Kyle vs. Scream 4

For those of you who have listened to our Scream podcast, you know I kind of consider myself a super-fan of the series. While I don’t go to the extent of dressing up as Billy Loomis and crashing high school parties (anymore), I did at one time own a Father Death costume. When the news broke that Wes Craven was getting the band back together for one last show to save the old after school hangout I should have been overjoyed. THEN when it was revealed that Neve Campbell, Courteney Cox, and David Arquette would all be reuniting to work off a script penned by Kevin Williamson, my heart should have grown three sizes too big as I danced throughout the halls of my office.

None of these things happened, though, and the more I found out about Scream 4: The Screamening, the deeper a depression I sunk into. A new, hip cast—why? Well publicized production issues—what? Alison Brie’s involvement—okay, all of the news wasn’t catastrophic, but still, I was upset. I made a solemn vow before myself and God; I would not see Scream 4: Return of the Scream. It was a movie that represented everything that was wrong with modern film—just a crass money-grab, and had no business being counted among the original trilogy. I would not partake in the dumbing down and eventual crumbling of society as we know it. I am a proud man. I am a man of principle, action and honor, and without a strong feeling of self-worth, I would never be able to look at myself in the mirror again.

So I saw Scream 4: Scream Up to the Streets the other day, and this is what I thought of it.

Let’s get this out of the way

It turns out that Scream 4: Scream in New York is not the crime against humanity that was foretold in the darkest parts of the Bible. While neither a sin against man or nature, it just kind of sits there like a dead fish. It’s a movie confused, not really sure if it wants to be a reboot or a continuation. In attempting to please everyone and outwit themselves and the audience, the makers have created a bland “horror” “comedy” trying to spin too many plates at once, but I’m getting ahead of myself…

I should let you know, gentle reader, that I plan to not hold back and will spoil every aspect of this movie. Inside me resides neither the cleverness nor inclination to dance around important plot points and twists in the narrative. If this upsets you and, despite Scream 4: Scream Protocol coming out almost a full two years ago, you’ve been really excited to see who’s hacking up Woodsboro’s sexy teens, you might want to skip this article. We’ll be back with our regularly scheduled Die Hard analysis next week.

The Old Bait and Switch

It’s been said before by savvier reviewers than me that the only clever aspect of Scream 4: A Scream to Remember was a killer opening sequence. You can’t deny that it’s a fun idea, dropping in and out of situations familiar to the series, each revealing itself to be the opening of a different fake Stab movie. Unfortunately, by the time we roll around to reality I was bored and confused. Not confused in the sense of “is this another movie or not?” but confused as to if this seemed like a good idea when they started editing it together. With each fake opening, I was invested that much less in the characters. Each time the curtain was pulled away to reveal the little old man operating the Great and Powerful Oz a little magic and suspense was lost. By the third go-round I didn’t care at all about the (attractive) cardboard teens about to meet their maker. All I could think was, “hey look, its Coach’s daughter from Friday Night Lights.” Also, “who’s that other girl? Should I know her? Is she famous? Am I getting old and out of touch with who the kids like?” 

Is she one of the Wiggles? Do kids still watch that?

The genius of the opening scene of the first Scream was not only the marketing, but the relationship the audience formed with Drew Barrymore’s character Casey in the short amount of time we knew her. Not only did they kill the film’s biggest star in the opening scene (what?!), they made her a fully formed person. Casey was a character who had a boyfriend, loved scary movies, and had two parents who almost made it home in time to save her. There was a sense of peril and urgency, like she might actually make it to Act 2.

I’m not going to go into detail how they mixed up this formula with the sequels because that would be long and boring, but the short answer is, they did. You can see what Kevin Williamson was attempting to do and kudos to him for trying, but effort only gets you so far. Yes, he needed to mix up the formula, but not at the expense of character or suspense. Let’s not forget, this is supposed to be a scary movie. Which leads me to…

Isn’t This Supposed to be a Scary Movie?

I’ve said it before, but there’s an unpleasant trend in horror today. Movies are opting for disgusting over scary, with unimaginable carnage replacing tension and surprise. At first I was worried that Scream 4: The Search for Screamy’s Gold would try and outdo its predecessors by joining the torture porn crowd, and while I’m happy that wasn’t the case, I can’t help feel a little let down by its contribution to the “horror” genre.

Admittedly, I watched this movie with a few glasses of fine Canadian whiskey in me, which can dull the senses, but was there anything scary about Scream 4: Look Who’s Screaming Now? You get the feeling that because they were trying to cram so much into this reboot/rehash/regurgitation something had to go and they decided on scares (as well as character development). We move at such lightning speed from scene to scene that there's no time to breathe. There’s no real stalking of innocent victims, you know…dead silence, red herrings, cautious relaxation, and a final jolt. Let’s take a look at a particular scene to see if we can figure out just what went wrong:

The Publicist in the Parking Garage with the Bad Plot

I'm gonna have to call you back. I feel some bad screenwriting coming on.

Poor Alison Brie, her character had just been fired. Despite being more than competent at her job and cute as a button, an unhappy Sidney Prescott let Alison’s character Rebecca go and she’s off to that slasher staple: the parking garage. Things are not looking good for Rebecca. Walking along, muttering to herself, she realizes her car isn’t where she parked it. Is she going to have to go from level to level, walking through a dark parking structure while a killer stalks her from the…what’s that? It’s a few spots over? Never mind then. So, other than pointing out Ghost Face is kind of a dick, what did this accomplish? I guess the killer has abandoned the whole “what’s your favorite scary movie?” routine and resorted to pranks we pulled on our friends in high school when we got a hold of their keys.

Okay, so the car has been found, but the killer obviously has the keys and could be hiding inside, lying in wait to attack at any minu…everything’s fine? Back seat clear? Alright, I guess that counted as a red herring, but you’re pushing your luck movie.

