Would you like some satire with your greed?

Occupy Wall Street has been going on since September 17th, but most of us will say the date that it officially popped up on our radars as a “big deal” was October 2nd when 700 peaceful protestors were arrested while crossing the Brooklyn Bridge in New York City. Some, myself included have been obsessed with promoting and furthering the movement by going to protests and using social networks like twitter to communicate the latest news about the movement. I have my own views about the movement, but I’m pretty sure more than a few identify with what I’m about to say, as millions around the globe have become passionate and enthralled by the Occupy movement in just a few short weeks.

Personally, as a well-informed and left-leaning College student at San Francisco State University, I was about 95% certain that I would need to move away from the United States at some point during my life time. Where would I go? Sweden, Finland, or the oh-so-typical Canada? It doesn’t really matter, I just know that every day I see that our great country is declining so fast. It is very difficult to look forward with any optimism. By the time I have kids, or better yet by the time they begin grade school, will this be a country anyone is proud to call home anymore? I hope so, but I have had my doubts for longer than I would like to admit.

We’re slashing social services left and right, and our newly Republican congress absolutely refuses to raise taxes on the richest members of our society even though it is likely a necessary step just to have a balanced federal budget. So we just sink further into debt while giving the people that really need it less and less help.

For those that don’t know the tax rate on the highest bracket is much lower now than it once was. In 2003 the Bush tax cuts, which are still in existence today, lowered the top bracket from 38.6% to 35%. When you’re dealing with that much money 3.6% per year can add up to billions lost over eight years. Then looking just a little further back to most of the Reagan years between 1982 and 1986 the top tax bracket was a whopping 50% (use the same hyperlink to source all tax rates). During 1981, Reagan’s first year in office, just following Jimmy Carter’s departure from office the top bracket was 70%. That’s not a joke, it really was 70%, check for yourself. And that’s where I’ll stop, as the year’s where the top bracket was taxed 90% or more are likely gone for good (oh, but in case you were wondering, they do exist).

So wait, why do we not learn about that in history class? Hmm…. Anyway, not that income tax should increase to 70% for anyone making over $200,000 per year, but it’s something to think about for the ultra-rich as they fall into the same 35% tax bracket that upper-middle-class folks do. It’s really just something to know and then to ponder. If we, as a society, are informed then we can make conscious and educated decisions and intelligent arguments to back up these decisions. And this, in essence is why Occupy Wall Street is so important for the general public.

The movement gets much of the American public curious to learn more and to truly understand why thousands upon thousands of American citizens are so angry at our financial sector and our elected representatives that they are willing to sleep outside for an indefinite period of time just to make a point. After a few days no one listened, but when people realized the good folks of Occupy Wall Street had rallied together all day and all night for over two weeks, then people perked up a little.

“Really? They’ve been out there for over two weeks?” some of the students in my American history class asked our teacher when he mentioned the movement early on last week. And then people like myself, people that see much of what will lead to the collapse of our society in the not-so-distant future now see that, “Wow, people actually care… A LOT of people ACTUALLY CARE!” and this is why Occupy Wall Street is so important to “radicals” (I use that term loosely) like myself .

It gives us hope. It gives all educated Americans that see our country headed towards a dark future a whole lot of hope for the first time in a long time. I finally see a movement that could actually steer our mess-of-a-country down a new path; a new path that could potentially allow me to raise a family of my own in the country my family has known for many generations, a country I am still proud to be a part of.

That is why the movement is important to me. It gives me hope, in a country that, just a short month ago, seemed hopeless. So Occupy Wall Street, no matter how rough it gets, keep charging ahead at full speed? You have my full love and support from nearly 3,000 miles away in San Francisco, and the support of the many occupiers across the country. Oh, and thank you for the hope! It feels really, really good.

After a couple years and a bit of a journey I will start to post on this site again periodically. I’m not necessarily going to be posting about films only. This is going to very much be a personal blog where I’ll just sort of talk about what I’m interested in at the time. Much of the reason why a blog is supposed to have a specific focus is to just get as many views as possible, to fill an internet niche of some sort, but I don’t really care how many views I get.

I don’t have a journal and I will probably never write one. I don’t particularly like talking about myself or my own life, but I certainly don’t mind spouting off my opinion about things going in the world. From reviewing artwork or entertainment to commenting on the latest political trends, I have an opinion about almost everything. Whether or not you want to hear it is up to you. Just do or don’t read my stuff, it’s that simple. But realize I’m purely writing this because of my own interests. I certainly hope others share these interests, but I wouldn’t expect the blog to have a particular focus like only films, or only music, or only politics. Expect different subjects as the days and weeks go on. Thanks for reading, and I hope you enjoy what I have to say headed into the future.

