Big Budget Buzz

Article III Against Warner Brothers

2008-08-29T07:01:00.000-07:00

Now Warner Brothers is suing Mirchi Movies over their film, "Hari Puttar." Their argument? The Bollywood film's name sounds suspiciously like "Harry Potter," a Warner Brothers film.

I guess they learned about intellectual properties from FOX's Watchmen lawsuit, so WB wanted to sue someone. Unfortunately, they are still idiots.

Hari is a popular Indian name, and "Puttar" is Punjabi for "son." The fact that "Hari Puttar," sounds vaguely like "Harry Potter" is coincidental. This is not grounds for a lawsuit. That's because no one would confuse the Bollywood flic with Harry Potter. The plot has nothing to do with wizards and magic. If it was similar to the story in Harry Potter AND had a similar sounding name, then they could argue that Mirchi Movies was trying to confuse consumers by making a similar product to one they have a license for.

But no, this movie is about a young boy who is left Home Alone. While he is Home Alone, burglars try to steal the boy's father's secret formula. And because he is Home Alone, the boy decides to defend his house by setting up booby-traps to foil the burglars who are trying to break in while he is Home Alone.

Call me crazy... but that sounds lot like the Home Alone movies to me.

And guess what, Home Alone is a 20th Century Fox Property! Way to go Warner Brothers, you justs did Fox a a favor!

Who Watches The Warner Brothers?

2008-08-28T12:30:00.000-07:00

Lending credence to my assertion that Warner Brothers is the worst movie house in Hollywood, it looks like they are going out of their way to screw up Watchmen.

Sure they got the right director, right screenwriter, right cast. Even "Watchmen" artist, Dave Gibbons, who was initially against a Watchmen movie, was so impressed with what he was seeing that he endorsed it. But aside from the production of the actual film, the WB has made several moves that subvert all those efforts.

The case against Warner Brothers:

Article I. The Lawsuit

In case you haven't been keeping up with Hollywood news, Warner Brothers is currently embroiled with Fox over rights to the Watchmen movie. So what's the story?

According to the Geeks of Doom website, the problem stems from the fact that WB did not get permission from Fox to make the movie. "Why should it be up to them?" you ask. Well, Fox has had the rights to make a Watchmen movie since it was published in 1986.

Fox has repeatedly failed to make the Watchmen movie, and has basically been sitting on the rights to the film for 22 years. Assuming (correctly) that Fox would never make the movie, Warner Brothers decided to make the movie themselves.

What? Really, Warner Brothers? Do you know how movie rights work? You have to pay the creators to use their idea. What, you figured because Fox paid for the movie rights that part of the transaction was complete? Just because someone has paid for the rights to a film doesn't mean it's up for grabs! The party that paid for the idea gets to use it! If YOU want to make it, you have to pay the person who owns the rights.

You thought you could just arbitrarily make a Watchmen movie without owning the movie rights? Have you heard of Copyright? Do you know what intellectual property is, Warner Brothers? Legally, Fox can sit on those rights forever. And now because Warner Brothers violated copyright law, Fox is suing to stop the movie.

Of course they aren't actually going to stop WB from releasing the movie. Rather, they are going to demand a large chunk of the profits. And given the success this film is bound to have, that sum is going to be many times greater than what WB could have bought the rights to the film for in the first place. Fox was never going to make it, they would have pawned it off for peanuts. It was a monument to their failure.

Now, Fox has WB by the balls because the movie has already been made and promoted. What can Warner Brothers do? Not release the movie? They will lose all the money they spent making it and marketing it. So the WB will have to pay whatever price Fox wants, when all they had to do to begin with was take the legal course of action.

As much as I want to hate Fox for probably delaying this movie's release with a time-consuming and costly lawsuit, the real culprits here are the intellectual giants over at Warner Brothers.

Article II. The Running Time

One of my favorite directors, and a comic-book fan himself, Kevin Smith was invited to an advanced screening of the Watchmen movie. Smith was so impressed that he raved about it on his blog. BUT, Kevin Smith saw the "Epic Length" version; with a running time of about three hours.

Well Warner Brothers, apparently unfamiliar with the Lord of the Rings movies, say that running time is way to long, and plan to cut it down to 145 minutes. For those who aren't too math savvy, that means they intend to cut 35 minutes from the film. 35 minutes. The Anglo-Zanzibar War lasted that long.

You're coming off a huge endorsement from a director with HUGE credibility with your key demographic for this picture, and now you want to completely hack that version to pieces?

Their rationale is a shorter running time will allow more showings, and thus generate more money. Great. You're now nickle and diming this movie to death.

And in the wake of the aforementioned what-the-f***-were-you-thinking lawsuit, the probability of financial concerns affecting the final quality of the movie greatly increases. Now the plan will probably be to screen Watchmen at about 90 minutes long and then release an extended version DVD.

Have you seen the Watchmen graphic novel? It's thicker than the Bible. How on Earth are you going to tell that story in two-and-a-half hours? Coherently?

Honestly, dude. Just release the epic length version, and bite the f***ing bullet. Because you screwed up on this one. And if you want to keep the fans of the comic book happy, and you better because they are going to be the large part of your audience, you better keep the movie faithful.

Unless Warner Brothers does that, I stand by my argument; Warner Brothers is the worst Movie Studio in Hollywood.

You're Kidding Right?

2008-08-28T09:01:00.000-07:00

Because social networking sites don't get enough exposure already, Aaron Sorkin is penning a Facebook movie.

Sorkin, writer for "The West Wing" and "Studio 60 in the Sunset Strip," is currently working on writing a screenplay for a movie about the formation of Facebook.

What's going to be in it? Are they going to go all the way back? Like to when Zuckerberg stole the source code from other Harvard students? Will they have the lawsuits? And how recent are they going to make it? Will they show the idiots who got in trouble for dressing like Steve Irwin and Virginia Tech victims for Halloween? I guess at the very end the movie will become incomprehensible, like the new facebook.

I like Facebook. I have a facebook page; have since 2005. Anyone who has been on that long knows that the quality dipped once any moron could get an account. But it's still pretty cool.

But if you do a Facebook movie, you should do it like Myspace the Movie. What I want to see is the stupid trends on facebook. I don't care about it's foundation.

This is going to be a combination of 21 and Wall Street, right? Screw that. I hope Sorkin fictionalizes it a little. Let's have a battle royale between Facebook and Myspace. The Google shows up and the two must team up to save the internet.

In any case, Facebook, Inc. so far, is not on board. A facebook spokesman pretty much said that they get approached by filmmakers all the time, and while they are flattered by the attention, they have not agreed to cooperate.

Oh, in your face! In your face Sorkin! Facebook just shot you down like you were Uwe Boll trying to get a deal to make a Metal Gear movie!

Seriously, just stop this right now. make a movie about Napster instead. At least there is a real legal battle story there.

Directing 101: Don't Pan Your Own Movie

2008-08-27T12:50:00.000-07:00

"Seriously, stop making movies."

This is definitely a first; a director slamming his own movie.

After a handful of bad reviews hit the internet, Mathieu Kassovitz has actually made statements to amctv.com that will ultimately torpedo Babylon A.D.; a movie he wrote and directed.

Basically he says there are no redeeming qualities for this movie. He said the action sequences were "like a bad episode of 24" (That's my favorite). He said that with the caliber of films so far this summer, Babylon A.D. will never hold up. Kassovitz is expecting the film to bomb and rather than weather the humiliation he jet-setted to the Caribbean for a vacation.

Even worse, the movie hasn't even come out yet. This is preemptively throwing the film under the bus. Jeremy Shockey thinks that's low.

Even waiter Joe Eszterhas has the good taste to wait until after Showgirls flopped to slam it. In a stark contrast to Kassovitz, Paul Verhoeven, the director of Showgirls actually went to the Razzies to accept his "Worst Director" award.

Kassovitz blames FOX for the films failure, (what failure? It hasn't even come out yet?) saying that they were way too touch feely and overly involved. Well that's going to happen when your film has a budget approaching $100 million.

He further criticized FOX for cutting 10 minutes from the film after its European opening. The running time is now about 90 minutes.

Even if all that is true, you cannot sabotage your own movie, especially before it opens.

