The Rant

Hey all, time once again for me to rant about random things, good, bad, indifferent, with no particular rhyme or reason, so here we go.

So Heath Ledger was nominated for an Oscar, should he get it? Only if he truly deserves it, not just because he died, his performance should be awarded, not his life, that is up to those who loved him....This summer is shaping up to be pretty good as far as movies are concerned, what will be the biggest hits? I will say Transformers and Terminator will be among the big draws......After all the nonsense concerning "Watchmen" will the movie be the big hit that WB & Fox hope it will be? I will say yes......Mike Meyers, oh what has happened to you, first it was "Wayne's World" and the "Austin Powers" movies, then we get "The Love Guru" which seemed to be like Mike Meyers badly imitating himself. Mike, wake up, you cannot ride on your name anymore, and your reputation? Badly damaged dude, badly.......Was it right for the Academy to snub "The Dark Knight" for best picture? Yea, as good as it was, I am sure there were better movies out there last year. I didn't see any of them, but I am sure there was........Will 2009 be the year that "Star Trek" is resurrected? Hell yes........George Lucas, please, I beg you, let someone else make new "Star Wars" movies. Write them, supervise them, give them your seal of approval, whatever you like, but please let us see some more SW adventures, just because you are done telling the stories you wanted to tell doesn't mean someone else cant tell us more stories and trust me, we want to see more.....James Cameron is finally making a new movie, titled "Avatar", claiming to be using new state of the art special effects. Will it be good? I hope so, because a whole bunch of fanboys will probably commit group suicide if it isn't, because all the talk on movie forums and talkbacks have "Avatar" already anointed as the crown jewel film of the 21st century, and we have seen just two, yes, TWO stills from the movie so far, one of Cameron and an actor on a generic looking sci-fi set, and a futuristic bed, yes, a bed.......Word out of Hollywood says they are making a live action movie of "The Jetsons" and all I have to ask is, why? why? why? The first "Flintstones" movie was ok fun, the second one I have never and will never see (see my first "Rant" to understand why), and overall cartoons don't really translate well to live action, so why desecrate another cherished (well cherished to me) cartoon?.......Have I mentioned that I am SICK of Hollywood remaking everything under the sun? I know I have but I just had to say it again.......So "Paul Blart Mall Cop" was #1 at the box office in its first week. Is Armageddon truly coming or could Kevin James actually become a bona fide box office draw? Seeing as this is only the first film he has had to carry as a leading actor, his next few films will actually be the judge of that.....How can you not love Clint Eastwood? The guy is almost 80 and still making movies, acting in them and kicking butt. A lot of wanna be stars could learn a thing or two from Clint. Heck real stars could learn something from him.....Is it me or do the action stars of today pale in comparison to the action stars of the 80's? I don't feel much intimidation from today's action stars. Whenever Stallone, Schwarzenegger, Segal, Van Damme, Chuck Norris, any of those guys came across some bad guys, you knew, and so did the bad guys, that they were gonna be in a world of hurt. I just don't feel that from today's action stars......So the remake of "The Day The Earth Stood Still" did not fare well at the box office, or in the opinions of audiences. Is that really a big surprise? How can you remake a sci-fi classic like that and expect it to come close to measuring up to the original. Another case where Hollywood should have just left well enough alone. They won't ever learn.

Well, that's all for now, stay tuned for more rants here on Movie Talk, and keep coming back for more commentary and insight on the world of movies. As always, feel free to leave your comments, I welcome them.

Push - Video Clip

On Feb. 6th the Action/Thriller "Push" comes out. now I have not heard too much about this movie but what I have seen of it so far looks pretty cool. It is about a government agency that is creating an army of psychic soldiers, and a small group of young people who are against joining the agency. It stars Dakota Fanning, and Chris Evans (the human torch in the "Fantastic Four" movies). I try not to get too excited about movies like this from the previews, because I thought "Jumper" looked great in the trailers, and it was a major disappointment because it turned out to be basically a 90 minute trailer, it just didn't feel like a complete movie. Anyways, I hope that "Push" lives up to the promise it shows in the trailers and in this clip here, provided for us by IGN.



Pretty cool huh? What do you think, does this look good?

Terminators & Transformers

Well 2008 saw a lot of good movies come out, and now that we are in 2009, as always the new year brings new hype. There are many big movies coming out this year - "Night At The Museum 2:Battle Of The Smithsonian", "GI Joe:Rise Of Cobra", "Underworld:Rise Of The Lycans", "The Wolf Man", "Sherlock Holmes", "X Men Origins:Wolverine", "Avatar", "Watchmen", "Star Trek", "Harry Potter And The Half Blood Prince". That's some list isn't it? That is only the really high profile movies, there are always the ones that will take us all by surprise and who knows what films will do that this year.

