Trilogie

Belgian writer/director/actor Lucas Belvaux (brother of Man Bites Dog auteur Rémy Belvaux) spent nearly a decade of his life making a trilogy called Trilogie, released at last in 2002. The three films (Cavale, Un Couple Epatant, Après la Vie, or On the Run, An Amazing Couple, and After the Life) all detail closely related events in an overarching storyline, presented respectively film-by-film in the guises of thriller, romantic comedy, and drama.

Since Cloverfield already contains significant elements of all three, I don't expect it to proceed quite the same way, but I'm almost always a sucker for alternate-viewpoint or alternate-reality angles within a film, and after spending a good chunk of time yesterday mulling over similar approaches to a Cloverfield sequel, I'm fascinated to hear about trans-film experiments in the same vein.

Anyone seen the Belvaux films?

Labels: ,

Cloverfield, over and overfield

Now that I've had a chance to see Cloverfield, I can finally peruse half an internet's worth of related stories, reviews, theories, rants, fakes, intentional and unintentional misinformation, etc., and it's to the movie's credit that I'm still doing so a couple of days later, despite the abundance of less-than-stellar conversation on, say, the IMDb board.

One of the more recurrent topics on that board (along with 'TOTAL BLAIR WITCH RIPOFF' and 'GET A TRIPOD') is the prospect of sequeldom. It had seemed likely enough, with producer/creator J.J. Abrams mentioning at some point along the way that he'd wanted Cloverfield to be an giant-monster franchise for America, but now Variety confirms that director Matt Reeves is in talks with Paramount for a sequel. Despite a large second-week drop (from first to fourth place), the movie cleared its $25 million budget and then some with an opening weekend gross around $40m, and though I've heard advertising budget estimated up to additional $25m, the movie's well in the black without the foreign/DVD numbers.

The idea of a Cloverfield sequel is fascinating; I can see all kinds of potential concepts. Reeves hinted in interviews previously that he'd considered an alternate-viewpoint camcorder story, possibly through the viewfinder of other folks glimpsed with their own cameras in the film. While that'd play too much like Cloverfield 1.5 for most viewers, it sounds like a bold experiment for a mainstream sequel. Alternately, we might see a version of events through the eyes of the military, a prequel fleshing out the internet-only backstory, or most likely, a sequel continuing the story in either of a couple ways I won't elucidate, to avoid spoiling the flick.

Cinematical writer Christopher Campbell wrote recently in his Exhibitionist column about why it's a good idea not to see Cloverfield in the theater, citing a sort of Youtubiness, a conceptual matchup between shooting on video and watching at home. It makes sense in theory, but Cloverfield also has an event quality to it that benefits from a very big screen in a dark room.

One of the things Cloverfield does well is leave space open, leave viewers curious for more information. Maybe it's training from five decades of Godzilla films, but a rampaging monster leaves us at least a little curious, and Cloverfield's web presence since its teaser premiere in front of Transformers bears that out. I'm not an ARGer, and my brief foray into Slusho and Unfiction back in July didn't last too long past my gleeful debunking spree (9th-12th), but seeing Cloverfield a couple days ago brought me right back into the fold, digging up extra movie in the forms of the other web resources.

If the guys want to make another feature, I've got no problem with it, although I doubt it'll be that alternate-viewpoint version of the same night. Cloverfield's uniqueness as a monster movie lies in its not realistic but realism-simulating approach, and if the idea is to start a new monster mythos, I'd like to treat it as real, which means a fictional deconstruction of, to begin with, a singular event: Youtube clips bouncing around, the monster equivalent of Loose Change showing up on Google Video and college campus screenings, and some people feeling the need to dig deeper while others prefer to move on with their lives.

Christopher Campbell's article and the intriguing nature of the internet content came together for me with the realization that what I'd like to see for a sequel isn't necessarily another 85-minute feature in a year and a half, but more pieces of this movie, when and wherever appropriate. Here's three minutes of it, and it offers more of what Cloverfield left me wanting than Mechagodzilla ever did, bless his anodized heart.

Labels: ,

Slaughter's Big Rip-Off

Speaking of Rambo and Sylvester Stallone (Rambo: First Blood Part II won the Worst Picture award in 1985, and Stallone holds the all-time lead in acting nominations and awards), we have the Golden Raspberry award nominations out, so let's look at the relevant categories.

Worst Sequel or Prequel:
Aliens vs. Predator
Daddy Day Camp
Evan Almighty
Hannibal Rising
Hostel: Part II

...and in the Worst Remake or Rip-Off category:
Are We Done Yet?
(Remake/Rip-Off of Mr. Blandings Builds his Dream House)
Bratz
(A Rip-Off If Ever There Was One!)
Epic Movie
(Rip-Off of Every Movie it Rips Off)
I Know Who Killed Me
(Rip-Off of Hostel, Saw and The Patty Duke Show)
Who's Your Caddy?
(Rip-Off of Caddyshack)

Quite a step down from last year's clever citation of Little Man as a rip-off of the 1954 Merrie Melodies toon Baby Buggy Bunny. While it's nice that the ballot saw past The Money Pit all the way back to Mr. Blandings, Who's Your Caddy? is the only other legit citation here. I understand the impulse to heap scorn on these flicks, but:

a) Bratz is a cash-in and a marketing ploy, but I don't think you can rip off the intellectual property of a company paying you to make them an feature-length advertisement.
b) Epic Movie is a parody, idiotic though it may be, and a parody is not a rip-off.
c) I Know Who Killed Me has nothing whatsoever to do with Hostel, Saw, or The Patty Duke Show. It's certainly bad, but hating a movie isn't reason enough to level false accusations at it. They were very specific about that when they threw my Spider-Man 3 lawsuit out of court.

Labels: ,

Lord, I was born a Rambo man

Easing back into the swim of things with a mention of today's main sequel release: Rambo, an indirect sequel to Rambo. Stallone seems to have become his own man as an auteur: after some success in 2006 with Rocky Balboa, which he wrote, directed, and starred in, he hat-tricks the new Rambo as well.

The series began the adventures of John Rambo with First Blood in 1982, with Rambo properly the name of the sequel. I've long found the series to be one of the most confusingly named groups available. In order, it goes
First Blood (1982)
Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985)
Rambo III (1988)
Rambo (2008)

So we can see that Rambo III should actually be Rambo II: First Blood Part III, or First Blood III: Rambo II. Now consider that First Blood has also been shown as Rambo (on US TV - is this canon?), and we can add that Rambo is a sequel to both Rambo and Rambo. This makes today's release Rambo: First Blood Part IV: Rambo III.

Sadly, that's not on the list of alternate and working titles: Rambo IV, Rambo IV: End of Peace, Rambo IV: Holy War, Rambo IV: In the Serpent's Eye, Rambo IV: Pearl of the Cobra, Rambo: To Hell and Back, Rambo IV: Quantum of Solace, John Rambo.

Disclosure: I have never bothered to see a Rambo film.

Labels:

..

You guys have fun analyzing the volumes of data in that last post; blog goes into houseguest-related hiatus for a couple weeks. I'm sure you're all busy cramming in end-of-year Top 10 list fare anyway, which is what I'd be doing in your place. Here's a good place to start.

Happy aught eight!