I think Kassovitz probably did it to screw FOX. But this movie's performance is bigger than him; it's bigger than his feud with FOX. Have you ever seen the end credits? All those people need to get paid too. Not to mention all of his financial backers. This was not a shrewd move by any stretch.

Needless to say, after this review, it might be wise to steer clear of Babylon A.D.

Superman Reboot

2008-08-27T08:27:00.000-07:00

It looks like the Superman franchise is taking cues from Marvel and the Batman series in their next move.

First, it looks as though Warner Brothers intends to reboot the series, considering the success of Batman Begins. All I can say is, "Not a moment too soon." Sorry DC, but "Superman Returns" was terrible. The high mark was Kal Penn, and they killed him off! They crushed Kumar with a giant monolith of Kryptonite!

And do us all a favor; when you reboot the series, get anyone other than Brandon Routh. I understand the whole "everyman" thing. Yeah I know you wanted to cast an unknown, yeah that's noble and everything. But look at the successful superhero franchises Spider Man (Tobey Maguire), Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.), Batman(Christian Bale). Notice anything in common? The lead is played by a leading actor. And before you even think about it, don't get the guy from Smallville either.

Well Warner Brothers has indicated that, much as with the new Batman Series, they intend to make the new Superman series darker. I am now convinced that, not only will the new Superman series suck as badly as the last one, but Warner Brothers is the worst movie production company in Hollywood.

You want to make Superman dark? Have you ever read a Superman comic? You've got an fantastic, invincible character in in a flamboyant suit with laser eyes, and you are going to try to make that dark? The reason Batman worked as a dark series is because Batman comics were dark. The joker was killing people left and right. Scarecrow was a homicidal maniac equaled only by Marvel's Carnage. And at every turn he faced moral dilemmas.

What's Superman's dilemma? "Oh man, it's hard making myself lame enough to pass as a regular guy," and "I'm the last of my kind." That's a bit one-note isn't it?

The fact is, you can't make a good Superman movie today. Much like you can't make a goot Hulk movie today. It's not the right time. He isn't identifiable today.

The invincible Superman was needed in the depressing Holocaust era for young Jewish boys to identify with. They needed a hero who was indistructible because they wanted to be indestructible. It was their ultimate fantasy, their escape from a world of unconscionable evil, and so it was a success.

There is no peril like that today. Say what you will about terrorism; it isn't the same. It has not affected our lives the way World War II, the Holocaust and the Cold War shook the American foundation. There was an omnipresent enemy with a face. And in a time of uncertainty, everyone could rally behind Superman, a proxy of American might.

Our enemy today is obscured. We aren't staring down a rival country; our enemy is concealed within our very own nation. And so what sells in the post-9/11 era is moral conflict and obscurity; darkness. We don't need a hero to hide behind, we need a hero to do our dirty work. To take the confusing and scary moral decisions out of our hands. To be cruel where we have been ordered to be kind.

Again, look at the superheros that succeed now: Spiderman, Iron Man, Batman, the Punisher; vigilantes who operate outside the law to do justice. They do what is right even if the society around them says it is wrong. They all have a certain vulnerability that goes well beyond simoly Kryptonite. Iron Man has alcohol, Spider Man had Mary Jane, and Batman has his moral compass.

They are hated by the government, and often the very people they protect because they do what ordinary people cannot, and yet they fight on. But most importantly, evil men fear them. And in our-modern era of fear, we want a hero that the bad guys fear. Not respect; fear.

Superman does not belong in our time. He is the relic of a bygone era in comics history.

But still, even more upsetting, is that DC is going to follow in Marvel's footsteps and follow several single-hero movies with a large movie with several of the established heros. Oh, f*** me.

If you stick Superman in a movie with this Batman, I will massacre you all. Don't mess with this franchise, it's doing too well. And you can't just stick Superman in with Batman! Batman is in a realistic world. Now you want to merge that world with a world that has a flying, laser-eyes hero in it? Again, Warner Brothers is the worst movie company on Earth.

Sank Like A "Rocker"

2008-08-25T08:03:00.000-07:00

I think we can safely engrave the trophy for "Biggest Turkey of the Summer," with the name Rainn Wilson. I think he has even wrested the trophy away from Mike Myers.

The Rocker had an absolutely abysmal opening weekend, puling in an almost comedic $2.75 million. To put that in perspective, even the fiasco that was Love Guru opened with $13.9 million. I think even more telling, Vicky Christina Barcelona, in it's second week, and a nonexistent promotion campaign, made $3 million despite the fact that it is showing in 2,100 fewer theaters. That measly sum was only enough for The Rocker to earn the number 12 spot in the weekend box office.

Part of what has hurt The Rocker are criticisms that it is a blatant rip-off of School of Rock. The other part seems to be that Rainn Wilson cannot carry a movie on his own.

In all likelihood, I think Rainn is at the risk of a Costanza-esque typecasting. When an actor plays a character so iconic, like George Costanza, or Dwight Schrute, it can be hard for the actor behind the role to break out of that mold. And if you have any doubts that Dwight Schrute is an iconic character, simply Google the name "Dwight." A fictional TV character tops a former president.

But adding to the difficulty of trying to escape fan expectations and a Jack-Black-did-it story, Rainn doesn't have the supporting cast he does on The Office. Steve Carell, John Krasinsky and Jenna Fischer has been replaced with the fresh-faced Teddy Geiger, Josh Gad, and Emma Stone.

Of course the cast isn't bad, and the movie is certainly better than it's performance indicates, but this whole experience does not bode well for Rainn if he ever intends to do movies after The Office.

Caine: Heath Ledger Will Get An Oscar Nomination

2008-07-14T07:38:00.000-07:00

Michale Caine, co-star of the presumptive mega-hit Dark Knight, made his mark on Hollywood Friday. The acting legend was honored by leaving his hand- and footprints in the cement in front of Grauman's Chinese Theater. But the real news were his comments at the ceremony.

The 75-year-old actor lauded the late Heath Ledgers performance. "I think he'll get a posthumous Oscar nomination at least," Caine said. That's high praise coming from a two-time Oscar winner.

Caine is right in saying "at least." If Ledger is nominated I don't see how he cannot win. His performance as the joker is apparently both intense and entertaining; early viewers are raving about this latest apparition of the Joker.

His riveting performance aside, what actor wants to be the one who robbed the late Heath Ledger of an Oscar? I'd hate to be that guy; no one wants to be in that position! Well , maybe Leonardo DiCaprio, he's been robbed of Oscars so many times he'd probably want to win one regardless of whom he was running against.

But I think there could be no more fitting tribute than to award one of the world's most talented actors with an Academy Award for the last role he ever played; one of his best roles, no less. We will always remember how he went out on top and we will have to pause to reflect on what we lost.

Dark Knight opens on Friday.

First Look: "Beverly Hills Chihuahua"

2008-07-03T10:00:00.000-07:00

I have just seen the worst thing ever.

I just sat through the Beverly Hills Chihuahua trailer.

And bear in mind, at my last gig I saw police photos of murder scenes. I can still say with complete certainty that this is the single most disgusting thing I have ever seen.

Everyone who went to see WALL-E last weekend, also had to sit through this. I had the good fortune of watching it on YouTube and being able to turn it off to prevent projectile vomiting. I can only imagine sitting in a chair facing a tremendous screen with stereo sound blaring that terrible song all around me at full volume.

And if there's one thing I love to hear blasted at full volume, it's kid-friendly rap. Yeah, I haven't heard a lyric about being a real "hot dog," recently. That is SO CLEVER! Because he is a DOG and he is fashionably "HOT," he's a real HOT DOG! HAHAHAH! I can't wait to here what dog pun they squeeze into this hip-hop joint next!

Shoot me.

If there is one thing in the world that the world doesn't need right now it's another live-action talking animal movie. They consistently tank at the box office. So what is the motivation? Does Disney think all those other CG talking dog movies that bombed were flukes? Let's hope Disney can give us another Shaggy Dog.

Any hope I had for the movie industry following the wide-spread critical success of Iron Man and Wanted, just went flying out the window.

Honestly, Disney. WHAT WERE YOU THINKING? I know you have a penchant for making abysmal kid's movies (at least lately), but you have really outdone yourselves. This may be the worst idea for a movie I have ever seen.

I won't even go into the whole "racist" or "historically inaccurate" things that people are ranting about. There's plenty of suck to comment on.

