Paste your Google Webmaster Tools verification code here
Archive | Movies RSS feed for this section

The Obvious Reasons Sex and the City Was Written By a Gay Guy

4 Jul

sex and the city

Sex and the City was one of the most popular series that HBO ever televised. Furthermore, it is one of the most financially lucrative series that has been in syndication, turning several seasons of drama into two of the highest grossing movies of the last decade. Sex and the City empowered women everywhere, specifically single women, because it is one of the few shows where the story lines are carried solely by women. But, it was quite obviously written by a gay man. Below are a few of the most glaring examples of why everyone should have known the writer of Sex and the City was gay.

1. The Protagonists Are Women

Straight, American male writers in Hollywood generally write about men who express the ideals of manhood. They either create stoic, charming characters who vanquish their enemies or flawed anti-heroes who beat the odds and succeed in the end (think anything by the Michael Bay, Scorsese, or even Spielberg, etc). Women tend to base their work around complex, story line connections and emotional ties rather than an actual hero (think Hurt Locker). Gay male directors focus their stories around the most significant person in their lives, their mothers. It is no coincidence that all of the women that Sex and the City is based on are middle-aged, successful women. That confident, sophisticated woman portends the image that the average gay man holds of his mother (at least if he loves her).


2. The Women Are Caricatures of Themselves

In Sex and the City, all the women are wildly, successful professionally, but in shambles emotionally. Miranda is a powerful attorney on the fast track to partner, but she is almost emotionally despondent. Samantha is completely open sexually, however she is challenged when it comes to intimacy. Charlotte is sexually inexperienced and sheltered socially. And, Carrie despite being a burgeoning writer is also completely indecisive and confused romantically. Each character is a stereotype of a specific kind of woman, and no particular group of people are more stereotyped or more capable of indulging stereotypes than gay men.


3. The Men Are Just Eye Candy

If you want to know what single gay men think of other men, either go to glo-stick night at your nearest gay bar or club on Friday or watch an episode of Sex and the City. You will get the same conception of a homosexual male’s idea of men. Each show is a buffet of single available men that are at the women’s disposal. Occasionally, one guy sticks around with one of the female leads for more than a few shows, but usually they are in the story line just long enough for everyone to ogle.


4. The Way Sex Scenes Are Shot

The typical way that sex scenes are shot by men incorporates plenty of boobs with the desultory butt shot (female, of course) accompanied by the camera panning to either the man or woman jumping up and down or thrusting. Women generally film sex and nudity only in awkward context to evoke realism into their film. But in Sex and the City, the sex scenes display the men like films directed by straight men depict the women. They show the men’s bodies as trophies and then pan to the pure ecstasy on faces of the female leads.


5. The Show Is About Sex

Sex and the City is a show about (wait for it…) women who have sex in the city of New York. What could be more enticing and gossip-inducing to a gay man than the sexual conquests and emotional trauma of his closest successful businesswomen friends? That is what Sex and the City provides. It gives a look into the lives of four interesting women who have plenty of sex and plenty to tell.


6.The Designers

The fashion is also a little reminder that the director has to be a gay man. The designers really “came out” for the show (see what I did there). They make cameos on Sex and the City, place their clothes throughout it, and have the actresses on the show at their shows. Count the Jimmy Choo references in the next episode that you see.


7. Big

The only male character that remained static throughout the show and the dream guy for Carrie, the main character of Sex and the City, was named after the size of his penis. The ultimate goal of the show, which was about a lady having it all, focused on her marrying the drama filled, penis of her dreams. The man behind this all had to be gay.

How to Make a Scary Movie

6 May

dark alley02

Scary movies are often terrible for a myriad of reasons. Because we love a good horror flick more than the average guy does, has put together the outline of a good scary movie.

scary movie

Rule #1: You Must Build Suspense

Suspense is built through good story lines. It is not enough for the audience to know that there is a scary monster or a complete psychopath on the loose in a movie. They must also understand why the monster or psychopath is killing. The back story not only makes the film interesting, but it also makes the fantastical idea of an imaginary creature attacking real people credible. More importantly though, the story must be brought along slowly, revealing key information at critical junctures in the movie. Slow revelation builds suspense.

Rule #2: No Cheap Thrills

Most movies have moments that are very suspenseful where the villain jumps out at the victim as a loud drum plays in the background, the classic cheap thrill. Good movies build the same tension and move between harmless situations and attacking violently with the bad guy of the movie seamlessly. However, the best scary movies do not use paltry tricks and slowly reveal the impending danger of the villain in the vicinity of the hero. Great horror film directors almost never resort to blunt trickery to entertain their audience. They use subtlety and cinematography to lead their audiences into their worst fears.