Sincerely,

Adam G.

This morning, effectively at 5:00 AM PST, our newest iteration of this blog was born.

Behold…

The GSB is dead, dead, dead. And good thing too. It was a horrible name for a blog. You all would probably agree.

In the coming days, you’ll see a lot of new features cropping up around our sleek, new site. The journey getting here was rather fast, but still a pain in our arses, so we do hope you at least pay us the obligatory courtesy click.

GSB will remain online site until we work out the kinks. But all the articles have already been carried over to the new site. We also would like to invite you to follow us on Facebook and Twitter.

So with this, we bid you good day. This blog is now officially CLOOOOOOOOOOSED.

2009 saw Hollywood’s rumor mill really do a number on Spiderman 4 (no pun intended), with headline after headline flooding just about every major entertainment website.  After 2007′s Schumacheriffic threequel, the wheels had begun to fall off the Spiderman gravy train. Still, a fourth film was always a priority for Sony Pictures and Marvel Studios.

The word was Sam Raimi, Tobey Maguire, and Kirsten Dunst — all key players of the successful franchise — had agreed to another outing after much jostling and hefty payouts. This was certainly not for the lack of other projects; Sam Raimi, for instance, had plenty of work lined up, including adapting the “World of Warcraft” game into a movie.

And so, Sony confidently set a May 2011 release date for the project. The only thing that couldn’t be nailed down was a script .How would the filmmakers restore audiences’ good will after the abomination that was Spiderman 3?

A number of A-list scribes were brought on board, including James Vanderbilt (Zodiac), Pulitzer winner David Lindsay-Albitaire, Gary Ross (Seabiscuit), and Alvin Sargent, writer of the last two films. Early on, Sony also considered filming Spiderman 4 and 5 back-to-back ala the Matrix sequels.

Every week, it appeared that rumors about the movie were multiplying faster than jack rabbits, but still there was no concrete script. Just last week, the waters started to grow stormy, when it was announced Spiderman would be pushed back anywhere from two months to a year.

Nobody, however, expected this big of a bombshell: not only is Spiderman 4 not happening, but the series will be completely rebooted with all new talent.

Said Sony Pictures cochair Amy Pascal: ”We’re very excited about the creative possibilities that come from returning to Peter’s roots and we look forward to working once again with Marvel Studios… on this new beginning.”

Sam Raimi also added that “working on the Spider-Man movies was the experience of a lifetime” and that he knows “they [Marvel] will do a terrific job.”

Is your head still spinning? Take a breather, then check back as we follow up on this story and what it means for the Spiderman franchise as a whole. In the meantime, here’s a reminder of what Spiderman 3 was like.

Denzel Washington is one of the biggest, most respected actors around today. He doesn’t have a Will Smith-style box office pull, but Smith doesn’t have the same respect that Washington does. Denzel has had a long career, spanning 30 years and filled with some really great films, as well as some pretty bad ones too.

From Spike Lee to Tony Scott, the guy has good relationships with the best in the business. He has five Academy Award nominations and two wins to show for his efforts.

The 55-year old actor is still busy, and with his high-profile post-apocalyptic thriller, The Book of Eli, coming out this weekend, it’s time to look into his future and check out what we can expect from Denzel.

As it turns out, Mr. Washington is a very busy man. He has his upcoming Eli this weekend, as well as one film in post-production and eight all in early development. The next film he’ll be doing for sure, Unstoppable, comes out November 12 of this year, a big pre-Thanksgiving slot. The film has an estimated budget of $100 million and sounds like a disaster flick what with “toxic chemicals” and some “race against time” in its synopsis. This doesn’t sound all that interesting to me, but any concept, however uninteresting, can become a great film with unexpected execution. Unstoppable will co-star Chris Pine and Rosario Dawson.

Another film on his long list is Inside Man 2. Why they’re doing a sequel to that film I really don’t know. Inside Man was a solid movie that became a minor hit, but by no means did anyone walk out thinking a sequel would come along. It ended. The story is done, and another film seems like a hopeless grab at developing a familiar property. Spike Lee will return for the film, but the original’s screenwriter, Russel Gewirtz has been replaced by the more seasoned Terry George. While Jodie Foster is not yet signed, Clive Owen and Chiewetel Ejiofor are both set to come back for round two.

Interestingly enough, Washington’s next film in development, Uptown Saturday Night, will co-star Will Smith. It almost sounds like a sort of star-studded, black Hangover type film. The synopsis reads, “A comedy centered around two friends, their night at an illegal club, a misplaced wallet, and a winning lottery ticket.” A simple premise, but I’m fascinated just thinking about these two playing off of each other in a comedy. That sounds really interesting, and with Smith’s draw on his own, there’s no doubt it will be an enormous success.

