowing how the real world works, chances are Natalie and Mila's scene will be disappointing. Because, you know, its an R-rated film and not late night Skin-emax. But it's a pretty hot combo.

Let's take a look at the most hyped Hollywood hottie lesbian scenes:

1. Selma Blair & Sarah Michelle Gellar, Cruel Intentions

OMG! Buffy! Let's face it. Without this scene, there pretty much isn't any point to Cruel Intentions. Yeah, Ryan Phillipe made the girls swoon, but there was no way any self-respecting guy would watch this movie until he heard about "the kiss." And yeah, its hot and all (that little line of spittle that tells you this was no "stage" kiss), but it's really not worth sitting through all 97 minutes.



2. Denise Richards and Neve Campbell, Wild Things

Wild Things came out my freshman year in high school, though I wasn't able to see it until a year or so later, when it came out on cable. Before that moment, I heard again and again how the chick from Party of Five sluts it up in a threesome. When I finally saw it, I thought to myself... take off the damn shirt! Neve never does. And while Denise Richards is fine and all, it's like looking at a naked barbie doll. Except more plastic. And no one wants Matt Dillon to be a part of their hot-girl-on-girl action.



3. Penelope Cruz and Scarlett Johansson, Vicky Christina Barcelona

Scarlett Johansson = Hot. Penelope Cruz = Hot. Sitting through a movie with no redeeming characters, an aimless plot, and an open-ended ending, when there's not even any Scar-jo - P-cruz nudity? Not hot. This is the extent of the much hyped "lesbian scene." At least the movie didn't include some lecherous old guy pursuing an underage girl... like every other Woody Allen film.



4. Bridget Moynahan and Heather Graham, Grey Matters

I have very few complaints about this scene, actually. Bridget Moynahan is beautiful even with her clothes on, and that drunken kiss goes on forever. Beggars can't be choosers.

But unless you're interested in a lesbian coming-out story that features Alan Cumming in drag and Molly Shannon not in character as Mary Catherine Gallagher, the rest of this movie will probably just leave you wondering: how in the hell could Tom Brady break up with Bridget Moynahan?? Come on! She's the mother of your child!!! I don't care if Gisele has the sexy accent. Dick.



5.Winona Ryder and Jennifer Aniston and Lisa Kudrow, Friends

Now this is what I call, Must See TV. Ah, sweeps season. Gotta love it.



Sure, there's plenty more where that came from. But keep these moments in mind when debating whether to see Aronofsky's new film. Just because there's two major hotties going at it, that doesn't guarantee it'll be worth the $11 ticket. In fact, if history shows anything, directors tend to take the rest of the film off after seeing something like this.

And Tom Brady, you suck.

Best Movie Ever



I think the title says it all.

Thanks to my friend Ross, who posted this on Facebook.

This Is A Really Freaky Video

What's In The Box?



I found this through EW.com's Jeff Jensen, who theorizes that it (and it's accompanying websites) could possibly be part of some Lost universe created by fans. It definitely has that creepy Lost vibe. Can't you just picture that camera swinging around and revealing Daniel Faraday??

Of course, it could just be a very elaborate Sony Ericcson/Videogame Commercial.

If you're like, shaking now, really freaked out, then just watch Susan Boyle below and get back to a healthy equilibrium.

Susan Boyle Singer Britains Got Talent 2009 With Lyrics @ Yahoo! Video

A Little Monday Morning Hypocrisy

From NYPost's Page 6:

Utah Jazz owner Larry Miller's Megaplex Theatres refused to book the Weinstein Company's new R-rated comedy "Zack and Miri Make a Porno," starring Seth Rogan and Elizabeth Banks, saying it's too raunchy for religious, conservative audiences. "We feel it's very close to an NC-17 with its graphic nudity and graphic sex," the chain's Cal Gunderson told us. Asked why Megaplex has no problem showing the R-rated, ultra-violent "Saw V," which shows a man forced to crush his own hands to escape a pendulum cutting him in half, Gunderson said: "No comment."

Two Thumbs Down



I remember turning on Clerks 2, and being immediately turned off by the technicolor-- something about it didn't feel right. The original's black and white made the convenience store where Dante works seem bleak and depressing-- made even moreso by the steel shutter that wouldn't open. It was the perfect foil for the bawdy, raucous humor that makes up the movie's narrative. However, in Clerks 2, the whole scene reminded me of Dick Tracy-- everything bright-colored and comic-like. Instead of real people having funny conversations... it suddenly felt over-the-top... fake. I didn't get that far into the movie-- a few forced bits that sounded nowhere near as natural as the "Star Wars 2nd Death Star" banter in the original. I have to say, I still haven't watched the whole thing. If someone asked me if I liked Clerks 2, I'd have to say no... but then again, I didn't watch it all.