Rule #3: Understand What is Scary

There are common things that scare most people. Most people are afraid of drowning or suffocating to death. Most people know that walking down dark alleys is a bad idea. Good movies use the things that naturally frighten people to terrify them.

scary movie - terrifying

Rule #4: Never Reveal the Monster

The best directors can make a terrifying monster without ever actually showing it. They can imply horrific acts without actually filming any violence onscreen. For instance, rather than showing a monster literally tearing apart a victim using bad special effects or computer generated imaging, great directors would allude to the monster’s presence through the use of sound and shadows. The viewer knows that the monster has reached his victim when a shadow completely overruns them. The coup de grace is then showing blood running into a nearby gutter or the gory remains of a victim. This permits the audience to fill in their own idea of what the terrifying monster looks like and what the monster did to their victims with their imagination, making it much more excruciating than if the director simply gave his interpretation of the beast and the act. Great directors use their audiences’ imagination against them.

Rule #5: If You Break Rule #4, It Better Be Scary

Finally, if a director chooses to break Rule #4, then the monster has to be so frightening that any audience member would be scared stiff. There have been many offenders to this rule and each one has been totally detrimental to the movie, but the most recent offender was the recent adaptation of “The Wolfman.” The movie was both paralyzingly suspenseful and creepy until they showed the creature for the first time. The wolfman looked like a muppet and the movie was ruined. The same thing has happened when the alien was revealed in the movie Signs, it happened when the bat creature from Jeepers Creepers made his first appearance, and when several other movies showed their monstrous villains. If the monster ever shows its face, it needs to be terrifying.


After the wolfman was shown, the movie lost credibility. This guy looks like a Jim Henson-created caricature of a dark-skinned Mexican man with a Jheri-curl.

Making the Perfect Villain

21 Dec

vil - lil bill

Hollywood and network television have introduced many criminally insane and completely evil men to the public. From Captain Hook to Hannibal Lecter, audiences have been terrified by a multifarious group of indiscriminate gangsters, thieves, and killers. Villains hurt people and destroy lives, but more so, they terrify their victims, which in turn, scares and disgusts their audience. Great villains carry the storyline of great movies, and the perfect villain could be pieced together by taking the best parts of great villains.

1. The Intellect and Habits of Dr. Hannibal Lecter – Hannibal Lecter was so perceptive, brilliant, and sociopathic that he coerced other inmates into suicide and epileptic seizures by simply talking to them. He profiled several of the doctors and FBI agents that were supposed to be profiling him, and insulted and confused them for fun. He also was a cannibal. He killed then ate some victims and severed pieces of the others and ate them while they were still alive. He orchestrated his murders, leading his victims to where he wanted them before killing them. This man was calculated, meticulous, and batshit crazy. He had a taste for fine culture and a flare for the dramatic. He gutted and hung a prefect officer in the same manner that one of his famous ancestors was persecuted. Dr. Lecter ate pieces of a man’s brain and fed them to him while they sat at the dinner table. Nothing is more horrifying to a person than the realization that they are about to be eaten by another human being, and very few things are more terrifying than a man like Hannibal Lecter.

2. The Knowledge of Killing of Bill the Butcher – Billing the Butcher cultivated his talents in the meat shops of the Five Points neighborhood in New York City. He knew the difference between a murderous wound and an injuring blow. He could deliver instant death or a gradual, painful one. Bill was adept in hand to hand combat and could throw any bladed weapon with pinpoint accuracy up to fifteen feet. He was a killing machine and more so, he enjoyed killing.

3. The Mystery and Drive of the Joker – The most alarming character trait of the joker of the Dark Knight series of movies, is his genuine love of chaos and destruction. He had no normal motives like money, love, or drugs. His only motivation was to bring pain and confusion. He was completely unreasonable because he used no reason. The Joker killed mercilessly to create panic throughout Gotham City which is why his motivation (or lack thereof) are perfect for a true villain.

4. The Indifference of Little Bill – Though Little Bill became the Sheriff of his town, he started as an outlaw. And, he brought the same heavy-handed oppression that he used with his criminal posse to the townspeople of his precinct. If someone stole from him, he shot them. If they questioned his authority, he shot them. If any person did anything that Little Bill did not like, Little Bill shot them. He even killed his own son in a shooting contest because he challenged him. Bill was feared within his town because killed without provocation, and that ability to be indiscriminate with force and punishment shapes the perfect bad guy.

5. The Focus and Pure Insanity of Annie Wilkes – Annie Wilkes loved reading the books of her favorite author. She loved it so much that she forced him to finish writing the sequel to one of his other novels in her attic. When he tried to escape she broke his ankles with a two-by-four and a sledgehammer. She was so determined to read that novel that she kidnapped and crippled a man. Her obsession with his literature blinded her to her loss of normality, and she committed atrocious acts because of it.
6. The Hatred and Random Acts of Terror of Amon Goeth – Goeth was a scarier character than the rest of the villains because he was a real person. He had the same indifference about murder as Little Bill, but coupled that with a stern, militarized disposition and a genuine disdain for Jewish people. He would randomly shoot workers for infractions or sometimes just because he needed a target on which he could test the accuracy of his rifle.
7. The Will of Keyser Soze – Keyser Soze was a devious and calculated killer. He came home to find his wife and children raped and beaten by rival drug dealers. Instead of attacking the men there, Soze shot each member of his family in the head as the drug dealers watched and let them leave peaceably. He then hunted down each one of them, killed them, killed their families, and killed anyone connected with them. In order to finish a different drug deal, Soze impersonated a crippled man, and orchestrated a coup that gave him millions of dollars and left no witnesses.

