Movies Are For Fun

To start, a quick question unrelated to this post's topic. In a blog title what gets capitalized? I could just look right now on teh intarwebs, but because I'm writing this post I thought I'd pose my query as an odd intro. Well, there it is. ON WITH THE SHOW!

Today, on my walk back from the coffee shop, I was listening to the newest installment of SModcast. For those who aren't "in the know", SModcast is in fact a podcast that is usually weekly (depending on their mood and work schedule) made by Kevin Smith (Clerks, Dogma, Zack & Miri) and Scott Mosier (producer of most of Kevin Smith's movies). The two talk about whatever pops into their heads, usually involving pop + an extra 'o' in the middle (hehe that made a funny face too *shaking my head* .... ok concentrate) and or some kind of homosexual references. Today's was no exception, but they did talk the majority of the time about movies and more specifically remakes.

Now Mosier is a pretty critical character when it comes to cinema, but Smith is more of the mind that movies are meant to entertain.

I should say that Mosier enjoys a great deal of films as well, it's just he's harder to really please.

I was going to do today's post about this crazy video some guy put out there that nukes are fake and it's just a government conspiracy to keep us all scared of the apocalypse, but what the two filmmakers said really struck me. Here's why...

I don't pretend to know everything about filmmaking or film history, but I have been known to give out some critiques on films. Just the other day I was discussing with my brother how I wished that the film "Inglourious Basterds" (I spelled it wrong...right this time) was 30 minutes shorter. I felt the dialouge in most of Tarantino's signature 'round table discussions' was just too long, and could stand to trim anywhere from 5 to 10 minutes off each.

Now am I wrong about that, as my brother thinks, or is my assessment of the film correct? Who the hell cares! I loved the film, it was awesome. The characters were rich (some of them, which is odd for a Tarantino flick) and extremely well acted (all), the dialogue was superb (always is), and the violence was just what the doctor ordered (though from the trailer, you would think there should be more).

Back to SModcast. They were discussing remakes and how people always seem to get in an uproar over them. "You're ruining a classic!" yells an educated, half-mature, critic who has devoted his life to saying bad things about normal movies and sucking the cocks of independent films that no one has seen and half of no one can understand. Their point, which is a sentiment I agree with, is that films are about ... wait for it ... enterFUCKINtainment! Who cares if Transformers 2 has ZERO plot (which really, it has no plot, try to find it. It's like the last page of a 'Where's Waldo' book) but you know what? It has some kickass effects, the coolest looking robots I've seen in a movie, and Megan Fox .... come on!

All these things hark back to the remake thing. The point they make is that remaking a movie, does not destroy the original. In fact, Quentin Tarantino is end-all-be-all proof of that since almost every movie he's done has been a remake of sorts. I just saw that the original "Inglourious Basterds" Italian film was playing at a theater not too far from my house. That's revival son!

Granted people only get their panties in a wad when it's a beloved film. When Psycho came out by Gus Van Sant (who actually lives in Portland I hear), people were pissed off. I can see why they would be since Hitchcock can't be topped ... he just can't. But that's not the point. The point of a movie has been, and will always be to entertain. I saw the revamped Psycho when it was in theaters and I loved it. Vince Vaughn was scary man! Especially now, with the type-casted roll that he seems to have fallen into, thinking back ... he was really scary! And you know what, I still watch the old one. You can't kill a classic. That's why I'd like to see some directors take a shot at doing a new version of Casablanca. I know, it sort of stings when I say it too, but the more I think of it the cooler I think it would be. Wouldn't be interesting to see what the Coen brothers would do with that, or Marty Scorsese? Hell, what about QT?!

If you keep yourself open to option, usually you get more enjoyment I've found and keep changing for the better. But if you are resistant to change and become stagnant, then you die. Bottom line, it's better to be an open door than a closed casket.