Movie Talk

Review - Tron Legacy

2010-12-18T14:42:00.003-05:00

----Begin Transmission----

Greetings Programs...

So I can absolutely say that Tron Legacy is a great movie.

The critics? Useless, they didn't get it.

Lack of action? I don't know what they are talking about. The action was there, and it was good.

Bad acting? (other than Jeff) Wrong. Sam was fine, was he oscar worthy? Of course not but I had no problem with his performance.

Clu takes you out of the movie? Nope, at least he didn't have that effect on me. Could you tell he was digital? In some parts yes, in others it was more difficult to tell, but as I have said before, he is a computer program, so I can allow for some kind of artificial feel to him. Overall, I bought it.

Bad/lacking story? Wrong, if you can accept Avatar's story, you won't have a problem with this, as I felt it was better than Avatar's story. Not what you would call deep and meaningful, but it moved things along at a nice pace

Speaking of which, I felt there was virtually no filler, I never once sat there and was like "Ok we get it, move on". For me there are two things that speak well of a film. One is looking at my watch. Never once did I look at it. That's not to say that if I look at my watch it's a bad movie, it speaks more about how good a movie is if I never think to look. Second, did not take a bathroom break at all, and trust me I had to.

Those are the main complaints I heard about the movie, and like I said, they are wrong. As far as making another should this one be a hit...yea I think they could do it, but part of me feels like they they shouldn't, the story arc feels complete.

Either way, the movie was great. For those who never saw the original, it is not a requirement to enjoy this film. It will help you get the nods to the original, and some of the inside jokes, but it is in no way a prerequisite, this film stands on its own as much as it is a continuation of the first.

My only real complaint is with the 3D, it wasn't bad in any way, but it wasn't great either. At some points I almost didn't notice it, it was very subtle. Did not in any way take away from the movie, I guess I feel it could have been a bit better. But in IMAX? Amazing,

So that's the deal gang, critics be damned, Tron Legacy is fantastic.

----End Of Line----

Review - "Iron Man 2"

2010-05-21T11:44:00.014-04:00

In 2008, "Iron Man" came out of nowhere to be one of the biggest films of that year. Naturally, as with all hits in Hollywood, a sequel was immediately planned for 2010. Some felt the pressure of releasing a follow up so soon after the first film would result in a rushed, less than stellar film. Well I can honestly say that did not happen in this case. "Iron Man 2" takes all the stuff that made the first film so enjoyable, and made what is, in my opinion, a sequel that is just a bit better than the original.

There is a lot going on in this movie. Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) faces his own mortality. A Russian physicist (Mickey Rourke) seeks revenge on Stark for his fathers death, which he blames on Tony's deceased father, Howard (seen in this film through "old" film footage) and uses Tony's technology to achieve it. The Government is putting pressure on Stark to hand over his Iron Man technology for military use. Stark's competitor Justin Hammer (a great Sam Rockwell) is working with the government to develop Iron Man type equipment. S.H.I.E.L.D, the covert agency seen briefly in the first film, is pressuring Stark to join their "Avengers Initiative" aka Superhero team. Whew i got tired just writing all of that.

But it all works, and all comes together coherently. Robert Downey Jr. gives another great performance as Stark, a guy who has taken the weight of protecting the world on his shoulders and it is starting to take its toll on him. Mickey Rourke chews up each scene he is in, he lays the Russian accent on a bit thick at times but that really wasn't an issue for me. Don Cheadle steps into the role of Rhodey with total ease, I didn't even miss Terrance Howard. Sam Rockwell is hilarious as Starks wannabe rival. Everyone involved in this film had a blast and it shows on screen. One of my few complaints with the first Iron Man movie was that although the action was good, there was not quite enough of it. Definitely not a problem this time around.

This movie, just like the first, never takes itself too seriously, nor does it come across as too lighthearted. It strikes a good balance between the two. It's smart but doesn't hold back on the fun. The visual effects are well done like they were in the last film, and director Jon Faverau resists the latest gimmicks of modern film making ("shaky" cam, super quick cuts) and stays true to the world he established in the first film. I, for one am looking forward to another Iron Man film, as well as the upcoming "Avengers" movie, which Marvel studios is moving towards with each new super hero film ("Thor" and "Captain America" are filming now). Stay til the credits end and you will get another cool treat like at the end of the first Iron Man film.

Four out of Five stars.

Summer 2010

2010-05-11T14:20:00.038-04:00

Editor's Note: Well it has been over a year since I have updated this blog. Unfortunately life interfered and I just was not able to dedicate anytime to it. Well thankfully things have settled down to the point where I can actually get back into it to talk about one of my passions, Movies. So here we go!! As always, feel free to leave comments, all I ask is that you stay on topic. If you like what you read, please become a follower! Enjoy and it's great to be back!

So begins another summer movie season, the time of year when the studios pull out the big guns, the "event" movies, the continuing and potential franchises. Every year Summer movies bring surprises, both good and bad. What will the summer of 2010 be like? No doubt it will be like most summers, there will be unexpected hits, unexpected flops, guaranteed hits, & pleasant surprises. The question is.....which movies will fall into which category? Let's take a look at some of the more high profile releases for the 2010 season.

"Iron Man 2" - May 7th. A sure thing if there ever was one. It crushed the competition with a first weekend gross of $128 million, $30 million more than "Iron Man". It looks to follow in the footsteps of both "Spider Man 2" and "X2:X Men United" as sequels that out do the originals, partly because they can jump right into the story without having to tell the origin story. All of the things that made the first movie so good seem to be returning, and the action is definitely being pumped up in this one, which is a good thing because my only real complaint about the first movie was that there actually could have been a bit more action. I will be seeing this tonight so I will post a review this week.

Predicted gross: $350 million

"Toy Stor y 3" - June 18. Pixar. Toy Story. Enough said. Toy Story is the only Pixar movie that has had sequels, (soon to change with "Cars 2" being made) and with good reason. Great characters. That's what makes us want sequels. They may be toys, but man do they have personality. That's why "Toy Story" was a hit, and why "Toy Story 2" was an even bigger hit. Judging by Pixar's track record, I have no reason to think this film will be nothing less than great. Even mediocre Pixar movies ("Cars" has always been though of as Pixar's weakest film) are better than half of the nonsense released into theaters. With the entire cast returning, (with the exception of the late Jim Varney), and some new voices - Michael Keaton, Timothy Dalton, Whoopi Goldberg and Bonnie Hunt, I can say that this is a movie I would go to see with OR without my kids. Then again, I can say that about any Pixar movie.

Predicted Gross - $300 million

"The A Tea m" - June 11. Movies made from TV shows have been hit and miss. Being a big fan of the classic 80's TV show, I was of course very skeptical about this being made into a movie. Then I saw the casting and became very hopeful. Liam Neeson as Hannibal, Bradley Cooper as Face, Sharlto Copey ("District 9") as Murdock. The only question mark for me was Rampage Jackson as B.A., because he is not an actor by trade, I believe he is from Ultimate Fighting. But then I thought, well, Mr. T was not a good actor so as long as he looks the part and is intimidating, then it should work. Still cautious, I was at least hopeful. Then I saw the trailer and my fears were put to rest. Now I know that a good trailer does not guarantee a good movie, but knowing the show, I can pretty much conclude that the movie is going to be fun. All the actors look their parts. The action looks, at times, over the top, which is a good thing. The film makers seem to be taking a bit more of a serious approach, while at the same time keeping the spirit of the show intact. Director Joe Carnahan ("Smokin' Aces") is capable of directing good action, although "Smokin Aces" was a disappointment because of the muddled ending, the movie was about 10 minutes too long. So I'm holding out hope it's gonna be good.

Predicted Gross - $160 million

"Inception " - July 16. Ok I will admit, I don't know much about this movie. Then again, neither do too many other people. What we do know is this - It stars Leonardo DiCaprio, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Ellen Page, Cillian Murphy, and Michael Caine. It is directed by Christopher Nolan ("Th e Dark Knight", "Batman Begins", "The Prestige"), and it has something to do with a technology that allows a person to invade another person's dreams, and some sort of plan to implant, not steal information from someone. Sounds a bit like a combination of "Dreamscape", "The Matrix" and a good old heist movie. An odd combination to be sure, but if anyone can pull this off it's Christopher Nolan. With two great Batman movies under him, as well as "The Prestige" and "Memento", Nolan is a director who consistently delivers quality films and there is no reason not to believe "Inception" will be any different. Not knowing much about the movie's story usually proves to be an advantage with Nolan's films, so I will definitely make sure I know as little as possible going into this one. Nolan has not disappointed yet.

Predicted gross - $200 million

"The Exp endables" - August 22. Sylvester Stallone surprised us with two sequels no one really thought would be as good as they were in "Rocky Balboa" and "Rambo". Both movies closed out their characters nicely, and word is Stallone is finally done with those characters. Not one to sit back and do nothing, Stallone has assembled a team of action stars unlike any we have seen before....Jason Statham, Jet Li, Dolph Lungren, Mickey Rourke, Danny Trejo, with cameos from Bruce Willis and Arnold Schwarzenegger, in a story about a team of mercenaries heading to South America to overthrow a ruthless dictator only to find that nothing is as it seems. That is a set up for some potentially awesome action sequences. It's nice to see Stallone making an attempt at creating a new franchise, and seeing the trailers, this has potential. Being super violent and rated R, I don't think it is going to be a blockbuster, but it will make enough that it will be considered a hit and give Stallone the chance to make a sequel. Cant wait to see it.

Predicted gross - $100 million

Well that's it for now, what are your opinions on the movies I just talked about? What movies are you looking forward to this summer? Check out my review of "Iron Man2" in my next entry sometime this week.

The Rant

2009-01-24T16:04:00.005-05:00

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

2009-01-17T15:42:00.006-05:00

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

2009-01-10T14:52:00.009-05:00

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

2009-01-04T16:37:00.005-05:00

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

2008-12-31T17:42:00.006-05:00

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

2008-12-29T17:37:00.005-05:00

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"

2008-12-04T17:57:00.004-05:00

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.

More "Speed" ?

2008-12-03T10:32:00.003-05:00

When "Speed" came out in 1994, it was labeled as "Die Hard" on a bus, but those of us who saw it knew it was more than just that, it was a tense exciting action movie that was as close to a perfect action movie since the groundbreaking "Die Hard". I remember walking out of that movie and hoping to see Keanu Reeves return as Jack Traven.

Sadly that did not happen, Reeves decided not to reprise his role for the sequel and that was probably the smartest thing he has ever done because "Speed 2:Cruise Control" was a huge steaming pile of crap. Jason Patric took over as the cop, and while Patric is a good actor, he never seemed to really get into what he was doing on that movie and it showed. Even the usually reliable Sandra Bullock seemed kind of bored. The sequel took place on a cruise ship, not exactly something that goes fast, and really has no place in a movie with speed in the title. The movie bombed, thank goodness and that was the last we saw of the "Speed" movies.

Over at aintitcool.com, I read that they are actually trying to push a new "Speed" movie with Keanu back in the role of Jack Traven. Now you are treading on dangerous ground here. Bringing Keanu back gives appeal to the project, but what will people remember? The slam bang fast paced action of the first movie, or the lame watered down (literally) crap that was the sequel? I personally hated the sequel so much that I don't even count it as part of "Speed", so I welcome the idea of another "Speed" movie, and I am sure if they throw enough money at Reeves he will do it. They just better be sure they go for the feel of the first film, and just forget that a second film was even made.

Despite the appeal of another "Speed" movie, I think this just shows Hollywood's continuing lack of imagination. Remakes of movies barely 20 years old, sequels to movies 10 years old or more, why is it so hard to come up with something even semi original? I guess it's easy for me to complain because I don't make movies, I just watch them like most of us. But I just find it hard to believe that there is absolutely nothing original for Hollywood to do, they are just lazy. I understand the logic, go with established properties, make sequels because they have a built in audience, don't take a chance on something new and original because you cannot know how it will do. But because I understand the logic doesn't mean i agree with it. It's as if all Hollywood cares about is making money, entertainment seems to have taken a back seat. Hey I know that part of the reason to make movies is to make money, but damn, at what cost?

Quantum Of Solace

2008-11-23T14:43:00.003-05:00

Went last night to see the new 007 movie, and i have to say it does not disappoint. Like most people, I was hesitant when they cast Daniel Craig as the new James Bond. He was a relatively unknown actor, blond hair blue eyes, not at all how we expect Bond to look. But over the years, I came to realize that you cannot truly judge how an actor will play a part until you see them do it. With the release of "Casino Royale" all my fears were put to rest. Craig is easily the best Bond since the great Sean Connery. I have personally liked every actor who has played Bond, I feel they all gave their own touch to the character, all of them played it a bit differently than the others did. "Die Another Day" was a good Bond film, but the cheese factor was really getting amped up, invisible cars, chases through ice hotels, it was just getting too over the top, even for 007. "Casino Royale" took Bond and started over again, it was his first mission as a full fledged agent, and we were able to see his flaws, he was not the smooth talking debonair ladies man we all came to know, but a blunt instrument, almost a loose cannon.

Well, that continues in "Quantum Of Solace", which picks up shortly after the end of "Casino Royale". The film opens with a balls to the wall car chase, a great pre-credit opening. You can tell that 007 is out for revenge for the death of Vesper Lynd, the woman he fell in love with in the last film. Even though she betrayed him, he clearly loved the woman, and wants to know why everything went the way it did. He tries to convince his superiors that he is motivated by his sense of duty, but we know better. Some people complained that the last film contained none of the humor that was always present in past films. Well, not much changes here, although there are quite a few good funny moments, definitely more than last time. The action in this movie is frantic, and edited in that way. That has been one of the complaints I have heard about this movie. I will admit that it is a bit crazy at times, yet I found myself not caring, the action was so good that it didn't really bother me as much as I thought it would. The opening car chase, a boat chase and a plane chase are all great action sequences. The villain, Dominic Greene, is not exactly your typical Bond bad guy, he is effective though, although I would have liked him to be a bit more menacing, but for what he was in this movie, he was effective. It was also nice to see Jeffery Wright back as Felix Leiter, although I wanted to see him a bit more involved, hopefully the next movie will do that. The climax of the film is great and leaves things wide open to continue with the mystery of what the Quantum organization is.

