Filmmaker Mike Eisenberg is nearing the end of pre-production for his short film, Perspectrum. The week-long shoot will trek through Chicago from June 12th-20th. Karisa Bruin, Daniel Boughton and Scott Morehead have signed on to perform in the romantic tale of self-discovery.

Vito Selvaggi and Joseph Trebat are producing and Ron Ruanphae is shooting the film. Eisenberg wrote and will edit the film, with visual effects work from AJ Mester. Producer Vito Selvaggi will also create the original score.

Daniel Boughton will play Jackson and Karisa Bruin will play Iris. Scott Morehead just signed on as Businessman in a supporting role. 

"Perspectrum follows Jackson, a cynical man who can literally only see in black and white. But when Iris, a woman with striking red hair, walks into his life, everything changes. Colors creep into his vision one of a time until he sees the world in an entirely new way."

We've been told there is a shocking third act reveal and it may take a second viewing to fully experience the story. All we know at this point is the colors will be presented as Jackson sees them, like Pleasantville or Sin City.

You can catch filming at Buckingham Fountain, the area surrounding Adler Planetarium and Wrigleyville. Eisenberg is still looking for extras, so contact the producers for more details.

Perspectrum has no set release date, but will premiere in a Chicago-area movie theater. Eisenberg hopes it will be finished by Fall 2010.

I just returned from a Prince of Persia: Sands of Time advanced screening and I have something to say.

Spoilers Ahead, but don't let that deter you from reading. The movie is a waste of time.


I want you to think about who is the main character in each of the following trilogies...


Since you came here to read, not to think, I will re-assure you the main character in both is Indiana Jones and Frodo Baggins, respectively. Both give second-thought as to whether the plot device, or "MacGuffin" as we will call it, is the main character instead.

No, both films explore epic adventures centered around a main character whose story is intriguing, engaging and meaningful. The mechanism that gets them there, be it a ring, Holy Grail or The Ark of the Covenant is simply an object to give our character purpose.

I can only come up with those two films in the entire genre of action-adventure that actually recognizes the glaring truth of "characters first." Prince of Persia is another mark in the long line of Jerry Bruckheimer blockbusters that misses the point of the genre.

In PoP, we are introduced to a boy who will eventually become a prince (thanks to some fortunate timing) and thereby set off on an epic adventure in an effort to protect mankind from armageddon. Of course, as ridiculous as that sounds, this is not the point of my rant.

I don't care if the MacGuffin is some fancy dagger that can turn back time or some cube that can save the world in the hands of Autobots. What I do care about is when these MacGuffins become so insanely massive and incomprehensible, that the entire film is sucked into its purpose.

Maintaining our focus on PoP, the film was doing alright for a while. The parkour-style fighting was brilliantly executed and exciting. It was based in reality and kept me on my toes. When the story reaches its MacGuffin, the whatchamacallit dagger, it gets a bit iffy, but somehow maintains its realism. Sure, you can turn back time and fix your own mistake, but it is a small scale ability and one that affects specific events.

Of course, the movie went and ruined all that for the sake of a bigger and louder third act. It is eventually revealed the dagger has a sacred home and if it is returned there the Gods will destroy mankind with a massive sandstorm. It gets bigger, though. Jake Gyllenhaal and Sir Ben Kingsley find themselves dangling on the side of a 200-story giant version of the sword, which conveniently rests underground.

Then the cop-out comes, and we find out the big version of the sword actually gave Gyllenhaal the ability to turn back time all the way to, conveniently again, the beginning of the film. And instead of being cast as a madman or psychopath, his vision of a plan to kill the king is greeted with respect and belief.



Anyway, the genre itself has seen its fair share of problems and it is almost entirely thanks to Jerry FuckBruckheimer. This "man" has created a dynasty in the genre, along with his profitable partnership with Disney. I give him the credit for creating family friendly action adventures with a hint of immature comedy, because it makes boatloads of money. But that's not enough. As they say in An Eduction, "You've got to tell us why you're doing it."

It is not about the characters or the heroes at all. It is about the effects-driven madness that ensues. The "COOL" Factor, you might say. While I enjoy the Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy, it is part of the problem. The Curse of the Black Pearl was a good start, as it gave us a great semblance of character and purpose. But the trilogy continues and we end up with a mile-wide whirlpool, only upstaged by a tight-wire sword fight, all caused by Calypso. It was a damn mad-house. And all for what? What was the purpose? Action is only as great as the characters in it. I honestly believe that.