Who is the key demographic for this movie? You might say stoners, but I think it would have insulted their intelligence.

It looks like a joke. It doesn't even look like a real movie; it looks like a skit on Saturday Night Live that was made ironically to poke fun at Hollywood for making so many bad movies.

And what's going on with that cast? Did you just go out of your way to hire every Hispanic actor? What? Was Luis Guzman not available? Oops, never mind, he's in it too. And how did you ever manage to get Jamie Lee Curtis and Drew Barrymore to sign on to this hemorrhoid?

Speaking of the Hispanic cast, is this movie a thinly veiled commentary on American immigration policy? Let me guess, the spoiled white dog doesn't appreciate the lower strata Mexican dogs until she gets lost in Mexico and needs their help? Along the way she falls in love with the poor Mexican dog and in the end she learns that money doesn't buy happiness and that all cultures deserve respect. Really, Disney, what are you going to show me with this B.S. that I haven't seen a million times before?

I never really bought into the whole "Hollywood is out of ideas" thing. Everything is really just based on something else, which was a remake of something else. I have made peace with that. But this honestly has proven to me that Disney, if not Hollywood at large, has really run out of ideas. They just take the old movies that they remade three of four times already, and they realized, "well it's been remade so many times we can't remake it again, can we? Yes we can. We make the exact same movies, but this time it will be with talking animals!"

I guess can look forward to a lot of these. Ham-let with an all pig cast, Gone With The Wiener Dog, and let's not forget The Godfrogger.

I just have one final question; if I think it looks bad, the people on YouTube think it's bad, the IMDB commenters think it's bad, and everyone in general who has seen the trailer thinks this looks bad, WHY WAS IT MADE?

First Look: "Quantum of Solace"

2008-07-01T06:16:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, the movie Gods blessed us with the first trailer for Quantum of Solace; the 22nd Bond film.

The plot circulates around the 007's path of vengeance after the death of a Bond lover. Presumably that lover would be Agent Fields, played by the 22-year-old Audrey Hepburn look-alike, Gemma Arterton. I say that because she and Bond seem to be pretty intimate in some of the stills on the Movie's website. One steamy shot in the trailer shows Daniel Craig kissing the lovely young agent's back.

Also, Arterton has hinted at the possibility that Agent Fields might become Mrs. Bond. And we all know the track record for Mrs. Bonds in previous movies. They have a shorter life expectancy than the "Double-0s" they marry.

We also get a first look at a Gitmo type interrogation with the villain, Dominic Greene, played by Mathieu Amalric. He alleges that the murdered love interest, whoever she turns out to be, committed suicide. Then he utters a veiled threat that his association "has people everywhere." Cue the action music and rapid fire clips of action scenes.

The trailer suggests that Bond falls out of favor with MI6 as he refuses to be tamed on his quest for revenge. So he will have enemies on both sides, good and evil, this time around. Kind of like Mission: Impossible.

Craig will reprise his role as the darker, Navy SEAL version of 007. But, as pictured above, Bond will once again have his trademark Walther PPK, which was noticeably absent from Casino Royale. This leaves a faint glimmer of hope that bond will be a litter spy-ier this time around, using as much stealth and cunning as brawn and balls.

The trailer also features a villain with one of the most sinister bowl cuts I have ever seen. You can just tell he's a bad guy; no one of sound mind wears their hair like that.

The Supercuts aficionado, played by Swiss actor Anatole Taubman, is purported to be the number two villain in the movie. A villain named, obviously, Elvis.

"He’s got something with his hair. There is something funny going on with his hair that you will find out and hopefully enjoy," Taubman told IGN, adding, "that’s all in a way that he has in common with the real Elvis. Both Elvises have a lot of hair. "

Actually, he kind of looks like Liam Gallagher from Oasis.

Asked about his relationship with the main villain, Taubman said. "Mr. Greene saved him really. He saved him from the streets. I would have gotten lost and maybe not even survived. Maybe have gotten killed."

So, basically, expect the same relationship you saw between Cardinal Roark and Kevin in Sin City, or between Teabing and Silas in the The Da Vinci Code. The surrogate father figure who brainwashes a lost boy to kill for him. Yawn.

In general, Quantum of Solace looks like your standard action movie. Nothing new or original here. Still, the pulse-pounding pace of the trailer has me quite convinced that this installment will meet the complement of action dished out in Casino Royale, even though this one is a half hour shorter.

Quantum of Solace will hit theaters on November 7.

Update: WALL-E vs. Wanted

2008-06-30T08:35:00.000-07:00

It was a record-breaking weekend at the box office. Both WALL-E and Wanted had HUGE opening weekends at the box office. What I predicted to be a dog fight at ticket kiosks across the country was just that.

WALL-E snagged the weekend number one, raking in $62 million to Wanted's $51 million according to Box Office Mojo. WALL-E may have kept the Pixar number one opening streak alive, but don't go calling the robotic romance flick the box office champion just yet. Wanted, showing in 800 fewer theaters than WALL-E, actually had a higher average gross, $1 thousand more, per theater. So the dog fight ended in a draw, you could say.

Still, neither gross is really a record-setting number, so why is it a record-breaking weekend? Because this weekend, for the first time EVER, two movies grossed over $50 million their opening week. And Wanted now holds the record for the biggest opening for an R-rated movie in June, the third highest all-time opening for an R-rated movie. All this without the help of the gargantuan 16-and-under demographic.

I guess the good reviews helped Wanted more than I thought.

Overall ticket sales are up from this time last year, which is great news given the sputtering economy.

Now both films face a huge challenge taking on Hancock this week.

"Wanted" Getting Killer Reviews!

2008-06-27T08:12:00.000-07:00

WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON?

Wanted screened for critics yesterday. I started trolling the reviews this morning. I read the blurb in the Express on the metro. To my amazement, it was a good review.

Hey, could be a fluke. After all, they gave a mildly good review to Pirates of the Caribbean 3, which is among the worst things my senses have ever experienced in general.

So I arrive at the office, churn out a few articles, then I start looking for more Wanted reviews. They were all good. All of them. Not even so much as a tepid review. All the critics are raving about this film! I am actually going out of my way to find a bad review for it, and all attempts have proven fruitless so far (All though I did find a review that CRUSHES Hancock). What the hell?

From the first trailer I saw I thought this movie was going to be a stinker; your typical summer action fare. But the critics who go to see it aren't just exhilarated by the action, they are genuinely enjoying the movies. Wanted is drawing comparisons to action classics The Matrix and Fight Club.

For me, that's when action movies stopped being enjoyable, after The Matrix and Fight Club came out in 1999. Since then, no action movie has come close to topping or even matching them. The problem was that the action movies in the 2000s fell into two categories. They were either kid-friendly, bloodless, PG-13 adventure films with clean language, or grotesquely violent R-rated movies that were so hardcore that they didn't care about extraneous things like plot and substance. Special effects completely replaced story. And after a while of that, I took that to be standard action fare, and I tuned out.

Maybe I've been wrong all this time. Maybe there has been hope for the action genre. Maybe this movie will once again blend action, violence, and mind-bending twists in one picture. Maybe I can actually enjoy an action film for the first time since 1999.

I hope so. Because despite my better judgement, and ignoring every impulse I have ever had after watching a trailer, I am making it a point to see Wanted this weekend.

The real action this weekend will take place in the box-office. WALL-E, which I had as a lock to take the box-office title this weekend, now has some serious competition. Usually, family movies dominate the weekend gross as parents take their kids to see movies. But coming off scores of great reviews, Wanted may actually draw crowds. But will the 18-25 demographic be able to top number of families that go to see the next film by the box-office slayers at Pixar?

The Top 10 Reasons I'm Glad "The Love Guru" Failed

2008-06-24T12:41:00.000-07:00

Yup, The Love Guru bombed. It tanked. It flopped, completely defying my prediction. In an earlier entry, I mentioned The Love Guru as one of the three summer movies I thought was completely racially insensitive. But in that entry, I predicted that it wouldn't suffer. That, for some reason, people would turn out and pack theaters to see it. I have never been happier to be proven wrong.

Perhaps if it had been released at another time it would have done well. But not after the Don Imus fiasco. Not while going head-to-head with Get Smart. Not during a summer with three questionable racially-charged characterizations. And certainly not when it costs $4 per gallon to get to a theater. People are skipping their vacations because of gas prices, you really think they'd show up to see this flaming turd?