There is no Q, no Moneypenny, no gadgets, and I don't know if there are any immediate plans to bring them into this new Bond series, but you know what? That's fine, this is a new version of 007 and so far what we have been given has been awesome. If they do decide to bring back some of the traditional characters and the gadgets, I am confident that they will do so with the same grit that they have used in the two films we have been given. This is a new 007, it is not the 007 that our parents knew, or even one we know, but it is a great interpretation of the character, and truer to what author Ian Fleming had wanted the character to be, and I for one, welcome the continued adventures of Bond, James Bond.

Commentary: Know It Alls

2008-11-18T13:11:00.004-05:00

I go on many movie sites, always looking for information on current and upcoming movies. Most of the sites I go to have some sort of forum or message board for members to post opinions and comments. Naturally, there are many types of people at these sites. Smart, stupid, funny, annoying, clever, nasty, among others. The ones that annoy me the most, are the "know it alls". These people put forth an image of a person who knows all there is to know about movies, they are never wrong and if you disagree with them, you are just a fool who doesn't know as much as they do. The reason I am writing about this is because of a thread of comments over at Aintitcoolnews.com regarding the trailer for the 2009 release of JJ Abram's "Star Trek". There has been much secrecy surrounding the movie, but we were finally given a full blown trailer this past week, and the reaction has been mostly positive. The trailer itself is only about two minutes long, and doesn't really reveal much as far as plot, but gives us a lot of cool images. I would have liked to have seen a bit more, and the trailer was edited at a very fast pace. But it is the most footage we have seen thus far, and although it was not much it looked pretty promising. Any fan of movies knows that trailers are not always a true representation of a movie's overall quality. They tend to show what the studios feel are the films best qualities, what they feel can lure audiences in. We have seen many movies that had great trailers and what was shown in the trailer turned out to be the best parts of the film, the rest being mediocre, or even bad. But regardless, it is almost impossible to judge if a movie will be good or bad based on two or three minutes of footage. I, like many others, have formed an opinion of a movie based on the contents of its trailer. But I always reserve final judgement after I have seen the finished product.

This brings me to the subject of my commentary. In the thread of commentary over at aintitcoolnews.com, there are many members who have already decided from two minutes of footage that "Star Trek" will be a worthless, steaming pile of crap. There are others who are saying that it doesn't look good, or what they have seen is crap, and that is fine, opinions are just that opinions. But it is the group of individuals that have already decided that the movie is going to suck that really bother me. I don't know what their reasons are, maybe they hate Star Trek, maybe they are Trek fans and hate what has happened to Trek in the past 20 years or so, perhaps they hate JJ Abrams and feel he isn't the right man for this project. The only thing I can understand is Trek haters, and their opinions really don't mean all that much to me anyways, although there were a few admitted non Trek fans who did say the trailer looked pretty good. But it's the ones who like Trek in some form that have already decided this movie will suck that bother me. When you try to have an intelligent discussion with these fools, all they do is tell you over and over how you are wrong and that the movie will suck and that's it. Sometimes they give reasons as to why they think what they do, and even so, things change from trailer to final cut. The funny thing is when they do give reasons, they come across as so arrogant and all knowing it is hard to take what they say seriously at all. They just come across as thinking they know everything there is to know about movies, and that their opinion is the only one that matters. If you argue with them you are wrong, you don't know as much as they do as far as they are concerned, and you will never be able to change their mind or even consider a different view no matter how good or convincing your argument may be. They are so convinced of their superiority that they will most likely go to see the movie they claim will suck, and no matter how they actually feel about it, they will return to the website they ranted on and say things like "It sucked just like I said it would" just to prevent themselves from looking like a total fool. They insult you, going so far as to telling you what kind of movie fan you are, or even the kind of person you are. Obviously these are incredibly insecure people who find some sense of self worth by doing and saying what they do, because what kind of person has a need to make themselves feel superior to a bunch of strangers, people they don't know but need to feel superior too. Regardless of their reasons, this group of people are annoying and their opinions are worthless, because all film is subjective, no one opinion is the right or wrong one, unless of course you talk to one of these self proclaimed geniuses.

Blast From The Past #4

2008-11-15T14:13:00.004-05:00

Time for another blast from the past, where I talk about my favorite movies from years back.

This time I will talk about a little movie called "The Hidden" an action/buddy/sci-fi movie. Released in 1987 and starring Kyle MacLachlan and Michael Nouri, it is the story of 2 aliens, one a violent, murderous criminal, and the "cop" pursuing him. When the villain's body becomes useless, it transfers itself to another body making it extremely difficult to track. Kyle MacLachlan plays the alien cop, and Michael Nouri is the human cop who gets involved in this crazy hunt. This film went relatively unnoticed when it was released, grossing a meager $9.7 million. I saw this in the theaters and to this day it is a very enjoyable movie, but kind of got lost in a shuffle of 80's schlock sci-fi action flicks. It is not going to challenge your intellect by any means, but it is a fun, exciting ride with plenty of action, thrills and even a it of sentiment. The opening chase scene is one of the coolest to come out of the 80's, and both lead actors give convincing performances. Nouri is of course skeptical about the whole thing at first, but eventually realizes what is really going on. MacLachlan is subtle but convincing in his portrayal of a determined lawman, alien or not, he wants to get this criminal and will stop at nothing to achieve his goal. There are a bunch of 80's cliches in the film, but it doesn't take away from the enjoyment of the movie. The characters actually have some depth and aren't typical cookie cutter characters. I cannot understand why this movie didn't do better, maybe the studio just didn't promote it as much as they should have. It really has a bit of everything, action, thrills, humor, sentiment, and none of it feels forced. It is a bit hyper violent at times, but it never feels like the violence or action was put in there just for the heck of it. It's never boring, always entertaining. If you have not seen it, put it in your Nexflix queue, get it from Blockbuster, but check it out. It's one of my favorite films from the 80's, and it's definitely worth seeing.

Commentary: Digital EFX

2008-11-05T14:33:00.004-05:00

EDITOR'S NOTE: Sorry it has been a while since I posted anything here, life has been topsy turvy lately, and I am hoping to get back on track with posting here.

The world of visual effects has been steadily advancing since they started being used. Digital effects came along and so much changed, and for the most part, the change has been good. I have been seeing a lot said about this topic on other websites, but something that one person said really made me mad, it was something to the effect of "If you complain about digital effects, YOU ARE OLD and can't get past blue screen and obvious stuntmen". I am guessing that statement was meant to say that older visual effects techniques are outdated and useless, and that digital effects are the new thing and should be fully embraced and accepted.

I do applaud the advancement of digital visual effects and their use in film. My problem with them is that they are used way too much in film. It seems like the lazy way out, instead of building something that looks like whatever it is you want it to look like, just make a digital image of it and it will look just as good. WRONG. I was watching a few older sci-fi movies recently, circa 1979-1981, and I noticed something. Spaceships that were made from models and NOT digital images, look way more real, because they were real, the detail, the lighting, was all real, not computer generated. Shadows and lighting just don't look as good when produced digitally. The T-Rex from "Jurassic Park" was real, it looked real, someone took the time to make it look as genuine as possible. Look, I am not opposed to technology improving the way movies are made. There are a lot of things you can do with digital effects that you could never do with bluescreen or stuntmen or models. But just because you can use digital effects for everything, doesn't mean you should. In this years "Iron Man", director Jon Favreau used a nice balance of digital and practical effects, a good example of a director taking the best of both kinds of visual effects and using them where they were best suited, not for everything. Unfortunately, not all film makers take that direction. Even in the new "Star Wars" movies, which I loved, digital effects were overused. I absolutely loved "I Am Legend" with Will Smith, but even in that movie the biggest gripe with a lot of people was that the creatures were very obviously CGI. While that is true, I felt the movie was powerful enough that I was able to overlook that. But that is just another reason why digital effects are overused, for some people it can take away from the overall movie experience if the effects are not convincing. In many movies, explosions and fire are digitally produced, and it is usually pretty obvious. For me, that creates no illusion of danger, and therefore I feel no excitement. Yes when the fire and explosions are real it makes you feel the danger, because it IS REAL, doesn't matter if it is stuntmen or staged sequences, it still looks real.

I don't want to get rid of digital effects, I just want film makers to look at what works best and use it, not just decide that digital is the only way to go. I want to look at a movie and believe what is going on around me, not sit there and say "Oh that is so obviously CGI", which is what I find myself doing now more than ever.

The Rant

2008-10-30T16:14:00.011-04:00

Hey all, there has not been much happening lately in Hollywood, so I decided to just sit back and rant about random things, with no particular rhyme or reason, be it things I like or dislike, and in no particular order so here it goes.

Video game movies, they almost always suck, why is that? Because games are not supposed to be made into movies, they are supposed to be played.......Romantic comedies are always the same-boy meets girl, boy and girl fall in love, funny stuff happens, boy and girl break up for some stupid reason, they regret it, fix the problem then get back together, and that my friends is B O R I N G.......Why doesn't anyone realize that Clark Kent Is Superman? He parts his hair differently and wears glasses, THAT'S his disguise, he doesn't even change his voice, yet NOBODY makes the connection, oh and add to the fact that Clark is never around when Superman is, man the people of Metropolis are really stupid.......How many times are they going to remake "The Bad News Bears"??? They made 3 movies with the Bears, then proceeded to make "The Mighty Ducks", "Little Giants", "Ladybugs", "The Replacements", "Rebound", which were all good to mediocre movies, but the formula is exactly the same in every movie.......Do the people who make horror movies realize that making people jump is NOT scary, I have never walked away from a "slasher" movie scared, a horror movie has to induce fear, you have to walk away from it afraid, or at the very least mentally affected in some capacity, THAT'S what a horror movie should do.....I cannot remember a time in the last ten years that I saw a comedy that made me laugh so hard my stomach ached, there have been a lot of funny movies out, but none that made me laugh that hard, the last one I remember was in 1996, "The Nutty Professor".......I miss the days when visual effects were NOT done thru a PC, but with models, masks, costumes, spaceships looked way more real then they do with CGI, everything just looked better. CGI works some of the time and can do a lot that old school visual effects couldn't, but I am sick of CGI being used for EVERYTHING........Christian Bale is the best Batman that has graced the big screen, but he will most likely not be the last.......I will NEVER in my lifetime see "The Flintstones In Viva Rock Vegas" because they committed the ultimate sin in my eyes, they had the Great Gazoo in the movie and Harvey Korman DID NOT provide the voice which would be bad in any case, but is 100 times worse because Harvey Korman IS IN THE MOVIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Whew, well I feel better now!!!! This might just become a regular thing here at Movie Talk, it was really fun to write and I hope you enjoy reading it, please feel free to leave comments on anything I ranted about, as always I welcome opinions.

Interview With Christopher Nolan

2008-10-27T16:49:00.004-04:00

Christopher Nolan has made quite a name for himself in Hollywood. Of course, being director of the biggest movie to hit the big screen in quite some time helps, that movie of course is "The Dark Knight". Ever since it became a worldwide phenomenon, there has been talk about the next installment of the Batman series, where the story will go, will the Joker return, will there be new villians, who will play them, and of course, every bit of that talk has been just that, talk, nothing more. The LA Times Geoff Boucher sat down for an interview with the director, here is a snippet of it-

GB: "The Dark Knight" is closing in on $1 billion. How do you get your arms around that kind of success?
NOLAN: I can’t get my arms around it, to be quite frank. It’s mystifying. It’s terrific but at the same time it’s a little abstract, the numbers are so big. The biggest thrill for me would be, with the number of people who have gone to see the film, how "The Dark Knight" stood on the shoulders of the first film, how we were able to build the audience up and build the story up from the first film.

It's a really good interview, one I will be following, because it is in three parts. Nolan is a very good film maker. Aside from the Batman movies, he made the highly acclaimed "Memento", as well as 2006's "The Prestige" about rival magicians, and if you haven't seen either, I strongly suggest you give them a viewing, because the guy has talent that reaches beyond the Batman movies. It will be interesting to see the direction that the next Batman movie will take, assuming there will be one. Nolan seems to indicate that with the right story there will be another, but he doesn't exactly confirm there will be another. There is a part of me that cannot wait for another installment, but then there is a small part of me that says why try to top "The Dark Knight". Think about the pressure and expectations that Nolan and company will be under, how do you top the performance of Heath Ledger, and the overall accomplishment that "The Dark Knight " was? One answer is maybe you shouldn't try. I know most people would disagree with that, but when you try to top what is considered to be your best work, you run the risk of tainting that work. Not that I think Nolan would make a bad Batman movie, but I would totally understand if he wanted to walk away from Batman and do other things.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE INTERVIEW

The New "Underworld" Movie

2008-10-25T19:06:00.004-04:00

I am a big fan of both "Underworld" movies. Most of the time I am reading that a lot of people loved the first, not so much the second. I thought both of them were really good. I agree the first one is the better of the two, but the second is still solid and entertaining.

When I heard that Kate Beckinsdale was not reprising her role as Selene, I was a bit hesitant about a third installment. But after seeing the trailer for "Underworld:Rise Of The Lycans: I have to say that I am a bit more optimistic. It has the look and feel of both movies, and Rhona Mitra looks like she will fill in quite nicely as Selene. The always awesome Bill Nighy will be reprising his role as Viktor, which is awesome, he was great in both films. Well, he is pretty much great in whatever he does. Check out the trailer and see what you think, if you have any comments, as always, feel free to leave them.

CLICK HERE TO SEE THE TRAILER

The Hulk-Villain

2008-10-21T13:07:00.011-04:00

Yep, that's what I said. The Hulk was always "misunderstood", but in the comic book series "Ultimate Avengers" he was the bad guy, the one the Avengers had to fight, as he was going on a rampage and had to be stopped. Well it seems that idea is being thrown around as a storyline for the 2011 "Avengers" movie. Read about it in an article over at MTV's Splashpage, in which the reporter is talking to Marvel studios President of Production Kevin Feige-

“Here’s the thing — it is all in the planning stages, but certainly if you look back to any number of ‘Hulk’ comics, or ‘Avengers’ comics, or ‘The Ultimates’ comics or the ‘Ultimate Avengers’ DVD that we released, it certainly makes a hell of a sequence,”

I saw "Ultimate Avengers" and it was extremely cool, in fact you should check it out, it may be an animated movie but it plays out like a regular film, one I would love to see come to the big screen in live action. It was really cool to see the different super heroes fighting the Hulk, and the outcome of it all was.....well I won't spoil it for you but it was very cool. Now, Edward Norton who played Bruce Banner in this years "The Incredible Hulk" has had his problems with the film, and the studios, taking his name off of the writing credit he had for the film and not doing much in the way of promotion when the film was being released. That would seem to be a problem, but in this case it really is not. In "Ultimate Avengers" when we even saw Bruce Banner, it was not for very long. So replacing Norton would not pose much of a problem, even though I thought he did a very good job in the movie. With the exception of a select few, every actor is replaceable. The "Batman" movies have done it 4 times, 007 has been played by 5 actors, and even the Hulk has been played by 2 actors in 2 movies. But "The Avengers" is a long way off so who knows what will happen in that time, we still have a few other movies to introduce us to the other Avengers, but as I have said in previous posts, "The Avengers" could wind up being the ultimate super hero movie, if everything leading up to it is handled right.