This leads me to another issue with the latest Scream--the homages to the original. The entire twenty or thirty seconds that they devote to Alison Brie stuck in the car, all I could think about was Sidney trapped in the police jeep in Scream. In that movie the killer toyed with her, jumped in and out of view to unlock doors and finally sneak up from behind as the audience watched with white knuckles. In Scream 4: Scream and Let Die, we get Ghost Face jumping on the hood once, the car’s starter in hand, and vanishing until the victim leaves the car of her own free will. Was that the plan…for her to be stupid? What if another car drove by or someone else entered the parking garage? What if she called for help with her PERFECTLY FUNCTIONING PHONE? Come on, movie. Work with me here. By the time the killer walks up to the idiot publicist and stabs her in the stomach, I was ready for her to be killed off and so were the moviemakers. The scene just peters off and ends. Rebecca was wasting valuable storytelling minutes. Now we could spend valuable time watching Gale play Nancy Drew…

What the Hell Are the Original Characters Doing There?

I suppose my biggest complaint, outside of the lazy writing, questionable character motives, and bad catering, would be the inclusion of the three original stars in this silent fart of a movie. I understand both arguments for making a version of Scream 4: Scream Saves Christmas with the original cast member to attract your core audience or making this a true reboot with a sexy young cast of growth-stunted 27-year-olds to bring in a new audience. The problem with mashing both concepts together like the fried chicken in a KFC Double Down is that it overly complicates the plot and gives the filmmakers far too many characters to juggle. Also, you get heart disease.

Basically Scream 4.

There’s a lot of ground that the writer of an ensemble piece has to cover. Multiple characters have to be introduced with motives established in a relatively short time frame to make sure that, while the plot unfolds, the characters have the audience’s sympathy or, at the very least, attention. This isn’t really a problem that you have to address in a sequel, since we know and love the characters already. All the writer needs to do is let us know what the gang is up to now. Have they moved away? Is there a daring new haircut in the picture? What about offensive facial tattoos? How many are we talking? Scream 4: Scream + Juliet actually does a fairly effective job of setting up the original cast. We learn that Dewey is the Sherriff now and doesn’t have a limp anymore because Arquette probably got tired of doing it. Sidney has moved past being a victim and is an author (girl power, am I right ladies?!), and Gale is trying to write a book or something because who cares about Gale? Unfortunately that’s really all of the time or interest in these three the movie has. So much of the script is spent with the roughly 47 “new” cast members that the original three are pushed to the side, left to occasionally awkwardly wander into frame and sheepishly apologize for still being in the movie and wasting everyone’s time.

I’d like to imagine that there’s a halfway interesting script floating around somewhere that focuses on just the new teenagers dealing with a copycat killer. I’m not saying I would ever watch that movie, but at least it would have time to let me know something about the new teens other the interesting character traits we got of “tall”, “owns a camera”, or “dead”. Listen Dimension, I know you really want my $13 and think that the only way to get my ass in the theater is to include original cast members. All you did though was shoehorn three people north of forty into a movie about high schoolers and, worse, make them background characters in their own story. Sidney isn’t even the protagonist. You know, come to think of it…

Who the Hell is this Movie About?

For all of its other transgressions, it really just comes down to this--tell me who the protagonist was in Scream 4: Screamless in Seattle? It’s pretty obvious that it isn’t Sidney, since we spend next to no time with her character. It’s like they only got an afternoon with Neve Campbell to film all of her scenes. In the same light, it’s not Gale or Dewey either. It’s the new cast, Dummy, you say rudely to your computer screen. If that’s true, smart guy, then which one? Besides learning that they love movies and run a Screamathon, we don’t know anything about the two guys. The tall girl is killed almost immediately, and the little girl from Remember the Titans is mostly comic relief.

Hilarious.

Sydney’s cousin Jill should be the main character and is presented as such…to a point. The problem lies in the necessity of the plot. It’s pretty simple math. Jill is the killer, and therefore the story can’t afford to spend a ton time with her without tipping its hand. We don’t get to watch her feel vulnerable or scared or really any emotion other than pissed off. Keeping the audience at an arm’s length to protect the twist at the end sacrifices a true main character for the movie, and just leaves it kind of listing along, jumping from bit player to bit player. She can’t be the protagonist and the antagonist at the same time because this is a Scream movie and not an art film. Butts are in the seats to watch good looking people get scared as they walk around big, empty houses and have things jump out in front of them. We don’t get to see her wrestle with any actual feelings because that would betray the all-important final reveal. See, the main character was Tyler Durden all along. Crazy, right?

So here I am, left to watch my beloved franchise gasp, wheeze, and cling to life before someone comes to their senses and puts it down. At least there probably won’t be a fifth movie to disappoint the masses and even if there is, I won’t be in line. Unless they get Shia LaBeouf. I’d see that movie.

Let me know what your thoughts are in the comments below.

The Five Unsung Chameleons In Hollywood

At one point in his or her career, every actor or actress will inevitably say that they have had to “lose themselves” in the character and that it was this metamorphosis that allowed them to inhabit the character they were playing and turn in such an amazing performance.  Daniel Day-Lewis (on anyone’s short list for greatest actor of all time) and Gary Oldman (on everyone’s short list for “thank God I got to make a film with him because being on screen with him makes me seem that much better than I actually am and raises my profile”) have built their careers on this idea.  Sometimes in order to facilitate this transformation, actors will even alter their appearance and drastically change their weight; most notable being both Robert De Niro and Christian Bale, but also don’t forget about Charlize Theron.

She gained four pounds for this role.

            And while these household names are known for losing themselves in the role, what impresses me more in this day and age is some of the more unknown actors in Hollywood who are truly chameleons while in front of a camera. The sad truth of the film industry these days is that even some of our most beloved actors and most bankable box office megastars are simply churning out repeat performances of character types that they have mastered years ago and that we simply love seeing them play.  Sure he’ll take a dramatic role every once in a while, but Will Smith knows that he made his money by drawing out a patented, “Aw, hell no…” while holding a gun in front of a Michael Bay sunset (In Hollywood, that’s called type-casting, which is a common complaint from actors who’ve appeared in film after film playing similar characters but now suddenly want to appear to be trying to stretch their talents in different creative directions. In the real world, that’s just called job security; but that’s a whole other article).  In today’s business climate of studios wanting to develop only franchise-launching properties or repurposing material for a remake with a built in audience based on nostalgia, this trend is becoming even more prevalent. 

