chud.com Tagged Articles at Cinematical

"I believe that children are our future
(Thank you)
Teach them well and let them lead the way..."
-Randy Watson (Eddie Murphy), Coming to America

It might be presumptuous for someone as young as I am to offer up words of wisdom to any fledgling film critics out there, but in an age where print critics are only dwindling in number and online reviewers are subjected to constantly shifting standards of the industry, the prospect of constructive advice is my effort to provide something that wasn't necessarily there when I started in the field. Just because anyone can start their own review site doesn't mean that they should, but hopefully, some of the following tips will help encourage those of you still determined to give this a go to hold yourself and your work to a higher standard.

I would have appreciated this news more had it come to us from CHUD.com, but anyway DreadCentral.com reports that Rob Zombie is set to direct a remake of C.H.U.D. For those of you poor souls who haven't seen this B horror classic, the original was about deformed creatures called C.H.U.D.s (Cannibalistic Humanoid Underground Dwellers), who live in the sewers and feed on the citizens of New York City. Back in 1984, it was a fitting allegory for the homeless problem, whether or not it was intended as such. Now that the homeless population is growing again -- or now that we've forgotten about or stopped worrying about where Giuliani sent the '90s homeless -- it's ripe time for a redo. A C.H.U.D. remake could even go head to head against the under-Gotham-ghost-story The Night Tourist.

But is Zombie the best director for the job? His recent remake of Halloween was almost universally panned by critics. However, it was a huge success at the box office. Considering the cheapness and cheesiness of the original, though, he probably couldn't do much worse than the original C.H.U.D., which despite my nostalgic fondness, isn't nearly as revered as the original Halloween (in fact, this may be an understatement). Personally, I'll probably still prefer the first C.H.U.D., but I'm eager to see it redone with more money and better effects, if that's what Zombie can bring to the the remake.

I know I'm not completely in the minority with this, but I have to admit first off that I loved Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines. I really thought Jonathan Mostow did a great job delivering the action -- obviously not close to as good as James Cameron would have done, but better than many others could have. When it was revealed that a fourth Terminator was in the works, I hoped Mostow would be rehired for the gig. But I guess he's either doing something else (Swiss Family Robinson perhaps?) or for some reason he's not welcome back. According to CHUD.com, his replacement on the franchise may be McG, who I find to be one of the most annoying guys working in Hollywood these days. Really, though, I just hate on the guy because of his stupid name. I guiltily kinda enjoyed his two Charlie's Angels movies. Apparently, McG is currently in talks to take the helm of the sequel, for a pre-strike production start, but it isn't for certain that he'll get the job.

I'm sure many of you will probably be upset if McG officially signs on, even if you too just criticize him for his name. It could be the nail on the coffin for a lot of fans already nervous about the continuation of the storyline without any definite sign of Arnold Schwarzenegger, Linda Hamilton, Michael Biehn, Robert Patrick, Edward Furlong, Nick Stahl, Claire Danes or anyone else who has previously starred in the series. From what we've so far heard, it seems part 4 will focus on the post-apocalyptic period involving the war between the machines and John Connor's army. Everything else, regarding an Arnie cameo, or whatever, I'm still considering to be hearsay. Anyway, all I care about now is that at least Terminator 4 has been scripted by T3's Michael Ferris and John D. Brancato, a duo I'm sure are well-enough-versed in the Terminator universe to make this next installment interesting and worth seeing.

Wow, this story just keeps getting crazier. Regular readers will no doubt remember last week when CHUD.com posted a colorful little story about a movie called Zyzzyx Road and how it grossed all of $30 during its (ultra-measly) theatrical run. That story led to these three follow-ups, a sketchy report from Variety, another response from CHUD and finally, some good news for the guy who bankrolled Zyzzyx Road: Thanks to the controversy, the flick might earn itself some domestic distribution!

And NOW comes a challenge from another filmmaker, one who actually made a movie called Zzyzx (which a pal of mine reviewed seven months ago). Seems that Zyzzyx Road producer Leo Grillo called the other Zzyzx movie a "cheapo" flick, and one filmmaker is none to happy about it. "Ever since Chud.com broke their virally-generated, infamous story about Zyzzyx Rd. grossing a measly $30 at the box office, we were inundated with calls and emails about our film from many distributors and industry people, confusing our film, Zzyzx, with theirs," says Richard Halpern, producer/director of Zzyzx. "Now, the 'actor/producer' of the other Zzyzx movie, if you want to call him an actor after watching his performance in the trailer, is ripping our film, which has truly irked me. I have heard rumors about the watch-ability of the other Zzyzx movie and they ain't pretty."

So now what? Mr. Halpern would like to have a little competition. "I am offering a duel to the other Zzyzx movie. Let's put it out there, on Google Video, for the world to see and then decide, whose film is better. Winner gets to keep the movie title, with the losing film's title being decided by the viewers!" Richard adds, "Heck, our film premiered first as an Ipod downloadable video, selling over 1,000 downloads, so, we are already $2,970 ahead of the other film!"

This story is getting just too weird for words.

[All information offered above springs from a press release I recently received from Mr. Halpern.]

I write for a lot of different movie sites, which means I'm often seen quoting Variety and/or The Hollywood Reporter. They're the real big boys where movie news is concerned, and I'm of the opinion that they're reputable, reliable and entirely indispensable resources.

Working in the blogworld, you learn pretty darn fast how to behave like a professional: You thank your tipsters, you bring your own slant to the news items, and you always cite your sources. Like ... always.

So imagine the irony that arises when one considers that Variety might be guilty of cribbing from the internet ... and not even citing its source! Case in point: A few days back I read and enjoyed a very amusing report from Devin Faraci at CHUD.com; it was the story of a movie called Zyzzyx Road and how it grossed a whole $30 at the box office, and so I wrote my own slant on the geeky little newsbit. Then today I'm flipping through Variety.com and find the exact same story, but there was something missing. Ah yes, it was the fair credit due to Devin for digging up the stupid-ass Zyzzyx Road story in the first place! (Somehow I doubt that Variety's Dade Hayes just happened to stumble across this semi-story on his own, but if that is the case, then consider this my formal (albeit skeptical) apology.)

Plus there's the issue of the words "not a typo." Mr. Faraci is none too happy about the incident, and I happen to think he makes a few pretty good points. I mean, I know we bloggers rely on Variety a whole helluva lot, but would it kill 'em to throw some fair credit to us unwashed onliners?

(For the confused, just read the following pages in chronological order: #1, #2, #3 and #4.)