Sam Jackson & "Iron Man 2"

2008-10-20T18:20:00.003-04:00

Read about this in an article over at Movieweb. Those of us who stayed until the end of the credits of "Iron Man" were fortunate enough to get a glimpse of Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury, the man who puts together the super hero team the Avengers. It was a really cool, albeit short scene to introduce the character and give us a hint of what is to come, that of course being the scheduled 2011 release of "The Avengers". Well it seems that according to Jackson, Nick Fury will have even more screen time in "Iron Man 2". From the article:

"As a matter of fact, Iron Man director Jon Favreau spoke to me at the Scream Awards last night, and told me that Nick Fury would have a much more prominent role in the second one (Iron Man 2)"

That is great news. Jackson is perfect to play the part, as he was the model for the character in the "Ultimates" comic series anyways, so to have him play it is just what Marvel wants. We should see more information about the Avengers in "Iron Man 2". If Marvel studios does this right, "The Avengers" could turn out to be the ultimate super hero movie. There are two other movies about Marvel heroes in the works, "Thor" and "The First Avenger:Captain America", both of whom are members of the Avengers. So there will be 3 movies to build up to the Avengers movie. That's a lot of pressure on Marvel studios, but if they continue the trend they started with this years "Iron Man" and "The Incredible Hulk", I don't think we will be disappointed.

More on "Star Trek"

2008-10-18T14:03:00.006-04:00

Well, recently I posted that a new trailer for 2009's "Star Trek" will be hitting theaters next month. Well, now Paramount has released some more stills from the movie, and so far I am pleased with what I am seeing. Keep in mind though, these are just images, I have no idea of the acting ability of the cast, nor do I know much about the story or anything else. But going just on the images, it's looking pretty good so far.

Click here to see the images from movieweb.com

Now, I will say that i was a bit skeptical about Karl Urban playing Dr. McCoy, because Urban is a buff muscular dude, and Bones was a normal skinny guy. But after seeing the pics, I have to say he has the look pretty down. Zachary Quinto, playing Spock, is pretty much dead on as far as looking the part. In fact, most of the cast look like the characters they are supposed to be playing. But that is not enough, I have said it a million times before, they have to act exactly like the characters, something more important than looking the part. I like the look of the uniforms, right out of the original series but with a slightly modern feel to them. The bridge of the Enterprise looks very different from the TV series, which I don't have too much of a problem with. I have said it before, the movie doesn't have to look EXACTLY like the old Star Trek, but it does have to FEEL like Star Trek. The look is important, but, in my opinion, not nearly as important as the feel of the movie. Hopefully more images from the film will start emerging, and I hope the new trailer will give us even more insight into this new vision of Star Trek.

Batman Rumors

2008-10-15T13:55:00.010-04:00

Since the mega success of "The Dark Knight", there have been rumors floating around like crazy, making fans drool with anticipation. I, for one, have not believed one word of what I have heard, and for one simple reason. The movie was still in theaters, and already there were rumors about the next movie, it is extremely rare that casting for a future installment of a franchise takes place before the current film is out of the theaters. People got so excited at the thought of Johnny Depp as the Riddler, or Phillip Seymour Hoffman as the Penguin, Angelina Jolie as Catwoman, and rightfully so. But no matter how successful a movie is, the people involved usually want to take a break, or do something different before jumping right in and going ahead with the next installment. Reading an article over at MTV's splashpage, screenwriter David
Goyer talks about the rumors circulating about the next Batman movie-

“It’s all B.S.,” he said. “ALL of it.”

That means, no, Nolan has not signed on (yet). No, there is no casting, let alone TALK, of villains, and, no, nobody is certain to return.
“Chris and I haven’t even talked about it. He quite understandably is taking a long, long vacation and wants to purge himself,” Goyer said.

Exactly what I have said all along, it is way to early to start talking about the next movie when the last one is barely out of the theaters. I realize that people are chomping at the bit for another Batman movie, and will jump at any bit of information that starts to float around. But you need to be realistic, and those who have been drooling over all the rumors floating around, time to come back down to earth. When there is an announcement from Warner Brothers, or Christopher Nolan, then I will get excited. Until then, it's all pure speculation.

Hollywood News Beat

2008-10-14T11:33:00.006-04:00

Here are some of the latest tidbits coming out of Tinseltown the past few days.

Recently, I talked about the go ahead given to "Lethal Weapon 5", well, sadly it seems that is not going to happen. The actor most needed for this project, Mel Gibson, has said he is not interested in doing another chapter of the long running franchise. This is really a shame, as all of the "Lethal Weapon" movies have been good fun, and another one would have no doubt been the same. Why Gibson turned it down is strange to me as his star has faded in the past few years, and a return to familiar territory may have been just what he needed to get back into the limelight (in a positive way). Oh well, here is to hoping that Mel made the right choice.

One of the great movies of the 80's was Oliver Stone's Wall Street, with Michael Douglas and Charlie Sheen. It earned Douglas an Best Actor Oscar, and deservingly so. I, for one, never envisioned a sequel to "Wall Street", but apparently the suits at 20th Century Fox have, as it seems that a sequel is in the works, tentatively titled "Money Never Sleeps". Michael Douglas is not officially on board yet, but has expressed interest in returning to the character of Gordon Gekko. Charlie Sheen's character, Bud Fox, will not be in this story, with the focus being on Gekko. This could be good, but it depends on the direction the story takes. Douglas is a great actor and it would be great to see him as Gekko again. I just don't understand this trend of making sequels to movies that were released a long time ago. I am not necessarily,against it, I just don't understand it. You take a big chance when you make a sequel to a movie that was released 20 plus years ago, because you not only have to attract the core fans of the movie, but new ones as well.

One of the actors from this years "Iron Man" will not be returning for the sequel. Actor Terrance Howard who played Tony Stark' best friend Rhodey, will not be reprising his role. Apparently, Howard was asking for too much money to return, and the studio decided to dump him, replacing him with the excellent Don Cheadle. Seeing as this was not a major role in the first movie, it really should have no effect on the sequel. Cheadle is a great actor, and will do just fine in the role. See what happens when you get greedy?

I am at a loss to understand all the hype surrounding "Twilight". I have seen the trailer, and was not terribly impressed. The whole good vampire thing has been done before. Personally I want vampires to BE vampires, I don't want to see a bloodsucker with a conscience, that is just not very interesting to me. But regardless, I will still see if just to see if all the hype surrounding it is justified. Apparently, the rabid following that "Twilight" has is apparently so huge, that a sequel has already been greenlit. That indicates that the studio is expecting huge returns on the first "Twilight" movie, being released at the end of next month. Seems that this decision was based on the huge amount of views the trailer has gotten and the fact that the soundtrack is already poised to sell huge numbers, based on pre-sale numbers from Amazon.com. All I can say is that this movie better be as huge, sometimes a movie can get weighed down by its hype, and considering the rabid following and the hype this movie is generating, it had better be everything its fans expect it to be.

Well, that's a wrap for now. As always, feel free to leave any opinions!

New "Star Trek" Trailer Next Month

2008-10-13T11:28:00.009-04:00

There has been much secrecy concerning JJ Abrams "Star Trek" movie. The initial trailer was just a teaser of the Starship Enterprise being built, nothing more. There have been posters with the faces of the actors portraying Kirk, Spock, McCoy & Uhura. But that's it, nothing more. Seeing as the film is coming out next summer, that does not seem to be good marketing. The "Star Trek" franchise has not fared well in recent years, and the anticipation and excitement for this film needs to be high, but with nothing to see or get excited about, that cannot happen.

Well, according to an article I read over at screenrant.com, we will actually be seeing a trailer for the new movie in November. Word is the trailer will include both exterior and interior shots of the Enterprise, as well as dialogue from the film. The veil of secrecy is finally being lifted, and it's about time. There is huge risk attached to this film, because it re-casts the iconic roles from the original series with younger actors. The actors need to convince us that they are indeed these characters, there can be no doubt in our minds. On top of it all, the story needs to be rock solid as well. If successful, this could be the launching point for a whole new series of "Trek" films. Being a huge fan, I am skeptical, but I will be seeing it. The problem is not really even the Trekkies, it is convincing the average movie goer that this movie is worth seeing. Sometimes keeping a movie under secrecy is good, it worked with "Cloverfield", but with a property like "Star Trek", the more you see, the better, at least in my opinion. Only time will tell if the marketing strategy for this film will work, Paramount sure has a lot riding on it, so do all involved. The trailer coming out next month is the first step, hopefully it will work the way the producers want it to. I just want the movie to do justice to the Trek name. What are your thoughts?

Movies That Bombed That Shouldn't Have #2

2008-10-11T13:51:00.004-04:00

Director Brad Bird, best known for the huge hits "The Incredibles" and "Ratatouille" started directing feature films with his 1999 release, "The Iron Giant".

Set in the 1950's at the height of the paranoia of the cold war, it tells the story of a small boy named Hogarth who befriends a giant hulking robot, who we don't really know much about, except that he crash landed from space, but as the story moves along, we realize it doesn't really mater where he came from, he is here and that's all that matters. The two develop a close friendship, almost like a father son relationship, which makes sense seeing as Hogarth grew up without a father. They play together, Hogarth shows the giant comic books, and hides him in barn at his house, but moves him to a scrap metal yard when a snooping Federal agent rents a room at his house. I won't go any further into the story, but it is really great.

This film was grossly mis-marketed in 1999, and everyone involved knew it. It was incredibly well received by critics, and those who did see it highly praised it as well. unfortunately, critical raves and word of mouth was not enough for this film, and what a absolute shame that was. It is one of the most charming, fun and well made animated films, ever. Believable characters, a great story, and animation that is second to none. The relationship between Hogarth and the giant seems unbelievable at first, but it works on all levels. The story reflects the paranoid feeling of the cold war in the 50's, as did most of the science fiction of the time, dealing with themes of fear of the unknown and the fear of war. The film was heavily marketed for its video release, but it really never gained the popularity it so richly deserves. It is a movie that can be equally enjoyed by both kids and adults, and I have watched it with my kids many times. If you don't have kids, doesn't matter, get this movie and watch it anyway. If you do have kids, well of course, get it and watch it with them, either way you owe it you yourself to watch this masterpiece that should have fared wayyyyyy better than it did.

"The Unborn" trailer

2008-10-09T15:40:00.010-04:00

Saw this online and had to post it, looks really creepy. It was written by David S. Goyer, whose writing credits include- "Blade II","Batman Begins" & "The Dark Knight", and stars Gary Oldman.

Check it out:

Now I love horror films, but I am not easily scared by them. in fact, the last horror movie I saw that gave me a good scare was "The Grudge" and that was 4 yeas ago. But I have to say that "The Unborn" looks extremely creepy. I realize it is just a trailer, but it is definitely enough to make me want to go see it. Most horror films these days are only worth seeing on video, some are not worth seeing at all. I like the "Saw" films, but come on, "Saw V"??? Talk about milking an idea til there is nothing left. I haven't seen "Saw IV" but after "Saw III" it was starting to get repetitive, so I didn't bother, but I am sure I will see it sooner or later. I think Hollywood needs to start making good, ORIGINAL scary movies again. Enough with the remakes and sequels already, most of them suck anyways. Give us something new, something that will scare us, not shock us, but scare the crap out of us, PLEASE!!!!

Hollywood News Beat

2008-10-07T13:15:00.006-04:00

Well there has been very little going on in Hollywood these days, as it is gearing up for the holiday movie season. Interesting news has been in short supply, so i will go over the most interesting things I have read about in the past few days.

Mel Gibson and Danny Glover look to be returning for a fifth installment of the "Lethal Weapon" series, even though the last film looked like it was the last in the series. I have always liked the Lethal Weapon movies and welcome another chance to see Riggs and Murtagh back in action. If Stallone and Willis can do it, so can these guys.

Anne Hathaway and Helena Bonham Carter have joined the cast of Tim Burton's "Alice In Wonderland". The two actresses join Johnny Depp as the Mad Hatter, in this retelling of the classic children's story. Now I am a bit hesitant on this one. Johnny Depp is a great actor, but the last time he went this route with Burton we got "Charlie And The Chocolate Factory", and although it made a lot of money and people seemed to like it, I thought it sucked. Willy Wonka was made into a pretty mean despicable guy, and the annoying kids from the original were even more unbearable in the remake. Wonka's childhood was an unnecessary addition to the film, it took away from the character. I hope Burton does a better job with "Alice In Wonderland"

Read a really interesting interview with Jeff Bridges, where he talks about "Iron Man", and "Tron 2", among other things. A really great actor and a good interview, check it out. I thought he was great in "Iron Man", and have been aching for a second "Tron" movie for years. "Tron 2" would not be the same without Bridges, and I am very excited that he is doing it, I will definitely be there opening night!

The plot for the movie "The First Avenger:Captain America" was revealed, and it seems it will be taking place in the 1940's, exactly where it should. Cap was a product of WWII, and was frozen and revived many years later, becoming the leader of the Avengers. Taking liberties with comic book characters has always been done, and sometimes they work, sometimes they don't. But changing Captain America's origin, taking it into a modern day setting, would be wrong. The movie is coming out only a few months before the Avengers movie is scheduled to be released, so I am sure it will end with Cap being frozen and the Avengers movie will start with him being found years later. Marvel studios is on a roll, and let's hope they continue the standard of quality they have set with "Iron Man" and "The Incredible Hulk". Speaking of the big green guy, as well received as the new movie was, by both fans and critics, there doesn't seem to be a new Hulk movie on the horizon. Apparently Marvel was not happy with the returns on "The Incredible Hulk", as well as star Edward Norton's distancing himself from the promotion of the movie. Too bad because Norton was good in the role and the movie was great fun.

Well that's a wrap for now, any comments are, as always, welcome and encouraged.

