Comments for Celluloid Confetti

Comment on I’m Scratching my Itch for Hitch by Peter

Peter — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 11:10:50 +0000

Hmm. I fear you having been on the happy juice, Milo, as these pictures fill me with fear by and large. Seth Rogan in North by North West? All of a sudden, I find myself hoping the crop-duster has machine guns.

However, there is one photo that does make me excited. I need to see a film starring Scarlet Johanson and Javier Bardem. It shouldn’t be Rear Window - although the photo suggests it could work - but someone needs to write a script for them now. It is about time Javier (who I first saw in the barking mad Jamon Jamon) got a juicy lead role outside Spanish cinema. After No Country For Old Men, he may get his chance.

Comment on The Monsters are in Clover(field) by milo

milo — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 07:56:36 +0000

Jurassic Park (1933) did had its Ray Harryhausen moments, but do non-radioactive Dinosaurs count? as Monsters I mean? It’s a tricky one…

Comment on The Monsters are in Clover(field) by Andy

Andy — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 07:33:46 +0000

“…hasn’t been a decent monster movie in years, if not decades…”

Jurassic Park?

Comment on 2001: Kubrick’s Space Edifice by milo

milo — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 09:51:34 +0000

2061 was pretty disappointing, though I remember I liked the illustration on the book cover, which showed a monolith with a HAL-eye attached to it. But Arthur C Clarke had, by this point, jumped the shark (despite his wheelchair).
I think the role of conflict in driving evolution in 2001 is an interesting question, whether the monolith provokes it or whether it’s innate.
But it’s clearly set in motion by the first monolith, which teaches the naughty monkeys how to use tools. From that point, the race is on.
As I see it, the monolith on the moon is the ‘prize’ which the Americans win, not by killing anyone, but via Cold War chicanery (ie, lying to Leonard Rossiter). Their reward is the location of the third monolith.
The Jupiter monolith is the final prize which Dave Bowman claims after ‘killing’ HAL.
The interesting question is, what would have happened if things had gone the other way? What if another species had been curious enough to touch the first monolith? What if the Russians had discovered the second monolith? And what if HAL, not Dave Bowman, had survived to reach the third?

Comment on 2001: Kubrick’s Space Edifice by Peter

Peter — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 14:28:32 +0000

I think I will have to disagree with your interpretation, Milo.

The monolith is driving evolution, but thanks to good ol’ human nature, we have a tendency to mess things up (or it may be the monolith’s intention in the first place). The monolith teaches the apes to use tools and then the apes realise the tool can be a weapon and fight over the power of the monolith. You may want to enter a discussion as to the necessity of conflict in driving progress at this point.

The symmetry at the end of the film makes more sense if you think of HAL as the tool, the 21st century bone. The end result of the monolith’s education all those millennia ago, humankind has now developed tools to reach the stars and the next stage of evolution (as symbolised by the Starchild). What causes HAL to go wrong is the monolith’s influence, propagating conflict and setting in motion the events that give Dave the impetus to enter the monolith. The joy of this theory is that the monolith only needs to give a slight nudge here and there. Teach the apes to use bones as a tool and they will work out how to brain people with it. Convince HAL that an antenna is malfunctioning and paranoia will do the rest.

Of course, this may all be wrong.

P.S. While I do have the occasional soft spot for 2010, I am very, very glad that no one has decided to film A C Clarke’s 2061 where they kill the monolith with a computer virus. Now that is sacrilege.

Comment on 2001: Kubrick’s Space Edifice by Dan Hughes

Dan Hughes — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 11:54:07 +0000

Having had the privilege of seeing ‘2001- A Space Odyssey’ at the cinema on its original release, I cleary recall it as an exciting and profound sci-fi experience. I think it has survived well over the intervening years on video and dvd format, which speaks for its quality. It obviously stands comparison against an overwhelming tide of egregious sc-fi rubbish that has been produced ever since. For me, in my lifetime, the watershed sci-fi movies were and still are, in chronological order: - Destination Moon; The Thing from Outer Space; Forbidden Planet; 2001; Alien; BladeRunner. I also have in my dvd library - Dark Star; Outland; Dune; Solaris; Metropolis; Silent Running; La Jetee; 2046; War of the Worlds (1952) - in no particular order of preference. There are some others, such as ‘Mission to Mars’ and ‘Event Horizon’ which contain good sequences but are not in the end, in my opinion, worthy of the genre. There is also a shedload of sci-fi ‘B-movies’ from the 1950’s which have been known to occupy some of my viewing time, but I’ll leave that for another film buff to deal with…..

Comment on Singin’ In Vain - My Top 10 Movie Songs by Elizabeth Hawker

Elizabeth Hawker — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 17:44:32 +0000

Your list reminds me of the time when you wanted to pen a musical about Dodi and Di. (If my memory serves me correctly, you thought it may be possible to poach the tune from “the Boxer” because of the “di, di, di,di,di,di,di,di,di,di….etc bit had a certain catchiness to it.) It has a certain kitchiness about it - not that’s a problem I hasten to add. Kitsch is very good.

I think I would have taken out the Wiz- that whole “breeze” or was it “groove on down the road” was just a bit ugh and puts you the rest of the film - even dear Lena. (Rather like eating kipper for breakfast - somehow you just can’t face your marmelade toast afterwards…..). In its place I would of added the “Lonely Goad Herd” from the Sound of Music - I love a good yodel.

Also, I would have considered “Keep it Gay” from the remake of The Producers” - yes, the film isn’t as good as the oringal but this is quite witty.Perhaps t his one is for the ” see also pile”.

Finally, I just can’t take ” Bright Eyes”. It scares me. I would added ” Blue Velvet” - never has such rubbish singing sounded so good and anyway, Dave is OK and deserves a second entry.

Comment on The Long and the Short of it by Celluloid Confetti » Blog Archive » In the Nick of Time

Celluloid Confetti » Blog Archive » In the Nick of Time — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 13:48:37 +0000

[…] short while ago I was be-ranting the epic-isation of the summer blockbuster. The Peter Jacksonification of the mindless action […]

Comment on Aspect (Ratios) of Love by milo

milo — Thu, 22 Nov 2007 13:24:41 +0000

Michael,
I stand corrected!
The point I was trying to get across was that really wide (ie, 2.35:1) widescreen films shot in non-anamorphic Super 35 are still projected using an anamorphic print.
70mm is, to my knowledge, the only commercial projection format capable of showing 2.35:1 wide-screen films non-anamorphically.

Comment on Aspect (Ratios) of Love by Michael Brooke

Michael Brooke — Thu, 22 Nov 2007 11:01:39 +0000

in practice, only anamorphic 35mm prints are used to project in widescreen

Sorry, but that’s completely untrue. 35mm prints only need an anamorphic lens if the aspect ratio is really wide (2.35:1, for instance).

By contrast, normal widescreen films - 1.85:1 and 1.66:1 - are distributed with the widescreen image letterboxed into the 4:3-shaped frame (or simply as an open-matte 4:3 image), and the projectionist merely has to zoom and mask the image appropriately.