Why am I getting into this? Well, it seems esteemed movie reviewer Roger Ebert recently wrote a savage 718-word review of the movie "Tru Loved." He bashed the acting, the directing, the script... even the concept of the movie itself. Then, in the last paragraph of his review, he dropped the bombshell:

"Full disclosure. I lifted the words "San Francisco to conservative suburbia with her lesbian mothers" straight from the plot summary on IMDb.com, because I stopped watching the movie at the 00:08.05 point. IMDb is also where I found out about Bruce Vilanch's dual role. I never did see the lesbian mothers or my friend Bruce. For "Tru Loved," the handwriting was on the wall. The returns were in. The case was closed. You know I'm right. Or tell me I'm wrong."

Well, needless to say, some readers were a little bit peeved, as, I'm sure, were those involved in making the film. 8 minutes of a 99 minute film is not a great sample size for judgement.

Ebert's defense?

"I started viewing with an open mind and my customary hope that I would enjoy it. I did not. In some way, a film must seal the deal with us. It must make us willing to watch to the end. Even when a film doesn't do that for me, I keep watching because, if nothing else, I can get evidence for a negative review.

With this film, I believed I had all the ammo I needed, not involving the movie's story, but its competence. It did not seal the deal. It left me with no confidence that it would be able to. If nothing else, I hope the review reflected the stream of consciousness that can take place when a movie loses a viewer's sympathy and goes wrong."

Now, I have a problem with this. Roger Ebert gets paid, and paid well, to be a movie critic. One reason people listen to him is that they trust him to have an objective view of the movies he sees. He watches the bad movies, so we don't have to. If we watch the first eight minutes and don't like a movie, we can walk out. But as a critic, it's his job to watch those remaining 91 minutes to see if there's any reason we should stay. How many terrible movies have you seen where one scene or one character makes the movie noteworthy? Lethal Weapon 4 was an obscene, unfunny parody of the previous Lethal Weapon films, but it stood out thanks to Jet Li's dynamic villain.

By not watching the rest of the movie, Ebert did not do his job. What he did was present us with a quick lesson in filmmaking 101, but he could have easily applied that criticism to any film. I wonder... if this had been a major studio release with brand-name actors, would Ebert have treated the movie so flippantly? I think not.

Ebert has a great job. He gets to watch movies and write about them. If he only wants to write about movies he likes, he should have a blog on myspace. But if he's going to do his JOB as a critic, he'll need to suffer through bad films the way we suffer through "team building seminars" or TPS reports at our jobs.

Plus, if the guy could sit through "Wild Wild West," (a film I gave up on after 8 minutes) he should have given this film the same courtesy.

Top Secret

In this time of terror, security is more important than ever. Which is why one of this nation's most valuable treasures, and some say, most enduring secrets, will have nuclear-level guard when it is transferred to an undisclosed location today.

I'm talking, of course, about KFC's fried chicken recipe. The AP article, with my notations in bold:

KFC shoring up security for secret recipe

By BRUCE SCHREINER, Associated Press Writer

LOUISVILLE, Ky. – Pssst. The secret's out at KFC. Well, sort of. Colonel Harland Sanders' handwritten recipe of 11 herbs and spices was to be removed Tuesday from safekeeping at KFC's corporate offices for the first time in decades. The temporary relocation is allowing KFC to revamp security around a yellowing sheet of paper that contains one of the country's most famous corporate secrets. The other one being, "What's at the center of a Tootsie Pop?"

The brand's top executive admitted his nerves were aflutter (who uses the word, "aflutter?") despite the tight security he lined up for the operation.

"I don't want to be the president who loses the recipe," KFC President Roger Eaton said. "Imagine how terrifying that would be." Yes, just imagine. Chaos. I can see Harrison Ford in the movie role.

So important is the 68-year-old concoction that coats the chain's Original Recipe chicken that only two company executives at any time have access to it. The company refuses to release their name or title, and it uses multiple suppliers who produce and blend the ingredients but know only a part of the entire contents. When either of the two executives resign and/or get fired, they are immediately killed.

Louisville-based KFC, part of the fast-food company Yum Brands Inc., hired off-duty police officers and private security guards to whisk the document away to an undisclosed location in an armored car. Coincidentally, the same undisclosed location Dick Cheney fled to on September 11th. The recipe will be slid into a briefcase and handcuffed to security expert Bo Dietl for the ride.

"There's no way anybody could get this recipe," said Dietl, a former New York City police detective. His security firm is also handling the security improvements for the recipe at headquarters, but he wouldn't say what changes they're making. Rumor has it that a giant trap-filled "Hypercube" will be constructed.



For more than 20 years, the recipe has been tucked away in a filing cabinet equipped with two combination locks in company headquarters. To reach the cabinet, the keepers of the recipe ("Keepers of the Recipe": sounds like a Lord-of-the-Rings-type job) would first open up a vault and unlock three locks on a door that stood in front of the cabinet. They then have to pass several tests. Only the penitent man may pass.

Vials of the herbs and spices are also stored in the secret filing cabinet. Which means that, thankfully, in case of a nuclear holocaust, future generations will still be able to enjoy the golden spicy deliciousness of KFC.