Mr. 75 Million??

2008-10-06T12:06:00.004-04:00

Ok, this is insanity, nothing but pure insanity. There are reports floating around that Johnny Depp will be getting the staggering sum of $75 million for starring in a fourth "Pirates Of The Caribbean" movie. Depp is, unquestionably, the face of the Pirates movies, and nobody could possibly replace him as Capt. Jack Sparrow. The three "Pirates" movies have made in excess $2.7 billion dollars worldwide, so it may seem like $75 million is small in comparison. Even if "Pirates 4" is a sub par movie, like "Pirates Of The Caribbean:At Worlds End" was it will still make a ton of money, just because of Depp's presence. But, is that really enough to justify such a enormous paycheck? Studios constantly complain of rising costs. bloated paychecks, and not enough returns. Granted, "Pirates" is a proven name, but I don't feel that anything justifies this ridiculous amount of money being paid to ONE actor for what would probably amount to about three months work. There are some movies whose entire budget is $75 million, and they want to give it to one guy. I will say that Depp is worthy of a large payday, but no one actor is worth this much. But if he gets this money, bravo to him, and I will not have one ounce of sympathy for the movie studios when actors start demanding ridiculous paydays like this one, because you know once Depp gets this, other actors will follow. You have to spend money to make money, but not like this.

Segal Talks "Under Siege 3"

2008-10-03T11:35:00.004-04:00

Well, it seems action star Steven Segal wants to get back into the theaters. After spending many years in the direct to video market, in an interview with MTV, Segal says he is looking to go back to his "Under Siege" series. The direction he wants to take, is a bit, ummmm......stupid. You would think that he would want Casey Ryback to fight terrorists, crazed militants, but no, he wants to go the outer space route. Now I loved both "Under Siege" movies and have always thought there should be another. But aliens? I don't want to flat out say it cannot work, but I don't have great confidence that it would. Check out the video of the interview-

It doesn't seem like anything is set in stone here, but I really hope that the alien thing is avoided at all costs. I enjoy Segal's movies and love watching him beat the crap out of people. So the idea of him taking on aliens is not really appealing to me, and I am going to guess it would not be very popular with movie audiences either. Note to Steven-Stick to what you are best at, give us what we want to see and we may welcome you back to the theaters.

James Earl Jones To Be Honored By SAG

2008-10-03T11:13:00.002-04:00

All I can say is it's about time! The great James Earl Jones will receive a lifetime achievement award this year from SAG. Jones, known throughout the world as the voice of iconic villain Darth Vader, has had a long and distinguished career. His voice is what instantly identifies him, as it is one of the most unique and recognizable voices in the world. Oddly, Jones spent much of his childhood as a mute as he had a terrible stutter that he was able to overcome, but not until he reached high school age. Aside from Darth Vader, Jones gave his voice to Mufasa, father of Simba in "The Lion King", played a boxer in "The Great White Hope", was the villainous Thulsa Doom in "Conan The Barbarian", Eddie Murphy's father in "Coming To America", Jim Greer, Jack Ryan's friend and mentor in "The Hunt For Red October", "Patriot Games", "Clear And Present Danger", and so many others. He is the voice of news network CNN. He is one of those actors that can brighten any role, any movie he is in, good or bad. His tiny role at the end of "Sneakers" was a highlight of that film.

I cannot think of an actor more deserving of this honor, it's about time he was recognized for his contributions to the entertainment world.

Michael Bay:The Director People Love To Hate

2008-09-30T15:53:00.007-04:00

Michael Bay....just mention the name and your likely to get a strong reaction, good and bad. Among many "movie geeks" he is revered as "the single greatest thing wrong with American cinema", which to me is a bit of a stretch. He is also one of the more successful directors of the past 13 years. So let's take a look at this.

Bay started making movies in 1995 with "Bad Boys". The movie was a modest hit, it had a $23 million budget, and grossed $65 million. Not bad for your first feature film.

Next up was 1996's "The Rock", which pulled in $134 million, and was a good slam bang action movie and showed that Bay was a very capable action director. 1998's "Armageddon" with Bruce Willis and Ben Affleck pushed Bay into $200 million territory with a gross of $201 million. It pulled heavily on the heartstrings, and that obviously was part of the reason for the movie's success. That was also one of the things that the film's detractors pointed out, that it pulled at the heartstrings to cover up for what was a totally implausible movie.

In 2001 Bay gave us "Pearl Harbor" his attempt at making a "Titanic" like historical epic/love story. The influence of "Titanic" was obvious from the get go, and that was a big point of criticism. Overall, I felt it was a solid movie, the attack on Pearl Harbor was amazingly well done, and from what I have heard, was an almost perfect re-creation of the historic attack. I will admit I was not crazy about the overt attempts to once again pull at the heartstrings, which worked fine in "Armageddon" but seemed forced in "Pearl Harbor". Regardless of its faults, "Pearl Harbor" grossed a respectable $198 million. Short of expectations, but profitable nonetheless.

Bay did his first sequel in 2003 with "Bad Boys II" which grossed almost twice as much as the first ($138 million), but because of its bloated budget ($130 million) was considered a moderate failure. It didn't have the same charm as the first one, and some people actually complained that it had too much action and not enough of a story to drive it. This pleased Bay's detractors, and his next movie would be his next misstep, pleasing them even more. "The Island" came out in 2005 and grossed a mere $35 million on a $126 million budget. At this point, Bay was considered a master of blowing things up to cover up the fact that he was unable to tell a good story. His detractors were hoping that this was the end of the Bay era, two big budget failures in a row is certainly enough to make a studio leery of shelling out a crap load of money for another big budget spectacle. Much to the dismay of his haters, Bay delivered "Transformers" in 2007, and he was back on top. The film had a gross of $319 million and a sequel, "Transformers:Revenge Of The Fallen" is due next summer.

After all of this I am sure you are thinking I am a Michael Bay "apologist". That is not the case. Am I a fan of his movies? Yes, I have no shame in saying I enjoy his films. Do I think he is a great film maker? No. He can blow things up with reckless abandon, and does it well. As far as story telling, he falls short. Most of the movies he makes are thin on story, long on action. The characters in most of his films are stereotypical, with a few exceptions (one that immediately comes to mind is John Mason, played by Sean Connery in "The Rock"). "Armageddon" was loaded with them, as was "Transformers". I could swear he uses the same music in just about every movie. Yes, I agree that "Bad Boys II" had too much action and not enough story. I know it was an action movie, but it veered so far from the first one that it was just too much, there was not enough interaction with the main characters like there was in the first one. Not that I didn't enjoy it, it just was not as good as it could have been. "Pearl Harbor" tried too hard to be like "Titanic", and while it told the historical part of the story quite well, the love story aspect of the film is what pulls it down. "Transformers" was another movie I enjoyed immensely, but again, it had its flaws. The action at some points was so crazy it was hard to tell who was who and what the heck was going on. But just because I havecriticisms about his movies does not mean I don't enjoy them, and I think that's what a lot of people feel. The people who hate Bay feel he insults your intelligence, cannot tell a story and just blows stuff up when he cannot figure out what else to do, and let me tell you, the people who hate him really hate him. I have seen things said about him on other websites that I cannot even repeat here because of the profane nature of what was said. But his movies are entertaining, and people can overlook flaws in a film as long as it entertains them. Look at "Independence Day" that movie is LOADED with flaws, but it was a fun, mindless ride. People go to movies to be entertained, and sometimes we just want to sit back, turn off our brains and have a good time. I think that is why a lot of people hate Bay, because the movies he makes really don't take a lot in the way of talent. But if actors can get by on minimal talent, why not a director? As long as his movies entertain, he will continue to get money to make more, and, much to the dismay of his haters, his movies entertain. Like him or not, he will continue to make movies. I do think at some point he needs to evolve or he will see his style of movie making become tiresome. But for now, what he does seems to suit the studios and audiences just fine.

"Eagle Eye" Tops Box Office

2008-09-28T14:05:00.004-04:00

Early box office reports say that "Eagle Eye" is the top film of the weekend with an approximate gross of $29 million, giving Shia LaBeouf yet another hit. Say what you want about this guy, he makes good choices. Since having smaller roles in "Constantine" and "I Robot", He has had great success in his leading roles- "Disturbia", "Transformers" and as Indy's sidekick Mutt Williams (dumb name) in "Indiana Jones And The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull". That roll is likely to continue this summer with the release of "Transformers:Revenge Of The Fallen". I have heard a lot of flack given to this guy and personally I don't think it's deserved. He seems to give it his all in the roles he plays, unlike some young actors who seem to sleepwalk through the movies they are in. He comes across as a normal guy in extraordinary circumstances. He doesn't try to be a glorified action hero, I really think he has been believable in the roles he has played so far. He got a lot of flack for being in the Indy movie, but he did the best with what he had, that movies faults were not because of him. I, for one welcome this young actor's presence and hope he continues doing movies for a long time, it will be interesting to see where his career leads him.

Disney, Depp & Developments

2008-09-27T12:49:00.006-04:00

Seems that Johnny Depp is quite comfortable in his relationship with Disney, as he will be in at least two upcoming projects for the studio. Disney also announced a bunch of projects in development. From Hollwoodreporter.com-

Move over, Mickey Mouse: Johnny Depp, having buccaneered his way through three "Pirates of the Caribbean" movies, is becoming the new mascot of Walt Disney Studios.

Depp, taking on the role of the Mad Hatter, has accepted an invitation to join the manic tea party in Tim Burton's "Alice in Wonderland."

In a surprise piece of casting, Depp also will play the sidekick Tonto in the upcoming movie version of "The Lone Ranger."

A daylong preview of upcoming Disney movies and projects, held Wednesday at the Kodak Theatre at Hollywood & Highland, ended with a surprise appearance by the actor, outfitted as Jack Sparrow, walking onstage to the tune of "The William Tell Overture," the "Lone Ranger" theme.

Other announcements of note include a third "National Treasure" movie, the moving up of the release date of "Cars 2" from summer 2012 to summer 2011, and a return to traditional animation with "The Princess And The Frog" with Oprah Winfrey lending her voice to that project. That one in particular really pleases me. Not that I am all that excited about the movie itself, but it's nice to see that traditional animation is not dead. I love Pixar films, they are the current gold standard of animation, but since the advent of 3D CGI animation, traditional animation has been pushed to the side. There is no reason for this, there is enough room in the entertainment world for both kinds of animation, and I for one would like to see even more traditionally animated movies in the future.

Also on tap from Disney, a return to the "Witch Mountain" series, one of my favorites when I was growing up, a new version of "A Christmas Carol", and the one I am most looking forward to, "Tron 2.0". I remember seeing the original "Tron" in the theaters, and always thought that they should make a sequel. For whatever reasons they waited so long, one is finally in the works. It obviously won't be as groundbreaking as the original, but hopefully it will give us a great story and awesome action.

Blast From The Past #3

2008-09-25T13:46:00.005-04:00

Welcome to the third installment of "Blast From The Past". There was a time when Eddie Murphy ruled movies. His first two films, "48 Hrs" & "Trading Places" were both solid hits, then he hit the pinnacle of his movie career with 1984's "Beverly Hills Cop". The story of a streetwise, wisecracking Detroit police officer tracking his best friend's killers in Beverly Hills was a perfect vehicle for Murphy, who had so many great years on "Saturday Night Live" and already had two great movies under his belt. It's hard to believe that the part of Axel Foley was first offered to Sylvester Stallone, because I cannot see anyone but Murphy as Foley, because he is why the movie works. The story itself is your typical fish out of water tale, but it is Murphy and his portrayal of Foley that make you look past the standardizations of the movie. It's his charm that gets him by, along with his wit, and his crazy con man antics . Who can forget the great scene when Foley first meets Bronson Pinchot's Serge at the art gallery ("And what it's pertaining" Serge asks him when requesting to see his old friend Jenny). Foley arrives at a Beverly Hills hotel, claiming to be a reporter from Rolling Stone, conning his way into getting a room in a seemingly full hotel. Inspector Rafferty, US customs service, who he claims to be to investigate a suspicious warehouse. So many great funny moments in this movie, I could go on and on about them. I have always said a true test of a movies durability is its ability to be timeless, and this is definitely one of those movies. I can watch it anytime and still laugh at everything I laughed at before. This is also a perfect example of a movie that was not made with the notion of a sequel in mind, yet when the inevitable sequel did arrive, it was, in my opinion, just as good as the first one. Sadly, the third installment took a nose dive into god awful territory. There is a fourth installment in the works, but I don't have high hopes for it at this point, as Eddie Murphy's movie career is not exactly what you would call in good standing right now. I hope it is good, because #3 was an abomination. Regardless of how #4 turns out, there will always be what should be considered a gold standard for action comedies, if you haven't seen it, see it, and if it's been a while, rent it and remember how great Eddie Murphy once was.

I Am Legend Prequel Is A Go

2008-09-25T13:21:00.006-04:00

A Prequel to the Will Smith's 2007 hit "I Am Legend" is gearing up, read about it over at Comingsoon.net -

Variety is confirming what Francis Lawrence told ShockTillYouDop.com at Comic-Con International two months ago, that Warner Bros. is starting to get the ball rolling on a prequel to the 2007 Will Smith blockbuster "I Am Legend", which grossed $584 million internationally.

Now I am a big Will Smith fan, I enjoy all of his movies, and "I Am Legend" was no exception, a exciting, tense, well done movie. But I am not that excited at the notion of a prequel. Obviously a true sequel cannot be done, and as is the norm with Hollywood, they want to capitalize on the success of the first film. The thing that made "I Am Legend" so good was seeing Smith totally alone in New York City, seeing what he does every day just to make it to the next day, his hope, his futility, his loneliness, his determination to cure the human race. A prequel will show us everything that led up to the first movie, but I am thinking that it really doesn't matter what happened, we were given enough information in the first film about that. I really don't care all that much about seeing a full blown movie about the events leading up to the first film. Prequels are a funny thing, in order for them to work, they have to tell a story people want to see because we already know what will happen afterwards. Personally, this is not something I am all that interested in seeing. Will it do well? Probably, because of Smith, but just because you can make a prequel to "I Am Legend" doesn't mean you should.