I understand what the purpose of these films are. I really do. But is it so hard to create a film that appeals to everybody, yet focuses on a character first? Indiana Jones and Lord of the Rings are two of the most beloved franchises in film history, and they are the only two in the genre I can genuinely say matter.

I want to leave you with five MacGuffins that are so ridiculously absurd they only need to be mentioned. Try and think if the movies they are in focus on the object itself and how "awesome" it is, or the character attempting to acquire, steal or destroy it.


It is NOT enough to present big action and empty romance as a replacement for storytelling. Point A to Point B must be traveled by a character, not simply key moments that bookend filler scenes. A character is not heroic and his/her story is not compelling if they are simply put in place to save the world. They have to have a personal risk and we have to care about their life. Period. Because I sure as hell don't care about the lives of the billions of other Earthly inhabitants when I watch a film, so don't act like the end of the world is enough to fuel an entire story.

Thank You and Good Night.

While I am not going to span the entire six season journey of Lost in this review, I will attempt to explain my perception of how it all ended.



First thing is first. All of you who are disappointed by the ending need to sit back and think about the entire show as a whole. Think about the essence of it and the purpose of everything. Some mysteries were not meant to be solved, and you should not complain about what was not revealed. What bothers me most about the complaints is the unreasonable need for everything to be explained.

The mysteries of our universe are inexplicable. Yet, we buy into many of them. We believe in distant universes just as easily as we believe in God. Both have never been seen by the naked eye, yet decades of dedicated research has rendered them justifiable. The beauty of Lost is its ability to warp what we already know and create an entirely new perception of it. It is not the flat out concept of purgatory, but it is the Lost version of it. This is called...I-N-N-O-V-A-T-I-O-N. They did not try to invent a new wheel, but rather re-invent it.

Here is my explanation of the finale:

They experienced the island, that was all reality. The alternate timeline is an ongoing purgatory-like state where each individual awaits the afterlife. Because of what they went through, they organized it so they would all pass on together. As Christian said, "there is no now." It is irrelevant who died first. Some died after Jack, like the ones on the plane, Hurley and Ben. They all eventually die, everybody does. I'm practically quoting the show here, people. It's not ambiguous to the viewer. We just never witness those deaths that came after Jack. The fact he died in the same place he woke up in Episode 1 is not evidence he died in the crash, it is simply fate and destiny and the beautiful symmetry of life.

That is the essence of Lost. Lost is specifically about the symmetry of life. So many characters came full circle, but did so by learning from mistakes and reversing their intuition. And since the show started with Jack, it ends with him as well. But just because a show ends, does not mean the story ends. PLEASE UNDERSTAND THAT!


Jack's death timed well with the group's ascension into the afterlife because it was good television. If you didn't tell the most compelling story, it's not a story worth telling. The show could go on for years and years. Unfortunately, it would just become a version of Seinfeld. I say this because Christian tells Jack that what they experienced on the Island was the most important part of each individual's life. This is why they waited to go to the afterlife together.

The complaint that afterlife is a cop-out is absolutely ridiculous. The afterlife is a completely ambiguous thought. Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse, the showrunners of Lost, have re-written the world nobody has ever been able to fully explain. Why is it a cop-out to explore something completely unknown? It would be a cop-out to say the whole show was a dream or they died in the initial plane crash and nothing was real.

Listen, the beauty of this show is in the ambiguity. There is no reason to tackle subtexts or issues that are easily resolvable in a show like Lost. It is important, though, to recognize the topics explored in Lost are not entirely complex. Instead, they just simply have multiple interpretations.


I commend Lost for an amazingly moving and fitting finale. It provided answers that can change for every viewer. And that is the essence of mythology, religion and the afterlife. What makes it so compelling is the ability for every human being to see it differently. That is why we had so many characters in Lost, and why so many people embraced the show. Like the finale or not, it is perfect for the show. Give it a little time and allow your thoughts to sink in before blasting it for not spelling it out and treating you like a child.

All I want to do is go back and watch the entire show again, all the way through. I will wait until August when it hits Blu-ray and then my life will be in the shadows of my apartment as I re-watch it all. The best shows and films are ones where, when it ends, you know that re-watching it will provide an entirely new perspective. Moments you thought were simple passing will have intense meaning. The symmetry of Lost will be its saving grace in the repeatability of watching it. That finale gave purpose to every episode before it and every discussion after.

