When I was in college, there was a service called MovieCritic.com or something similar (B: do you remember?) where you could rate movies and it would recommend titles you might also enjoy. Nowadays, this is a fairly common feature, but I remember this site in particular because after I rated some 500 titles, they basically said “We really have no idea what you would like.”

That service came to mind when I tried the new Yahoo! Movie Recommendations service. I rated 260ish movies, and made it clear that I tend to skew towards art house/international.

Y! Movies replied by predicting that, of films currently in theaters, based on my ratings I would likely enjoy:

• Madagascar
• The Sisterhood of the Travelling Pants
• Cinderella Man
• Unleashed
• Kingdom of Heaven
• The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie
• The Interpreter
• The Longest Yard

There is one movie in that list I would consider seeing. (To be fair, their DVD/Video recommendations were closer to the mark.) Clearly, some refinement of their engine is in order…

Today I’m unveiling a tiny new feature that I hope will be the harbinger of good things. It’s my “Recently Watched” movies sidebar, and it shows the 10 movies I’ve seen most recently.

In order to get this simple tool to work, I had to do two things: one, convert my previous (static) list to a database, and two, create some dead-simple way for me to update it. I did both, and now it’s possible for me to add films to my complete list (which are automatically pushed to the sidebar) with a single click.

As I made that possible, I laid the groundwork for some new features. (At the moment, you can sort by decade, but that’s just the beginning.)

Of course, one thing this snazzy new tech won’t do is explain how I choose which films to watch. Even I don’t think I could explain that…

We’ve got ISBNs and ISSNs, I think it’s time to devise a system for tracking movies.

I’d like to see an ISMN for a number of reasons, chief among them that it would allow me to track movies I want to see far more easily. As it is, I have a collection of random text files, a category in Gjots, a few entered in IMDb’s “My Movies”, and of course the various scraps of paper.

Step 1 would be to consolidate those, of course, but step 2 would be to start providing tools that would keep track of the ISMNs, and then be on the lookout. Knowing that I was interested in seeing a film, my computer (or mobile phone, or whatever) could scan movie listings, Amazon/Netflix availability, and television schedules, returning relevant information as it comes in.

A unique serial number would prevent annoying glitches such as the one I spotted on Y! Movies the other day, in which they claimed my local theater was showing the 1995 release entitled Man of the House starring Chevy Chase, when in fact it was the unrelated 2005 film with Tommy Lee Jones. Harmless, perhaps, as there wasn’t a chance in hell I’d see either picture, but still an avoidable error.

ISMNs would also enable another dream of mine: differentiating versions. Almost two years ago, I suggested creating a list of DVD differences. My ISMN idea is a superset of that proposal, identifying both the film itself (with a major number) and the release version (minor.)

So say we have a code like 52.2001.1920.2.1 or even MX-2001-1920-ES-UR1. The first group could identify country of origin (Mexico), the second, year of release (2001), the third the serial, the fourth the spoken language (Espanol), and the final could differentiate between theatrical, pan and scan, unrated, airplane edition, edited for length for TV, and whatever else.

I could create my movie list and instruct my electronic agent to keep on the lookout for the films I wanted to see, and set certain parameters I would be willing to accept (say, has to have English subtitles, but can be rated or unrated.) Also, it would be a great way to share reviews with friends and even shopping sites. Why slave over Amazon reviews when you could write up a post on your own site, tag it with the ISMN, and then let Google or Amazon pick it up in a scan?

While we’re on the subject, it would also greatly simplify finding the official movie sites for films. (Why do we not have a .film domain extension? I’m so tired of BlahBlahMovie.com or WankSpanktheFilm.net.) Pop the ISMN into Google, you could get the official page for that film, or the nearest thing to it, working from most to least specific.

I recognize this is horribly esoteric, but I hope the studios similarly recognize that the more ways they provide to keep track of their releases, the better the chance they’re going to get watched.