Two of the highest profile movies coming out are "Terminator Salvation" starring Christian Bale, and "Transformers:Revenge Of The Fallen". Both big name franchises, and both by directors that people seem to really like or really hate.

I have talked about Michael Bay before (he is directing Transformers), he makes brainless popcorn movies that, despite what detractors say, entertain people. He is not an artist by any stretch of the imagination, but like it or not, he makes movies that people like. When the first Transformers movie was such a huge hit, everyone knew there would be a sequel, and this summer, we are getting it. Mr. Bay will be letting loose again with big robots, big explosions and as always, minimal substance.

McG, the director of "Terminator Salvation" is another director who people have varied opinions on. He directed the first "Charlies Angels" movie, which was well liked by most. But then he hit the wall with "Charlies Angels 2:Full Throttle" which was in a word, terrible and most audiences agreed. He did a little better with the true story "We Are Marshall", but he has only done 3 feature films and when it was announced he would be directing "Terminator Salvation" fans, including myself, became concerned. The first two Terminator movies were directed by the great James Cameron, and the third film was directed by Jonathan Mostow, and even though Mostow is no Cameron, I felt that T3 was a good entertaining film and a worthy addition to the franchise. McG has stated he is taking this film seriously and wants to do right by the franchise. So far what I have seen from the movie, it is looking like he is keeping his word. Add to the fact that Christian Bale is a good judge of scripts, as I have not seen a movie he was in yet that I did not enjoy, so to me that adds some credibility to the film as well. Apparently the studio also has a lot of faith in the film, as two more sequels have been approved, although no word if Bale will be returning, but studio support is always a good thing. This could be a career making film for McG, so he had better be a man of his word, because it could also be a career killer if the film flops. Oh and one more thing, he really needs to change the whole McG thing, just use your real name dude.

There is not much to say about Michael Bay that hasn't already been said. He is really hated in many circles, I have been on many other websites and have seen some very harsh words said about him. But as already stated, he makes movies that people enjoy. One of the things that people complained about in the first Transformers movie was not enough robots, and word is in the next film there will be a significantly higher robot count. The dizzying editing style of the first film is also something a lot of people didn't like, including myself. I can handle fast paced action, but when I cannot tell what is going on and who is fighting whom, things needs to slow down. As always you can't expect much substance from Bay and co. Big, loud, dumb fun. It has been said that a movie can be big and loud and still be intelligent, as proven by "The Dark Knight", that we should not have to "turn off" our brains at a movie. Well, why the hell not? If I want deep meaningful entertainment I will seek it out, but I don't want nor do I expect meaning from Michael Bay. If Transformers was being directed by Christopher Nolan, I would expect a lot more substance, but it isn't. So I like big dumb fun, why is that so bad? Most of the world likes it as well and that's why Bay continues to make movies and they continue to do well at the box office. I am looking forward to the next Transformers movie.

It looks to be a good year for robots, on one hand you have giant robots kicking the crap out of each other, and then you have an army of robots pretty much killing everything in sight. There is definitely more at risk with "Terminator Salvation" then there is with "Transformers:Revenge Of The Fallen", because everyone knows what to expect from Bay, but McG is the mystery here, can he take hold of the Terminator name and give a film worthy of the name? Only time will tell, but I am going to say that I think he will deliver the goods.

"Star Trek" 2009 - I Hope It Doesn't Suck

I have always been a "Star Trek" fan, even when I was a kid and didn't always understand what was going on, I watched. I was excited when they announced the creation of "Star Trek:The Next Generation", all my friends and I got together to watch the first episode together. That first episode was really well done and showed much promise. But, for me anyway, it really never lived up to the quality and potential of that first episode. Sure, there are a bunch of episodes that I really enjoy and will always watch when I see them on. But I never really felt connected to the characters, I never had an emotional investment in them like I do with the characters from the original series. I really did not like "Star Trek:Generations", in fact the only Next-Gen movie I liked was "Star Trek:First Contact", mostly because of the Borg, one of the best Sci-Fi race of baddies. The films that followed, "Star Trek:Insurrection" and "Star Trek:Nemesis" were mediocre at best and to be honest i really don't remember all that much about them.