The following is a collection of recent work I've done for fellow students, myself and/or Screen Rant. Enjoy and critique.


—-

It's been a source of debate lately the way Hit Girl is portrayed in Kick-Ass. There are two sides to the argument, but also two focuses. The scene in which she gets beaten by the lead villain is both visceral and realistic. The overall theme of who she is as a person is the other aspect some have trouble coping with. But do we need to just sit back and enjoy entertainment or is everything delivered to the masses, even under the strict R-rating, deserving of such critical social analysis?

We've seen kids beaten on film before in Leon, Radio Flyer and This Boy's Life. Yet, each of these examples are domestic issues. Does this really change what we are watching? The genre of Kick-Ass shouldn't change the way we react to it, just because the film has comedic tones. The scene was rough and taken seriously. It was in the moment and an overdue expectation of vigilantism. Most of all, it felt like the next step.

But Roger Ebert decided to pick on Kick-Ass and I'm not cool with that. He makes comments that this film is R-rated, therefore urging underage kids to sneak in, which is inevitable. Then, he argues that 6-year-olds are who he is worried about. Come on, Ebert. 6-year-olds can't see this movie for a thousand reasons, and if they do, it's the fault of the parent. My biggest gripe with Ebert is his inconsistency. Blame this film for one topic, but not even mention the rape scene of a then-14-year-old Dakota Fanning in Hounddog?


People too often blame films for dealing with questionable subject matter. Instead of gunning for studios or filmmakers, look inward for the problem. You can't blame a dog for pissing on the floor. But once they have been trained not to do so, to know it is wrong, then can you blame the dog. It is 100% the responsibility of the parent to raise a child to know what is right and wrong. Not the difference between the two, but specifically what is what. Do children get caught in the ebb and flow of cultural trends? Yes. But understanding them before confronting them creates a viewpoint, not just an experimentation.

Without children, I can't say I am the best voucher for the way they think. But, like all of you, I was a child once. Had I known violence was wrong, Kick-Ass would simply be entertainment. Yet, it constantly shows the audience why regular people can't be superheroes. Kick-Ass questions his own motive and the consequences on a number of occasions. He gets stabbed, tortured and overwhelmed. Were it not for metal plates in is body, death would be inevitable. Watching somebody else go through the tribulations of a dream most of us have constantly, to become a superhero, is the entire point of entertainment.

I don't see how portraying a young girl kicking some ass is so bad. It is stylized violence and there are multiple moments where we recognize she is too young to be in this situation. Ebert goes on to argue she is incapable of doing what she does in the realistic world the film sets up. Wrong. Just watch the Olympics for five minutes. Just listen to the actress Chloe Moretz discuss her training with martial arts legends and world-class tumblers for a sense of how real it became. Girls younger than her are doing triple axles on ice skates.

Could the film use a moment of self-doubt from the girl? Sure. But if anybody cannot recognize the savage actions she is undertaking it is a young girl, versed in only one thing her whole life. Will young girls who see the film want to be Hit Girl? Yes. I know a 20-year-old who wants to be her.

But it is not the filmmaker's responsibility to create characters that tell society how to function. This is why the MPAA works and the responsibility lays on the parents, not the children who watch. Even the theaters deserve to hold themselves accountable. But this is nature vs. nurture. And nurture is king. A well-raised child will watch actions like this and not take it as something to do or try to learn.


When it comes to her taking a beating, the complaints seem to be justified in the graphic nature. A little girl held up by the throat on a bookshelf, feet dangling in the air is a hard sigh to comprehend. But it is necessary for a sense of believability. Do we need to see the villain doing this to prove he is unforgiving and nasty? No, we don't. But it proves there are consequences to killing. And even little girls have to deal with them. Would he have shot her in the face if Kick-Ass didn't show up with a bazooka and blow him into the sky? Would his paternal nature have kicked in? Likely not, considering he wasn't so loyal even to his own son.

When it comes to her dialogue and use of the word "fuck," "cunt," and "bitch," this doesn't seem to be something Moretz was unprepared for. You can't just throw anybody in that role and let them say that. But she was a hilariously mature girl in (500) Days of Summer and has been in a handful of adult horror flicks. She is mature, as is Hit Girl. Again, back to the parental control, it's not like Moretz pretending to go to school every day, but really go to a film set and secretly make this movie.