But, I always try to put a positive twist on a negative. So here are the top 10 reasons I'm glad The Love Guru failed.

1. Jessica Alba will relegate herself to roles where she is not meant to be taken seriously as an actress. Let's face facts, Alba is hot, but the girl can't act. She couldn't even pull off a comedic role after two attempts (assuming you can count Good Luck Chuck as a comedy). Roles like hers in Sin City would be fine; those in which her dialogue is minimal, and yet we can appreciate her hotness as she does a black-and-white striptease.

2. Justin Timberlake will stop acting altogether. I couldn't even bring myself to laugh at how pathetic his acting was in this movie. His "Canadian" accent, and lines were so painfully bad that my sense of humor was actually paralyzed. After this and Alpha Dog, maybe he will finally go away and won't "come all the way back around."

3. Little people can have some dignity again. After this, maybe people will stop casting Verne Troyer as Hollywood's littlest sight gag. Of course that would probably mean the end of Verne Troyer's career, but sometimes you just gotta take one for the team. I'm sure the population of little people as a whole could live without Mike Meyers staring at Troyer and uttering "You are a midget." And they could certainly live without Meyers holding up Troyer and giving an Oscar acceptance speech.

4. Mike Meyers can lose his attitude. He has grown quite insufferable since the Shrek era began. He thought he was bulletproof. He thought he was Hollywood gold. He thought that people loved his shtick. And he was right. But it went to his head. He started popping up everywhere, thinking he was the shizzle, trying to be funny all the time, and annoying us to death. When he showed up at American Idol in full Pitka attire, we had finally had enough. Now maybe he can regress to the actor who was second fiddle to Dana Carvey on SNL and made movies with a chip on his shoulder.

5. Shtick can finally be laid to rest. No longer is a goofy character, or a zany premise enough to carry a comedy movie. "Okay, two firefighters pretend to be gay...Aaaaaaand...Go!" won't get you even a titter these days. It's like watching a comedy from the 1960s. It's just not this generation's idea of funny. Now we can start seeing some original comedies rather than the same old Monty Python gags inserted into different situations. Which leads me to my next point.

6. It proves the relevance to the Judd Apatow brand of comedy. The semi-improvisational, realistic comedies are the future. Or at the very least they are the present. They develop characters and have a story (what a concept). And rather than having a set-in-stone script, they rely on the actors' innate senses of humor, timing and improvisation to make a scene funny. They can do that because the actors themselves are funny; not just the writers. Everything else is passe.

7. If no one goes to see this movie, it can't ruin Romany Malco's career. Hey, speaking of Judd Apatow... Everyone loves 40 Year Old Virgin co-star Romany Malco. He is an under-appreciated Hollywood talent and is due for some leading roles of his own like his Virgin co-stars Paul Rudd, Seth Rogen and Steve Carell. Being associated with a movie like this, however, can put a serious speed bump on an actor's expressway to the A-List. Fortunately, the good thing about being in a forgettably bad movie is that people forget you were in it.

8. The NHL can vanish into obscurity. This is actually a good thing for the NHL. I like the NHL (Go 'Canes), and I want good things to happen for it. Right now, however, it has next to no credibility as an American sport. Being the backbone of this movie isn't helping things. But right now there a two very exciting young players emerging who will revolutionize the game the way Gretzky did (I like to think of Eric Staal as a third). So right now the NHL needs to fall back to the shadows, and then explode into the American mainstream in a few years at the peak of Crosby and Ovechkin's respective careers.

9. No more long shaggy hair and beards on white guys. This means you, Devendra Banhart! You Charles Manson look-alike jerk! Shave or break up with Natalie Portman. But either way, take a shower. Damn hippie.

10. Austin Powers 4. It's inevitable now. He's got to give the people what they want, which means falling back on his most famous character. He's got to get over his whole artistic integrity thing. Sure he wants to try new things. But, he's got a character the world likes and all his other ideas suck.

"Spider-Man 4" (2011)

2008-06-23T08:12:00.000-07:00

While Producer Laura Ziskin has admitted that there is no finished screenplay, she expects Spider-Man 4 will hit theaters in May 2011. Zodiac writer James Vanderbilt is set to write the screenplay.

Star Tobey Maguire and director Sam Raimi have not signed onto the project yet. Rather Almost Famous star Patrick Fugit is expected to step into the title role as Peter Parker.

It's a good thing someone reminded me about Almost Famous because for the life of me I couldn't remember who Patrick Fugit was. The fresh-faced Fugit is almost a dead ringer for Tobey Maguire, which in all likelihood is why they picked him up.

I would criticize the pick, but to be honest, the Spider-Man producers have some pretty questionable casting decisions. They cast Topher Grace, to play imposing macho-meat-head Eddie Brock (because when I think about muscle-bound tough guys, I think Eric from That '70s Show). Not to mention they cast Tobey Maguire to play Spider-Man.

Honestly, I think the franchise will suffer if the dynamic duo of Maguire and Raimi aren't a part of it. Maguire is one of the beat actor's of his generation, and the fact that we got to see him in a trio of blockbusters was great. He brought his acting chops to the action genre, and look at the results; one of the most successful franchises of all time, $2.5 billion worldwide. And Spider-Man 2 is probably the best superhero movie ever made (probably not saying much, actually).

If you want Spider-Man 4 to redeem the series, give horror virtuoso Sam Raimi a chance to work with Carnage and let it just teeter on the brink of an R-rating.

But I guess Raimi has more important things to do than give the world another Spider-Man movie it desperately seeks. Things like remaking Evil Dead. Really, Sam Raimi? You're so ho-hum about making a sequel to a franchise everyone loves and yet your going to turn around and bastardize one of your own greatest creations by remaking a cult classic?

Get off your high horse and get back in the damned director's chair and make me a Spider-man movie! You too Maguire! You can take a break from making art-house movies next year long enough to squeeze into some red spandex. Now get on it!

AFI 10 Top 10: Sci-Fi Films

2008-06-18T12:42:00.000-07:00

I had two big issues with the Sci-Fi category.

The first was that the wrong Alien movie was in the countdown. I firmly believe that Aliens is the vastly superior Alien film.

Aliens did for action movies what Alien did for horror movies. It mixed the genre with sci-fi and completely redefined how we look at the genre.

When doing Aliens, James Cameron took a page from Steven Spielberg's book in "Jaws." We don't see the aliens for the first hour of the movie. The time leading up to the conflict is spent establishing plot, developing characters and building suspense; three things that are usually completely omitted from contemporary action movies. In most action movies today, the director cannot wait to throw the characters into the central conflict of the movie.

Then when the aliens attack, it's fast and furious action, right up until the end. It's the perfect model for an action movie, and yet it has not been properly redone since. It should have been somewhere in the to 10 Sci-Fi movies, even ahead of it's predecessor (better yet, in its place).

The second problem I have with the Top 10 Sci-Fi movies was their #1 pick.

2001: A Space Odyssey? Really? That is the best Sci-Fi movie ever made? Are we talking about the same movie? Granted, all the parts that took place in space were great. The confrontation with HAL was great. The effects, like running around the circular gym, were great. But still, that was only Act Two of a Three-part snore-fest.

Act One had apes (some of the worst costuming ever, might I add) staring at an unexplained black obelisk and suddenly becoming intelligent. I thought that scene was supposed to be funny. The walk the "apes" are doing evoked a laugh worthy of Mel Brooks. And Act Three is completely incomprehensible.

The 2001 I saw had maybe an hour of bearable content. Die-hard Kubrick fans claim that we who weren't enthralled with 2001, don't get it. We don't get that it was all about technology and space and philosophy. No I get it. I got all the technology stuff. I can handle that. What I don't get, and I challenge any Kubrick fan to explain to me was the need for the apes and the bizarre room in space thing.

I have actually read Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time," and that was more comprehensible than 2001: A Space Odyssey. I can understand the concept of a fourth dimension, and 2001 still makes no sense to me, that should tell you something.

There is absolutely no excuse for Star Wars not being the #1 Science-Fiction Movie. And believe me, I have a legion of nerds behind me on this one. Star Wars revolutionized the use of special effects, and computer graphics in particular. It had a rich and engrossing story, and boasts one of the best scores of all time, composed by the great John Williams.