            Which is why, dear friends, I’m choosing to celebrate some of the lesser-knowns of  Hollywood;  the true chameleons of the day.  Some of them you may know, some perhaps not; and some I’m guessing you’ll say, “Oh, that guy was in that movie?!?” Some of you may even say, “What the hell does this author do for a living and how does he have time to produce these articles every month?”  Whatever your reaction, feel free to blow up the comments section down below, and please join me in my salute to:

The Five Unsung Chameleons In Hollywood

CLIFF CURTIS

Known For: “Three Kings”

                       Easily the top choice on my list, this guy can literally play any ethnic type the script calls for and he can do them all with equal amounts of pathos and earnest.  Curtis’ breakthrough role was Amir Abdulah, the Kuwaiti businessman who teams up with George Clooney and the gang halfway through the film “Three Kings”; a role that not only gave an Arab a positive command presence in the plot, but also threatened to steal the spotlight from the wonderful ragtag team of American characters that came blasting into his village.  After freeing him from torture and witnessing his wife’s execution (in a sequence that basically guaranteed David O. Russell would get another directing job), the American soldiers suddenly find themselves being rescued by Abdulah and his fellow villagers.  By the end of the film, he’s up on the roof helping Ice Cube fight off an Iraqi helicopter and leading his people to safety in Iran, taking the character’s arc from victim to victorious.  It was an incredible performance in its own right, but it got Holy-Crap-That’s-Freaking-Awesome better the next time you saw him and found out that the guy isn’t even Arabian at all; he’s from New Zealand.  And that next performance I’m referring to? It was his role as Smiley, the Latino gang member that almost kills Ethan Hawke in “Training Day”.

Yeah, it’s the same freaking guy!

           

            Known for its gritty realism and an unflinching look into police corruption and brutality as well as the LA gang lifestyle, “Training Day” actually employed real gang members to give the scenes involving their on screen counterparts that much more realism.  But in the fifteen minutes he is on film, Curtis outshines them all in a terrifying turn as the morally bankrupt gang banger to whom execution is a way of life and as he puts it, “just business.”  As if that transformation wasn’t enough, Curtis also showed up in “Blow” as Pablo Escobar, this minor criminal from this one country that exported something into America (that last sentence is literally better than the entire script for “Blow”, a film which came pre-reviewed by its title); and as a Hispanic, middle American jury member in “The Runaway Jury”.  No kidding around, if I was this guy’s agent and the script called for a Caucasian woman, I’d give it to him and let him see if he was interested in the role.  You know he’d have no problem pulling it off.

STEPHEN LANG

Known For: “Avatar”

            James Cameron deserves the title of “Most Innovating Filmmaker” based not only on his technical direction and creativity but also on the fact that he literally develops the technology that is used to create his vision (to give credit where it is due, I am passionately against the “Lord of the Rings” Trilogy in every way, shape, and form; but Peter Jackson is a worthy runner up for this award).  Everyone wants to crap all over “Avatar” for being a story that they had seen before a million times and that’s fine, but no one is out there saying that the film wasn’t incredible to look at or that the visuals won’t go on to redefine what CGI can and cannot do in the world of film.  And along side all of the technical accomplishments of the film, there were some notable performances, most eye catching was Stephen Lang as Col. Miles Quaritch. At the tender age of 57, Lang catapulted his career back into the spotlight (and himself onto one terrible television show) by his gritty too-gung-ho performance as the military leader of Pandora’s research station (a part Michael Biehn had already mastered in Cameron’s earlier work “The Abyss”).  To be honest, it’s a pretty standard overbearing jarhead role that would have gone a lot more unnoticed had Lang not looked like The Rock’s training partner the whole time. I mean, come on! They gave Stallone crap about his Rocky Balboa physique and this guy gets a pass?  Seriously, if Lang’s size truly is all natural then he’s got my vote to be a part of the project that created Arnold Schwarzenegger in “Twins”.   But what puts Lang on my list is his much earlier body of work, specifically his turn as the most detestable cowboy in the history of film, Ike Clanton in the vastly overlooked film “Tombstone”. This is the film in which Lang actually displayed some acting chops (along with an unfortunate accent), and he’s almost unrecognizable as the same man. 

I’m much dirtier than I appear on screen!

           

            But wait till I really blow your minds.  In 1986, the very first Hannibal Lecter film was released, and most people missed it because it didn’t win any awards and Anthony Hopkins didn’t play everyone’s favorite diabolical cannibal (Brian Cox actually did).  It was called “Manhunter” although most people know the story it was based on from when it was remade in 2002 into the vastly inferior film “Red Dragon”. Directed by Michael Mann, the original film is totally worth a look not only because it is terrifying in its own right but also because William Peterson’s take on Will Graham completely annihilates Edward Norton’s hollow performance. In this film the part of Freddy Louds, the sleazy tabloid reporter that was played by Philip Seymour Hoffman in the remake (the victim of the infamous “Do you see?” torture sequence), was played by none other than Stephen Lang.  That’s right, the guy that ate nothing but scenery in “Avatar” once played a 160 pound torture victim. Goes to show you what 23 years, and a profession where they don’t test for HGH can do for your career.

AMY RYAN

Known for: “Gone Baby Gone”

             Years ago, back when Ben Affleck was mere tabloid fodder (something that will be forgotten in the wake of his “Argo” success; trust me on this, America loves a comeback story), no one was ready for the talent this guy would one day bring to the screen from behind the camera.  In what I consider one of the best tricks in his bag, Affleck really shines when it comes to casting; considering that two actors that he has already directed have been nominated for Academy Awards for their performances and that he’s jumpstarted the careers of several lesser known actors simply be trusting them with bigger roles than they had ever previously seen. The actor that fits in both of those categories is Amy Ryan, most known for her gut-wrenching performance as the mother of a missing child in “Gone Baby Gone” where she absolutely stole the show from a pack of A-list actors who were all turning in powerhouse performances.  Shockingly not from South Boston in real life, Ryan’s real performance came not from her accent; but rather her complete immersion into the role of a drug-addicted loser who will never raise herself nor her daughter above the South Boston projects. When this role is contrasted with her previous role of the detective’s matronly wife Marie Dewey in “Capote” a few years prior, the oceans of difference between the two characters is what cements Ryan as a true chameleon.  While she was over-shadowed by much of the cast in that particular film, Ryan still nailed the role of the star-struck Capote fan, torn between her allegiance to her husband and the novelty of the famous author sitting at her dining room table. 