So now director JJ Abrams is bringing us a new "Star Trek" in May of this year. He has recast the classic characters, telling a story of events that happened in their early days after graduating from Starfleet Academy. As I have said in many other entries, this is a big risk, recasting iconic characters always is. The story is being kept under a tight lid, and all we have seen is images from the new film. The images I have seen have impressed me, and I think the casting is shaping up nicely, the actors, for the most part, look like the characters they are portraying. But all of that means nothing without a compelling story, and the need to feel that the actors ARE who they are playing. This is going to be a different "Star Trek" then what I, and I am sure many other Trekkies, are used to. But that's ok, Trek needs to change, it needs to grab a new audience as well as the devoted fans, who, like me, don't care that much about Trek anymore. I hate that I don't care about Trek anymore. I hope Abrams makes me care again. As much as I knew the new "Star Wars" trilogy was being made for a newer audience as well as the established fans, it is the same with this new Star Trek, and if anyone going to see this new movie can take that into consideration, and as long as the finished product is a well made film, fans new and old will welcome Star Trek back, and I for one am looking forward to that.

A Few Words About 2008

Happy New Year! Here is a few words about some of the highlights on cinema for 2008.

Everyone does a "Best Of" and "Worst Of" at the end of the year so I thought I would do something a little different on top of the usual stuff.


Biggest Suprise - "Get Smart"

Steve Carell is great on "The Office" and I have found him funny in just about every movie role I have seen him in. For some reason, I was not expecting much from "Get Smart". I knew Carell would be good, I knew Anne Hathaway would be good for the role of Agent 99, but I was really suprised at how much I enjoyed the movie, it turned out to be way better than I had expected, and I would like to see a sequel. Good supporting cast, notbly Alan Arkin as The Chief and Dwayne Johnson as Agent 23. Good action, funny bits, and the blending of action with the comedy was really well done, which is more than I can say for the movie in my next category.

Biggest Disappointment - "Tropic Thunder"

What a letdown. Ben Stiller, someone I always count on for a good funny movie, and usually delievers. Add to that mix Jack Black and Robert Downey Jr. and you have a great comedic cast. The setting, actors in an action movie being thrown into a real life war zone, was a great idea. Too bad it fell way short of its potential. It completely separated the action from the comedy. The action itself was really good, but the comedy was sparse, and not even as funny as it could have or should have been. Downey was the best part of the film, and he was the funniest one in the movie. I didn't even really care for Stiller's character all that much. I have heard raves about this movie on other sites, but I just don't see it. Not terrible, an enjoyable movie, but not even close to what it should have been.

Most Fun - "Iron Man"

2008 was Robert Downey Jr's year, with two standout performances.No disrespect to "The Dark Knight" which was an amazing achievement in film. But let's face it, you cannot categorize it as a "fun" movie. "Iron Man" had a perfect balance of many elements. Drama, comedy, action. Robert Downey Jr took the movie and carried it on his shoulders. He played Tony Stark perfectly, and I cannot see anyone but him as that character. Things never got too serious, the action never got to be too much, in fact if anything was wrong with the movie you wanted just a bit more action. It also did the one thing a good superhero movie should do, it gave you a great movie with a great character that you want to see more of.

An Hour And A Half Of My Life I Will Never Get Back - "Meet The Spartans"

Ok I admit, I paid to see this turd. I like spoofs, and the previews looked kinda good. God how wrong I was. In 90 minutes, I think I chuckled, not laughed, maybe twice. A good comedy should make you laugh every couple of minutes should it not? Nothing about this movie was good. The acting, the story (story? or lack of), the attempted jokes. A good spoof will concentrate on a
specific movie or genre. "Blazing Saddles", "Spaceballs". But this turkey thought it would be funny (in a spoof of "300") to throw in jokes about "Dancing With The Stars", Britney Spears, video games, and way way too many gay jokes. This could possibly be the absolute worst comedy of the past decade. Hopefully the clowns who make these movies (they are responsible for the cinematic abortions "Superhero Movie" and "Disaster Movie") will stop getting money to make these unfunny ameturish dribble.

A Flop That Didn't Deserve It - "Speed Racer"

I don't know what people were expecting from this movie, but obviously it was not what anyone was thinking. Directed by the Wachowski Brothers, the duo that gave us "The Matrix" and its two sequels. It was exactly what it was supposed to be, a cartoon brought to colorful vibrant life. The special effects were top notch, the race sequences were fast paced and exciting. Ok, so it wasn't the deepest story in the world, so what?? It's a live action version of an old cartoon, what else was anyone expecting? The actors were good in their roles, there were some annoying aspects of the film, but overall it was an enjoyable family driven film. Maybe because the Wachowski's directed it people were expecting something more serious and story driven, but I thouroughly enjoyed this movie and it should have fared a lot better than it did.

Now, a quick rundown of some other noteworthy stuff-

Best Movie Of The Year - "The Dark Knight" It Changed the way we see Superhero movies forever, and gave us Heath Ledgers greatest, and sadly, final performance, thankfully it was the performance of a lifetime.

Best Performance - Heath Ledger as The Joker. Like I said already, he saved his best for his last.