But once again I disagree with the AFI. In this case, over which Star Wars movie should have been in the top 10. I would have said Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back for many reasons. The classical Greek conceit of father vs. son, the star-crossed romance, the visually stunning battle for Hoth, and one of the coolest lines in cinema history:

Leia: "I love you."
Han: "I know."

Sorry, Kubrick. HAL takes a back seat to Han any day.

AFI 10 Top 10: Gangster Films

2008-06-18T08:01:00.000-07:00

I had my share of grievances with the AFI's 10 Top 10. Several of my complaints came from the Gangster genre; The fact that The Departed is nowhere to be found in the gangster top 10 is criminal. I guess Departed's rating was hurt by its recency and because it was a remake of a Chinese film and the AFI celebrates American movies.

But, I figured I would take this opportunity to weigh in on a hotly debated subject; the best gangster movie of all time.

Well, hotly debated is pure hyperbole. Most people would say there is no contest between The Godfather and Goodfellas. Many have Godfather as their best movie of all time, so it should be no surprise that it is the #1 gangster film.

I may be the only person who actually prefers Goodfellas to Godfather, so I know what's coming. Save your breath.

While it does insist upon itself, I do not dislike the Godfather. It is a cinematic masterpiece and will stand the test of time as one of the greatest films ever made. But as far as mob movies go? I'd rather see Goodfellas.

Why?

Better Soundtrack - The movie follows Henry's life, from his childhood in the fifties to his downfall in the eighties. As he does the soundtrack too follows the trends and musical styles of each era, which really draws you in. The Godfather score is moving, but you have to give props to a film that plays Tony Bennett at the beginning and Sex Pistols at the end. Moreover, you have to give props to a mob film that goes its entirety without a Frank Sinatra track.

Better Cinematography - The three-minute, continuous shot following Ray Liotta and Lorraine Bracco from the valet, to the back door of the Copacabana, through the kitchen, and finally to their table, while Liotta tips everyone he passes, all set to the Crystals' "And Then He Kissed Me," is still one of the most remarkable accomplishments in cinematography I have ever seen. Nothing in The Godfather can touch that.

Joe Pesci - The sato-narcissistic Tommy DeVito character Pesci plays in Goodfellas jumps off the screen. He is impossible to take your eyes off of because Pesci inhabits that character so completely. You are actually terrified by the diminutive little punk because you have no idea what he is capable of or when he will explode into a fit of homicidal rage. But moments later he will have you laughing your ass of at his "funny" stories. He did an amazing job and without a doubt deserved the Academy Award that year.

Female Character - While Kay Adams is gullible, submissive, and pretty much kept in the dark in Godfather, Karen Hill is a fantastic female character. She is bright, a good mother, and loyal to her husband, but when she finds out he has been cheating, she turns the tables and sticks a .38 right in Henry's face.

True Story - At the end of the day, Godfather was based on a fictional novel whereas the events of Goodfellas were largely based on actual events. Knowing that those characters existed and those events actually happened makes the film much appreciable. You get almost a documentary look at the mafia, and it's actually more interesting than the story that was made up.

I have to give Godfather its due credit, though. It is, by far, more quotable. A list of the best quotes would take a whole separate article. Godfather's scenery is better; the whole chapter in Sicily is just beautiful.

Better scenes is a toss-up. The "funny" scene in Goodfellas, and the baptism scene from Godfather are two of the best in movie history.

But there is one category that I feel is the most important in deciding between these two cinematic experiences:

Watchability - Goodfellas wins in a landslide. Any time it's on TV, I watch it. And I never get tired of watching it. I have to be in a certain mood to watch Godfather. It's quite long, especially on TV, and at some points it is so sweeping, that I actually get bored. I find myself wanting to fast forward to the best scenes and past some of the fluff.

I see what Peter means when he says the film insists upon itself. Godfather feels like they were trying to make an Oscar-winner when they made it. It is brilliant to its own detriment. You could watch Godfather four or five times in your life and that would be enough. Goodfellas will never get old to me, and that's why it is the best gangster movie ever made.

Big Budget Profile: Javier Bardem

2008-06-16T10:35:00.000-07:00

If you're anything like me, you loved No Country for Old Men. In particular you loved the stunning performance of relative unknown Javier Bardem who had primarily appeared in films in his native Spain. His performance as Anton Chigurh won him an Academy Award; the first ever by a Spanish actor. It also won him the nations attention, and now it looks like we can expect to see him in some exciting new projects.

The first project, due out in September, 2008 is a Woody Allen film. That makes sense, I guess. Because after all, when I think about a methodical, maniacally sadistic hit man, I think Woody Allen.

In all seriousness, Woody Allen has a supreme talent for appreciating and utilizing talent. He cast Edward Norton in only his second movie, he has also given Scarlett Johansson some very respectable roles. Perhaps Bardem is his new project.

In Allen's Vicky Christina Barcelona, Bardem plays a Spanish painter who gains the interest of two visiting American women. Then his ex-wife, played by Penelope Cruz, comes back into the picture. A comedic romp is about as far removed from No Country as you can get, but I look forward to seeing it. Not hurting my chances of seeing it are the rumors that Penelope Cruz and Scarlett Johansson have some sort of romantic encounter, though Allen denies it.

But I am sincerely interested in seeing Bardem in Killing Pablo.

Black Hawk Down was great film, probably the best war film of the 21st century. That's because it was the only war film of the 21st century that didn't have an agenda other than accurately depicting the battle of Mogadishu. All the others have been thinly-veiled criticisms of the war in Iraq.

I bring that up, because Mark Bowden, the man who wrote Black Hawk Down, is also the man who painstakingly researched and wrote Killing Pablo. That means that we can expect more of the same high-octane action and graphic realism that we got in Black Hark Down. And if you know anything about the life and death of Pablo Escobar you know that his is a story that begs to be told on the big screen. This could end up being even better than the first Bowden movie.

And if you liked seeing Bardem as a violent hit man, you probably are drooling at the notion of seeing him play one of the most violent and truly evil men to walk the Earth.

And it certainly doesn't hurt to have the director of Narc, John Carnahan, directing a movie about the most notorious drug lord of all time.

Let's just say I have a good feeling about this one.

MGM Working On New Robocop Project

2008-06-12T13:40:00.000-07:00

Details are sketchy at the moment. What is certain is this, according to WorstPreview.com, MGM unveiled a new Robocop poster at the 2008 Licensing International Expo. The poster shows the hero's helmeted head, the name "Robocop," and the message "Coming 2010." SciFi.com also states that MGM has announced a new Robocop project.

Some same it's a remake, others say it's a sequel. Even more remarkable, GossipSauce.com says that Director Paul Verhoeven is returning for this installment.

Who knows, but I will bring further details to you as they are made available.

But the real question here is, do we want another sequel? Okay, the answer to that is yes. Let me rephrase. Should they make another sequel?

It seems like the half-life for failure in Hollywood is pretty short. Bad sequels come out in clusters, then we get tired of them and they stop. A few years later filmmakers say, "Hey, no one has made a Friday the 13th movie in a while."

It's like they completely forgot the reason the sequels stopped was because they were terrible. And in those situations, the resultant sequel is even worse (Jason X).

I really liked Robocop; it was a landmark sci-fi movie in 1987. But no one can do Verhoeven like Verhoeven. Starship Troopers is one of the most intelligent action movies, to its own detriment as the political satire goes over most people's heads, but without Verhoeven, the sequels were just bug shooters. And without Verhoeven, a Robocop movie will only be a robot shooter.

Just pull the plug right now. Save us all a lot of trouble. Plus, 2010? You guys really want to tangle with Iron Man 2? I can tell you right know who would win that battle of the cyborgs. And now that I mention it, don't make Iron Man vs. Robocop either. I know you're thinking about it.

Here's a novel idea, Hollywood; come up with some new ideas!

Where Are The "Spolier Alerts?"

2008-06-11T14:10:00.000-07:00

Two sentences into the first review of The Happening I read and I no longer have any need to see the film ever. The Shyamalan-ian twist was already ruined for me. I won't do you the same disservice, but needless to say I was pretty upset.

I figured it was just because I read the review on a blog. I check the London Times review, and the Hollywood Reporter, same thing. Huge spoiler, no spoiler warning. I read 2 more reviews and both of them are spoiling the big twist ending. What's going on?