            To truly see the versatility that Ryan can bring to the camera, you only have to watch her guest star on NBC’s “The Office” (and yes, I’m totally cheating by bringing in a television show, but she was so good in it that my wrongdoings have no bearings on the validity of my argument.  Also, calm down internet!). In the wake of her “Gone Baby Gone” fame, Ryan joined the cast of the hit show as the character Holly Flax, the new HR representative for Dunder Mifflin and eventual love interest for Steve Carell’s Michael Scott.  Quirky and self-conscience as Michael could ever hope to be, Ryan’s Holly was initially a breath of fresh air into a show that was dragging a little bit in the ratings; but went on to become a long running guest character and ultimately a great fit for everyone’s favorite well meaning but yet horrible boss. 

She transferred from the Southie Branch.

From Kansas matron to Boston drug addict to corporate drone, Ryan’s ability to become her character so well, that you can’t really see the actress herself is the essence of versatility and my guess is that we haven’t seen the last of her during awards season.

WILLIAM FICHTNER

“The Dark Knight”

           

            Even though half of the people reading this article just went, “Oh, that’s that guy’s name…”, Fichtner’s career has been an ever changing process of one character right after the other.  Most people recognize him from “The Dark Knight” as the bank manager that the Joker robs and then stuffs the gas bomb in his mouth during the opening sequence, but the truth is that this role is a callback to the much larger character of Roger Van Zant, the crooked investment banker from the 1995 crime masterpiece “Heat”.  Fichtner imbues both roles with a twisted brand of sliminess and at the same time shows a professionalism that would make you think that the mob would entrust millions of dollars into his hands for safe keeping. Even when everything in his life is spiraling out of control either by robbery or one of the best death threats in all of cinema, he keeps attempting to negotiate the situation and find a beneficial way out of it.  He could easily be typecast into this type of role all the time (and to be fair he does spend an awful lot of time playing the sleazy lawyer/businessman who often has to make the seedy deals no one else wants to make), but it’s been when he has broken out of this character type and played completely other roles that show his inner chameleon, case in point his portrayal of the blind SETI scientist Kent in the 1997 film “Contact” or the role of taciturn fisherman David “Sully” Sullivan in the 2000 film “The Perfect Storm” in which Fichtner took a page out of Stephen Lang’s book and bulked up for noticeably. 

My biceps do their own stunt work.

            If this isn’t enough to convince you that this guy can play anybody, let me remind you that he’s also the guy who tried to convince Scott Wolf and Jay Mohr to sell Amway in “Go” and led the NASA mission in a little film called “Armageddon” so I’m just saying the guy has been around. 

            *The Editors of SpoilerAlert Podcast would like to apologize for the author’s above reference to the film “Armageddon” as it is universally recognized to warp children’s  brains and should have never existed.  Once again, our humblest of apologies.

MICHAEL PARKS

Known For: “From Dusk Till Dawn”

            The old saying goes that the squeaky wheel gets the grease, and while a lot of idiots use the logic behind this statement as poor justification for being whiners, it is true that often times one must stand out in order to be noticed.  So it is with much of the film industry, that in order to get recognition for stepping outside your comfort zone, you must travel to the complete opposite ends of the spectrum.  However, every once in a great while, an actor can connect with a role (even a minor one) so completely, that for the rest of us he simply is that guy; only to have him show up and blow us away with another perfectly understated performance.  Michael Parks is such an actor.  Known to us as Texas Ranger Earl McGraw from The Robert Rodriquez/Quentin Tarantino Universe (as seen in “From Dusk Till Dawn,” the “Kill Bill” films, and their collaborative effort, “Grindhouse”), Parks has cemented himself as the unflinching Texas tough guy that has seen it all out there in the desert (so good is he in this role that most people tend to forget that the first time we saw him as this character, he died after a mere ten minutes on screen).  From this role, Parks crafted a known persona for steady Hollywood roles, however its when he breaks this trend that he’s the best.  His turn as fanatical cult leader Abin Cooper in 2011’s “Red State” was so disturbingly perfect that it should put him on every studio’s short list for most versatile actors out there.  In what so easily could have been a character that was nothing more than a token bad guy with a messiah complex (and kudos to Kevin Smith for staving that off as well), Parks played this guy as a fully fleshed out zealot that was responding proportionately to the situation based upon his belief structure.  Not only that, but for a guy most known for a stoic draw, Parks threw himself into some of Cooper’s more manic mood swings and vocalizations.  However, even as good as Parks is in that film, his true chameleon certification is found once again inside a Tarantino funhouse.  In “Kill Bill: Volume 2” when The Bride heads down to Mexico and has a beer with former Bill associate and most disturbing  pimp of all time Esteban Vihaio, guess who’s sitting across from Uma Thurman in that scene?

Honestly, you should have figured out where I was going with this.

            Yep, that’s Michael Freaking Parks chewing the scene right in front of your face.  Even more crazy is the behind the scenes lore that Tarantino had given Ricardo Montalban (KHAN!!!) the role, but Parks knocked it so far out of the park at the read through, Tarantino waved of the more well known star.  When I was originally told that these roles were played by the same actor (I didn’t see the closing credits in the theater because I was blinded by the awesome), I thought someone was messing with me, but once I verified it I could only cheer the performance of this guy.

HONORABLE MENTIONS:

            These are actors that have been amazing in their roles for a variety of reasons, but unfortunately I haven’t seen enough of their performances to be able to judge if they are true chameleons or if they are just a one hit wonder.  Only time will tell.