Of all the projects on Washington’s list, this next one interests me the most by far. The Matarese Circle is a David Cronenberg film. That’s right, Denzel Washington will star in a film by the guy that did A History of Violence. And to top it off, Tom Cruise will co-star in the huge double bill. The plot sounds extremely simple: “two secret agents — and longtime rivals — are paired up to find a shadowy group of killers known as the Matarese,” and is actually based on a book by “Bourne Identity” author Robert Ludlum. The fact that it had three screenwriters is a bit of a red flag, but two of them wrote 3:10 to Yuma and Wanted together, and Cronenberg has a great eye for a good film on the page, so I have to imagine this one will be great.

Alex Kurtzman and Robert Orci are some of the biggest names in Hollywood today. The guys wrote Transformers and Star Trek. The duo will be writing and producing The 28th Amendment, in which Washington is the only current member of the cast. The film sounds as if it was ripped straight from Prison Planet or some other conspiracy site: “The new President of the United States discovers a secret cabal that runs the government and wants him dead.”

The interesting part of the project for me is its director, Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck. Yes, yes, he has a very silly name, but he directed the dark drama “The Lives of Others” which beat out “Pan’s Labyrinth” for Best Foreign Film at the Oscars. Big shot Richard Donner of Lethal Weapon and Superman fame will co-produce the film.

Journal for Jordan is not very far along in development considering the project still has no director to speak of. From the title, I’m sure you could guess that this is indeed another Iraq war drama,  based on a true story of an Iraqi soldier who writes to his son in a diary on becoming a man before he is tragically killed. Modern war dramas have had a very hard time breaking out in the public’s eye. The Hurt Locker might be winning awards, but despite a small indie budget, it wasn’t anymore successful than studio Iraq war flops of the past. We’ll see if this film can alter the trend with Washington’s presence.

While he has no other acting roles set up, Denzel does have two other films he will be working on in other ways. In Black and White only has a screenwriter and producers listed, but Washington is co-producing the film with Brian Grazer and Imagine Entertainment. The only other tid-bit that gives the film any high-profile at all is that it’s a Sammy Davis Jr. bio-pic. We’ll see who they end up casting as Sammy if the film goes further into development soon.

Denzel is also set to produce and direct Brothers in Arms which I don’t believe is based on the video game series, despite the name and similar premise. The synopsis should tell you why the game likely has nothing to do with this film: “An African-American military unit in World War II overcomes prejudice and proves themselves in the Battle of the Bulge.” I wouldn’t be surprised if Washington ended up on the cast list shortly as a commander of some sort, but he may decide to keep it authentic and go for some great young black actors like Anthony Mackie.

As you can see, Denzel Washington’s long career and older age doesn’t keep him from being busy. He’ll have plenty to do over the next three years, and while some of these projects probably won’t ever finish, he’ll still have quite the handful anyway.

Paramount Pictures has placed a stake in the coveted weekend before 4th of July with a June 29th, 2012 release date for the next Star Trek film. Not much is currently know about the sequel other than that the cast introduced in the first is assumed to come back. While the franchise is well established with a number of movies and TV series, a lot is left open for Abrams to use even though he has stated that he does not want to redo a movie that already exists.

Even if 2012 is the year the world ends, another Star Trek on the horizon makes that year look better already.

Generally if new films are released on the same weekend, these films will take the top slots at the box office. This weekend is definitely going to change this up quite a bit. There’s no doubt that the #1 slot this weekend will go to “Avatar” which will also zip past the $400 million mark domestic, and venture its new 2nd place worldwide record even further towards “Titanic” territory. The real question is how much will it make/drop this weekend? In its second weekend of release it dropped just 2%, allowing it the biggest second weekend ever by a few thousand. In its 3rd weekend it dropped under 10% shattering the 3rd weekend record as well.

For its 4th weekend, we’ll just be safe and estimate a 33% drop, 1/3rd. This is on the high side, but still excellent for a film that has made $380 million in less than 4 weeks. If it does drop 33% that would bring it’s 4th weekend total to $46 million and its overall to $426 million, or 7th all time domestic. This would also totally shatter the original 4th weekend best set by “Titanic” of $28.6 million. It could very well be the last weekend for weekend record “Avatar” nabs as it would need over $30 million next weekend to break “Titanic’s” 5th weekend record.