8. The Creepy Ritual of Dexter – Though Dexter is the protagonist of his self-titled television series, he is also a serial killer. And, he ritually kills his victims by taping them to a table, cutting them with a scalpel and collecting a sample of their blood, stabbing them in the chest cavity, and finally, sawing them into pieces to dispose of their bodies. Displaying the ritualistic behavior of a villain exposes the deviance and compulsion of the killer.

No More PG-13

16 Nov

robin hood - russell crowe02

Everyone and everything feels the effects of a failing economy, and the art industry is no exception.The music and fine arts suffer almost as much as the poor during these difficult, persistent recessions. But no industry suffers as much as the movie industry. Leisure activities are among the first eliminated when the economy predicates that civilians save money more fervently. The increase in ticket prices despite the state of the economy and less original movie ideas are causing Americans to stay home. The rise of illegal downloading and the decline of culture in America has also created an enormous deficit between the amount of movies put out and the quality of those movies. In harsh economic times, movies are stripped of their most important components to save money and to appeal to the largest crowd possible. The result is the PG-13 movie. The genius idea behind this is to put enough adult content in a movie – violence and sexual situations – for adults to want to see it, but leave out enough – nudity, rampant swearing – so that kids can see it. The product is a sanguine, flaccid under-developed waste of an hour and a half. In 82 years, only 7 PG-13 movies have won the Academy Award for Best Picture, because most of these movies suffer from forced, subversive editing and poor character development. PG-13 movies are a waste of film, resources, talent, time, and energy.

When studio money is short, instead of the constant editing and re-shooting that movies normally receive which ultimately reproduces a better product, they are either haphazardly pushed out at the cost of art and the consumer or grotesquely trimmed to meet regulation standards so that the most possible paying customers can watch the film. Scenes that are not well characterized by the actors are removed from the movie altogether instead of being re-shot, sometimes despite their importance to the continuity of the story. Lines are re-written to meet the limitation of curse words set by the movie’s proposed rating. Though seemingly harmless, these decisions directly affect the cohesion and drama of a film. A movie that shows great intellect and that was founded in complex ideals gets lost in the poorly articulated discourse. The movie fails because the message is lost.

PG-13 movies also flounder for other more technical reasons. They can rarely deliver great characters due to time constraints meant to please the average movie-goer. The average movie takes about 1 hour and 30 minutes; just long enough to convey a message, but short enough to keep the attention of most audiences. The average Oscar winning film lasts 2 hours and 20 minutes. In order for the audience to connect with the characters, proper development over the course of the movie is necessary. Better directors show a person’s character through distinct circumstances in a movie. The best directors give audiences glimpses of each person’s makeup through various situations that reveal themselves slowly throughout scenes of the film. Time is essential to skillfully display complex character; PG-13 movies do not allow for that development.


Though it sounds cliche, movies at their best are art imitating life. In a good movie, you forget that you are in a theater and just relate to the characters and the moment. What’s the difference between Gladiator and Robin Hood (2010)? Both had the same lead, Russell Crowe, and they hired good supporting casts. There were great, distinct characters in both movies. They both took place in a similar time period, so prejudice for or against movie settings was not a factor. The difference was the darkness and violence of Gladiator. The grit necessary to evoke emotion can not exist in most PG-13 movies. They are toothless renderings of real moments. When Crowe realized the fate of his family in Gladiator, the audience felt the raw emotion, the crippling pain, that he did. When he fought mercilessly against other gladiators, the audience felt his rage. Robin Hood could not produce those moments because it was bound by the rating system. The cinematography suffered because of the director’s pandering to a larger audience and limiting bloodshed. Medieval era fights were gruesome and gory, but that type of vile carnage was not relayed onto the big screen. Subsequently, the crowd could not connect with the film. The R-rating is necessary. What would Crying Game be with out the revelation to the audience at a little over an hour in the film? What would Pulp Fiction be without the swearing, drugs, and violence? Those movies would be dull, lifeless attempts at cinema. They would be PG-13, and they would be horrible.

The PG-13 rating was invented as a way to keep children away from subject matter that they are not emotionally ready to handle, but it is being used as a tool to make big pictures available to an audience that they were not created to accommodate. This practice manipulates avid movie-goers, it is irresponsible to children, and disgraceful to the work of talented film makers. No one benefits from PG-13 movies except the studios. And, that type of greed is killing art and cinema. People have stopped going to the movies, because studios have stopped producing movies worth spending hard-earned dollars to watch. And, if those studios continue to release watered down PG-13 versions of potentially great movies, then ultimately big studios desire to capitalize on underwhelming work will be their own undoing.