I figure it's the critics' not so subtle way of saying (screaming, more like) "Do not see this movie." That could very well be it, because the other thing all the articles had in common was an abysmal review.

It looks like Shyamalan has his third consecutive bomb on his hands. What has happened to him? Is he just out of ideas? Has he lost the touch? Or, most likely, is he just trying way too hard to give us another Sixth Sense?

Needless to say, I think a questionable decision to screen this stinker for the critics has paved the way for Incredible Hulk to smash the box offices this weekend.

Verbinski "Bioshocks" Hollywood

2008-06-11T08:59:00.000-07:00

Gore Verbinski has signed on to direct and produce the "Bioshock" movie, Variety reported today. I am certifiably pleased.

Verbinski, a fan of the "Bioshock" game, praised the game's cinematic potential. "Of all the games I've played, this is one that I felt has a really strong narrative," Verbinki said.

The director of the box-office-dominating Pirates of the Caribbean movies, Verbinski knows how to handle a big-budget action flick. He also directed The Ring, and knows how to scare moviegoers to death by utilizing suspense, rather than resorting to gore (ironic). Verbinski brings to the table the ability to make an exciting action picture while still capturing the dark and brooding style of "Bioshock's" dystopia "Rapture." Watch the opening scene of Dead Man's Chest if you want to know what I mean. If he can make a white wedding in the Caribbean look morose, imagine what he can do to a ruined underwater city.

Take-Two Interactive, the publishers of "Bioshock," asked a pretty steep price for the rights. They had been fending off suitors for the movie rights since the game was released in August. They opted, instead, to wait until the game swept most video game industry awards. Then Universal came knocking.

Having learned from their disastrous experience with the much anticipated, and since cancelled, "Halo" movie, Universal and Fox crafted a landmark, advance deal to make sure this film didn't get lost in the fold.

Take Two has also been adamant about not working with a producer in an attempt to still have some creative control over the movie. The creator of the game, Ken Levine, has been consulted many times already in the pre-production period.

John Logan, the writer for Sweeny Todd, The Aviator, The Last Samurai and Gladiator is in talks to pen the film's screenplay.

This is how you make a video game movie. Uwe Boll, take notes.

Everyone involved is doing exactly the right thing to guarantee that this movie is a critical in addition to being a box-office success:

The film has a competent director. I would have expected the studio to enlist the likes of Michael Bay who would have turned it into a blow-up-athon. Verbinski knows how to use subtleties, even when he has an unlimited budget.

Take Two Interactive didn't jump at the first offer. Rather it has a history of jealously defending its game franchises. They have yet to even let a producer sniff the rights for a "Grand Theft Auto" movie. Good, thing too.

The deal is up front, meaning that there will be no squabbling over costs, and the film won't keep getting pushed back until it's finally aborted amid budget concerns.

The game's publishers have a say in how the movie gets made. Universal and Take Two are working face-to-face as opposed to having a producer acting as the intermediary.

The filmmakers are consulting Ken Levine, the creator of 'Bioshock," on what he wants to happen in the movie. Who better to ask? Too often the game's creator's are left out of the production and we get some Hollywood moron's idea of where he thinks the story should go.

All of these factors will contribute to a smooth production. The fruits of this cooperative spirit will be a great movie.

If I have one concern, it is that the fun of "Bioshock" was exploring the failed utopia of Rapture in an open-ended environment. How can we go from having complete control, to all of a sudden being a passenger as we see the character's journey through the ruined world in the abyss. I'm not sure the fans will be able to cope with losing control. Watch the fans in the theater; their thumbs will be twitching as their hands grip an invisible controller each time the character makes a wrong turn.

Wanted: Originally A Comic Book

2008-06-10T12:04:00.000-07:00

Okay, I am probably a little tardy to the party on this one, but I just found out today that Wanted was actually a Top Cow comic book by Mark Millar with Art by J.G. Jones.

I am totally and completely ashamed of myself.

Well, for whatever reason, that never occurred to me. When I first saw the trailer in theaters I thought, "Wow, that movie looks like it is going to suck." As soon as Jolie told McAvoy to "Curve the bullet" like you would put topspin on a tennis ball, I laughed my ass off.

The Movie looked ridiculous. The gratuitous use of slow motion, the hilariously over-the-top stunts, James McAvoy firing a gun and not getting knocked over by the recoil, it was just silly. With each subsequent viewing of the trailer I wanted to see it less and I hated it more. Especially the part where Jolie is hanging off a Dodge Viper with only her foot holding her in place, firing a shotgun. It looked so lame. Just another cheese ball summer action flic that sold its soul to the special effects Devil.

Now I know it's based on a comic-book. Suddenly, the trailer doesn't look ridiculous at all. In fact, now I want to see the movie! How the hell did that happen?

I won't throw out any spoilers for the sake of the fans who may be reading. Suffice it to say I'm cautiously optimistic now.

Just goes to show you, movie producers are buying up comic book licenses for a reason. For no other reason than because this movie is based on a comic book I am willing to suspend my disbelief and detestation for superfluous special effects and maybe even go see it. Especially once I got the back story. The extreme effect now seem called for.

Weird, huh?

Now I'm just wondering if McAvoy is going to try to squeeze into the gimp-suit thing pictured above.

I Agree With Uwe Boll...Kinda

2008-06-09T06:30:00.000-07:00

Uwe Boll is widely agreed to be the worst director of our time. If he keeps it up, he is in the running for the title of "Worst Ever." Yet, somehow, Boll has six movies currently in production or post-production according to IMDB.

At some point, I think we are all going to have to just accept the fact that our generation's Ed Wood is not going to stop directing movies. Not only that, but we are going to have to accept that he believes them to be some of the most profound films in modern cinema (and apparently is the only person to do so).

Boll may be the only living martyr in the history of the movie industry. Although Boll himself has not been killed for his cause, his movies have certainly been crucified by the movie industry and the movie-going public. He believes that his movies are something of a flag of protest waving in the face of the soulless and bourgeois movie industry.

On the website for his most recent catastrophe, Postal, Boll fired back against critics and the movie industry in a (largely grammatically incorrect) open letter.

"I'm the guy who made it against the big hollywood system and you are all only busy to destroy me and finish me up"

In the letter, Boll defends Postal; his apparent masterpiece of political satire.

"POSTAL shows the BIG PICTURE ...it nails the absurd situation with all the stupid religions, races and nations we are living in. POSTAL is not accepting bullshit politics. POSTAL has not the opinion that Bush made mistakes - POSTAL has the opinion that it is a scandal that BUSH is not in jail."

Boll lambastes bigger summer films like Narnia, Indiana Jones and Speed Racer. "The studios spending 60 mio. $ in advertising to make you interested in NON INTERESTING movies. how many times you wanna keep going in movies only because the TRAILER was so cool and the CGI was so great ?"

Boll basically calls out Hollywood for making too many no-risk movies.

Shockingly, I agree with Boll. I too believe that some of the best films of late, are those made on a modest budget. Juno is a prime example of what can be done with a small budget, but a good story. I too believe the movie industry has lost its way and is just churning out low-grade sequels and remakes to shore up some big bucks with the least amount of effort required. Grandiose special effects and big name actors are used instead of original thought and interesting story-telling.

Sequels and remakes are products of marketing; it's just branding on the big screen. People like the first film, so it becomes a marketable brand. The brand has name recognition and a positive association with the public. The filmmakers benefit by having a brand that will draw customers. The consumers, in turn, benefit because they can seek out a brand they know and trust rather than expelling mental energy deciding which film to see. It's much easier to rely on a successful, existing brand than it is trying to create a new one from the ground up.

The only area where we differ is that Uwe Boll believes that Uwe Boll is the answer. Conversely, I would say he represents a large part of the problem.

Taking a video game franchise, like Postal, and trying to spin it into a movie is almost as cheap as making a sequel. It is not an original story or a bold new idea; it is rehashing the same old tripe, which Boll claims to be against. By making video game movies, Boll is relying on an existing brand name to draw his audience. It is a no-risk move. He doesn't need an original idea, people are going to see it because they recognize the brand name.