2nd place may very well go to “Daybreakers”, but not by much. The film eyes a young, horror starved crowd, as well as a few dark sci-fi fans (such as myself) to propel it to box office glory. It may get there if it opens anywhere above $18 million. Reviews are very solid for a January flick, and for a horror film in general. The last horror movie came out quite some time ago, 2 months to be exact with the fairly unsuccessful “The Fourth Kind”. This is also the first adult horror film since Halloween, and this will help it quite a bit. When people have been missing a genre, the chances of a new film becoming a breakout hit are considerably higher than otherwise.

“Sherlock Holmes” will grapple with “Daybreakers” for 2nd place, but will more likely be pushed down to 3rd or even 4th. After a 40% drop-off on New Year’s weekend, a weekend where all other new films dropped much less, the film looks poised to do a full 50% drop. Word of mouth is so-so as reviews were as well, and the film is trying to attract the same audience that “Avatar” is shooting for, just about everyone, so it has continued competition. A 50% drop this weekend would bring its weekend total to $18 million. If it drops anymore than that it will lose its shot at a $200 million domestic gross, as well as crimp its franchise possibilities. It cost $90 million to make, a moderate budget for a big release, so a $200 million domestic gross is really quite good. So far it has made $148 million, so its well on its way.

“Alvin and the Chipmunks 2″ has a shot at 2nd, 3rd, or 4th place this weekend as well. It dropped just 28% last weekend, pulling in a 2nd weekend take of $35 million and should drop a little more this weekend. If it can drop something small, like 35 or 40%, it will make over $20 million and finish in 2nd or 3rd place, but anymore drop than that puts it a likely 4th in a highly competitive weekend.

After Nancy Meyer’s “It’s Complicated”, there is no real need for a new chick flick. This is unfortunate for “Leap Year” in particular because it will be thrown directly into competition with the proven “It’s Complicated” and one or the other will come out with a 5th place finish. “Leap Year” comes as another poor investment by Universal studios, who fired their head execs early last summer after “Land of the Lost” reached mega-bomb status. The studio then went on to have a summer filled with disappointing tent-poles, from “Bruno” to “Funny People” the studio didn’t get a hit from anywhere. They finished the year with $847 million total revenue, the only studio to finish the year with less than a billion, and now this film looks to continue the tradition.

“Leap Year” won’t open to anything more than $12 million, but something sub 10 is entirely possible. The film has been getting awful reviews, and advertising wasn’t great for it either. Still, some young women would rather see Amy Adams than Meryl Streep, and it is getting a pretty wide release in well over 2,000 theaters so a double digit opening is likely.

“It’s Complicated” dropped just 15% last weekend to $18.8 million, and word of mouth for the film is excellent. It shouldn’t drop more than 33%, which would bring its 3rd weekend to something around $12 million. If it drops less than this it has an almost guaranteed $100 million domestic gross, but it won’t score anything above 5th place anyway.

Unfortunately for Michael Cera, he picked a good film that is getting good reviews and that should be very successful. What’s unfortunate about that? Well, he did it with The Weinstein Company. Why is it that when the Weinstein’s left Disney, they lost almost all ideas how to market and release a film? They have done plenty of movies under the label, more than you’d expect. In fact in just 4 years with the label, the Weinsteins have managed to produce almost 70 films. Of all the films they solely did they have three hits, “Inglourious Basterds”, “1408″, and “Scary Movie 4″ (which is part of a major franchise they took from their Disney days anyway). “Youth In Revolt” may take a very low spot in the top 10, last is possible as the film will open anywhere between from 6 to 8. Rounding out the weekend should be “Up in the Air” and “The Blind Side” with solid repeat performances. They both may come out in front of “Youth In Revolt”.

I had not even heard of this movie until I accidentally stumbled upon it on IMDB somehow. I’m a huge fan of John Cassavetes’s work (he has a supporting role in this movie), and I like Richard Dreyfuss as an actor, so I figured what the hell and added Whose Life is it Anyway? to my Netflix queue.The movie is based on the play of the same name, and concerns an artist (in the sculpting medium) named Ken Harrison (Richard Dreyfuss) who is left paralyzed from the neck down after a horrific car accident. While in the hospital, Ken comes to realize that there is no chance for him to lead even a half normal life ever again, and comes to the conclusion that the best possible path left for him is to die. Ken’s wishes to let the hospital release him so he can die on his own are suppressed by Dr. Michael Emerson (John Cassavetes), and from there the movie follows Ken as he tries to find a way to argue his wishes in court against Dr. Emerson.