"The smell is overwhelming when you open it," said one of two keepers of the recipe in an interview at company headquarters. If it smells anything like this KFC, I feel bad for him:



The biggest prize, though, is a single sheet of notebook paper, yellowed by age, that lays out the entire formula — including exact amounts for each ingredient — written in pencil and signed by Sanders. It also includes an obscene, crudely-drawn doodle by Sanders of Wendy from the fast-food franchise of the same name, getting it on with the Hamburglar.

Others have tried to replicate the recipe, and occasionally someone claims to have found a copy of Sanders' creation. The executive said none have come close, adding the actual recipe would include some surprises. Like PCP.

Sanders developed the formula in 1940 at his tiny restaurant in southeastern Kentucky and used it to launch the KFC chain in the early 1950s.

Sanders died in 1980 (click it), but his likeness is still central to KFC's marketing.

"The recipe to him, in later years, was everything he stood for," said Shirley Topmiller, his personal secretary for about 12 years. He didn't have much else to stand for, apparently.

Larry Miller, a restaurant analyst with RBC Capital Markets, said the recipe's value is "almost an immeasurable thing. It's part of that important brand image that helps differentiate the KFC product." Am I the only one who sees the potential in a Kentucky Fried Chicken movie?

No, I don't mean this. I'm picturing a crime caper buddy comedy.

KFC had a total of 14,892 locations worldwide at the end of 2007. The chain has had strong sales overseas, especially in its fast-growing China market, but has struggled in the U.S. amid a more health-conscious public. And people who saw the above video. KFC posted U.S. sales of $5.3 billion at company-owned and franchised stores in 2007.

Well, I have my next project to work on. Starring Adam Sandler and Damon Wayans as two friends determined to steal the KFC recipe (which was originally Wayans's grandma's) from the corporate headquarters to hold it for ransom. Things go comically awry due to a hardnosed security guard (wrestling's The Rock) and a series of misadventures including stumbling onto KFC's other secret-- what KFC is really made of. Hint: it rhymes with "Soylent Green is People!!!"

Okay. Enough giving away my ideas for future blockbusters. Next time you go to KFC, just think of all the security that goes into making that piece of chicken. There's a little bit of the "Keepers of the Recipe" in each one.

A Dazey Weekend In Jersey



On a typical weekend, a cold producing more gunky mucus than Slimer from Ghostbusters would have had me confined to bedrest. But I had committed myself to volunteering at the 6th Anuual Garden State Film Festival, and infection be damned, I honor my committments.

Now, the Garden State Film Festival is not to be confused with the Tribeca Film Festival, which was created by Robert DeNiro and is funded by American Express, among others. The Garden State Film Festival was created by "well known Hollywood actor Robert Pastorelli" (the gruff, but mushy-hearted house painter on the television show Murphy Brown) and is sponsored by the Sixth Avenue House Bed & Breakfast, among others. But I was fully entertained by several of the screened films I got to see. And this little festival that could was a big success for Asbury Park and Jersey actors, writers and filmmakers.

Sure, Asbury Park may not draw the red carpet crowd of lower Manhattan. But I didn't see one film at Tribeca funnier than "Expendable," about a young evil henchman's first day on the job.



And I was impressed by a young actress, Elizabeth King, in "Born To Win," a humorous short by Trey Hock about the true nature of popularity.


The one on the left. One to watch.

I'm pegging her as the poor man's Amanda Bynes. With a bit of Schuyler Fisk thrown in.

And while we're on the subject of quirky short films featuring hot actresses, the Lebanese film Lesson #5 featured a Lebanese actress, May Hariri who's lustful beauty I can only imagine would be censored in most Arabic-speaking countries.



"Lesson Number Five" itself was a strange, but satisfying movie about a Lebanese man who's hired to get U.S. green cards for a group of men, but then discovers it will be more difficult than expected. He makes up elaborate lies in order to dissuade the men from leaving. With comical results (lets just say peroxide, and the planet Mars, both play a signifigant role).

That's the best of what I got to see, but of course, I only saw films at two of the venues. Anyone else go to the festival? I'd love to hear your favorites.

Of course, I go to Tribeca at the end of the month, and will hopefully uncover some gems to tout wayyyy before Entertainment Weekly or Premiere does.

Daniel Day Lewis Can Rock The Moustache

Daniel Day Lewis won the award for Best Actor at the Oscars last night, for his role in There Will Be Blood. I haven't seen There Will Be Blood, although, I've heard from trusted sources that it features lots of yelling and blood. Which to my mind, makes it similar to Gangs of New York, which also featured Day Lewis. In fact, his characters, as my friend Seth pointed out, look remarkably similar:


Gangs


Blood

The similarity, of course, lies in the so-bushy-you-can-hear-it-barking moustaches, and the hat. And the yelling. "I've Abandoned my BOY!!!" "I will find youuu!!!" (actually, that second one's from his role in Last of the Mohicans). To me, it's become obvious that Daniel Day Lewis is growing quite fond of playing these facially-haired, mad-hatted characters. So Seth and I came up with some other roles that Daniel Day Lewis may want to sink his teeth into:









The Academy has showed Daniel Day love for his last two moustached roles... now if only he can land these ones.. he just may continue his streak.