Hollywood Today

2008-09-23T15:14:00.008-04:00

Movies are a great form of entertainment. They can take us places we have never been, to the future, the past, great moments in history. Movies can tell us great epic stories, or small meaningful ones. They make us laugh, cry, scare us, excite us. But the last few years, in my opinion, have seen a steady decline in the quality of movies. Sure, technology is evolving and letting movies do things they could not do 20 years ago, but it seems to be an excuse for the lack of a good story to tell. Flash some great visual effects at an audience, and a lot of times they will forget they are watching something with no story, or at the least a thin one that is just an excuse to show the visual effects. Old ideas recycled and not even done well. Remakes of movies that should not be done, too many sequels, no more original ideas, all part of the problem.

In 2007, 6 of the top ten films of the year were sequels. The two biggest ("Spider Man 3" and "Shrek The Third") were sequels. Now don't get me wrong, sequels are not a bad thing, most of the time they are an opportunity to tell an ongoing story with characters we really like and want to see again. What bothers me is when movies are made with the notion of a sequel (or sequels) in mind, therefore giving us a sort of incomplete movie. "Star Wars", "Back To The Future", "Die Hard" were all movies that were stand alone movies, conceived without the notion of a sequel and therefore the sequels that followed were solid films. Now, "Back To The Future" II & III were filmed back to back, and the quality dropped off from II to III and the box office reflected that. George Lucas did want to do a continuation of "Star Wars" when he was filming it, but he never thought the film we be successful, because at the time science fiction was not a popular genre, so he ended the film in such a way that it did not warrant a sequel had the film not been a success. A perfect example of an incomplete film is "Jumper" released earlier this year. The film had it's fun moments, but when it was over you felt there was something missing, like the movie should have been longer. My girlfriend described it as an "hour and a half trailer", and that is just how it felt. It was as if the film makers were trying to get us excited for more, but didn't deliver on it, the movie left you wanting more, but not more as in another movie, more as in more movie, right now. The ending was anti climactic, and left you scratching your head and wondering what the producers were thinking. A good example of a movie that delivers the goods and leaves you wanting more is this years "Iron Man". It was in terms of comic book movies, an "origin" story. Just as the first "Spider Man" was. The thing these two movies did well is tell a complete story, and at the end you don't feel like you did not get a complete movie, but at the same time you want to see more.

Therein lies the problem, Hollywood anticipates that audiences will want to see more and therefore gives us incomplete films. With an established names, like Star Wars, James Bond, Harry Potter, sequels are expected and wanted. When you make a film that is something new, it is always best, in my opinion, to tell a complete story, make the film stand on its own. Even if the intention is to make more than one, make it so that a sequel is not necessary, but can be done.

Another evolving problem in Hollywood: remakes. I know I have talked about this before ("Remakes And Hollywood") but it is a constant irritant to me. Everything it seems is being remade these days. Oh I know they have other terms for it- "reboot", "re imagining" "re visioning", all terms I hate. Even sequels are being called remakes. I have heard rumblings about a "sequel" to "Point Break", and that is just ridiculous. The same story, different actors, that is not a sequel, but a remake. A sequel is a continuation of the first movie, same characters, different story, or a continuation of the first films story. That's what "Dirty Dancing :Havana Nights" was, a remake. Sure, Patrick Swayze had a cameo in it, but that was merely to give it the "Dirty Dancing" name. One of the latest things is a new "Robocop" movie. Which I don't necessarily have a problem with if they are going to make something new out of it and not just remake the original, which does not need to be remade. What else, a remake of "Friday The 13th", "A Nightmare On Elm Street", "Highlander". My point here is that Hollywood is trading imagination for established properties. I understand that movies are a business and are supposed to make money. I also know that the American public is growing more and more undemanding as far as movies are concerned, but Hollywood has lowered its standards and so has the American public. But we need to demand better from Hollywood, because they sure as heck can deliver it if they want to. Originality is almost non existent in Hollywood these days, and being someone who loves movies, I not only want it to come back, I demand it to come back. Most of the movies I love and treasure were made 10 years ago or longer, and while there have been quality movies the last decade or so, there have not been enough of them. I will never stop going to the movies because I love them, but I want going to the movies to be an experience again like they used to be. Wake up Hollywood.

Green Hornet Gets The Green light

2008-09-21T13:13:00.005-04:00

Now this is awesome news, read about it at Comingsoon.net

Stephen Chow, one of Asia's most popular box-office draws as the award-winning star and director of such films as "Kung Fu Hustle", "CJ7", and "Shaolin Soccer", will direct Seth Rogen and star opposite him as Kato in Columbia Pictures' "The Green Hornet", set for release June 25, 2010, it was announced today by Doug Belgrad and Matt Tolmach, presidents of Columbia Pictures.

Chow is an awesome director of action, "Kung Fu Hustle" was both funny and had great action sequences, "Shaolin Soccer" was more of the same. I don't know about casting Seth Rogen as the Hornet, he is good in comedies, but it remains to be seen if he can cut it as an action star. Chow will be playing the role of Kato, the Hornet's sidekick. This was the role that brought Bruce Lee to the attention of the American public back in the 60's, and Chow definitely has the chops to play a good Kato. This is definitely something that can turn into a series of films, my only concern, as I said earlier, is Rogen. To get a taste of what to possibly expect from Chow, rent the two films I mentioned, you won't be disappointed.

Jude Law As Watson?

2008-09-19T17:13:00.005-04:00

Read about this in an article at Variety.com, this is shaping up to be a very promising possible franchise.

Jude Law is negotiating to join Robert Downey Jr. in "Sherlock Holmes," the drama that Guy Ritchie will direct for Warner Bros. and Village Roadshow Pictures.

Guy Ritchie is a pretty decent director, and with Downey and Jude Law on board as Holmes and Watson, this could turn into a series of really good films. There has not been a Sherlock Holmes movie in quite some time, in fact, the last one I remember was "Young Sherlock Holmes" and that was not an official Holmes story, as Sir Arthur Conan Doyle never wrote an official story about Holmes's childhood. So this is basically a fresh start for the detective, and I think Downey will be great as Holmes, he has always been a great actor. Downey is one of those actors who can be the only good thing in a bad movie (like in the so so "US Marshals", no disrespect to Tommy Lee Jones). This is a movie I am definitely looking forward to.

Brett Ratner To Possibly Direct Conan

2008-09-18T14:50:00.005-04:00

The director every fanboy loves to hate, Brett Ratner, has been offered the director's chair for the upcoming Conan movie. He is mulling it over, as it seems that he is considering a ton of other movies to make. This is a guy who has gotten a bad rap among movie fans, so I am sure the fanboy community is up in arms about this news. Let's take a look at some of Mr. Ratner's movies. He has done 4 movies with actor Chris Tucker, the 3 "Rush hour" movies, as well as "Money Talks". The first two "Rush Hour" movies were good buddy/action movies, #3 was just terrible, "Money Talks" was good dumb fun. He directed "Red Dragon", a remake of the movie "Manhunter" about the capture of Hannibal Lechter. "Red Dragon" was a decent movie, not great, but decent. I think what gave him the bad rep among fanboys was "X-Men:The Last Stand". It was certainly the weakest of the three X-Men movies, a lot of people I know who loved the first two absolutely hated Ratner's film, citing that it totally strayed from the comics. Well, movies almost never truly follow the comics, so I don't see why that is a big problem. They also didn't like the fact that they tried to cram too much into the movie, which I agree with. There seemed to be an effort to incorporate more mutants into the movie, but so many got very limited screen time, and they should have either been left out, or given more screen time. There is no reason that the movie could not have been over two hours long, 2 1/2 to 3 hour movies are more common than ever, and make money. I think Ratner's attempt at squeezing so much into 1 hour 44 minutes when he could have just as easily extended the movies running time is what pissed off a lot of people. Either way you look at it, the guy makes watchable, if not spectacular movies. I understand the concern at letting him helm a Conan movie, it's an epic story and deserves to be told as such. Ratner has not made anything resembling an epic to this point, so he had better step it up if he is going to make a Conan movie that people want to see. Does he have it in him? At this point I am going to say no. But who though Mel Gibson could direct "Braveheart" as well as he did? Something tells me Ratner should stick to what he does best, and epic film making is not what he is best at.

7 Minutes from "The Day The Earth Stood Still" Remake

2008-09-17T13:44:00.011-04:00

Just before the premiere of the new Fox show "Fringe", Fox TV aired 7 minutes of footage from the December 12th release of "The Day The Earth Stood Still". Now I was skeptical about this movie being done from the get go, a classic film being remade with modern themes is always tricky, and usually brings less than stellar results. The original brought a message of the dangers of nuclear war, in the remake it's global warming.....ehhhhhh I don't know. Keanu Reeves is a decent enough actor, but when you mess with a classic there is always danger. I watched the 7 minute clip, and I have to say I am a bit more interested now. I have yet to see much resemblance to the original, but that doesn't mean much right now. Check out the footage for yourself and see what you think.

The Day The Earth Stood Still - 7 minutes of footage at Screen Rant

Looks pretty cool, and I was going to see it anyways, but I have a bit more hope that it will be good after seeing this footage. I have read opinions on other sites about this, and most people who were not thrilled with the original trailer, are still not impressed with it. I don't know why, the extended footage is more complete than the short trailer, and seems to give a better focus on the movie. I guess we will see when the film is released on December 12th. I hope it will be good, the original is one of my favorite sci-fi films, and I hope they do it proud.

Behind The Scenes of "Bolt"

2008-09-17T12:23:00.003-04:00

I love animated films. Disney, Pixar, Dreamworks, all have quality animated films. In November, Disney brings us "Bolt". The story of a dog who plays a super hero in a TV series, but thinks he really IS a super hero. All that I have seen from this movie so far indicates it's gonna be really good. Today I cam across an article at Comingsoon.net that goes into what's happening behind the scenes for this film.

Meet Bolt. He's the canine star who gives the title to Disney's latest animation; one that boasts an unprecedented 3-D experience and one for which new techniques had to be invented by the studio's ever-resourceful artists. With production just wrapping up, Disney gave ComingSoon.net the chance to go behind the scenes and experience firsthand the incredible level of detail that goes into a project as ambitious as Bolt.

Disney's first fully CG animated film, 2007's "Meet The Robinsons" was a fun, well done animated film. So I have no reason to think that "Bolt" will be any different. This is definitely a movie I will be going to see, with or without my kids, but I am sure I will be seeing it with them as well. To read the full article, click on the link above.

Vin Diesel Returning to "xXx"

2008-09-17T11:08:00.016-04:00

I have read several articles confirming that Vin Diesel is making a return to the "xXx" series. A good idea, maybe, seeing as his latest movie, "Babylon AD" is tanking at the box office. I like this guy, but I feel sorry for him, and I will tell you why. In 2000, Diesel had his fist commercially successful film, the awesome "Pitch Black". He then followed that with "The Fast And The Furious" which was also a good film. Then he did "xXx" which was fun, but totally over the top. But then he started a slow downward spiral. He followed "xXx" with "A Man Apart" which did lousy business, then "The Chronicles Of Riddick", which was a return to the great character of Riddick, and a really good sci-fi movie, but it was so different than "Pitch Black" and I think that is why audiences avoided it, and so it did not do well at the box office ($57 million domestic). Then came "The Pacifier", which did well at the box office ($100 million domestic) but his tough guy image was tarnished. Then came "Find Me Guilty" which also tanked. He did not do the sequels to "The Fast And The Furious" or "xXx", and that, in my opinion was a mistake. Sure he had a cameo in "The Fast And The Furious:Tokyo Drift" and although it was the best thing in that movie, it was not his movie. So now with his latest movie bombing, he is returning to a tarnished franchise. As I said before, the first "xXx" movie was an over the top, but fun movie. The second one, "xXx:State Of The Union" was terrible. no offense to Ice Cube, who is a good actor in his own right, but it sucked, and did not do well at the box office. So now the question is, do people really want to see a sequel to a bad sequel? Is Diesel's name enough to make people want to return to the theaters to see this? Sure, it was said in the second "xXx" that Diesel's character had died, but in the spy world that means nothing, and you never saw him die, so he is easily brought back. He is also doing a fourth installment of "The Fast And The Furious", simply called "Fast And Furious", and I have seen the trailer and It looks kick ass. But it may not be enough. I don't want to see Vin Diesel go the direct to video route, but I really think it will take one heck of an awesome movie to bring him back to the status he used to have. His first few movies were hits, and when you start off on top like that, the sad truth is you have a hard time keeping that status, especially if you are an action star. I wish him luck, it is going to be a rough road back.

Movies That Bombed That Shouldn't Have #1

2008-09-15T19:01:00.010-04:00

Welcome to a new feature, where I will talk about a good movie that didn't deserve the poor business it did. 2007's "Grindhouse" was a collaborative effort between Robert Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino, and it was a tribute to the cheap, low brow Grindhouse films of the 50's, 60's and 70's. These were low budget, badly acted movies, often shown two at a time, probably because no one would want to pay to see just one of these cheapies. "Grindhouse" was actually two movies, "Planet Terror" an insane zombie movie directed by Rodriguez, and "Death Proof", about a sadistic stuntman terrorizing some young women directed by Tarantino. These guys really went the extra mile, making the "film" look cheap and scratched, even going so far as to have other film makers crate fake trailers that would play before each movie. The trailers were just as much fun as the movies themselves. I will say this, that "Grindhouse" is not for everyone. "Planet Terror" has a large amount of gore, and "Death Proof" gets a bit too talky at times, but that is expected from Tarantino. But overall, the experience of the films as a whole is very enjoyable. They were made not to be taken seriously, and that's why the gore didn't bother me. Part of the problem, I think, was that a lot of people just didn't get what they were trying to do with the movie. If you know what the old Grindhouse movies were like, then you knew what to expect from this. Even if you didn't they were just good, fun films, and most film critics liked it (not that film critics know anything, but don't get me started on them). Another part of the problem was the release date of the movie. It was released on Easter weekend, a time usually reserved for more family friendly type fare. The critically slammed "Are We Done Yet" did better than this movie did on its opening weekend. One complaint I heard about this movie was that people seemed to think that the film makers could not decide if they wanted to be funny or scary. But that was the thing about Grindhouse films, they were cheap and poorly made, and were usually laughable as they were trying to be scary or dramatic, and that's what both of these movies were emulating. I think in the end, most people just didn't get it. I saw this in the theaters and I loved it, and so did anybody else I knew who saw it. I highly recommend seeing "Grindhouse", but the experience is best seeing it in its original form, as one long double feature, complete with the fake trailers. Both films had separate DVD releases, and both come with extended footage, but I would not recommend seeing them until you see the original full length double feature. Apparently, the low gross of the movie has not discouraged the notion of a sequel, which is very rare in Hollywood, but in this case, I would welcome another one. Definitely a movie that deserved a better fate than it got.

Blast From The Past #2

2008-09-13T17:39:00.009-04:00

Welcome to the second installment of Blast From The Past. Submarine movies have always been an exciting genre to me. The confined spaces, the tension of being underwater for such long periods of time, the conflicts that can occur between shipmates. There have been many good submarine movies, and in my opinion, one of the best is 1995's "Crimson Tide" with Gene Hackman and Denzel Washington. The story takes place during a time when a renegade Russian takes control of a Russian base that contains nuclear weapons. The U.S.S. Alabama is dispatched to patrol the seas to protect the U.S. from attack. Gene Hackman's Captain Ramsey is a stubborn, top of the line submarine commander, and from the get go, you can see that he will clash with his new executive officer, Washington's Ron hunter. Right away you can sense the tension between the two men, but yet they seem to work well together despite their obvious differences. As the crisis in Russia escalates, so does the tension on the ship and particularly between Ramsey and Hunter. The situation reaches a boiling point when Hunter relieves Ramsey of command much to the dismay of many of Ramsey's loyal crew. What follows is a tense filled sequence of events that keeps you on the edge of your seat until the climax. Both Hackman and Washington give stellar performances here, and their relationship is what fuels the film. You will see a young, pre-Sopranos James Gandolfini, and Viggo Mortensen (before "Lord Of The Rings"), they, along with the rest of the supporting cast all give good support to the two leads. Directed by Tony Scott, the movie doesn't let up, it succeeds in building up the tension and taking it to the boiling point. This is definitely a movie that warrants repeated viewing. If you have not seen it, see it, if you have seen it and have not watched it for some time, see it again!!!! There has not been a submarine movie since, with the possible exception of "U571" that comes close to being as well done as this was.

Iron Man 2 Info

2008-09-12T12:56:00.004-04:00

"Iron Man" was the surprise hit of the summer. A second tier Marvel super hero, with nowhere near the notoriety of Spider Man or the X-Men. Despite that, director Jon Favreau made the movie work brilliantly. The casting of Robert Downey Jr. was a masterstroke. The special effects, both CGI and practical, were superb. So of course it's no surprise that a sequel is being planned. There has been some information let out about "Iron Man 2", and even though it isn't much, it is good stuff. Here is part of an article from Collider.com, talking to Jon Favreau -

While he was a bit cagey about specifics with “Iron Man 2,” he did mention Mandarin a lot and he said we can expect a lot more surprises in the sequel in terms of other comic book characters.

He also said he hopes to keep the story relatively simple in the sequel, but he hopes to raise the emotional and technical side of the story. Meaning, he wants the stakes to be raised for all the characters, but he’s not going to make it hard for a new audience to understand the story or make it so complicated that you have to work to follow it. He actually mentioned “The Dark Knight” and said they can keep that side of the playground. He wants to keep “Iron Man” light and fun.

He did talk about War Machine and mentioned Terrance Howard and his busy schedule. I think he’s definitely going to put on the armor in the sequel….but that’s just my vibe from the way he talked about it.

There was a quick glimpse of War Machine in "Iron Man", when Rhodey looks at the armor and says "Next time" so that should be very cool to see. From what I have read about Mandarin, he seems like a very cool villain. A master martial artist, a scientific genius, and has 10 power rings, one for each finger, and all have a different function. I also like the idea of shooting it in 3D and IMAX. "The Dark Knight" worked awesomely in IMAX, and Iron Man would most likely be just as awesome. They hit a home run with the first movie, and I hope that the next movie is just as good, or even better than the first one, and so far it is shaping up to be. What are your thoughts on "Iron Man 2"?

9-11, 7 Years Later

2008-09-11T19:43:00.003-04:00

Always remember what's important. 7 years ago, a tragedy of immense proportions hit this country. I, along with every other New Yorker, will never forget that day. Although 7 years have passed, the emotions and intensity of that day remain with us all. To this day, I still cannot believe it happened. Every time I go to Manhattan, I still expect to see the twin towers, and I think I always will, i will never ever get used to not seeing them. I visited Ground Zero, and a friend who was there with me said he never saw me look so angry before. Although i did not personally lose someone that day, it was nonetheless a devastating loss. I was at a local park a few weeks ago and they had a 9-11 memorial there that I had never seen. It was a wonderful memorial, and by the time I left it I had tears in my eyes. A few months ago, I tried to watch the movie "United 93", and it took me a few times to actually be able to sit through the entire film. I know that parts of the movie had to be pieced together from what little information was had, so it may not have been 100% accurate, but it doesn't matter. The bravery of those people was staggering, to watch them sacrifice their lives to save others was the true definition of heroism, and there is no way you can watch that movie and not shed tears. This article is dedicated to all the souls lost on that day, we will remember you always, every fight against terrorism we fight for you, and whatever is built at Ground Zero, stands as a monument to you all.

GI Joe Star Talks About Cobra Commander

2008-09-11T13:46:00.005-04:00

In an article over at MTV Movies Blog, actor Joseph Gordon-Levitt talks a bit about his role in upcoming "GI Joe:Rise Of Cobra", set to be released in the summer of 2009.......

With a number of iconic costumes in his wardrobe, the look of the character has been first and foremost on the minds of fans. Gordon-Levitt confirmed to MTV News back in April that he does wear a mask, and producer Lorenzo di Bonaventura told us recently that it wouldn’t be the classic hood. But while we’ve been busy speculating over what’s covering his face, would you believe it’s what’s underneath that might be most surprising?

I was pretty excited when I heard there was going to be a live action GI Joe movie. I had all the toys when I was a kid, watched the cartoon, read the comics. So far, I think the movie is shaping up nicely. Dennis Quaid is playing Duke, and I think that is perfect casting. Now the choice of Gordon-Levitt to play Cobra Commander threw me a bit at first, but the guy is a very good actor, and considering that I have been wrong in the past about casting choices (which I won't get into now) I am not going to pre-judge this choice. The article say that Cobra Commander won't be wearing the traditional outfit we are used to seeing him in, and that is fine. They changed the costumes of the X-Men for the movies, and that worked. In fact, all the costumes look different, but again, that's ok. The film is being directed by Stephen Sommers, who did the first two "Mummy" movies as well as the underrated "Van Helsing" which despite negative reviews, I thought was good fun. So I think in the hands of Sommers, this should be a good popcorn summer movie. Any thoughts on this possible future franchise?

TMNT Hybrid movie?

2008-09-09T16:47:00.010-04:00

Live actors and sets, CGI turtles. In an article at Splashpage at MTV.com, Peter Laird talks about the possibility of a live action/CGI hybrid film for the next TMNT movie

I can confirm that we have had several meetings with very interested people, and I think we are pretty close to making a deal. As owner of the TMNT property, I want to be the first to announce it at a time of my choosing (hopefully soon)

Now I really liked the first two live action movies, the third one was crap. The CGI "TMNT" was a really awesome movie. I'm not sure how a hybrid movie would work, but it is a good idea. The turtles in "TMNT" moved just the way they should. The live action movies had actors in turtle suits, and as good as the suits were, the actors were limited to what they could physically do. This seems like a natural evolution for the next film, because you would be combining the good elements of a live action movie with the freedom that having the turtles done in CGI gives you. The trick is, it has to be believable. Sometimes you get CGI characters in a live action movie that just look bad, and therefore you just don't buy it, you can't suspend disbelief. They cannot look too cartoony. I hope they decide to go in this direction, done right it could be a really awesome action movie.

Happy Birthday Star Trek!!

2008-09-08T16:24:00.007-04:00

September 8th, 1966. A day that is revered by Sci-Fi fans the world over. It was the first episode of season one of "Star Trek" (that episode being "The Man Trap"). It also just happens to be my birthday, so "Star Trek" and I are both 42 today. "Trek" lasted only three seasons on TV, but has remained a significant science fiction entity to this very day. Its popularity may have waned over the past several years, but its impact upon society is undeniable. "Beam me up Scotty" is a phrase used by Trekkies (I despise being called a "Trekker") and non Trek fans alike. It brought mainstream social issues into a science fiction setting, allowing its creators to say what they wanted without actually offending anyone. It tackled the issues of war, racism, economics, sexism, the role technology plays in our lives and our dependence on it. One other thing it gave us, is a vision of the future in which mankind is united, something you don't see that much in science fiction anymore. Yes, there were still problems for mankind to face, but they were faced together, as one planet, one race, the human race. The thing that made Trek great, aside from the stories (which were mostly good but had some real clunkers in the mix), was the characters. They were all people we could identify with, even Spock. The relationships they shared with each other, their humor, and their enduring support of one another. I first discovered Trek at the age of 10, watching it occasionally, but found myself not exactly getting some of the episodes, I seemed more drawn to the action oriented episodes. But as I grew up, I began to really appreciate the series for what it was, and by the time "Star Trek:The Motion Picture" came out in 1979, I was excited about it. Sadly, I was greatly disappointed to see that it was a big budget rehash of the episode "The Changeling" from the series. It was great to see Trek finally make it to the big screen, but I wanted something better, and in 1982, I got it with "Star Trek II:The Wrath Of Khan". That movie was not a rehash of an old episode, but an incredible sequel to one ("Space Seed " was the original episode), and it remains the best Trek movie to date. The movies that followed were good, with "Star Trek V:The Final Frontier" being the lone exception, and as bad as that was, it still had some good moments. The torch was handed off with "Star Trek VI:The Undiscovered Country", as it was the last Trek film to feature the entire original cast. The movies that followed were focused on the cast of "Star Trek:The Next Generation" That show may have lasted longer than the original series, but in my opinion, it was never nearly as good as the original. In 2009, Paramount will release the 11th Star Trek feature film, simply titled "Star Trek". This is a big gamble for director JJ Abrams because he is re-casting the roles of the original characters, in their younger versions. Great care needs to be taken in making this movie, because when you re-cast iconic characters, the audience needs to believe that these people are those characters. One misstep, and the movie will sink. The story, the acting, everything needs to be spot on if the movie is to be a success. I know I will be seeing it, as well as my fellow Trekkies who want Trek to return to greatness. So here's to you Trek, Happy Birthday, and in the words of the Vulcans, may you live long and prosper.

Raimi & Maguire Confirmed For Spidey 4 & 5

2008-09-06T11:07:00.013-04:00

Just read this article on Deadline Hollywood Daily, concerning the next few "Spider Man" movies, here is a small piece of it.....

It's time to end once and for all the rampant speculation. Sony doesn't want any info to leak but I'm told that both star Tobey Maguire and director Sam Raimi will be returning to make Zodiac screenwriter Jamie Vanderbilt's script of Spider-Man 4. Sources tell me that Sony has recently locked in both veterans of Spider-Man 1 through 3.

"Spider Man 3" made some good bucks ($336 million domestic) so another Spidey film was inevitable, but many people thought that it was the weakest of the three Spidey movies to date, and I agree. Having three villains was too much, Venom was handled terribly, although I thought Topher Grace was fine as Eddie Brock/Venom. There was some great action sequences in #3, but over all they tried to do too much and the movie got bogged down by all the multiple story lines. What needs to be done, is Raimi needs to go back to what made the first two movies work so wonderfully. Have one, just ONE villain, but this time make him merciless, even more so than the Green Goblin in #1. Sandman was too sympathetic a character to be a true bad guy. Even as great as Doc Ock was in #2, he was not pure evil, I really think Spidey needs to have an adversary that is purely evil. In all 3 films, Spider Man has not had to kill anyone. In #1, he gets out of the way of the glider and the Goblin dies by his own hand, in #2, Doc Ock sacrifices himself, in #3 he lets Sandman go and Eddie Brock dies in the explosion of the Goblin bomb which Peter was trying to get him away from. Spider Man needs to be forced into a life or death situation, because he has never really faced that. Raimi is capable of making great Spider Man movies, as seen by #1 & #2, and #3 was not truly horrible, but compared to the first two it was weak because the bar was set so high with #2. I have not lost faith in Raimi and Co., one stumble does not mean it's over for Spider Man, but # 4 & 5 had better be just as good as the first two were, or else we may wave bye bye to Spidey for a few years. At least until they (and I really, REALLY don't like this overused word) "reboot" it.

Death Of The Parody Movie

2008-08-31T15:36:00.010-04:00

Well all I can say is thank god. "Disaster Movie" tanked at the box office this weekend, and I could not be happier. Hopefully, the bozos that keep making these brain dead movies will stop getting money to make them. Remember when the parody movie was actually funny? It's ok if you don't because there has not been a funny one in the theaters for quite some time. I have been trying to figure out what went wrong with this genre. I had the unfortunate experience of seeing the truly horrid "Meet The Spartans" in the theaters. The trailer looked mildly amusing, and my girlfriend and her daughter wanted to see it, so we went. I was amazed that I even heard anyone laughing. I laughed about 3 or 4 times the entire movie, and that is sad seeing as it is supposed to be a comedy.

"Date Movie", "Not Another Teen Movie", "Epic Movie", "Superhero Movie". All examples of parodies that wee not funny. The problem with these movies is that they try to jam too much into the movie. The parodies of the 70's and 80's worked, because they parodied a certain type of movie and stayed within the genre it was parodying. Just from watching the trailers for "Disaster Movie", you can see the movies they are poking fun at- "Iron Man", "The Incredible Hulk", "Juno", "Hancock","Sex And The City". None of those movies have any relation to the disaster movie genre, they don't belong in a parody of it. In "Meet The Spartans" there were video game jokes, Britney Spears jokes, Dancing With the Stars jokes? Come on, those have no place in a parody of "300". I could even accept going out of the genre you are parodying, if it were not for one simple thing-these movies are simply not funny.

It's really simple how this problem can be solved. First, stop giving money to these hacks that slap together these awful films. Second, before making a parody, go back and look at how good they used to be. "Young Frankenstein", "High Anxiety", "Airplane", "This Is Spinal Tap", "Top Secret", even "Spaceballs", were all good parodies of the genres/movies they were going after. They stayed within the genre, and took the time to actually make sure what they were doing was funny.

The parody film, for the time being, is dead. Let's hope that someone in Hollywood has the vision to make a good parody film and stop feeding us this garbage. What do you think on the subject of parodies?

Blast From The Past #1

2008-08-28T19:41:00.007-04:00

Today I am adding a new feature called "Blast From The Past" where I will talk about a movie from years ago that I love. 1984 saw a lot of great films released- "Red Dawn", "Purple Rain", "Splash", "The Terminator", among many others. This installment I focus on the 1984 release "The Karate Kid".

I grew up in the 80's, and that decade produced many of my favorite movies and music. This is what I consider to be one of the quintessential 80's movies. "The Karate Kid" was touted as a teenage "Rocky", and that's basically what it is. It helps that it was directed by the same guy who made "Rocky", John G. Avildsen. Although it had many similarities to "Rocky", it was still its own film. The characters are what made this movie rise above the standard underdog story. Ralph Macchio played Daniel Larusso perfectly. The kid taken away from his home and friends to California so his mother can take a job. He has left everything he knows, and you can tell he misses it. Everything just goes wrong for him, and then he meets Mr Miyagi (the great Noriyuki 'Pat' Morita) and finds a friend in him. You can tell that they need each other, Daniel doesn't have a father, Mr Miyagi has no children. They become more than friends, they become surrogate father and son to each other. The chemistry between the two actors is what shines in this movie. It doesn't even matter that you can pretty much guess the end half way through, because it doesn't matter, you want Daniel and Mr. Miyagi to win, and it is totally satisfying when they do. The heavy in this movie is played by 80's bad boy staple, William Zabka, and he is truly a real jerk in this, and it makes you root even more for the underdogs to win. Pat Morita created a truly wonderful character in Mr. Miyagi, he is kind, caring, and funny in a subtle kind of way, in fact he has most of the funniest lines in the movie. Oh yea, he knows Karate as well, this is one old guy I would not want to mess with. There were two sequels with both Mr. Miyagi and Daniel. The first sequel was, in my opinion, as good as the first. The second sequel was good, not great like the first two. There was a third sequel, but Ralph Macchio was not in it, and although Pat Morita was still good, you can tell he was not as into it as he was in the first three. This was a movie you could not help but walk away from feeling good. It was a story of friendship, of two people who brought out the best in each other. I recently showed this movie to my kids, and they loved it, it was great to see them cheering for Daniel at the end. The test of a movie's longevity is its ability to entertain generations of viewers, and this is definitely a movie that does that.

Top 5 Worst Sequels

2008-08-26T16:12:00.030-04:00

Sequels. Some movies are made with the idea of having one or many sequels, others are intended as a one shot deal, but of course when a movie does well, if a sequel that be made it will be. Sometimes, sequels outdo the original ("Superman II", "The Empire Strikes Back", "The Godfather Part II"), other times they are just as good as the original, or not quite as good but still a worthy follow up. Then we have the ones that are just completely awful. These are the sequels that take everything that was good about the original and just totally destroy it. The following movies are what I consider to be the worst sequels ever.

#5 - "Beverly Hills Cop III" - Total disappointment is the nicest way to say how I feel about this movie. I absolutely loved the first two movies, and I was really hoping for a third. I was excited to hear that one was finally being made 7 years after part II. Needless to say, I walked out of the theater scratching my head. I kept wanting to walk out during the movie, but I stayed, wanting and hoping it would get better, but it never did. First off, John Ashton (Taggart) was absent, that was the first mistake. Second, the setting was an amusement park, and that was lame. Third, the bad guy was boring. The action was boring. The story was OK, Foley avenging his boss's murder, but it just didn't feel like a Beverly Hills cop movie, gone was Axel Foley goofy con man cop, instead we got Axel Foley SUPERCOP!!! The only thing that sort of made me smile , aside from the credits, was Bronson Pinchot's brief scene as Serge, and that itself is pretty lame.

#4 - "Caddyshack 2" - No Ted Knight+No Bill Murray+No Rodney Dangerfield=No Laughs. That pretty much sums up this lame follow up to the original. If you are going to wait 8 years to do a sequel, at least bring back what made the first one great. Sure Chevy Chase was in it (when he was still sort of funny) but even he seemed to know the movie sucked. Crass rich guy gets rejected from a country club, buys it, turns it into an amusement park type golf club. Then comes the inevitable "showdown" on the golf course. Jackie Mason has been good in supporting roles (really funny in "The Jerk") but this movie showed that he can in no way carry a movie himself, because that is what he had to do with Murray, Knight and Dangerfield absent. It was the combination of those actors that made the first one work. Without them, and without a strong enough comedic actor to take the place of THREE actors, not to mention a lame story, this just fell flat on its face.

#3 - "Jaws The Revenge" - "Jaws" is the gold standard of blockbusters and changed movies forever, so why this was even made is beyond me because there was simply no way to measure up to the original. "Jaws 2" was just a retread of "Jaws" and even Roy Scheider's presence could not save it from sucking. Then we had the awful "Jaws 3D" which was even worse than #2. The minute I heard the title of this I knew it was going to suck. A shark that takes revenge? They tried to make it like the original, bringing back Lorraine Garry as Ellen Brody, and having Michael Brody (Brody's son, who in the original, was almost taken out by the shark) all grown up and being some kind of marine biologist or something. Even going so far as to copy the cute scene in the original when Brody and his little son Sean are at the dinner table mimicking each other. The shark follows the family to the Bahamas (follows?) I guess in an effort to exact revenge for his cousin , brother or whatever being killed by Martin Brody in the first movie. How incredibly stupid is that? Then, to top it all off, at the end when they are trying to kill the shark, it roars in pain or anger or something. Sharks CANNOT make sounds of any kind!!!!! That is just an outright insult to the viewers intelligence. Terrible, terrible movie, everyone involved had to be desperate for a paycheck to sign on to this dead fish.

#2 - "Grease 2" - I am really not a huge fan of the movie musical, but "Grease" just happens to be one of my favorite movies. Everything about the movie worked, and you cannot deny the chemistry between John Travolta and Olivia Newton-John. The songs, and the numbers that accompanied them, the rest of the cast, all came together and made a memorable movie experience. Why try to top that? Money of course. "Grease 2" follows the exact same story as the original, but the geniuses behind this movie thought it would be neat to reverse the roles. Good boy meets bad girl, and must become a bad boy to win her. One of the things about "Grease" was the fact that none of the actors looked liked they belonged in high school, but it was easy to suspend disbelief because of how well everyone worked together. That is gone in "Grease 2", and mostly because the lead actors are weak, and bring everyone else around them down. There is ZERO chemistry between Michelle Pfeiffer and Maxwell Caulfield, I never once believed they had a connection. Adrian Zmed was a piss poor replacement for Jeff Conway, they brought back some of the original actors from the original, but none of it worked. The songs were lame. The comedy seemed forced. The producers didn't even bother to make it seem like they were in the 50's, looked more like the 80's to me. This movie took everything that was great in the original and reduced it to a steaming pile of crap. A completely, embarrassingly awful movie.

#1 - "Superman IV The Quest For Peace" - This hurts to write this, because I loved the first two Superman movies. Sure, "Superman III" was bad, but it was at least fun. So, where to start with this turkey. The story. Superman thinks if he rids the world of nuclear weapons, the world will be at peace. But of course, Lex Luthor steps in to mess up Supe's plans. Luthor steals a lock of Superman's hair from a museum, and proceeds to make what is the single most dumbest bad guy in the history of movies, Nuclear Man. Nuclear Man's weakness (can't function without the sun) is a huge one and is never exploited until the end. The acting. Everyone is horrible in this, even though it's a comic book movie, everyone phoned in their performances. Jon Cryer is a total waste as Luthor's stupid bumbling nephew (Lex Luthor does NOT need a comic sidekick). The whole thing with the Daily Planet being taken over by a tabloid owner was dumb and added nothing to the already lame story. Christopher Reeve had to be desperate for money, as well as Margot Kidder, and gosh I can't believe Gene Hackman signed on for this either. The special effects. Terrible, the whole movie was obviously shot on a shoestring budget, and it shows in every frame. There are some shots where you can actually see that Superman is a toy doll, and the other shots of him flying are just so fake looking. There is nothing about this movie that could be called good, nothing. The comedy is not funny, there is no excitement, the action is as lame as it gets. Worst super hero movie ever, worst sequel ever. This movie could be singled out as the greatest example of everything that is wrong with sequels, because everything that can be done wrong in a sequel was done in this lame brained stinker.

Well, that's my choices for the worst sequels ever made. There are so many, I could have easily made a top ten. Here are some other turkeys that deserve to be avoided at all costs- "Highlander 2", "Speed 2", the aforementioned "Jaws 2" & "Jaws 3", "The Next Karate Kid", "Porky's 2", "Batman & Robin". What are your most hated sequels? What do you think of the ones I just talked about?

The Films Of The Fall Season

2008-08-25T12:18:00.007-04:00

Well the Summer is coming to a close, and it has been one heck of a movie season. Now we head into fall, when Hollywood rolls out less big budget spectacles, and more "serious" film fare. That is not to say the fall won't have its share of summer type fare, just less than the summer season puts out. So let's take a look at some of the upcoming films on the fall schedule.

"Quantum Of Solace"- The next James Bond flick, comes out November 14th. This is the second 007 movie with new Bond Daniel Craig, the first being 2006's excellent "Casino Royale". This film has 007 on the revenge trail, while also trying to stop an environmentalist from gaining control of a country's water supply. I loved "Casino Royale" and am really looking forward to this one as well, Craig is the best Bond since Sean Connery, in my opinion.
"Madagascar:Escape 2 Africa"- (November 7th) The sequel to 2005's "Madagascar" finds Alex, Marty, Melman and Gloria escaping from Madagascar only to end up in Africa, where they discover their roots and long lost family members. Ben Stiller and Chris Rock reprise their roles in the film. I am not sure what to make of this, I liked the first one, and it seems like they are at least trying to do something different with the sequel. I will probably wind up taking my kids to see this, so I will let you know how it is.
"Valkyrie"- (December 26th) Director Bryan Singer's WWII drama stars Tom Cruise as a Nazi(?) involved in a plot within the German army to assassinate Hitler. Bryan Singer is capable of making really good drama ("Apt Pupil", "The Usual Suspects") and this seems like a real interesting story. I have heard complaints that the actors portraying the Nazis do not even attempt a German accent. I am not too keen on that myself, but if the story and performances are good, I can overlook it. Tom Cruise is riding high after his appearance in "Tropic Thunder", and he is a very capable actor, so this may be worth checking out.
"Twilight"- (November 21st) The first film based on Stephanie Meyer's mega popular novel, this film tells the story of a family of vampires who are different, as they choose to not feed on human blood to survive. When one of the vampires falls in love with a mortal girl, it seems he starts to have problems resisting his natural urges. I have not read any of the "Twilight" books, but I am a bit cautious about this. The trailer kind of looks like Beverly Hills 90210 vampires, and right off that really doesn't interest me. I will probably see it, but it's gonna have to really be the opposite of what it looks like for me to enjoy it.

A few other films I am looking forward to are "Righteous Kill" (September 12th) with Robert DeNiro and Al Pacino, about cops tracking down a vigilante killer. Sounds like the plot of "Magnum Force" but I will go see anything that teams up two of our best actors. "Max Payne" (October 17th) the movie adaption of the gritty, violent video game. Mark Wahlberg stars as the title character out to avenge his family's death. Video game movies usually suck, but this one at least looks like it could break that tradition. What are you looking forward to this fall movie season. If you want to see any of the trailers for any of the movies I just talked about, click on the links below.
"Quantum Of Solace", "Valkyrie", "Madagascar:Escape To Africa", "Twilight", "Righteous Kill", "Max Payne"

The Future of Star Wars

2008-08-22T23:33:00.008-04:00

"A Long Time Ago In A Galaxy Far, Far Away" - A phrase that has and always will give me chills. The Star Wars movies are my favorite movies of all time, yes, even the prequels. August 15th saw the release of "The Clone Wars" animated movie, but so far, it has not been as well received as I am sure George Lucas had hoped.

So what is next for this long standing franchise? "The Clone Wars" is supposed to be the start of a animated series, and there are also plans for a live action series that fills in the gaps between Episode III and IV. Sometimes movies made into TV shows work ("Highlander" & "Stargate" come to mind) and sometimes they don't ("Robocop", "My Big Fat Greek Wedding"). So what does a "Star Wars" live action TV show need to work? It needs new characters, ones we are totally unfamiliar with. At this point, we all know the fates of the established characters, so centering the stories around them would be pointless and without any drama whatsoever. The writing also needs to be top notch, that is what fueled the success of the new "Battlestar Galactica" series. We need to see characters and stories we care about, not just thin stories that are just an excuse to show off visual effects. Can it be done? Yes. Will it be done is another question that won't be answered until we actually see the show.

What myself and I am sure many other fans want to see is a continuation of the story after "Return Of The Jedi". Unfortunately, the chances of that happening are probably slim to none. Harrison Ford stated in an interview many years ago that he has no intrest in reviving his role as Han Solo, stating that he felt he had become an "empty" character. Sure dangle enough money in front of him and maybe he would do it, but I am afraid his heart just would not be in it. So the question remains, how could this be done? Well I am going to go out on a limb and say:make it animated. Yes, I said animated. But I don't mean animated in the style of "The Clone Wars". more like "Beowulf". It would be much easier for the actors to do voice work than the actual physical work, and animation has a lot less boundaries than live action does. The story could be based on the novels of Timothy Zahn, whose "Thrawn Trilogy" ("Heir To The Empire", "Dark Force Rising", and "The Last Command") is beloved by Star Wars fans and would be a perfect story to tell.

Will this happen? At this point, it's doubtful, but I never thought I would see another "Star Wars" film after "Return Of The Jedi", so I have learned to never say never. George Lucas has said he is done with live action "Star Wars" movies, but he is always changing his mind, so who knows what we will see in the future. Then again, and I never thought I would EVER say this, maybe it's time to just stop it all. I don't wish to see my favorite entertainment fall and stumble and have to end because nobody wants to see it anymore, going out on top is always the better alternative. What direction do you think "Star Wars" should go?

Ben Affleck in new Mike Judge movie

2008-08-21T16:05:00.003-04:00

Seems that Ben Affleck is planning on being in Mike Judge's next movie, titled "Extract". I read about this in a small article at Comingsoon.net.

Ben Affleck is in negotiations to star in Miramax's Mike Judge comedy Extract, reports Variety.

Affleck will play an ambulance-chasing lawyer in the film, which centers on a flower extract factory owner (Jason Bateman) who's dealing with workplace problems and a streak of bad luck, including his wife's affair with a gigolo.