KELLY MACDONALD – Carla Jean Moss in “No Country for Old Men”

MAX PIRKIS – Lord Blakeney in “Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World”

-Brando

            

The 2013 Brando Awards

The Academy Awards, or the Oscars as they’re known by some, is a time honored tradition in the world of cinema, dating back to 1929 and known throughout the world for not only the incredible drama of the night; but also the pomp and circumstance that goes along with them, including all of the fashion and the red carpet politics.  This one special night exists so that by the end of the evening, the best of the best of that year in film can be properly honored and the most deserving nominee rightfully takes home the statuette.

Yeah, we’re done being serious about this.

There is so much wrong with the Academy Awards that I could fill another entire article with the problems that beset them (and I might, so please feel free to give me your thoughts in the comment section, and I’ll then pass them off as my own), but let’s face it; despite how ridiculously subjective this awards show can be, it’s still the gold standard for cinema, even though we all know that the Academy sometimes gives out these things for all the wrong reasons.  Here’s a quick list of faulty justifications: “The Academy owes it to the actor” (Paul Newman - “The Color of Money”), “No one will expect this pick, and it will show that we’re not predictable” (Marisa Tomei – “My Cousin Vinny”), “We shafted them last year, so we should  give them one this year” (Renee Zellweger – “Cold Mountain”), “It’s a historic win” (Halle Berry – “Monster’s Ball”), and so on.

And even though all these reasons and more permeate the Academy Awards, you’ll never see a trailer with an Academy Award winner in it that fails to mention that fact.  And why is that?  Because we still value the moniker “Academy Award Winner” as it offers us a quick Cliffs Notes version of what was the best of that year in cinema.  We love Oscar winners, even to the extent that it can make or break a film for us.  In fact, we love them so much that an actor can literally rewrite their contract once they’ve won one (Jamie Foxx - “Ray”).

So, with the Academy Awards coming up this Sunday, I am secure in the knowledge that the Academy has most of the important topics covered in the world of film.  Is it just me or is Ben Affleck not set up to have the easiest night of all? He doesn’t have to worry about whether or not he’ll win, and he can cruise every after-party saying the exact same thing, “Yeah, I don’t know why I wasn’t nominated either, crazy huh?” Plus he can be secure in the knowledge that in less than five years, he will win a Best Director award (although an argument can be made that he’s headed that way all on his own). But as I gear up for yet another Oscars, I can’t help but feel that there is a category or two that the Academy is not giving its full attention to.  Sure, they’ve got things like Best Costume Design and Best Score under control, but that doesn’t cover the entire spectrum of film, my friends.  So, I guess it’s up to me to take up the slack!

So here they are, The 2013 Brando Awards: 

(Say it with me, just once, “And the Brando goes to…”)

BEST TRAILER: “Man of Steel” (Second Trailer)

In what should be a legitimate category for the Academy by any measure, this trailer hits every note perfect and is so good that it went viral and took the world by storm.  And why not love it?  Perhaps it spends a little too much time being vague and somber for a comic book movie, but Superman is a broad character and he deserves that kind of treatment.  My favorite moment is the exchange between a young Clark and his dad Jonathan Kent (Kevin Costner) where the child asks the father if he should let innocent people die just to conceal his identity, to which Jonathan responds, “Maybe…” This highlights my favorite point about Superman, that there is nothing that requires him to do the things that he does, he just simply does them.  Superman could literally make planet Earth bow down to him within twenty minutes if he put his mind to it, and instead he chooses to help out.  Way to take it there, Zack Snyder.

BEST LOCATION SCOUT: “Savages”

      

Oliver Stone’s drug-laden crime opus had a lot of potential, and unfortunately it only capitalized on a small portion of it.  The book the film was based upon was a hard hitting tale of crime and bloodshed in the vein of Elmore Leonard; however, Stone had to reduce some of the more compelling plot points for on screen cohesiveness and the resulting story was a little bit lacking.  But while the film itself creaks like a rusty gate in some places (someone seriously needs to re-watch the dailies of Taylor Kitsch’s “acting”), nothing can be taken away from the gorgeous scenery that fills the back ground of shot after shot of this film.  Done on location almost entirely in Newport Beach, it’s a shame that these morons don’t realize how great they have it living a life against such a wonderful backdrop.

BEST HOT CHICK GETTING SEXED UP FOR NO REASON: Berenice Marlohe – “Skyfall”

Bond is known for certain things: he kills ruthlessly, he drinks excessively, and he beds anything with a pulse.  However, and I don’t normally like to ask these types of questions about a James Bond film, why is this girl in this film at all?  Bond meets her at the high priced casino (right before he fights a CGI komodo dragon, really Sam Mendes?), and in moments he deduces that a) she is the only one that can take him to the bad guy and b) she’s desperate for help and in way over her head. So he does what Bond does best, whips everyone’s ass and then hops on her boat for a free ride to the bad guy’s private island.  In route, Bond interrupts her shower so they can have a perfectly natural silhouetted sex scene only so she can be killed off in less than ten minutes of screen time in order to prove that the bad guy is like, really, really bad.  We don’t have to feel too bad about her not making it to the closing credits alive however, because she was never really developed as anything other than a hot mess.  I know it’s a Bond film and they’ve got to push that PG-13 rating as far as it can go, but this chick was getting sexed up for no reason.

BEST FLASHBACK CASTING: Josh Pence as Young Ra’s Al Ghul – “The Dark Knight Rises”

There’s such a small market for correct flashback casting, however it’s such a double edged sword.   When it’s executed correctly, it can completely draw in the audience and add validity to the plot; but when it goes bad, it becomes laughable.  That’s why this one scene in The Dark Knight Rises stands out so much, because they completely made this guy look like a young Liam Neeson (granted that weird Ra’s goatee does a lot of the heavy lifting).  He’s only on screen for a total of two and a half minutes, but it completely ties the new back-story that the film is throwing at you to the old character that you’ve known about for over six years, and it does it all with a simple casting choice. 

BEST MUSTACHE: Scoot McNairy – “Argo”

Every period picture has to alter the fabric of the set to make it seem as though the story is unfolding in the time that it is placed in.  To that end, great pains are taken to make sure that the set is overloaded with objects and clothing that facilitate this (see the IMDB notes on “Titanic”).  However, once in a great while, one specific prop outshines everything else and tumbles the viewer back through time almost effortlessly.  And for this film, Scoot McNairy’s mustache is that prop.  I’m not even sure if it was synthetic or the actor’s own stock, all I know is by the image of his lip whiskers alone I believed it was 1979 and that smoking was a perfectly legitimate and healthy way to spend one’s time. That’s a film executing a period piece perfectly.