More importantly, REAL PEOPLE TALK THAT WAY. Even kids, yes. Sorry to break it to the parents, but when your kids go to school they swear like sailors and think like dirty perverts. It's the way it is. Don't blame entertainment. Blame progression of humanity...or something.


Hit Girl is a strong girl mentally and physically. Her emotional strength is an amazing quality of a girl beyond her age and that should be inspiring to women of all ages, people of all ages. Her choice to be violent wasn't necessarily a choice, but a brainwashed lifestyle from her father, like Tiger Woods playing golf. Read the book Outliers. It explores the concept that child prodigies are no better than you, they just simply have more experience. It argues a person needs 10,000 hours of practice on a skill to be considered an expert. Given that, a child who starts young can easily be one of the world's best by Hit Girl's age.

There are other perspectives on the film and its portrayals. I get that. Let me know your side. Parents will likely regard Kick-Ass as a stylized example of stealing kids from them in order to entertain. In some ways, it is. But how is that any different than even more influential heroes of violence, like Iron Man or Batman? I agree it is not for youngsters, but I also don't think it is the second coming of Marilyn Manson unofficially causing kids to shoot up schools.

Kick-Ass is a film that understood me from head to toe as a film lover and a filmmaker. As Ackerman bluntly state in The Prestige, "Pardon me. It's very rare to see...real magic." While Kick-Ass isn't about magic or trickery, the presentation is magical. The movie progressively darkens from a hilarious start into an emotionally-driven spectacle deriving from a brilliant vision. Director Matthew Vaughn pulled out all the stops and has created an unforgettable experience.


The movie took risks on a number of levels, but I'll touch on two: the story and Hit Girl. While trusted reviewers praised the film, increasing my anticipation, I still had reservations. My expectations were high for an enjoyable action comedy appealing to comic fans everywhere. Instead, Kick-Ass gave everybody a taste of everything. The story implemented concepts from nearly every famous superhero tale and thrust it into a real-world scenario. But the story could have easily fallen flat right there. Every chance it had to fall into the trap of "How To Become A Superhero" was trumped by a sensation of watching events unfold. And that's just what films are; captured stories. Some put you in the characters' shoes, while other tell a worthy story. Kick-Ass tells one awesome tale.

The elephant in the room is Hit Girl. The intensely violent and perfectly portrayed child prodigy murder artist, played by Chloe Moretz (500 Days of Summer) is the most memorable ass-kicking adolescent since Natalie Portman in Leon. Without ruining the joy of watching the girl work, I will say she has some jaw-dropping moves that surpass whatever you may be imagining in your head. Every single move in her fight sequences gets better than the last. But it is her father, Big Daddy (Nicolas Cage), that 100% completely steals the show. Cage tapped into his inner Adam West, yet created a totally unique character with speech inflections and mannerisms to be remembered long after the film collects dust on bookshelves.


Kick-Ass tapped into today's society in a way many films refuse. While it is a story of a character, the subliminal plot is an exploration of how society shares knowledge today. The implementation of YouTube in a way that enhances the movie instead of becoming a gag added to the realism that was so cohesive with the film. E-mail became as important to the progression of the plot as the action itself. This is a connection that we can expect to see in the next decade of film.

The story is great, as are the characters, but what sets it apart from so many others are the visuals and the sound. Quickly explaining the music of this film would be simple. They must have hacked my iTunes favorites because the sound team remixed (honorably, too) Ennio Morricone's western motif, John Murphy's 28 Days Later and Sunshine themes, and hints of The Dark Knight scattered throughout. The essence of what makes those scores so great is accounted for in Kick-Ass, and then amped up a few notches. Just as the film nods superheroes and comic book films, the score does so for famous motifs.


I hope my adoration for the film doesn't die down after a while, but I recognize it happens. But I felt the exact same way leaving the theater as I did when I left my current #2 favorite film of all time, The Dark Knight. There was a sense of instant nostalgia, wanting to jump back in the theater regardless of the ticking clock that read 2:20 am. Kick-Ass was beyond enjoyable, it surpassed every high expectation I accumulated over time. There's not question in my mind it will take a large chunk out of my wallet, and that is a price I pay gladly.