Boll just has the bad fortune of being a terrible director who is incapable of even profiting off a successful video game series. Now, with his track record of terrible movies, Boll himself has become a brand. He is the SPAM of the directing market. His name is recognized because of its consistent attachment to low-grade products. But, much like SPAM, there are enough people out there with bizarre tastes to keep him in business. And for that reason, he will never stop.

Though I would never willingly watch any of his movies, I must admit that I admire his willingness to stalwartly stand by his films and his genuine passion for the movies. And while many directors in Hollywood are going through the motions just to turn a profit, it is refreshing to see someone who actually enjoys what he does.

Truthfully, Boll isn't doing anyone any harm. He has found his niche and he is happy with what he is producing. His movies are paid for with out of his own pocket, so it's not like he is wasting anyone else' money. If he wants to keep making movies, so be it. He probably won't shake up the movie business, but why stop him from trying?

If you don't like it, don't see it. Keep fighting the good fight, Uwe.

None of the 13 domestic theaters that are screening Postal have reported any box-office earnings since it was released last month. It cost $15 million to produce.

Preview: "The Mummy: Tomb Of The Dragon Emperor"

2008-06-05T12:47:00.000-07:00

We've got two trailers and dozens of still photos now, and still I don't know how to feel about The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor.

Let's start with the not so good stuff. First of all, Steven Sommers, the writer and director of the first two Mummy movies has given up the director's chair and is now the movie's producer.

Stepping up to direct the third Mummy installment is Rob Cohen. Cohen's career as a director has been hit or miss. He's had some good (The Fast and the Furious), and some bad (Stealth). Well, several bad (xXx, The Skulls, Dragonheart and Daylight). Let's just say I'm not enthralled by the fact that he is at the helm of a movie franchise that is already in a tailspin after The Scorpion King. And I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that there is going to be a car chase in this picture.

Steven Sommers is not writing this one either. Instead, Tomb of the Dragon Emperor was written by two writers for Smallville. Yikes.

Well that's not being fair. Alex Gough and Miles Millar have collaborated on several projects including Spider Man 2, Lethal Weapon 4, Shanghai Noon and Shanghai Knights. Their experience with the action-comedy genre could greatly benefit this film. Still, during the trailer, a pilot remarks how he was too cheap to put in seat belts and Brendan Fraser exclaims, "Why am I laughing?" I was wondering the same thing, Brendan.

But, the thing that bugs me the most about this Mummy movie is the fact that Rachel Weisz chose not to sign on. Usually, an actor or actress not returning to a role can only spell doom for a sequel. Don't believe me? Jodie Foster wanted no part of Hannibal.

Reportedly, Weisz chose to opt out of the third Mummy because she was hesitant to leave her son, Henry, who was not even two years old yet, for five months while she filmed on location in China. Cohen, however, says it was because she was unwilling to play a character old enough to be a 21-year-old's mother. I can see why the director would be upset, Weisz is refusing to once again assume the role that made her an international star. If you look at it that way, she owes it to the franchise to stick with it. Still, what's done is done; Weisz is out and Maria Bello is in. That's definitely trading down.

Now for the positives. Bello aside, the rest of the cast is tremendous. Fraser is back, and he will once again be able to play off the antics of wily costar John Hannah. The new faces in the franchise are even more exciting. Tomb of the Dragon Emperor will see the addition of International stars Jet Li and Michelle Yeoh (Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon). Also joining the cast is rising Australian actor, Luke Ford (Black Balloon) who plays an all-grow'd-up Alex O'Connell.

But even with a superior cast (would have been even better if they had managed to get Rachel Weisz), the real star here is the visual effects. Even on a 3" x 2" screen on my laptop, Dragon Emperor's effects look amazing. We see Earth shifting and a Terracotta warrior snap to life and gasp for air, and it all looks stunningly real. The graphics were done by two studios, VFX and Digital Domain, and if this movie does well, those hard-working geeks will be the ones most deserving of a bonus.

And that's what I keep coming back to. I'm trying to keep my hopes in check. I know Dragon Emperor is a sequel to the second degree, I know that it's got a sub-par director, and I know that one of the most talented actresses in the world thought better of appearing in it. I also know that I'm probably going to go see it. So if I have to force myself to have a reason, it's so I can enjoy the visual spectacle.

Judging by the trailer alone, it's a good reason.

The Brazilian Job Underway

2008-06-05T07:55:00.000-07:00

It now looks like the follow-up to 2003's Italian Job, is finally in the works. The project had been shelved by Paramount, but producer Donald De Line said in a recent interview with Collider.com that he thinks it will finally get picked up.

"You know, we developed a script which was The Brazilian Job and they were all excited about the script at Paramount, and we actually budgeted it and everything and we were kind of ready to go, and then a lot of things were happening with various management changes and it got tabled."

De Line attributes the change of heart to Paramount's box-office success this summer. "They’ve had a good summer after all. You know, Iron Man and Indy. They should feel flush."

De Line says The Brazilian Job will begin in Rio de Janeiro but will move to Belgium where the plot revolves around diamonds. He has yet to decide, however, which car to make famous this time after The Italian Job legitimized the Mini Cooper.

The movie has a 2009 release date and Mark Wahlberg, Charlize Theron, Seth Green, Jason Statham and Mos Def have already signed on to reprise their Italian Job roles.

Angels & Demons Starts Filming

2008-06-04T11:48:00.001-07:00

A lucky paparazzo caught this image or Tom Hanks and Ron Howard in Italy today. This is the first day of filming for Angels & Demons, the prequel to the 2006 hit The Da Vinci Code. The cast and crew is on location at the Piazza del Popolo in Rome.

The movie once again centers around symbologist Robert Langdon, played by Tom Hanks. And yes, it looks like Hanks will be greasing back his hair for this one as well. This time Langdon will try to prevent a terrorist plot against the Vatican.

Angels & Demons is slated to be released May 15, 2009.

Is It Funny Or Racially Insensitive?

2008-06-04T06:13:00.000-07:00

This summer's movies, more than any crop I can remember in the past, are really verging on racist aren't they? In the coming months we can look forward to Mike Myers sporting a fake nose while playing a Maharishi in The Love Guru, the cast of Zohan playing on radical Islamic stereotypes, and, lest we forget, Robert Downey Jr. in black face.

Is Hollywood going too far? Does the mere fact that a movie is a comedy absolve it from social responsibility? It seems like Hollywood is just saying "Lighten up, it's a comedy. Get a sense of humor." But that doesn't change the fact that people are actually offended by these racially insensitive portrayals.

But let's be honest, Hollywood has a mixed history when it comes to racial sensitivity. On one hand, in 1939, The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences made Hattie McDaniel the first African American to win an Academy Award, long before the civil rights movement began. But then on the other hand...

I would like to we had come a long way since Mickey Rooney donned yellow face to play Mr. Yunioshi in 1961's Breakfast at Tiffany's. But really, is this wildly inappropriate portrayal of an Asian American any less offensive than snickering at Robert Downey Jr. black mannerism's in August's Tropic Thunder?

But you can't point the finger solely at white people as the perpetrators. Whites too have been the victim of demeaning portrayals in major motion pictures.

There is something deeply and personally upsetting about watching a member of another race trying to mimic yours. Kind of a "Is that really what you think I look/sound/act like?" feeling. So if all races seem upset by these types of portrayals, why do they keep popping up in films? Are we that oblivious? Are we gluttons for punishment? Or, beneath a socially conservative facade, could we just be the type of people who titter when we see another races' mannerisms exaggerated on film and the movies are just stoking our subconscious desires. I couldn't tell you, but for whatever reason, I don't think any of the aforementioned comedies will suffer.

If you want to put a positive spin on it, look at it like this; they say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. But I'm not sure that was said with the possibility in mind that the imitation was a farce meant to be laughed at.

The Incredible Hulk...Again?

2008-06-03T12:56:00.000-07:00

Didn't Marvel learn it's lesson the last time around? The last Hulk movie bombed, and an A-List cast won't save this one either.

The Hulk will never make a good movie because the Hulk isn't a dynamic character. What makes a dynamic character, as any theater major will tell you, is layers of emotion. Look at some of the good superhero movies:

Spider Man has his internal struggle; having to choose between living a normal life and doing what was best for himself, or sacrificing everything that matters to him and using his great power responsibly.

Iron Man has his battle with substance abuse (Look for it in Iron Man II).