BEST CAMEO: The Cast of Street Fighter – “Wreck-It-Ralph”

The premise of this film is incredibly endearing, that our favorite video game characters all have feelings and can get burnt out like we all do from time to time.  The moment that made it for me (even though it was over played in the trailer) was when the guys from the video game Street Fighter show up to lament their lives in Ralph’s group therapy session.  If I have one question, it’s this: why is Zangief a bad guy? When that game debuted he was a playable character, and now all of the sudden he’s rubbing shoulders with M. Bison? No sir!  I mean, I’m as much of a fan of unchecked American swagger as the next guy (check out “Top Gun” now available on Blu-ray!), but I really think the Russian character might be getting the shaft on this one.

BEST RE-CASTING: Ralph Feinnes and Judi Dench as M – “Skyfall”

For most Bond fans of my generation, “GoldenEye” was probably the first Bond film that we saw in the theater, and therefore Pierce Brosnan was our first personal James Bond.  Little did we know the long and storied the legacy that Brosnan was inheriting, or how much of a difficult leap of faith it is to re-cast that role (we got to experience it back in October of 2005, when some dude named Craig took over).  But Brosnan wasn’t the only new face to join the mythos of Bond in that film, Dame Judi Dench made her debut as M as well.  And while some Bond purist decried this casting choice as pure affirmative action (a topic the 90’s Bond had some fun with), Dench’s M showed up immediately as Bond’s superior but also a sometimes mother figure (a trait that Craig’s Bond has embraced whole-heartedly). And through dismal sequel after dismal sequel, Brosnan and Dench had to keep their composure and play off one another again and again.  Once Daniel Craig took over the role of Bond, M became not only the unrivaled leader of MI-6, but also the anchor that the fans could latch on to during the transfer period between the actors, particularly throughout the first act of “Casino Royale”. 

Now that we’re three films into Craig’s tenure as Bond and he’s coming into the character full stride, the hands of time are catching up with everyone and it’s become apparent that Bond’s supporting cast needs to change as well.  With Dench departing from the role we all know and love, the producers wisely brought in a known actor to replace her, and gave him an entire film to establish himself in the universe.  Chucking his Harry Potter robes on the way in, Ralph Fiennes’ Gareth Mallory spends most of the first half of the film being a royal pain in the ass, completely unconnected from what it is that MI-6 does all day long.  Once the chips fall in M’s interrogation however, Fiennes jumps into the role, grabs himself a gun, and joins the side of the angels.  By the time Dench’s M passes away (in a fitting send off scene), Fiennes is ready to take her place in James Bond’s lore as the new M.  Well done, Mendes (sorry about that crack about the Komodo dragon).

So there they are the 2013 Brando Awards, covering the topics in film from the past year that really matter to you! 

Okay, I feel like I cheated you a little, and seeing as how the Oscars where in my opening, it would be mean of me not to throw in a few Oscar related comments at the end.  I’m not going to do predictions, I don’t decide that until the night of the awards themselves; but I will give you my picks for the best of all time in the major categories (and some of mine didn’t win on their Oscar night). 

BEST SCREENPLAY:  “Pulp Fiction”

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS: Frances McDormand – “Mississippi Burning”

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR: Ed Harris – “Apollo 13”

BEST ACTRESS: Jodie Foster – “The Silence of the Lambs”

BEST ACTOR: Al Pacino – “The Godfather: Part II”

BEST DIRECTOR: James Cameron – “Avatar”

BEST PICTURE: “Schindler’s List”

I’m guessing (and hoping) that this portion of the article will generate the most responses in the comments section, and I’m happy to defend my picks to anyone who wants to hash it out.  Until then, from all of us here at SpoilerAlert Podcast, please do your best to safely enjoy the Academy Awards.

“And the Oscar goes to…”

The Five Ways Film Editing Lies To You

The old adage goes that a film gets made three times: once when its written, once when its shot, and once when its edited.  Is it just me or does this sound an awful lot like those ridiculous high school group projects where inevitably someone comes up with an idea, everyone else screws around all class, and then the one guy who cares about his grade comes in and fixes everything to be made presentable and respected?

Brownnoser

Editing is an incredibly complicated and hugely important part of the film making process.  For the three people in world who don’t know how films are made, numerous shots are filmed and then the editor puts it all together to look great.  That iconic shower scene in Psycho was an amalgamation of various takes just to get Janet Leigh’s eye absolutely perfect, and then it was edited down to the taunt thrilling sequence that we all know and love.  Anytime you hear someone say the phrase, “We’ll fix that in post,” they’re talking about the legacy of editing (or you’re on the set of Glee).

And even though editing has brought plenty to the table in the world of film, I can’t help but feel that its taking a little away as well. To be specific, editing is falsifying the already fictional world of movies and perpetrating a fraud on the American people! Just to be clear, I’m not knocking Lightstorm Entertainment for creating Pandora out of matte paintings and CGI, that’s special effects being used to create an artificial environment and further the plot (and make James Cameron even bigger crap-loads of money).  No, my beef lies more with the editing process continuing to screw with that last delicate fabric of trust the American moviegoer still has left in their heart.

So here they are, The Five Ways Film Editing Lies To You:

1) YOUR PUNCHES WILL SOUND LIKE ATOM BOMBS

Somewhere along the line, it was decided that real punching noises were a little too mundane for most audiences and instead of the normal sound of a fist hitting a face, we needed a sound effect that would shake the earth.  I would have loved to have been in that first meeting when the studio heads decided to start ratcheting movie punches up the Richter Scale, and that one old timer saw the dailies and thought, “what the hell is that noise every time these guys smack each other?“  Some movies don’t even use elaborated fist noises at all and are throwing all kinds of things into the mix to inject this sound with more and more energy.  In fact, when they filmed Raiders of the Lost Ark, the Foley artists would strike a pile of leather jackets with a baseball bat to simulate Indiana Jones’ punches.