5 out of 5

Watching The Natural for the who-knows-how-many-th time made me realize how passionate I feel for Roy Hobbs, the character portrayed by Robert Redford. In every single way, Hobbs represents all that is good in mankind, while being surrounded by a mythical aura befitting a Greek god. Even without the beautiful cinematography and music of the film, it would still stand as one of the all-time classics for the fictional character that simply wanted one thing: to be the best there ever was.


There were so many opportunities for Hobbs to get knocked down and lose all hope, yet the man's strength in heart and mind was unmatched. All he ever wanted to do was be "the greatest there ever was," no matter how long it took him to get there. Only two people ever really believed in him; his high school sweetheart Iris Gaines (Glenn Close) and his father, who died when Hobbs was a young boy. But instead of growing up with the intention of making his late father proud, Hobbs sought a more grandiose goal.

Roy Hobbs didn't just want to be the best for himself, but also to give every young boy in the stands somebody to look up to and cherish in their own pursuit of dreams. This is clear by the countless times the film recognizes children in the stands or Hobbs' own distaste for those trying to tarnish his image. But this was no Michael-Jackson-The-Children-Are-Our-Future crap. It was about creating a legacy that would inspire greatness from anybody who saw him play.

Hobbs represents all of the heroes that never were. Because every great hero has a flaw, you see, but not Roy Hobbs. He would be the first to disagree, claiming his inability to live down his own mistakes nearly put him in an early grave. The mistake in question was when a young woman named Harriet Bird seduced him for "dishonorable reasons" just as his baseball career was on the verge of beginning. But I won't get into that as it would give away some of the film.


The beauty of the character in The Natural is his mysterious nature. We never once find out where he is from, always being left with a vague answer of Anywhere, USA. But these facts don't matter. What mattered is what he came there to do, and that is play ball. He was a focused individual with one goal in mind. And nothing, from bullets to tabloids, would stand in his way. Roy Hobbs stood up to his obstacles, looked them square in the eye and said "No." We should all be so fearless.

The impossibilities of The Natural are what elevate it beyond simply fascination. The cover-exploding triples, the lightning fast fastballs and the light-shattering home runs are simply extensions of his god-like personality. A constant glow surrounds Hobbs' streaming blonde hair, creating an aura that is actually visible. He is no Jesus, mind you. The film stays away from portraying Roy Hobbs as some kind of savior with a perfect decision-making mechanism. Instead, he makes mistakes, taking action based on a tunnel-vision dedication to success. But Hobbs instantly adapts and makes use of his vast capabilities on the field and his unprecedented kindness off it to continue strong on his path.

I admire everything Roy Hobbs was and all he aspired to be. You name it and Hobbs was challenged by it. Overwhelming odds would be a great way to describe the constant struggles he endured through willpower and action, rather than relying on fate. Did he get help along the way? Sure. Bump Bailey's (Michael Madsen) untimely death via running into the outfield wall helped get Hobbs past discrimination and into the starting lineup.

Lightning bolts from the heavens seemed to precede moments of unfathomable greatness and it's not hard to imagine Hobbs as a member of Greek mythology, lent a helping hand from Zeus himself. But giving him that kind of power takes away from the humanity within. Roy Hobbs is as human as they come, only lacking those seemingly inevitable traits that we spend lifetimes trying to overcome. Call the lightning bolts a campaign from the heavens to recruit the most astounding fictional human that ever lived.

Hey resilient readers...

If you are still checking the site from time to time, you may have noticed nothing is happening. Well, it's not because I hate you. In fact, I got a job. And this job is doing what I used to do here, but with more than 100 readers. Please head over to Screen Rant and check out my new home, along with a dozen or so other talented writers. If you'd like to see only the articles I've written head here...

I'll be back from time to time (hopefully weekly) with movie reviews and try to keep this site active, especially since I'm paying for the damn thing.

Plenty of awkward on-camera moments from today's relatively impromptu "How-To" videos shot in Studio Production class.
Apologies to any embarrassed stars.    

Awkward Moments from Studio Production from mike eisenberg on Vimeo.

The latest in my work at Flashpoint Academy. My friend, classmate, and colleague Vito Selvaggi and I went out to Lake Michigan to shoot test footage for the upcoming short film, Perspectrum. What resulted was a handful of pretty good images, so I decided to read my favorite poem, Solitude by Ella Wheeler Wilcox, over it as it seemed fitting. Be on the lookout for Perspectrum, shooting this summer, written and directed by myself. More details later...