Batman feels obligated to stop crime to avenge his murdered parents.

What does the Hulk do? He gets mad and he gets big and he smashes stuff. There are no surprises there. "Oh, he's getting mad! What do you think is gonna happen next?" There is no emotional depth there; there are no surprises. It's simplistic to the point of stupid. A bad guy will make the Hulk mad, and the Hulk will smash stuff on him. What are his motives? He doesn't have any, he gets mad and he smashes stuff.

You already go into the movie knowing he is going to turn into the Hulk. There is no question to how or why, he just will. And he will get mad and smash stuff. So the only real question is, how many times will he turn into the Hulk? That's the only possible variable there could be in a Hulk movie, and the only thing approaching suspense.

You want a good venue for the Hulk? Stick him in a video game and let people smash stuff with him. But even then I bet it would get monotonous pretty quickly.

I love Edward Norton; he's a great actor. In fact he's perfect for Bruce Banner; quiet, unassuming, smart. He's so perfect, in fact, that it's a shame that he is only going to be in half of the movie. The other half will be a giant, wordless monster that smashes stuff.

And maybe that's what bothers me the most about the Hulk. Every other superhero can deliver a biting one liner, or whisper something cold-blooded as he doles out punishment on the bad guys. What can the Hulk say? "RAWR!" "HULK SMASH!" or some combination thereof.

I look forward to hearing how it is received by the critics and how it does at the box office, but I don't expect rave reviews.

As for me? I'm going to avoid this movie like the plague unless something profound happens. Why? Because the last time a Hulk movie came out, I had good expectations. I was drawn in by the flashy special effects in the trailer and the promise of seeing the Hulk smash stuff. After the first hour, I had learned my lesson.

In this case I will strictly adhere to the proverb: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice..."

X-Men Origins: Wolverine: Deadpool

2008-06-03T06:29:00.000-07:00

Up until a few weeks ago, X-Men Origins: Wolverine would have been a movie that I more than likely would have skipped. I probably would have written it off as just another McMovie; yet another sequel to a franchise that has long overstayed its welcome.

Not to mention the fact that I have soured on the X-Men franchise after the last installment. The Last Stand pretty much killed my childhood. They seemed to go out of their way to kill off all of my prepubescent Saturday morning heroes. And where was Gambit? We all wanted to see him jack some bad guys up with some flying aces.

But leave it to Marvel to drag me back in just as I have resolved to resist it. I was checking IMDB to get a look at the cast for the film, and who do I see in the character credits?

DEADPOOL! That's right, Deadpool! The Merc with the Mouth! You may not have heard of him, but he was my favorite comic book character growing up and, honestly, he still is. Oh, and Gambit is in this movie too. But, Man! Deadpool!

Instantly my inner cynic was sidelined and my little Comic-Con, fanboy head was awash with comic book questions. Will Deadpool break the fourth wall and talk to the audience like in his comics? Will a Hollywood director be able to capture Deadpool's perfect blend of absurd comedy and unrestrained violence? Will they even be able to get his costume right? This is something of a concern because the X-Men series has a knack for butchering the costumes. I half-expect the producers to give him a red ski mask and a black leather jacket, "Voila! Deadpool!" But still I'm cautiously optimistic.

Then I saw who was cast to play him. Ryan Reynolds? Really? Van Wilder is going to be Wade Wilson in Wolverine? Deadpool's voice was described in the comics as being "gravel and gasoline." I think Reynolds has more of a beach sand and helium quality in his voice. I don't know who I was expecting to play him, but it certainly wasn't Ryan Reynolds.

But I will give Reynolds a shot. He has done comic book action before in Blade: Trinity. He's got the right body type (he is down to 3% body fat). And he has the funny-man pedigree to conjure Deadpool's psychotic sense of humor. Can he pull it off? Who knows?

Many things about Wolverine are uncertain now, but I am willing to make a few bold predictions. There will be a bad ass fight between Wolverine and Deadpool (well, this one is pretty much a given). I predict that Deadpool will steal every scene he is in and make us forget we are watching a Wolverine movie. And finally, come Summer 2011, we can expect a Deadpool spin-off film. And, believe me, rare is the time that I hope for a sequel.

Fingers crossed.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull Review

2008-06-02T11:02:00.000-07:00

I can’t believe that Steven Spielberg’s name was attached to this movie. So much more to the point, I can’t believe that Indiana Jones’ name was attached to this movie. I'm not saying it's a bad movie, I'm just saying this movie didn’t seem like an Indiana Jones film. It felt like Peter Jackson's King Kong; a CGI-effects-laden opus with no real plot. But where "Giant Gorilla Terrorizes New York" lends itself to such a film, Indiana Jones does not.

Indiana Jones was always about a rich story based in ancient myth and legend. There were always great action sequences and a hint of the supernatural, but it still seemed real. The story in Crystal Skull was half-baked, needlessly complicated and ever spinning out of control and further from how it began, and the script sounds like it was submitted by a fan at a Sci Fi convention. It's like the movie makers had all these neat action scenes and CGI effects in mind and then tried to make a movie around them.

But even the action sequences fail to impress. They are just plain ridiculous. The movie makers were so quick to show off their vast computer-graphics arsenal that they forgot to deliver a believable scene. In Raiders of the Lost Ark we got a fist fight by a spinning Nazi airplane. In Crystal Skull, Shia LeBeauf swings from jungle vines Tarzan-style with a troupe of Monkeys. Not only that, he does so with such skill that he is actually able to catch up to a high-speed car chase. This, of course, is after he has a sword fight with Cate Blanchett on the hood of an amphibious car.

I long for the days of stunt men. I’m not going to say that Indiana Jones being dragged under a Deuce-and-a-Half army truck in Raiders is believable, but at least it looked like it was actually happening. The fight scenes in Crystal Skull are so immersed in fantasy that I can’t even suspend my disbelief long enough to enjoy them.

But the incredulously hammy script and the over-the-top action scenes aren't all that mar the film. Indy himself is hard to watch. It's just sad seeing an over-the-hill Indiana Jones in fisticuffs with KGB agents. I thought I could look past his wrinkled exterior and see the old whip-cracking archaeologist that I know and love, but it just doesn't work. At least James Bond has been young for the better part of 50 years. And now that I think about it, Bond is actually getting younger as we go along. It just kills the fantasy to see our hero as an old man.

The other characters are just paper. Shia LeBeauf's Mutt is the clichéd long-lost son. Karen Allen, reprises her Raiders role of Marion Ravenwood, but probably just because she's the only former cast-member who answered her phone. Ray Winstone reprises the role of Alfred Molina and Alison Doody; you know, the character with constantly shifting allegiances who dies.

Cate Blanchett stands out as the evil Russian scientist. She clearly had fun chewing the scenery with a heavy Russian accent and a rapier. The only problem with her character is the plot. She tries to read Indy's mind in the opening scene, so we think maybe she's psychic, but then she never develops as a psychic character. No new abilities, no more mind reading, so why bother having her read minds in the beginning? What bothers me the most about her character is that she is supposed to be the bad guy, and yet every time she captures Jones and company (and it happens a lot) he seems happy to translate something or solve riddles for her. For being a brilliant scientist/psychic, she appears completely incapable of figuring anything out for herself.

Again, any of this would be completely tolerable, if it wasn't Steven Spielberg and this wasn't an Indiana Jones movie. I guess that's why I'm grading it with such a unforgiving lens; because over the years we've grown to expect a lot more out of Steven Spielberg, George Lucas and Harrison Ford. I'm sure fans of the franchise will enjoy it, but it wasn't my grail of tea.

At the very end, Indiana's fedora rolls onto Mutt's feet. He picks it up and stares at it for a brief moment and we see the faint glimmer of another Indiana Jones sequel with Shia LeBeauf at the helm (woof). Just as Mutt is about to try it on, Harrison Ford snatches the hat from his hands as if to say "This role is mine, and no one else is fit to wear this hat." And that's the way this franchise should end. Riding off into the sunset was nice for The Last Crusade, but as Indiana Jones is (hopefully) laid to rest, it's good to remember that only one man can fill that trademark fedora. At least die hard Indiana Jones fans can sleep soundly knowing that their hero's legacy is safe, and that no one will ever try to usurp that role from the one-and-only Indiana Jones.