Update [Sat 03:09]: If I didn’t care if the number itself had meaning (and I don’t; ISBNs don’t) I suppose I could follow IMDb‘s numbering. A couple of years ago they went from links like http://www.imdb.com/Title?Se7en+(1995) to http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114369, where the prefix ‘tt’ denotes a film (a person is ‘nm’). Other sites, such as Rotten Tomatoes, accept this numbering standard as well: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/alias?type=imdbid&s=0114369 works, for example.

Now if only somebody would break up the different versions by content, language, and country…

Thursday’s StudioBriefing includes this nugget:

In one of numerous lawsuits filed on Wednesday, the MPAA referred to the Georgia Tech students only as “John Does,” but, the [Atlanta Journal-Constitution] said, another lawsuit charged that John Struna, of Sugar Hill, GA had downloaded three movies: Anacondas: The Hunt for the Blood Orchid; Exorcist: The Beginning; and Alien Vs. Predator.

‘Twould be a total bummer for the vipers at the MPAA to file a lawsuit against you. Only makes matters worse when a major newspaper publishes evidence that you have truly shitty taste in movies…

Mr. Struna, my friend, I feel for you on both counts. Good luck.

I’ve just discovered that there’s a film listed in IMDb that’s called The Fuck Up. The discussion board predicts the title will be changed, but I’d love it if they don’t. (It’s not entirely unprecedented: in Ireland I saw a Danish film called Fucking Åmål, though in the UK/USA/Can. it became Show Me Love.)

Anyway, the IMDb post includes a rough plot outline, but I’m going to suggest some current events which would be adequately summarized with the same title.

There’s the Guns N’ Roses album that’s cost $13m and gets no closer to completion:

The process was drawn out even further after Mr. Rose hired two new musicians – the guitarist Buckethead, a virtuoso who wore a mannequin-like face mask and a KFC bucket on his head (picture)…

…He accompanied Buckethead on a jaunt to Disneyland when the guitarist was drifting toward quitting, several people involved recalled; then Buckethead announced he would be more comfortable working inside a chicken coop, so one was built for him in the studio, from wood planks and chicken wire.

That’s clearly a fuck-up. Another contender would have to be Congress, which is back to its old naming tricks with the PIRATE Act:

The bill, obtained Thursday by Wired News, also would seek penalties of fines and prison time of up to 10 years for file sharing.

Ooh, Congress is often a tough act to follow in the fuck-up department. But hold the phone, we have a winner!

A federal lawsuit filed by several Navy SEALs and the wife of a special forces member claims the Associated Press violated copyright and privacy laws and endangered the servicemen’s lives by publishing photographs of them with Iraqi prisoners. …

The photos, distributed worldwide with a Dec. 3 story, appear to show the servicemen in Iraq sitting on hooded and handcuffed detainees and also what appear to be bloodied prisoners — one with a gun to his head.

Suing the Associated Press for copyright infringement for newsworthy photos obtained legitimately. Now, that, friends, is a masterful fuck-up!

Will the plaintiffs prevail? Have to wait for the film to find out, but I’m betting the AP will get off. If only they’d distributed the photos with P2P… Or perhaps if the SEALs had worn KFC bucket disguises…

Say what you will about Halle Berry, you have to respect her for this:

Berry, one of several Oscar-winning actors to be dishonored by the Golden Raspberry Award Foundation, was the first actor to accept a Razzie in person since Tom Green did so for his part in 2001’s Freddy Got Fingered.

Berry, who wore a simple black dress, explained why she showed up at the ceremony.

“When I was a kid, my mother told me that if you could not be a good loser, then there’s no way you could be a good winner,” she said.

However, she added, “I hope to God I never see these people again!” — Berry Shows Up to Claim Her Razzie

Classy way to show you have a sense of humor.

I’d like now to take a moment to speak to my evangelical Christian visitors (who are legion, of course.) By now you’ve no doubt heard that The Passion of the Christ was shut out at the Oscars. As they did at the nominations, the “news” sources y’all tend to favor will likely lay the blame for this on those godless/Jewish/commie/pinko/hedonist/elitist Hollywood types. Resist this easy explanation.