The movie would be just a standard hospital/parapelegic drama flick if not for Richard Dreyfuss’s performance as Ken Harrison, which is easily the best role I’ve seen Dreyfuss in. While the story sounds like it would be slow and depressing, Ken’s character is almost always exchanging quick witty banter with those around him, all the while trying to make the best of his situation. There are a few scenes where his character breaks down, but for the most part, he’s very enjoyable to watch.

John Cassavetes also does not disappoint as Ken’s antagonist, who is strongly of the opinion that nobody should be allowed to kill themselves or die unnecesarily. Cassavetes’s character isn’t really even shown as some evil villain, rather, he just has a different world view than Dreyfuss’s character. The contradicting and clashing views of these two characters are what power the movie, and get the viewer to think about Ken’s situation from multiple viewpoints. While everyone wants to live happily, is living the rest of your life paralyzed from the neck down and not being self-reliant a way someone would want to live?

The direction, in terms of camerawork, is pretty standard, as is the pacing and overall story arc. Director John Badham was apparently hindered by the studio in terms of artistic control (he wanted to shoot the entire movie in Black and White, but wasn’t allowed to), but the final product doesn’t really reveal anything spectacular (apart from the aforementioned performances). There are many cliche supporting characters, and a few of the scenes are pretty cheesy or melodramatic. The only other real thing outisde of television work Badham has directed (at least that I recognized from IMDB) was Saturday Night Fever and a host of mainstream Hollywood backcatalogue flicks (ever seen Blue Thunder, WarGames, or Bird on a Wire?….).

Given the flaws in this movie, I still found it very enjoyable and interesting to watch. Dreyfuss and Cassavetes both turn in great performances, and Ken’s situation will be sure to keep one’s attention.

For those of you not familiar with Ian Curtis or Joy Division, the movie basically chronicles Ian Curtis’s life starting just before he and his mates decide to form a band, and (possible spoiler here, but the movie is based on a true story) ends with his suicide at age 23. Obviously, this isn’t the most cheerful movie ever made, but what really sucked me and kept me watching was Sam Riley’s performance of Ian Curtis. Go on youtube and watch a few Joy Division clips, then watch the movie…Riley simply IS Ian Curtis. Not only does he look the part, but he has the acting and emotional skills to back up his performance, which is one of the most believable I’ve ever seen in a biopic. The rest of the cast does a great job as well; in fact, all of the actors portraying Joy Division members actually learned how to play all of the songs seen in the movie (including Sam Riley on vocals, who again does a great job emulating Ian Curtis’s style), which automatically eliminates any embarrasing out of sync over-dubbing moments.

Aside from Riley’s performance, the movie is told in a linear way, without any flashy special effects or what have you. In fact, it’s really just your basic “rise and fall” type story. That’s not to say Anton Corbijn’s directing is piss poor or anything, as any movie telling the story of Ian Curtis would suffer from the same problem. I actually thought Corbijn’s directing was very well executed, and the choice to have the entire movie in Black and White worked perfectly, especially during the concert scenes, as the Black and White makes the movie look exactly like so many famous Rock concert photos from the time.

While Control isn’t a breakthrough in narrative style or storytelling in general, the performances (of Sam Riley in particular) and great cinematography are enough to keep one enthralled while watching, although if you’re looking for a movie that will put you in a good mood afterwards, stay away.

Now it appears despite MGM’s fiscal woes, the project is still on track for a 2011 release.

In fact, according to Heat Vision, the Broccolis have even found a director. It’s none other than one of our Ten Best Directors of the Aughts, Oscar winner Sam Mendes.

Mendes, whose most notable works to date are “American Beauty” (1999) and “Revolutionary Road” (2008), is well-known for his empathetic style of filmmaking. While not every picture he’s made has received unanimous praise, he does strongly exert a high level of quality control on all his projects.

What’s got moviegoers scratching their heads still is: what was the last action film he directed? The answer, plainly, is none. The closest you could come to action pics on his filmography include “Road to Perdition” (2002), which is a seldom-mentioned Oscar contender; then “Jarhead” (2005), which was neither a box office success nor a conventional war movie at all.

While some Bond fans are hopeful of Director Mendes, others are recalling this same point in 2007, when Marc Forster (“Finding Neverland”) was brought on board. “Quantum”‘s action scenes were criticized as over-the-top “Bourne” rip-offs. Others were dismayed by the gritty style carried over from “Casino Royale”.

It’s probably a safe bet that Mendes won’t follow the same path. In fact, we may end up with a return to the suave, classy Bond, some subtle humor, and even perhaps the most visually striking spy movie ever. Mendes definitely has a knack for making characters pop and his look is anything but gritty. Check and mate.

Prove ‘em wrong, Sam. We know you got it in you.