           

“When I crack my knuckles, people flee.”

 The problem is that when thousands of unsuspecting viewers see this on film, it can be misleading when they start equating epic avalanche noises with a right cross instead of the dull quiet smack a proper punch makes (Herein lies my theory on why boxing is losing it’s popularity in almost every demographic.  I’m just saying, if every time Pacquiao hit someone my speakers blew from raw awesomeness, there would be no UFC)  Not only that, but this audacious fallacy of truth creates a gigantic hole in many viewers’ childhoods.  Suppose they get up the courage to haul back and roundhouse their older brother and it unfortunately sounds a lot more like dropping an apple onto a pillow and a lot less like the third trumpet of the Apocalypse that they had pinned their hopes to?  That not only shatters their unfounded trust in the world of film, but usually leads to a substantial beat down.  What’s worse is that the Indiana Jones films aren’t the only culprits here, in fact they’re hardly the worst offenders.  The top prize in this category easily goes to the mythical land of boxing films and the odyssey of Rocky Balboa (not counting Rocky 5, which I’m convinced was some sort of propaganda sent from an evil alien race trying to vanquish the human spirit) is probably the biggest bomb-punch offender out there.  In fact, in the finale of the third film, the trumpet blasts of the musical score are timed to coincide with Rocky’s punches as he chops down the evil that is Clubber Lane.

           

Musical Beat Down

I suppose that it is worth nothing that some recent films are trying to correct this trend by presenting fisticuffs in a more realistic way, most notably recent fighting sports movies (The Fighter and Warrior) or movies centered around gritty realism (Fight Club).  However, even with these examples, the over done punch is still one of editing’s favorite lies.

2) YOU CAN SEE ANYTHING IF YOU SQUINT HARD ENOUGH

It’s a movie staple to have that one scene in the film in which a character is completely out of luck, time, hope, whatever; and they look up and see that one thing that saves the day, illuminates the mystery, makes the hot chick fall in love, and so on.  This scene has been in done over and over again in movies for the last sixty years, and trust me when I say that it isn’t going anywhere any time soon.  And I’m okay with that.  I have no problem with this scene used as a plot device, as it is effective in building tension and almost always makes the payoff in the final act that much better.  I mean, can you imagine how bad The Usual Suspects would be if after Kevin Spacey finishes his story, Chazz Palminteri sees the “Quartet” sign on the bulletin board only to turn around and laughingly say, “That’s a good one Keyser, but seriously we’ve known who you are the whole time.”

Buhwhaaaat??

My issue with this scene is that sometimes when it is used to facilitate this plot device, the character is suddenly required to develop super-human vision just by squinting at whatever the hell the writer has them interested in.  Less than thirty minutes into Carlito’s Way (working title: It‘s Not Scarface, We Swear!), Pacino is able to thwart an ambush during a botched drug deal by seeing the upcoming attack in another gangster’s mirrored sunglasses.  Even with De Palma setting the scene with his usual pacing and grandeur, its still a little difficult to believe.  I’m just saying, give that one a try sometime; have your friend slap on a pair of Ray-Bans and look at you, and then see if you can recognize a freaking stop sign in the background let alone a gangland assassination attempt.  If you have no friends, and by definition no Ray-Bans, then try it in your studio apartment with a recently rinsed off spoon.  Pretty hard, right? And that’s with knowing what you’re looking for.  However, because the plot requires this from our lead character, he suddenly has hawk-like vision for those ten seconds.

My point is that the human eye simply doesn’t work that fast or that well, but in order to hold the audience’s hand and walk them through the film, the editing has to use a series of close ups to show what the character is going through.  And once again, when tried in the real world, this technique of squeezing your eyelids ever so slightly together in order to acquire super-human vision just doesn’t hold up.   It’s also a little frustrating  to realize every time I was inconvenienced by not being able to read the overpass signs on a freeway, that if only the story called for it and the editing was good enough, I would have been able to see the electrons flying around the atoms that make up my steering wheel.

3) ANYONE CAN BE ANYTHING, AT ANY TIME

I’ll never forget the first time I saw Forgetting Sarah Marshall and that moment arrived when Mila Kunis brushes off Jason Segel’s attempt to buy the next round saying, “You don’t need to dote on me, I’m not that kind of girl.”  All I could do was stare at the screen thinking, “Holy Crap, she is so… FICTITIOUS!!”

Unobtainium

Every girl likes to be doted on!  In fact, every human likes to be doted on.  Think back to the last time someone did something nice for you, just because you’re a good person or they are your friend (and if you can’t participate in this exercise, then you need to quit reading this article and get your life together).  You don’t think, “Well, thanks but I really didn’t ask for this.”  You think, “Wow! Sure I’m over thirty years old and writing silly internet articles, but you brought me a slushy? Well, its just coming up me today!”

But this is merely a plot device for a fictional character to behave in a fictional way in order to move the story along.  That’s simply the writer and actors doing their jobs, and rightfully using their tradecraft in proper ways.  What I’m referring to is when editing is used to make someone into something completely different than what they truly are. When Matt Damon wowed the world as an angst ridden genius named Will Hunting, everyone wondered if perhaps the film was a tad bit autobiographical, seeing how Damon and his character were the same age, had the same background, and behaved in probably similar ways. However, when he was cast as an amnesiac killing machine in the Bourne Identity, no one honestly thought that Damon could become a one man wrecking crew, simply because that’s not how we had seen him before.  However, add in a little fast editing and that one guy jumping out of the window to kill himself before being questioned, and suddenly everyone is leaving the theater talking about what a badass Matt Damon has become.  And sure, he trained for the film and probably gleaned some knowledge about how to move as a fighter in order to make the action look plausible.  But he didn’t walk off the set after the wrap party and immediately let his bodyguards go because they were no longer necessary.

 “I’ll take it from here, boys!”