Friends, let me propose a much more logical cause: the movie just sucked. I know that’s not going to go over well, but wait and hear me out. Imagine for a moment that this film had no religious theme, and was instead a secular film set 2,000 years ago, shot in a dead language nobody’s sure how to pronounce, shown with subtitles and featuring a breathtaking, almost pornographic obsession with violence. Were that the case, you’d not only skip it, you’d probably write your Congressperson.

I know, you think the message overcomes all this, that it’s moving and inspiring and all of that. Sorry, no. This is a poorly executed, plodding concoction from the guy who directed The Man Without a Face. You’re probably excited about it because you know the story so well, because you have a bona fide star in your corner (and not this guy), or because at last you have a Christian film with better production values than that Fred Durst porno.

But here’s what you have to remember about Academy voters: these are movie people. This is what they do. To win votes, you have to succeed not just on story, but on acting, directing, production… all the things that make the movies one of the most collaborative art forms out there.

Believe me, I know what it’s like to want to have your niche film break out; I’ve watched more gay-themed schlock than I could possibly care to remember. The key difference, though, is that even when I feel validated by a movie that finally pays attention to me, I don’t assume that automatically makes it Oscar-worthy. You’d be wise to do the same.

Ever find yourself watching a movie and your eyes keep going to the “time elapsed” display, and your brain is doing the math and all you can think is “boy, I hope there are 20 minutes of credits.”

Too many of the movies I’ve seen lately are like that.

Brad Pitt is an unholy sex god.

That is all.

P.S. The boys next to me held hands — and had wedding rings! How cute. Yay Sydney.

“There was no gladness when I was born,” says Whale Rider‘s main character, young Pai. She’s right — her mother and twin brother died during childbirth, and this means that a long line of Maori chiefs made up of first-born males may end with her. As she tries to determine her birthright, Pai faces opposition, not least from her grandfather, who feels affection towards her yet traces all of the community’s hardship to the day she was born.

The film’s upbeat, inspiring message uses its New Zealand setting to lush effect, with expansive ocean views in nearly every scene. Yet the foreground is far from movie perfect, as the houses tend to be run down and the interiors stuck in the ’70s. (In fact, were it not for the satellite dishes and the more-or-less current cars, one could be forgiven for thinking this a period piece.)

The exploration of Maori tradition was also fascinating to me, as it is a culture I have had little exposure to and certainly did not tie to New Zealand. I was particularly interested to see Cliff Curtis (filmography), an actor I remember from several movies. Thing is, he seems to be playing a different ethnicity* in each: in Blow, he’s “Escobar”, in Three Kings, Amir Abdullah, and the like. Curtis must feel more comfortable here in his role as Porourangi; he was born in New Zealand.

Whale Rider received a PG-13 rating, and Roger Ebert had a little something to say about that. In his review, he urged parents to “take the kids,” a suggestion that was soon reprinted in the film’s ads. The MPAA took umbrage, saying the makers shouldn’t encourage kids to go a -13 movie. Ebert rightly noted in his most recent show that he said “take the kids”, not “send” — and a -13 rating for this film was a joke anyway. He’s right: other then one very brief appearance of a hash pipe (which is neither used nor referred to) there is little that even approaches controversial.

* It made me recall a conversation I had with a friend. Her argument: sometimes it seems that Hollywood just seeks out an actor who “looks ethnic.” Perhaps the classic example: Lainie Kazan, native New Yorker who has played Italian, Greek, and Jewish mothers. (She is of Spanish and Russian descent.)

Robert Rodriguez in Wired: “The only reason you would shoot on film would be for nostalgia reasons…It’s embarrassing. We’re still dragging that same film corpse around after 100 years.”

Rodriguez joins George Lucas and James Cameron as vocal proponents of HD, specifically the Sony CineAlta equipment. Are these professionals the first wave, or tilting at windmills?

