data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/7da39/7da395a4de0f2202fefa0033dc52844a8d848586" alt=""
Roger Ebert writes a must read column about the battle between thoughtful film critics and the cult of celebrity. Mr. Ebert has been through a lot the past couple years but in some ways his voice is stronger than ever.
So as you can read here Twilight the movie is a historic first for female directors.
Director Catherine Hardwicke helped the teen fang film pull in over 70 million dollars last weekend. Yay for women right?
Not quite. As i mentioned on air. There are good things to Twilight. Kristen Stewart the actress who plays Bella with a simmering intensity is probably the best. But lets pull back for a moment and look at the role she plays.
Bella falls hard for Edward, the dreamy vampire with the messy hair. In the course of their courtship Edward tells Bella's he's been visiting her room while she's sleeping. Watching her in her room, for THREE MONTHS. Awww how sweet, your very own stalker.
Then (SPOILER) near the end, Bella basically throws her life away for her man. She leaves her father, lies to his face and heads out cross country. After the climatic battle Ed and her go to the prom and she again pledges herself to Edward, body and soul.
On the one level it's romantic. What young girl wouldn't like to dream of being so totally, completed enthralled with an all-consuming obsession with such a striking fellow. But given Bella comes across as a smart girl, I did find it disturbing how completely she gave herself to Edwards. That kinds of obsessive love, it that the message we want to see?
Some others have talked about Twilight being anti-female. I wouldn't go that far. But i'm not sure it's the type of role model I want young ladies aspiring to. The movie starts with Bella talking about sacrificing herself in the name of love. But should true love really come at that price? I'll stick with Hermione thanks.
Amazing, intimate and warm pictures of...Iron Man the movie.
Best of all, shot by Mr.Stane himself, Jeff Bridges. (Link takes you to Jeff's personal website.)
Many of you are fans of the movie I'm sure. This will solidify that feeling. We here at G.O.F. have the DVD. Movie stands up, even for the non-comic geeks out there.
And speaking of all things comic and geek...I caught Ed Norton's Incredible Hulk.
Ewww boy. That is one bad film. Hulk is actually one of my fav comic characters. Hard to say why, maybe because he's so...basic. Big Green Guy. Monster Strong. Super Angry. Plus there's all the great Jekyll and Hyde stuff. Read some of the good Peter David comic runs if you don't believe me.
Anyway. To the incredibly-bad Hulk. The final fight scene. Wow. First, I've never seen a multi-million dollar movie like that where I thought the effects were WORSE than a video game. You got a fine actor like Ed Norton, and then a CGI Hulk that looks like an insert in a Final Fantasy Game or something. Yeech. Plus, Hulk grimacing in pain? Getting his ass handed to him by the Abomination? Not quite green? No no no.
(And it has to be said as a Torontonian. That does not look like New York City. You can go and put up a sign that says Apollo Theatre. It's still Toronto's Yonge St. and Dundas. Probably one of the most recognizable intersections in Canada.)
Amazing fumble by the Marvel comic company there. I'm now convinced the only way to do Hulk is without CGI. Get a really BIG guy and make him look even bigger using smart camera tricks like they employed in the Lord of the Rings series. It sounds retro I know but think about it. If they can make John Rhys-Davies appear Gimli-sized, certainly it's doable. Plus, it gives Hulk what he's missing, the human touch. CGI has come a long way, but for the moment we're still experts in recognizing true human emotions. Seems to me a human actor, with the 2008 version of green-screen technology is the best of both worlds.
To sum up: