Did you see the Star Trek photos I posted a few days ago? There are one or two more out there, along with loads of conjecture about the plot, the characters and the respect the director, J.J. Abrams has for the source material.
Trekkies, as they used to be called have somewhat evolved into what society now calls fanboys. The only difference in the two terms is the source material. You see, a fanboy can be that person who dresses up as the characters, learns the ins and outs of everything in a movie, and seems to have difficulty determining the movie world from the real world (think Justin Long's character in Galaxy Quest) and a Trekkie is the same thing, only exclusively Star Trek. Since the franchise has been dormant for some time, they have dropped the exclusiveness and branched out to other movies.
So, here is where the discussion comes in. These fanboys, flocking back to the resurrection of Star Trek have dissected every photo very carefully and have found many reasons to hate it, including the color of the uniforms, the look of the set in the background and the look of the character, specifically their age.
So, is this extreme....'passion' a good thing for a movie, or does it turn everyone else off from a movie, for fear that it's only made for these fanboys?
I have done my fair share of drooling over trailers, posters and shots of movies, but what you have to realise is that is one snapshot of one scene in a massive collage of shots. The director and producer have to take those shots and turn it into a movie, so, how can you determine anything based on one shot? I think the only thing these photos are good for is getting the word out there is a movie coming, and stirring up movie blogs like this one in anticipation of the movie, not giving a glimpse into characters, plots and further details.
I personally think these fanboys give people who are passionate about movies a bad name, and, due to their technical prowess and passion, they often can be responsible for a movie getting a bad name well before the movie comes out. The reverse, however, is they are often the bulk of the money spent on the movie the opening weekend.
So, while movies must recognize the fanboys, I don't think they are worth constructing an entire movie around. However, it may be smart to listen to them, because they do have an eye for detail, and may often spot things not noticed by producers, however unlikely.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Saturday, October 25, 2008
21...more like 13-ish
21, is based on a true story of a math wiz who learns to count cards and takes on Vegas and the game of BlackJack.
The story is of Ben Campbell, played by Ben Sturgess, who is a genius at math, and who wants to be a doctor. In order to make the money required (because loans don’t exist in this universe) he joins a group of students, led by his math professor, played by Kevin Spacey, and includes Kate Bosworth and that guy from EuroTrip (he’s not important enough for a name). Together, they devise a system to avoid the detection of an aging bouncer, played by Lawrence Fishburn. Things turn south when our hero starts to think he is unbeatable.
Ok, first off, the fact this was a true story, is really interesting, but not movie worthy. I thought this movie was incredibly slow, and filled with clichés. The main characters story is old, and has been told a million times; I mean, he thinks he cool and ditches his friends, until his world comes crashing down and he has to go back and apologize. The rest of the group is really not mentioned. One is a clepto, one is a jerk, and there is some Asian woman, and Bosworth’s hottie, but you never really find out their story, or really who they are. Most of the movie is just scenes of someone playing BlackJack, and Kevin Spacey sounding sarcastic. I think they could have used the slow time to explore the rest of the characters much more. Finally, the bad guy, who is trying to catch Ben Campbell is also not explored; all we know is, he is being outdated by a software, and he’s a not-nice guy. I kind of felt sorry for him, because he’s just doing his job, and doing it well, he even shows a bit of kindness to the hero in the end.
Over all, it wasn’t a bad movie, it just wasn’t well done, and really not worth your time. If there is nothing else on TV, watch it, but it isn’t worth the rent.
The story is of Ben Campbell, played by Ben Sturgess, who is a genius at math, and who wants to be a doctor. In order to make the money required (because loans don’t exist in this universe) he joins a group of students, led by his math professor, played by Kevin Spacey, and includes Kate Bosworth and that guy from EuroTrip (he’s not important enough for a name). Together, they devise a system to avoid the detection of an aging bouncer, played by Lawrence Fishburn. Things turn south when our hero starts to think he is unbeatable.
Ok, first off, the fact this was a true story, is really interesting, but not movie worthy. I thought this movie was incredibly slow, and filled with clichés. The main characters story is old, and has been told a million times; I mean, he thinks he cool and ditches his friends, until his world comes crashing down and he has to go back and apologize. The rest of the group is really not mentioned. One is a clepto, one is a jerk, and there is some Asian woman, and Bosworth’s hottie, but you never really find out their story, or really who they are. Most of the movie is just scenes of someone playing BlackJack, and Kevin Spacey sounding sarcastic. I think they could have used the slow time to explore the rest of the characters much more. Finally, the bad guy, who is trying to catch Ben Campbell is also not explored; all we know is, he is being outdated by a software, and he’s a not-nice guy. I kind of felt sorry for him, because he’s just doing his job, and doing it well, he even shows a bit of kindness to the hero in the end.
Over all, it wasn’t a bad movie, it just wasn’t well done, and really not worth your time. If there is nothing else on TV, watch it, but it isn’t worth the rent.
The Birds are back!
That's right ladies and gentlemen, Hollywood has found another franchise to remake; Alfred Hitchcocks The Birds.
As far as remakes go, this is not a bad franchise to remake. The problem, however, is how to recreate the drama, suspense and terror that Hitchcock was able to create. What they have going for them, though is the movie has been forgotten by most, and this way, they aren't making the same mistake as The Hulk movies and asking you to forget about a movie that just came out. Other goodness would include George Clooney and Naomi Watts as the leads in the movie. I haven't been the biggest George Clooney fan outside Ocean's 11, but hes a big name, and can give a good performance every once in awhile.
So, I guess we'll see, it could be fun!
As far as remakes go, this is not a bad franchise to remake. The problem, however, is how to recreate the drama, suspense and terror that Hitchcock was able to create. What they have going for them, though is the movie has been forgotten by most, and this way, they aren't making the same mistake as The Hulk movies and asking you to forget about a movie that just came out. Other goodness would include George Clooney and Naomi Watts as the leads in the movie. I haven't been the biggest George Clooney fan outside Ocean's 11, but hes a big name, and can give a good performance every once in awhile.
So, I guess we'll see, it could be fun!
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Is older really better?
Ok, I have to vent. I was talking with someone today who said they didn't like my movie list. That is fine, you are totally allowed to have your own favorites, and I welcome comments about their favorites, and most times, I can understand where people come from, as I love cinema as a whole. The reason of this particular criticism was what got my goat, however. "The movies are too modern," he said.
Am I to believe all good movies have already been made, and have been made over 20 years ago? So, does that mean every movie made in the last 20 to 30 years was inferior? We are talking about a lot of great movies made in the last 20 years, but because they were made recently, they are just unable to be great? Why is that? Did they do something 20 years ago that was not able to be recreated now? Did they forget how to make movies at about the 25-year mark?
It is safe to say society has evolved over the past 20 years, I mean, do you remember computers back in the mid 80's? People did not know about cell phones, EBay, the Internet, and nobody Googled anything. So, it's safe to say, society has evolved, debate over. So, that being said, are we to say cinema has not evolved as well? And, if it has, has it evolved into something inferior? Can evolution be inferior? The tools directors have nowadays have evolved, but the spirit of the movie is the same.
Over the past 20 years, cinema has changed considerably with technology, the internet, and the desire of the audience. There have been many fads in cinema over its history, and the last 20 years have produced many of them, but, in the end, it's all the development of an art form and the tools that can create that art. That makes the art just as much art now, as it did back in the 30's and 40's.
The great movies stick out for the same reasons now, as they did many years ago. The reasons are great performances, a writer who can truly capture an audience and a director who can truly in vision something new, and especially a team who can use the tools and present something society wants to see. I believe that is done today, just as well, if not better than in years past.
There will always be people that like the classics because they are the classics, and that is fine. There is something about classic movies that takes people back to a more innocent time, but don't tell me they are the only good movies in cinema!
Am I to believe all good movies have already been made, and have been made over 20 years ago? So, does that mean every movie made in the last 20 to 30 years was inferior? We are talking about a lot of great movies made in the last 20 years, but because they were made recently, they are just unable to be great? Why is that? Did they do something 20 years ago that was not able to be recreated now? Did they forget how to make movies at about the 25-year mark?
It is safe to say society has evolved over the past 20 years, I mean, do you remember computers back in the mid 80's? People did not know about cell phones, EBay, the Internet, and nobody Googled anything. So, it's safe to say, society has evolved, debate over. So, that being said, are we to say cinema has not evolved as well? And, if it has, has it evolved into something inferior? Can evolution be inferior? The tools directors have nowadays have evolved, but the spirit of the movie is the same.
Over the past 20 years, cinema has changed considerably with technology, the internet, and the desire of the audience. There have been many fads in cinema over its history, and the last 20 years have produced many of them, but, in the end, it's all the development of an art form and the tools that can create that art. That makes the art just as much art now, as it did back in the 30's and 40's.
The great movies stick out for the same reasons now, as they did many years ago. The reasons are great performances, a writer who can truly capture an audience and a director who can truly in vision something new, and especially a team who can use the tools and present something society wants to see. I believe that is done today, just as well, if not better than in years past.
There will always be people that like the classics because they are the classics, and that is fine. There is something about classic movies that takes people back to a more innocent time, but don't tell me they are the only good movies in cinema!
Monday, October 20, 2008
Product Placement and Cinema
Did you ever see E.T. and immediately after want some Reeses Pieces? What about Back to the Future, did you really want a Delorean after that movie? What about the famous RayBan sunglasses of Men in Black, did you want to make that look good?
Product placement has been in movies since the inception. Most times, its used as a way to get a little extra cash, which will allow for another stick of dynamite for the final explosion, or maybe to secure that star that will help the movie, or sometimes, to give the director a new car. Most movie goers will tell you that it's an annoyance and it's selling out and should be removed from movies everywhere. In fact, there are several columnists who will list the top moments of marketing history and spend hours agreeing with each other that product placement is bad, and how it made them never want to see a movie again because the star had Nike shoes on, or was using a Sprint phone.
I say that is ridiculous and is yet another reason I don't like the so-called 'movie snobs.' I love movies, I love how, with the proper direction and talent, a movie can take you out of this world and somewhere completely different; or a movie can put you in someone Else's shoes, for better or worse; or how a movie can educate you and truly give you a new perspective on lifes issues. Does any of this lose its meaning because they are using real-life products, or even if they stop and make it clear there is a product they are supporting? No, that brief half second clip of the Pepsi can or the Macbook changes nothing. You still make it Back from the Future, the Aliens are still blown up, the evil robots are vanquished and the world is still saved, all while slipping in a bit of product promotions.
Movies are not tarnished by these products, and sometimes they are helped, perfect examples include Waynes World, they actually joke about selling out while promoting the shit out of different products; or Back to the Future, with the Delorean, I truly think that was a match made in heaven;, and finally, the Truman Show had it as part of the storyline, they actually plugged items to keep the show on the air.
So, next time you roll your eyes and say 'oh come on, that was a sell out,' ask yourself, would that movie actually get made without that product, and in the end, does that one scene, out of every scene in the movie really stick out in your head at the end of the day?
Never mind, don't ask yourself that, just don't say that ever again! :)
Just for the heck of it, here are some product placement highlights:
Product placement has been in movies since the inception. Most times, its used as a way to get a little extra cash, which will allow for another stick of dynamite for the final explosion, or maybe to secure that star that will help the movie, or sometimes, to give the director a new car. Most movie goers will tell you that it's an annoyance and it's selling out and should be removed from movies everywhere. In fact, there are several columnists who will list the top moments of marketing history and spend hours agreeing with each other that product placement is bad, and how it made them never want to see a movie again because the star had Nike shoes on, or was using a Sprint phone.
I say that is ridiculous and is yet another reason I don't like the so-called 'movie snobs.' I love movies, I love how, with the proper direction and talent, a movie can take you out of this world and somewhere completely different; or a movie can put you in someone Else's shoes, for better or worse; or how a movie can educate you and truly give you a new perspective on lifes issues. Does any of this lose its meaning because they are using real-life products, or even if they stop and make it clear there is a product they are supporting? No, that brief half second clip of the Pepsi can or the Macbook changes nothing. You still make it Back from the Future, the Aliens are still blown up, the evil robots are vanquished and the world is still saved, all while slipping in a bit of product promotions.
Movies are not tarnished by these products, and sometimes they are helped, perfect examples include Waynes World, they actually joke about selling out while promoting the shit out of different products; or Back to the Future, with the Delorean, I truly think that was a match made in heaven;, and finally, the Truman Show had it as part of the storyline, they actually plugged items to keep the show on the air.
So, next time you roll your eyes and say 'oh come on, that was a sell out,' ask yourself, would that movie actually get made without that product, and in the end, does that one scene, out of every scene in the movie really stick out in your head at the end of the day?
Never mind, don't ask yourself that, just don't say that ever again! :)
Just for the heck of it, here are some product placement highlights:
- The Reeses Pieces in E.T.
- Nike's and Pepsi in Back to the Future -"Give me a Pepsi Free"
- Michelob and Macintosh in Star Trek IV The Voyage Home - "Hello Computer!"
- Demolition Man Taco Bell - "All restaurants are now Taco Bell"
- Men In Black and Rayban Predator II -"I make this look good"
- The Matrix Revolutions and Cadillac - during the chase scene
Yeah, I know, I'm sure you were thinking, I do remember these, but did they stick out in your mind? Was that defining moment in the movie?
Friday, October 17, 2008
Indiana Jones 4 review:
Our favorite archaeologist is back in the fourth installment in this classic franchise, but does it hold up to the classics like Raiders of the Lost Ark? Well, you have to keep reading....what, I can't just tell you, then what good would the rest of the article be?
McGuffin-a term coined by the legendary Alfred Hitchcock, meaning an item that determines the plot, or an item the plot is written around.
George Lucas loves this term, and has used it several times, and uses the idea as a basis for the Indiana Jones stories. The McGuffin is the problem with this movie, not the fact Harrison Ford is really old, he actually has held up quite well, and while he is noticeably older, he is still believable as a slightly aged Indy. The crystal Skull is the problem. It's a week McGuffin. The two previous movies had very noticeable items in the Ark of the Covenant and Cup of Christ. I would say most would people would not know that there are legends of crystal skulls.
This movie also has an addition of a sidekick in Mutt, played by Shia LaBeuf. This movie also brings back Marion Ravenwood, the love interest in the first movie, played by Karen Allen who looks really old, by the way.
The movie picks up, in all places, Roswell, NM with Indy having to find a secret artifact...yeah, you can tell where this is going. It leads to a few surprises, most of which are easy to see. Indy does take us on some great adventures that bring us back to the days of yore (whenever that is). The action sequences have not lost a step, and Lucas and Spielberg surprise me by not having too much CGI and give an all around fun time until the end of the movie, which comes across as lame, and leaves the audience wanting the face melting scene from Lost Ark.
I really enjoyed this movie, but the ending is supposed to be the most rewarding, and the best footage in the movie, but in this case, it isn't. I thought Harrison Ford was great, Shiah LaBeuf was tolerable and the movie was pretty good on its own. Compared to the original trilogy, however, this movie falls a bit short.
Check it out, and suspend your B.S. O' meter and have fun.
I give it a 6.5 out of 10.
The week in movie news...
Well, there hasn't been a lot of news in the world of movies this week, so instead of covering each story separately, I will combine them.
Sherlock Holmes got a release date of Nov. 9, 2009. The movie, starring Robert Downey Jr., Jude Law and Rachael McAdams has already released a few photos that show Robert Downey Jr. looking very different than we have ever seen him before, proving that there is no limit to the mans depth; and it has Rachael McAdams, so it is already a must-see.
Resident Evil 4 was given the green light by Sony today, with pre-production starting before the end of the year. It seems the undead are not the only ones to suffer here as we seem to need to beat a dead horse over and over again.
Steve Carrell will play his lovable, goofy self in Brigadier Gerald, a French Soldier in a 3 movie deal Carrell signed this week which will include another Get Smart movie. I am really excited about this because Carrell is one of the biggest comedic talents of our time, and there is simply not enough of him to go around.
Sam Raimi, the director of Spiderman, and all around good-guy did an interview this week about the upcoming Spiderman movies. He is apparently filming 2 at one time, but wont start for another year, so we are probably 3 years away, which will give us all time to forget the terrible Peter Park dance scene in the third movie.
Also, they are gearing up for a fourth Bourne movie and are working to find someone to pencil the script. The first 3 were adapted from a trilogy of books, there is no word as to whether Matt Damon will reprise his role as Jason Bourne or not.
And, the big news is for Star Trek, the J.J. Abrams project, set for May, 2009 released some very interesting photos this week. They look beautiful, but I'm a little worried this is gonna come off as a Pup Named Scooby Doo version of Star Trek, but we'll see, I think Abrams is a genius and I'm looking forward to the idea, but, we'll all have to wait until it comes out to find out. In the mean time, check out these pics!
Very promising indeed!
That is all for now, but keep in mind one thing, as I was playing 'six degrees of separation from Kevin Bacon' today, I realized Mystic River is the answer to all problems....remember that!
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Porno is a 4 letter word...
1..2..3..4..5...ok, so it's a 5 letter word, but it's really a 4 letter word according to many websites and newspapers throughout the country who say they find the term offensive, and as a result, refuse to run ads regarding Kevin Smith's new movie Zack and Miri Make a Porno.
Are we so uptight as a society we find the word porno offensive? I try to stay away from commentary on society because this is a movie blog, but unfortunately the two have crossed paths and I have to vent. I don't see why something like this would be offensive, the word itself is not vulgar, or offensive. The implications of the word, I guess is what they are having a hard time with. Now, you can't tell me those same uptight editors who said it's offensive are the same ones that have kiddie porn, or maybe farm porn or something along those lines are their computers. Porn is a natural art form brought on by the Internet and met for teenage boys and dirty old men to look at, big deal. No one is holding a gun to any one's head, here, and screw the people who find that offensive.
Now, the problem is, what will the marketing campaign look like for this movie when so many places are refusing to allow the title of this movie to be printed or shown? It's too late to change the title, the only thing left would be to plaster the poster everywhere online and pray to the Internet gods for a miracle. It's a shame, I like Kevin Smith, his movies are usually pretty good, too, I hope the movie does well, it would be terrible if society was just too uptight to allow a good film to flourish.
Then again, Kevin Smith lives off controversy (see Dogma) so, maybe this was his plan all along....we may never know.
Are we so uptight as a society we find the word porno offensive? I try to stay away from commentary on society because this is a movie blog, but unfortunately the two have crossed paths and I have to vent. I don't see why something like this would be offensive, the word itself is not vulgar, or offensive. The implications of the word, I guess is what they are having a hard time with. Now, you can't tell me those same uptight editors who said it's offensive are the same ones that have kiddie porn, or maybe farm porn or something along those lines are their computers. Porn is a natural art form brought on by the Internet and met for teenage boys and dirty old men to look at, big deal. No one is holding a gun to any one's head, here, and screw the people who find that offensive.
Now, the problem is, what will the marketing campaign look like for this movie when so many places are refusing to allow the title of this movie to be printed or shown? It's too late to change the title, the only thing left would be to plaster the poster everywhere online and pray to the Internet gods for a miracle. It's a shame, I like Kevin Smith, his movies are usually pretty good, too, I hope the movie does well, it would be terrible if society was just too uptight to allow a good film to flourish.
Then again, Kevin Smith lives off controversy (see Dogma) so, maybe this was his plan all along....we may never know.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Out with the old...in with the really talented
So, news comes down today Don Cheadle will be replacing Terrance Howard in the upcoming Iron Man 2.
I am really excited about this. I didn't really like Terrance Howard in the first movie, but I let it slide due to the amazing performance by everyone else in the movie. Howards character was supposed to be a tough, Bad Ass-type guy, and in the movie, he just didn't convey that, but, I guess every character has to make a journey, and maybe his will be viewed in the second installment.
As far as Don Cheadle is concerned, he is a great actor! I think Hotel Rwanda was amazingly acted, but I can't help think of Basher in the Ocean's Trilogy and I think Cheadle is a serious upgrade in the second movie over the first.
So, in short, Howards out cause he wanted too much dough, so they get Basher to come in and show everyone how it's done in a movie where the character of James Rhodes will be huge in the second with the coming of War Machine, a suit that will be built just for him in Iron Man's absence. (That wasn't really short, though, huh?)
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Iron Man
I just got sucked into one of those 'buy 50 dvd's, get 1 free' type deals, and I couldn't resist. One of the movies I bought was Iron Man. I loved this movie and forgot how great it was. The special features on the bonus disk are immense and well worth your time. Here is what I wrote when I saw this movie in theatres. I don't like reading my previous reviews, but I still agree with my previous assessment. Here it is, I encourage everyone to get suckered in to one of these deals because you can find a lot of fun stuff!
IRON MAN-
Movies like X-men, Punisher, The Hulk, Batman, Superman and Spiderman have proven that people will watch a comic book movie, whether it's good or not. However, the good ones will definitely stick with you.
Iron Man didn't have the preconceptions Spiderman or Batman had, most people hadn't even heard of it, so, director Jon Favreu (yeah, Bateman in Replacements) had his work cut out for him in this popcorn flick. And holy crap did he deliver!
Iron Man centers around Tony Stark (brilliantly played by Robert Downey Jr.) a brilliant, but spoiled weapons designer playboy type guy, who has a drinking problem. (After that, can you think of anyone better suited than Downey?) In Afghanistan, Stark is there, demonstrating a new attack missile when his caravan is attacked and he is injured. He is captured by a group of terrorists using the very weapons he designed, and told he must build a weapon if he wants to live. After building a device to keep him alive, he quickly constructs a prototype armor to help him escape. After a dramatic scene, he is successful and immediately returns home to set right the war-profiteering that has been going on for so long. He starts designing a new armor, more advanced, capable of finding and destroying the weapons he made, before any more innocent people are hurt. There are many opponents of the new Tony Starke, and he quickly finds himself in a fight for his life.
This movie was amazing! The special effects were incredible, because unlike many filmmakers of today, not everything is green-screened. There are many scenes with an actual suit being used, and it looks incredible. The acting is far above anything seen in previous comic book movies (yeah, I'm looking at you, Tobey) with performances by Gwyneth Paltrow, who surprised me with some good action, and some great chemistry with Downey, along with Terrance Howard as Stark's military buddy, James Rhodes.
The movie demonstrates a perfect balance of action, character building and comedy.
This movie is a must see for anyone, not just the comic book fans, although they, too will find a faithful adaptation to the comics, here. Don't wait to find it on the New Release wall; go see it in theatres now!
9.5 out of 10
Movies like X-men, Punisher, The Hulk, Batman, Superman and Spiderman have proven that people will watch a comic book movie, whether it's good or not. However, the good ones will definitely stick with you.
Iron Man didn't have the preconceptions Spiderman or Batman had, most people hadn't even heard of it, so, director Jon Favreu (yeah, Bateman in Replacements) had his work cut out for him in this popcorn flick. And holy crap did he deliver!
Iron Man centers around Tony Stark (brilliantly played by Robert Downey Jr.) a brilliant, but spoiled weapons designer playboy type guy, who has a drinking problem. (After that, can you think of anyone better suited than Downey?) In Afghanistan, Stark is there, demonstrating a new attack missile when his caravan is attacked and he is injured. He is captured by a group of terrorists using the very weapons he designed, and told he must build a weapon if he wants to live. After building a device to keep him alive, he quickly constructs a prototype armor to help him escape. After a dramatic scene, he is successful and immediately returns home to set right the war-profiteering that has been going on for so long. He starts designing a new armor, more advanced, capable of finding and destroying the weapons he made, before any more innocent people are hurt. There are many opponents of the new Tony Starke, and he quickly finds himself in a fight for his life.
This movie was amazing! The special effects were incredible, because unlike many filmmakers of today, not everything is green-screened. There are many scenes with an actual suit being used, and it looks incredible. The acting is far above anything seen in previous comic book movies (yeah, I'm looking at you, Tobey) with performances by Gwyneth Paltrow, who surprised me with some good action, and some great chemistry with Downey, along with Terrance Howard as Stark's military buddy, James Rhodes.
The movie demonstrates a perfect balance of action, character building and comedy.
This movie is a must see for anyone, not just the comic book fans, although they, too will find a faithful adaptation to the comics, here. Don't wait to find it on the New Release wall; go see it in theatres now!
9.5 out of 10
Thursday, October 9, 2008
10 things I hate about you...
The movie starring the late, great Heath Ledger has been approved to film a pilot for a weekly TV show. The idea will stay fairly close to the movie with the style and the Shakespeare undertones. So, what do you think, you think this movie has what it takes to spawn a movie, and is it .... .... some Latin term, meaning 'no touchie?'
Here's my opinion. First off, I don't think the movie has the characters and the story to keep people interested in a show every week, I mean, really, who cares. I also think Heath Ledgers character is out of bounds, no matter what. This is not someone who didn't renew their contract, he is dead, and to even hint at his character, or his absence is in bad taste. So, let's hope they at least show some class in this lame remake. The only thing that could make this a possible hit would be much more of Julia Styles, but that's highly unlikely.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
The world we live in...
As most of you know, the world as we know it is falling apart, as Dr. Horrible would say, "the status is not quot, the world is a mess, and I just have to rule it."
With the economy showing a depression status, craziness oversees with potential nukes everywhere and the country being divided in the newest presidential election, who has times for movies? Do movies even deserve to be acknowledged, or should they be put on the back burner as more important things are contemplated?
Let's face it, movies are not what people should be concerned with, but, I do think they have their place. I like looking at the latest movie news, thinking about what the next Pirates movie will be about, thinking about the best angle to start a new Serenity movie, or thinking who would be the next Batman baddie because it's not about the economy. Movies are a welcome and very much needed escape from the news, there are no reports of massive people dying, businesses going out of business and empty promises from candidates, there is just the next great bad guy, and the hero who will thwart his plan. The question is, is it a bad thing to have an escape? Should the world be focused on these other problems and not have an escape, or should people allow themselves the relief of this time? I enjoy the escape and tire of the local news, I think we need movies now more than ever because it's simply too expensive to have a real escape. It may sound like someone being mental and shutting the outside world out, but I am suggesting exactly that. I suggest everyone go watch a movie and tune out the outside world; just for a little while, enjoy the world the director has created for you, and get back to the mess tomorrow.
With the economy showing a depression status, craziness oversees with potential nukes everywhere and the country being divided in the newest presidential election, who has times for movies? Do movies even deserve to be acknowledged, or should they be put on the back burner as more important things are contemplated?
Let's face it, movies are not what people should be concerned with, but, I do think they have their place. I like looking at the latest movie news, thinking about what the next Pirates movie will be about, thinking about the best angle to start a new Serenity movie, or thinking who would be the next Batman baddie because it's not about the economy. Movies are a welcome and very much needed escape from the news, there are no reports of massive people dying, businesses going out of business and empty promises from candidates, there is just the next great bad guy, and the hero who will thwart his plan. The question is, is it a bad thing to have an escape? Should the world be focused on these other problems and not have an escape, or should people allow themselves the relief of this time? I enjoy the escape and tire of the local news, I think we need movies now more than ever because it's simply too expensive to have a real escape. It may sound like someone being mental and shutting the outside world out, but I am suggesting exactly that. I suggest everyone go watch a movie and tune out the outside world; just for a little while, enjoy the world the director has created for you, and get back to the mess tomorrow.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Show some love for Simon Pegg
Simon Pegg is the man. There, I said it. Simon Pegg has played Shaun in Shaun of the Dead, he played Nicholas Angel in Hot Fuzz, and is getting ready to play Scotty in JJ Abrams Star Trek, but why can't he draw a crowd?
Everyone knows who Simon Pegg is, or has at least heard of one of his movies. His most recent endeavor, How to Lose Friends & Alienate People did only $1.3 million it's first weekend which didn't even break the top ten. The previous movie, Run Fat Boy Run, only made $6 million. So, the question is, why can't a hugely talented and lovable actor such as Simon Pegg make any money?
Is it the looks? The British accent? Ahh, it's the nice-guy persona. Or is it the movies he stars in? Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz were very good movies, but I’m not so sure about the rest. The studios seemed to put a fair bit of marketing in them, so it wasn’t due to studio support.
Would you go see a Simon Pegg movie?
Everyone knows who Simon Pegg is, or has at least heard of one of his movies. His most recent endeavor, How to Lose Friends & Alienate People did only $1.3 million it's first weekend which didn't even break the top ten. The previous movie, Run Fat Boy Run, only made $6 million. So, the question is, why can't a hugely talented and lovable actor such as Simon Pegg make any money?
Is it the looks? The British accent? Ahh, it's the nice-guy persona. Or is it the movies he stars in? Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz were very good movies, but I’m not so sure about the rest. The studios seemed to put a fair bit of marketing in them, so it wasn’t due to studio support.
Would you go see a Simon Pegg movie?
Monday, October 6, 2008
300-2, or 10,000?
Neither really roll off the tongue, do they? I'm talking about the sequel to the famed movie 300. If you haven't seen this movie, it's an interpretation of graphic novel writer Frank Miller about the battle of Thermopylae and 300 Spartans facing off against hordes of fighters. The movie made boat-loads of money in 2007 and has the record for a movie in March.
So, how would you make a sequel, knowing what happened, and why must you make a sequel? While I think sometimes, a sequel is a good idea, to continue the story, sometimes, the story is perfect the way it is and a sequel will only taint the movie. I think this is one of those films. The sequel will be SPOILER ALERT will be a year after the famous battle of King Leonidas and his 300 warriors. At the end, the guy telling the story is preparing for battle against a huge army..
“And so my king died, and my brothers died, barely a year ago. Long I pondered my king's cryptic talk of victory. Time has proven him wise, for from free Greek to free Greek, the word was spread that bold Leonidas and his three hundred, so far from home, laid down their lives. Not just for Sparta, but for all Greece and the promise this country holds.
Now, here on this ragged patch of earth called Plataea, Xerxes's hordes face obliteration!
Just there the barbarians huddle, sheer terror gripping tight their hearts with icy fingers... knowing full well what merciless horrors they suffered at the swords and spears of three hundred. Yet they stare now across the plain at 10,000 Spartans commanding thirty thousand free Greeks! HA-OOH!”
Now, here on this ragged patch of earth called Plataea, Xerxes's hordes face obliteration!
Just there the barbarians huddle, sheer terror gripping tight their hearts with icy fingers... knowing full well what merciless horrors they suffered at the swords and spears of three hundred. Yet they stare now across the plain at 10,000 Spartans commanding thirty thousand free Greeks! HA-OOH!”
So, they are waiting for Frank Miller to create the story, and they will proceed at that point, but the original was very loosely based on true events, and was awe inspiring not just for the great special effects, but for the fact that 300 men did truly try to stand up to thousand of charging men. This one, may not be that wonderful, what do you think?
Check it out!
So, a friend of mine has made a Zombie movie.
Let me start off by saying that I love zombie movies, and I also love cheesy movies. This trailer definitely shows promise, and we should definitely promote any filmmakers from Florida, ya know, to help pave the way for me. I was promised a pre-screening of this, and I am really excited. So, I was thinking some really funny tag line....in Florida, with half-dead zombies, no one can hear you scream, or maybe in Florida, where they can't count votes, no one can hear you scream, or what about whoever scores, we all lose. What, like you can do better!
Check it out here! You'll be glad you did.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lSrx44JyU0
Let me start off by saying that I love zombie movies, and I also love cheesy movies. This trailer definitely shows promise, and we should definitely promote any filmmakers from Florida, ya know, to help pave the way for me. I was promised a pre-screening of this, and I am really excited. So, I was thinking some really funny tag line....in Florida, with half-dead zombies, no one can hear you scream, or maybe in Florida, where they can't count votes, no one can hear you scream, or what about whoever scores, we all lose. What, like you can do better!
Check it out here! You'll be glad you did.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lSrx44JyU0
Friday, October 3, 2008
Romero's at it again
George Romero, king of the Zombie movies is at it again. This time, the zombies are on a small tropical island and the island company is debating on whether to kill the zombies, or work to find a cure. The movie is starting production this week, and more than likely will be out sometime next year (a good guess would be October).
First off, let me say I love zombie movies, the cheesier, the better. George Romero is the father of zombie movies, thanks to him, they were brought into the mainstream and the mold was cast. That being said, I am not a fan of Romero's work. I have seen nearly all of them, with the exception of Diary of the Dead, I'm still working on that one (he stole my idea, friggin' jerk). Anyway, his movies all have a "social commentary" undertone with a very slow overtone. The movies seem to be more about a psychological thriller, the problem is, there is nothing psychologically thrilling about a reanimated corpse wanting to eat someone. Other sub genres of horror may be more successful.
Romero's most known movie, Dawn of the Dead has survivors locked up in a mall with flesh eating zombies trying to get in. The social commentary was that of society and their eagerness for purchasing and their priorities. The problem with the movie was the zombies not really being all that threatening, a random motorcycle gang that was just lame, and the fact that there was about 2 hours spent on these people just chilling out in a mall. Never should a zombie movie be boring, and that was.
The remake of the movie lost some social commentary aspects, but gained a much more suspenseful, menacing zombie element. The movie gave the zombies the ability to run, and left the audience with a very dark, twisted ending and Disturb's Down with the Sickness playing, I mean, it can't get better than that.
So, on behalf of Kevin's Movie Blog, I beg you, George, leave the directing of the zombie movies to younger people, or me, I mean, I could do it!
First off, let me say I love zombie movies, the cheesier, the better. George Romero is the father of zombie movies, thanks to him, they were brought into the mainstream and the mold was cast. That being said, I am not a fan of Romero's work. I have seen nearly all of them, with the exception of Diary of the Dead, I'm still working on that one (he stole my idea, friggin' jerk). Anyway, his movies all have a "social commentary" undertone with a very slow overtone. The movies seem to be more about a psychological thriller, the problem is, there is nothing psychologically thrilling about a reanimated corpse wanting to eat someone. Other sub genres of horror may be more successful.
Romero's most known movie, Dawn of the Dead has survivors locked up in a mall with flesh eating zombies trying to get in. The social commentary was that of society and their eagerness for purchasing and their priorities. The problem with the movie was the zombies not really being all that threatening, a random motorcycle gang that was just lame, and the fact that there was about 2 hours spent on these people just chilling out in a mall. Never should a zombie movie be boring, and that was.
The remake of the movie lost some social commentary aspects, but gained a much more suspenseful, menacing zombie element. The movie gave the zombies the ability to run, and left the audience with a very dark, twisted ending and Disturb's Down with the Sickness playing, I mean, it can't get better than that.
So, on behalf of Kevin's Movie Blog, I beg you, George, leave the directing of the zombie movies to younger people, or me, I mean, I could do it!
Picanic basket anyone?!
Yogi and Boo Boo are back! That's right, the shennanigans in Yellowstone National park with picnic baskets and bears are coming to the big screen with a live actions/CG movie the likes of Alvin and the Chipmunks. That basically means Yogi and Boo Boo will be CGI and everything else will be live action.
I used to love Yogi when I was young, but this could offically ruin it for me. I'm not a big fan of the Alvin and the Chipmunks style, it seems to just stick out like a sore thumb and look really silly. In my opinion, this would look great as a traditional animated movie, but with a newer twist, similar to Finding Nemo. I mean, if they can make a fish look as brilliant as that, they can bring some modern life to the classic bear.
I used to love Yogi when I was young, but this could offically ruin it for me. I'm not a big fan of the Alvin and the Chipmunks style, it seems to just stick out like a sore thumb and look really silly. In my opinion, this would look great as a traditional animated movie, but with a newer twist, similar to Finding Nemo. I mean, if they can make a fish look as brilliant as that, they can bring some modern life to the classic bear.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Kratos on the big screen!
Brett Ratner of Rush Hour fame, and X3...not..so fame is signed to direct the big screen adaptation of the top selling Playstation 2 game.
In the game, Kratos, a Spartan warrior is out for vengeance after being tricked by Ares, the God of War. Kratos is after Ares, and to kill a god, you have to get Pandora's box. This game had an immense storyline including many famous Greek gods and some of their myths. The character of Kratos was simple, but with a troubled past, it was addicting, begging you to find out his secrets. The question will be, can Ratner explore the character, or just copy the game.
Another question will be, who will play this anti-hero? When I think big, bad ass anti-hero, who is bald, unfortunately, there is only one choice that comes to mind, Vin Diesel. If Ratner can get Diesel, he would be headed in the right direction.
I really wish they could have gotten Frank Miller, or Robert Rodriguez, of Sin City fame. I think this is a dark, bloody, demented storyline that would do very well with that gritty style of filming.
Here is where the ugly lies, it's a movie about a video game. Historically, directors (I'm lookin' at you Uwe Boll) and studios have just assumed they have a guaranteed audience, no matter the quality of the movie. Unfortunately, due to that assumption, movies based on video games have, well, stunk and now, most people will assume anything based on a game will be bad. It may only take one movie to change peoples' minds, but, at this point, there hasn't been a movie that has gone against the grain.
If you think of one, let me know, and don't say Resident Evil, those movies may have been the best of the Video Game movies, but compared to real movies, they are crap (Sorry Mila).
Quantum of Solace Video
Well, this is a movie blog, not a music blog, because I'm sure most people who know me are aware that my musical knowledge is, shall we say, lacking. However, after listening to the new Quantum of Solace theme song, Another Way to Die, I am speechless, well, not quite (that would be a terrible blog). First off, I think that is a way better title than Quantum of Solace, but secondly, I think the sound is just not very James Bond-ish. The James Bond I grew up with is more a sexy, cool, suave person, and the music has seemed to do a great job of reflecting that. There has been quite a few reports saying the new movie is trying to make him more modern, a bit more of a bad ass, and maybe this song is supposed to reflect it. Let me know what you think, the video is here, and I do like the video, but the music.....not so much.
http://new.music.yahoo.com/videos/--201553123
http://new.music.yahoo.com/videos/--201553123
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)