Comeback Of The Year - Robert Downey Jr. "Iron Man" & he was the best and funniest thing in "Tropic Thunder", good to have you back Robert.

Best Cameo - Tom Cruise in "Tropic Thunder". Had he rest of the movie been as good as Tom's cameo, it might have been a lot better.

Well that's my little wrap up on 2008, what are your opinions on the best and worst of the year?

20th Century Fox - Big Jerks

EDITORS NOTE:Sorry there have been no entries this month, it's been a topsy turvy time in my life and I have had to put a few things on hold, but hopefully I can get back up to speed here on Movie Talk. Hope you keep coming back!


I used to have a lot of respect for 20th Century Fox, after all, they were the ones who backed "Star Wars" back in 1977, and since then have made a bunch of great films. But the past few months have been spent trying to halt the release of Warner Brother's "Watchmen". Apparently Fox owned the movie rights to "Watchmen" way back in the 80's but never went forward with the movie. When a Fox exec went over to WB, it seems he thought he could take the rights with him. Well WB went forward with the movie's production, and I guess that upset Fox, because they have been making a stink since production started. Now I am not saying Fox should not be upset, but what they have done is just sneaky and slimy. The movie, from what I know is finished, and Fox has just won a judgement saying they have rights to the property, and now the word is that Fox wants to halt the release of the film, scheduled for March 2009. Both sides are wrong. If Fox had the rights, they should have done something the minute WB went forward with the film's production, but they waited until the film was finished, and you know they want to take the film and release it and profit from it, and it would be pure profit because they didn't pay a dime for the movie, and that is just a crappy thing to do. WB, on the other hand, should have made sure they had the rights to the film. Maybe they thought they did, or got assurances that they did, but the proper legal steps should have been taken, and obviously they were not.

So now we are left with a big mess, two studios fighting for the right to release a high profile movie. Who suffers? Everyone involved, as well as the fans who want to see the movie. This could have been avoided, had proper steps been taken. But what could have and what should have happened really doesn't matter at this point. The best thing to do would be to have the studios do a joint release, and both profit. I seriously doubt that will happen, as greed will step in and both studios will probably not want the other to profit. At this point I side with WB. Sure they should have secured the rights to the film, but they went ahead with production, and they want to release their finished product. Fox wants to profit from the hard work of others, and I cannot side with them. Had they halted production from the start, I might be able to give them some support, but not now. Fox is upset because they had a crappy year in 2008, and aside from the new Wolverine movie, it doesn't look to be a good 2009 for them either, so they want to take a movie that has already been made and paid for, and profit from it. Jerks, big jerks. The moviegoers are the innocent ones here, we just want to see a good film, we don't care who the heck releases it. I just hope the movie doesn't sit in limbo and never sees a release, that would be just awful. Hopefully this will be resolved, and to the benefit of all involved....well all except Fox.

Say It Isn't So - A Remake of "Arthur"

Please say it isn't so. I have always complained about the never ending flow of remakes coming out of Hollywood. True, some turn out to be good, most either mediocre or terrible. Well now comes word that my favorite movie comedy "Arthur" is on tap to be remade. Here is part of the article I read over at IESB.net

Russell Brand might soon be caught between the moon and New York City.

The British comedian is developing a remake of "Arthur," the 1981 comedy that starred Dudley Moore, for Warner Bros. as a potential starring vehicle.

Brand is meeting with scribes to write the screenplay, which will be produced by MBST's Larry Brezner, whose credits range from "Good Morning, Vietnam" to HBO's recent "Little Britain USA."

If there is a god, please DO NOT let this one be remade. Nobody, and I mean NOBODY can replace Dudley Moore or Sir John Gielgud in their roles as Arthur Bach and Hobson. I don't care how funny the actors are or how talented they may be. This is as close to untouchable as you can get in my opinion. This is a classic comedy that stands the test of time, I watched it last week and I still laugh hysterically at it. There is no need to remake it. If it seemed stale or not as funny as it used to be, I could maybe understand the need for a remake. But that is not the case here, it is just as funny today as it was when it was released in 1981. I was very upset when I heard that they were remaking "The Day The Earth Stood Still" but the more I see of it, the more I feel that they may have done good with this. That movie was made at a time when nuclear war and Communism were very real threats against the world and the movie played off those fears, so the remake is taking the base story and giving it a modern theme. Fine, it just may work, the original story would not work by today's standards. But "Arthur" is totally different, it would not benefit from a modern retelling of the story, and as stated earlier, there is no way to replace the two lead actors and get the same results, it just isn't possible. This is one remake I will not support, nor will I pay money to go see it. When it's out on video? Maybe, but I doubt it. I just do not see any reason whatsoever to go through with this remake, but that's Hollywood for you.