The extremely fast editing in that film is what sells you on the concept that Damon could take on seven embassy marines and dispatch all of them in quick succession (that and the irrefutable movie logic that if you’re in a group fight and you strike any opponent on any part of their body, they are then vanquished and must spend the rest of the fight either unconscious or in agony).  The reason that this fallacy is a problem is that poor unsuspecting moviegoers are allowing themselves to get drawn into altercations with way too many opponents, usually on playgrounds, believing that if they move fast enough in their minds’ eye then they’ll triumph over the odds.  Emergency room reports indicate that this is simply not the case.

4) YOU CAN USE A MONTAGE IN REAL TIME

A montage is a perfectly acceptable film tool used to gloss over a period of time in order to condense a drawn out process into a two hour movie.  Mostly notably, it is a staple of almost every sports film used to illustrate the protagonist’s improvement, or in a heist film where it is used to show the team getting ready to pull off the big score.  However, it has been known to sneak into other genres as well, usually just to progress the timeline and get the characters to the point of the story they need to be at, as in The Breakfast Club.  As a lover of action films, I’m all for a good montage, as long as its done correctly.  For instance, the aforementioned Rocky films have one montage written into every script as a mandatory part of those films’ winning formula.

It ain’t broke, so we ain’t fixin’ it!

As any fan of the Eighties knows, a montage works if the improvement is believable and the music is awesome (actually only that second one has to be true).  We take it as a movie truth that with the right soundtrack, anyone can improve at anything and we don’t have to spend the months watching them do it.  However there is a new “montage” that is making its way into films that is a whole new animal, and quite frankly I don‘t care for it.  These new montage sequences are being shown in a variety of ways that make no sense and are interwoven with characters doing things in real time.  Case in point, in The Departed, there is a scene where Madolyn is jolted when she checks the mail and finds a letter to her boyfriend from her lover Billy Costigan.  In a fit of indecision, she wonders what to do.  Suddenly the film cuts to a series of quick cuts which I submit constitute a shower montage right in the middle of the scene.  She’s looking at the envelope and suddenly her boyfriend shucks his clothes, get the water hot, jumps into the shower, and slams back the curtain. Right away she knows she has the time to commit a federal offense and open his mail to find out how big the wages of her sin have become.  The problem with this scene is that the whole time he’s getting into the shower, she’s just standing there looking at the envelope.  When’s the last time you ever saw someone other than a professional athlete shuck their clothes and be under the water in less than ten seconds?  That process could take up to fifteen to twenty minutes in most households and even longer in some cases. Think I’m just splitting hairs? Time your spouse or roommate next time they’re headed to the shower and you have to pee; you’re talking a half hour before they’re good and under the water before you can get in there and provide your bladder sweet relief. 

And she just drank a liter of cola.

Other films are guilty of this misuse of montages as well.  One of Shawn of the Dead’s running gags is that Shawn is so distracted by his mundane life that he misses an entire zombie outbreak; and lo and behold as the days go by, his morning routine dwindles into a twenty second mini montage that shows him doing the same things over and over again.  Yet every time he comes down stairs the same news broadcast is playing from when he woke up. How long is that anchor talking, forty-five minutes?  I’m sorry, I’m pretty quick to get ready in the morning (Honestly, there‘s not a lot of improvement to be done here), but even I need a half hour or so to go from dead sleep to facing the day.  In the interest of full disclosure, if I’m waking up after a major holiday, or pretty much any Saturday, well then I’ll need four hours and three technicians just to get me into a sitting position.

5) YOU’LL NEVER SEE IT COMING

Every horror and suspense movie out there relies on the “jump out and shock you” scene.  Studies show that it is exactly this adrenaline rush that makes these movies so popular and that the whole reason that studios keep churning out sequel after sequel of a one note film is that it can make you jump out of your seat.  Ask any horror buff why they love the films that they do and the answer will always lie in the “it was so intense” area, because quite frankly aside from some good one-liners or gratuitous nudity, these films just don’t have time for anything else.

Character Development or Gratuitous Nudity… We’re Not Really Sure

But the staple of all of these films is one of the most illogical of all suspensions of disbelief; that you’ll never be able to see the killer coming, even if they’re standing right next to you.  Time after time these films will put the victim in a dimly lit space and they will be shocked as hell when someone the size of Paul Bunyan moves out of the shadows. Want to know how I know this is bogus?  Next time you’re at the grocery store (lets be honest, the Walmart/Target “produce” section) just see how little time it takes you to notice that an annoying stranger is getting a little too close to your personal space.  “Wait just a minute,” you exclaim thinking you‘ve got me cornered, “but they’re not creeping along stealthily, trying to sneak up on me and hack me to pieces!” Well, some of them are, but that’s another article; but just to test your theory, go try it in a library where the first rule of business is to keep quiet for the sake of others.  Even better, be in an indoor office building when the lights go out and I guarantee that you’ll still sense the moment Billy the Intern is merging into your comfort zone without using his blinker.   And I’m not even mentioning the fact that 99% of all horror movie victims completely lack peripheral vision or any olfactory senses (damn, I just mentioned it).

But horror films aren’t the only ones perpetrating this fraud.  Many films are using this kind of editing to pull off sight gags or to make the protagonist look all that more badass.  In The Dark Knight Rises, when Batman gives Blake a bomb to throw at the rubble, it makes a paltry little bang and does nothing to achieve the goal of creating an opening. Just as Blake turns to him and makes a quip about needing something more powerful, Batman comes around the corner in The Bat (yeah, that’s what its called) and in midair blows the rubble sky high.  You’re telling me that Blake couldn’t hear a vehicle with two rotary propellers and a jet engine hovering system warming up while he was chucking his little bomb?

“Please ignore my hovering tank exhaust.”

Not with the power of editing, my friends.  A vehicle that was built specifically for urban warfare and riot control (it makes a crap-ton of noise) can be cleverly silent on film until its noise is needed thanks to the guys in the editing booth. The reason I’m so against this one fallacy is because with movies going to such great lengths to interject realism at every turn, and with every director that is giving a DVD interview expounding on how they painstakingly researched how a certain prop would interact with a certain environment, it seems to me a little ridiculous how willing everyone is to just say, “Yeah, he probably would have heard that thing from a good mile away, but we’ll fix it in post.”

For SpoilerAlert Podcast, thanks for stopping by. 

-Brandon