Clifton Collins Jr. is also joining the cast as a factory worker who loses a body part in a freak accident and is now due for a huge settlement. Mila Kunis and Kristen Wiig have already boarded the project, which begins filming Monday in Los Angeles.

Judge wrote the screenplay and is producing with John Altschuler and Mike Rotenberg via the trio's Ternion Productions.

Now, I have always felt that Ben Affleck has gotten a bad rap. No, he isn't the most amazing actor in the world, but how many of those are there? But he is a capable actor, and personally, I have liked everything I have seen him in. I felt that "Daredevil" was highly underrated and a really good super hero movie. He was good as a young Jack Ryan in "The Sum Of All Fears". I could go on and on, but the bottom line is he is a good actor, and seeing him in a Mike Judge movie should be good fun. Judge's first full length feature (not counting the Beavis and Butthead movie), "Office Space" is one of my favorite comedies, and I just caught his most recent movie, 2006's "Idiocracy", and it was good dumb fun as well. I like that fact that Judge doesn't just churn out a movie every couple of years, he seems to pick and choose his projects which is good. Any thoughts on Ben Affleck or Mike judge? Uhhhhh....yeahhh....they're cool.....huuhhhh huuuh.

Superman: Will he fly or fall?

2008-08-20T15:56:00.010-04:00

EDITORS NOTE: After this article was posted, Warner Bros. announced that it will reboot the Superman franchise, meaning Brandon Routh will most likely not return, nor will director Bryan Singer. Apart from that my thoughts on the direction of the next Superman film remain unchanged.

In 2006, director Bryan Singer gave us "Superman Returns", the long awaited return of the Man of Steel. The film grossed a very respectable $200 million, and was generally enjoyed by audiences. Brandon Routh did a good job in the title role, playing the character much like the late Christopher Reeve did. The rest of the cast did a good job as well, I was really impressed with how Kevin Spacey played Lex Luthor. I remember taking my kids to see it in the theaters, and my daughter was even crying at the end when she thought Superman was dying. But as much as I enjoyed it, I always felt the movie was not quite what it could and should have been. Let's face it, Lex Luthor is in every Superman movie, and as great a character as he is, he really does not present that great a threat to Superman. Not since the three Kryptonian villains in Superman II has Superman really been challenged.

So now Bryan Singer is starting work on "Superman:Man Of Steel". The big question is can he deliver on the groundwork he laid down with "Superman Returns". I have a few thoughts on that.

OK, if you have to have Lex Luthor in the movie, he cannot be the main villain. Give him a role similar to the one he had in "Superman II", but Superman really needs a villain who can give him a real challenge, be a real threat. Superman is just about indestructible, so he needs a villain that is almost at the same level. There also needs to be more action, the action in "Superman Returns" was good, but the stretches between the action were a bit too long. Not that it was boring, but the action needs to come a bit faster than it did. The whole Superman has a son thing, I could have done without it. The kid was OK, but it really didn't add anything to the story, but he is a part of it now, just take the focus off of him.

Bryan Singer is a very capable director, after all, "X-Men" and "X2" were awesome super hero movies, so I know Singer has it in him. Let's just see if he can do what he did with "X2", take what was great about the first one and make it better.

Tom Cruise in a Comic book movie?

2008-08-19T10:20:00.003-04:00

I saw this article at The Hollywood Reporter, apparently Tom Cruise has an interest in a comic book movie based on a DC/Wildstorm comic called "Sleeper". Here is a small part of the article:

As Tom Cruise goes about writing the next chapter in his career, he's developing an interest in comic book movies.

Together with Sam Raimi, he is setting up "Sleeper" at Warner Bros. Cruise is loosely attached to star in the adaptation of the DC Comics/Wildstorm comic that Raimi would produce with his Star Road Entertainment partner Josh Donen.

Written by Ed Brubaker with art by Sean Phillips, "Sleeper," which ran from 2003-05, centers on an operative whose fusion with an alien artifact makes him impervious to pain and allows him to pass it on to others through skin contact. He is placed undercover in a villainous organization by an intelligence agency and falls for a member of the group, named Miss Misery.

Tom Cruise is a capable actor and has done a lot of different roles, but a super hero? I am not sure about this, I guess he could pull it off because "Sleeper" doesn't seem like a typical super hero kind of movie, it just seems like maybe he is getting desperate. What do you think about the prospect of a Tom Cruise comic book movie?

Remakes & Hollywood

2008-08-18T11:24:00.013-04:00

Remakes.....the very word can have two effects, it can make you smile, or cringe. Sometimes remakes are a good thing, they can be an improvement upon the original, or they can be just a more modern telling of the original. Other times, they are, how do I say this nicely....TOTAL GARBAGE.

Hollywood, since the early days has always done remakes, and the results are a mixed bag. Some movies transcend time and can be remade, some are not meant to be remade, and all a remake does is show you just how great the original was.

Look how many times "Dracula" has been remade. Now I am not talking vampire movies, I mean the specific character of Dracula. Each version shared similar qualities as their predecessor, but always managed to have their own style, and for the most part, stayed true to the character. Sometimes a remake can be true to the original, but simply does not have the same effect as the original. Such a case is "Frankenstein". The original 1931 film is a classic masterpiece, as well as its 1935 sequel, "Bride Of Frankenstein". In 1994, Kenneth Branagh did a remake and while the attempt was noble, and there were good things about the film, it just did not have the same impact as the original. So as you can see from just two examples, remakes are a funny thing.

The Good: Ok, I am gonna talk about a few movies that were good remakes.
"King Kong"- This movie has been remade twice, once in 1976, and again in 2005 by Peter Jackson. The 1976 version starred Jeff Bridges, Charles Grodin and a then unknown Jessica Lange. There were things about this version I liked, and overall I can say I liked the movie, but it was not nearly as good as the original. The visual effects were just ok, and the relationship between Kong and Jessica Lange's character (Dwan) seemed forced and I just didn't buy it. They also set the movie in modern times, which seemed ok at the time but looking back, it was a mistake. The 2005 version, on the other hand, is a great example of a remake that works. It was at the same time a tribute to the original and a great movie on its own. The casting was great. Jack Black was a great Carl Denham, Adrien Brody was great as Jack Driscoll, although I didn't understand why he was changed from a sailor to a playwright, but that is a minor gripe. Naomi Watts made a great Ann Darrow as well, and the love story between her and Kong worked this time around. The setting was also key to this movie working, as it was set in 1933, the same year the original was made. The natives of Skull island were savage and scary, another nice touch. The visual effects were top notch, Kong, the dinosaurs, the giant insects (yuch, I hate bugs). Even the theater in NY where Kong appears looks exactly as it did in the original. Overall this is a perfect example of a director having respect for the original, while at the same time adding his own touches to it and making it his own.
"The Thing"- Originally titled "The Thing From Another World", this 1951 film centers on a team of scientists at an arctic outpost that are being stalked by an alien creature. It scared moviegoers when it came out, and with good reason. Heck when I first saw it when I was a kid, it scared me! The scientists find a humanoid type body frozen in a block of ice. The creature thaws, accidentally, and the horror starts. You hardly saw the creature and when you did it was always a scary moment. The arctic setting also adds to the dread, creating a feeling of total isolation from the rest of the world. The movie set a standard for horror films for years to come, many times it was never matched. That is, until director John Carpenter released his version in 1982. It followed the same basic story as the original, but the creature was way different. The creature is discovered by Norwegian scientists, also in the arctic, and finds its way to an American outpost in the same region. The creature is able to take any form it wishes, and this just added to the feeling of total paranoia, nobody knew if the guy next to you was the creature, and there was no way to tell until it attacked. Eventually, one of the scientists concludes that if this creature were to escape, it could basically destroy the world, and that could not be allowed to happen. The tension in this movie was so high, I remember jumping, and sitting there feeling almost as tense as the characters. This film took the idea of the original and amped it up, and in my opinion, was even better than the original. A rare thing, but this one does it like very few remakes have.

Ugh....now onto
The bad: Unfortunately, there are more bad remakes than good, and I could probably rant on and on about all the bad remakes that have been done, but I am going to talk about two that are outstanding for me because of how much I love the originals.
"Planet of the Apes"- The classic Sci-fi movie with Charlton Heston, is one of my favorite movies, and when I heard that Tim Burton was going to remake it, I was cautiously excited. Burton is a good director so I figured in his hands this one had a chance to be good. Oh how wrong I was. First off, Mark Wahlberg is a good actor, but let's face it, he aint no Charlton Heston. They changed all of the characters from the original. Gone were Cornelius, Zira, Dr. Zaius. Even Charlton Heston's character was renamed Leo Davidson. In the original, humans were the animals, nothing more, and the apes were the rulers of the planet. The remake had the humans on the same intelligence level as the apes, changing the whole scope of the story making it a war between apes and humans. They tried making a love story between Whalberg and a human looking female ape and it was lame. Even the ending, which in the original was a complete shock, and a perfect way to end the movie. Burton tried to make the remake's ending have the same effect, and it didn't even come close, it was just stupid. The makeup in the remake was impressive, but not much more than in the original, and that itself is pretty sad. This movie had no business being remade.
"The Honeymooners"- Ok, where to start with this trainwreck. TV to movie remakes are hard enough to do, and most of the time they are lame ("Bewithced" anyone?). There are the occasional good ones, I thought the movie of "The Beverly Hillbillies" was pretty faithful to the series, and had a lot of good funny moments. But when I heard that they were making a Honeymooners movie, I was skeptical from the get go. The TV show is a classic that has seen no equal, it is one of my favorite shows of all time, I can watch it over and over and still laugh every time. What made the show great was the characters, and their devotion to each other no matter what. Well, the movie really had none of those elements. They were the characters in name only. Yea, Ralph was a bus driver, Ed worked in the sewers. There was the occasional line taken right from the show, and that was the only way you knew it was the Honeymooners. Sex jokes? LAME, Norton not even sounding like Norton? LAME. Some people didn't like the fact that it was a black cast, and that was not even a problem for me. Cedric the Entertainer is a funny guy, and probably could have done a good Kramden, but he didn't. What sucked was that the actors did not act like the characters they were supposed to be. It was as far from the Honeymooners as you could get. Like I said before, in name only. The only satisfaction I got from that movie was watching it tank at the box office, which means that the few who saw it found it as lame as I did.

Maybe one day Hollywood can get it right on a more consistent basis. The thing about remakes is to have respect for your source material which is not always the case. Also, there are some movies that should just not be remade, the aforementioned Planet Of the Apes, is definitely one of them. Looking at the remakes Hollywood has in the pipeline, I have mixed feelings, most I feel don't need to be remade. Take a look: "Robocop" (oh god no don't destroy that great film), "Red Dawn" (probably won't translate well because the cold war is long over), "Highlander" (after a bunch of lame sequels, why not ruin the original?), the list goes on and on. Am I the only one that feels imagination in Hollywood has gone the way of the dinosaur? What are your thoughts on remakes, your favorites, the ones you hate, the ones you never want to see? I know I wouldn't mind seeing the remake go away for a long time.

Summer 2008

2008-08-17T14:53:00.005-04:00

Welcome to Movie Talk, my first attempt at a blog, I hope you enjoy it.

I am starting off with a review of a few of the 2008 Summer movies. Although summer is not technically over until Labor Day in September, all the really big movies have been released.

I have to admit, I have not seen as many movies this summer as I usually do, my one big sin being I have not yet seen "The Dark Knight", which even to me is a shock. I have seen the other two big super hero movies, "Iron Man" and "The Incredible Hulk". Those movies were made by the new Marvel studios, and they are two for two so far. Let's talk about those two.

"Iron Man" was kind of a gamble, as he is not as well known a super hero as other Marvel characters, but the gamble worked. "Iron Man" is incredible from start to finish. Great acting, awesome visual effects, and a good story. Robert Downey Jr. took the character of Tony Stark and made it his own, gave him confidence, yet vulnerability, and he makes this movie work in a way that I really think only he could. It was also nice to see Jeff Bridges as bad guy Stane, he made it so you kinda liked him at first, but then pulled that rug right out from under you later in the movie. I liked the fact that Director Jon Favreau made use of what is called "practical" visual effects, it was not all CGI. Don't get me wrong, CGI effects can be great, but I have always felt that CGI is not ALWAYS the way to go. I can't wait for the next movie in what looks to be a long running series of films.

Now we have "The Incredible Hulk", which has not done as well at the box office as I had predicted it would ($133 million so far, I was thinking closer to $170 million), but has done respectable business nonetheless. The first Hulk movie was directed by Ang Lee, back in 2003 and made a decent $132 million. It just was not what Hulk fans wanted, not enough action, too much concentration on the psychological aspects of the characters. The actors were actually good, Eric Bana, Jennifer Connelly, Sam Elliot, even Nick Nolte, thats a darn good cast and the acting was good, it just didn't feel like the Hulk. Well, Marvel studios decided it was time for another shot for the big green guy, and it worked this time. "The Incredible Hulk" is a loose sequel to the 2003 Hulk, not much time past the opening credits is spent explaining the Hulk's origin. But any Hulk fan knows how he got the way he is, so that's fine. The action is great, the acting as well. Edward Norton take over as Bruce Banner, Liv Tyler as Betty Ross, and William Hurt as General Ross. The story centers around the governments hunt for Banner and Banner trying to find a cure for his, um, condition. If you are a Hulk fan, this movie will not disappoint.

"Indiana Jones and The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" was also released this summer, and wow did it do incredible business, $314 million to date. It shows you how much people missed the character. It has been 28 years since "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade", so having the great Harrison Ford grab his whip and don his fedora hat was a bit of a gamble, but George Lucas and Steven Spielberg delivered the goods. Yea, the giant ants were a bit much, as was Shia swinging through the jungle like Tarzan, or Indy surviving a nuclear blast by hiding in a fridge, so it was definitely not as good as the other three in the series, but the thrills were plenty, and it was nice to see Karen Allen back as Marion Ravenwood, Indy's love, missing from the second and third films. I have nothing against Shia Lebouf, I liked him in "Disturbia" and "Transformers" but he wasn't needed in this movie. Not that he was bad, he just was not needed. It was one thing having Indy team with his dad, but to have a young kid at his side, just didn't work as well. I hear that they are considering a 5th Indy movie, and I for one, always welcome Dr. Jones.

Well, that's all for now, but please share your opinions with me. What are your thoughts on the Summer of 2008? Were you pleased with the movies or disappointed? What movies surprised you? What movies let you down?