A few thoughts:

• Over the last century, film has made massive improvements in resolution, speed/grain, and range. Is it really “embarassing” that the same mechanical equipment used for Gandhi (Academy Award, Best Cinematography, 1983) can also be used for Road to Perdition (Academy Award, Best Achievement in Cinematography, 2003), while in the two decades since, Kodak’s Vision2 and other stocks have continued to improve?
• HD is a system developed for TV: the “high” means relative to the (atrocious) definition of NTSC television. Using an HD camera may be great for the local news, but now imagine blowing up that same amount of detail to a cinema screen.
• It’s interesting that the three directors loudly proclaiming that film is dead seem to be doing movies heavily laden with special effects — of course they’ll gravitate to digital acquisition. Lucas, the worst offender, apparently thinks of the camera merely as a way to get human actors into his ILM-generated world. Rodriguez is a guy who likes to do it all himself (note the roles in his filmography.) He’s his own camera operator and editor, so no doubt he loves the fact that no scanning is required before he’s happily editing away in his garage. Fine, but not how everyone works.
• Have you heard any cinematographers clamoring for HD lately? Me neither.
• Touting the cost savings of HD is a bit misleading: when the images don’t match, can you make direct comparisons? True, there is an order of magnitude difference to the expense, but let’s face it: studios aren’t going to allow directors to spend those dollars somewhere else (screenwriting, perhaps?) — they’ll just expect HD productions to do more with less. And the result will be uglier films; even Episode II, which was shot entirely on HD with a budget exceeding the GNP of Guatemala, looked like shit.

Moral: digital has much promise, but it hasn’t beaten film yet. Let us praise the American Society of Cinematographers and others who quietly ignore a few impatient directors as they look for tools that will take motion picture quality forward. Still, Rodriguez and his acolytes can take heart: there is some very promising equipment on the horizon.

There’s little that’s sweet in this raw portrayal of a 15yo boy who enters drug culture with a hope of saving his mother from it. It’s captivating and often painful to watch actor Martin Compston in his big-screen debut as Liam, a “wee man” who is expected to pass drugs to his jailed mother on behalf of her sleazy boyfriend.

In the months leading up to her release, Liam’s life is thrown violently into flux, as he tries to secure a good life for his mother, sister, and young nephew. The results are as impermanent as they are uncertain.

Like all good movies, Sixteen stimulates conversation and reflection; my fellow moviegoer and I discussed the themes in some detail as we drove back to Ames. Much like the filmmakers, we found no easy answers.

(Note: In a welcome nod to the film’s Scotland setting, the film comes complete with subtitles.)

A few days ago I was able to snag a DVD of an excellent film, Y Tu Mamá También, at a most welcome $9.99. Of course, like any self-respecting film buff, I picked up the unrated version.

There seems to be more and more of these dual releases entering the marketplace. Though I never feel confusion over which version to buy, I do wonder just how much they differ. I know, for example, that in Todd Solondz’ Storytelling, the “rated” version differs only in that one scene contains a large black box. This is easy to determine because both versions are on a single disc, and run-times are identical. But what of other flicks?

What we need is a resource that compares versions. It’s not merely of interest for those slightly off-the-beaten-path titles I’ve mentioned above. There’s also Old School, Road Trip, and American Pie for the more popularly-minded crowd.

There are clearly people out there with the time to do it.

I’ll admit it, I was curious. Sure, I elevated my nose at the idea that a film could be made using a censored theme park ride as its source material. Yet in this sequel-stuffed summer, you could probably do worse.

Yes, Pirates is certainly just as weightless as the rest of the popcorn projects, but there is something captivating about Johnny Depp’s performance that makes this a mite different. Still, watchable though he and co-star Orlando Bloom may be, they don’t deserve 143 minutes. A little more Avid action would have been appropriate.

From this film, we can conclude the following:

1. There are some films which actually make DV work, in terms of style.
2. It’s amazing how much better one can look after a shave.
3. The British military is appallingly under-trained, at least against an average-joe human foe.

Overall: weird, but watchable.