Don’t Stop ‘Til You Get Enough

I have never been much of a fan of Michael Jackson or his music. But I am a fan of his talent. And tonight, that talent - including so much unfulfilled potential - disintegrates on a coroner’s slab.

From the beginning, Michael Jackson was a star. As a six year old, he fronted a band with the raw sexuality and charisma of a person many decades older. As he grew into adulthood, his fame grew to astronomical proportions while his self-esteem shrunk inversely. Despite the bewildering successes he achieved in his life - massive albums like THRILLER and BAD, generous charitable organizations, and culturally-defining moments of pure performance - Jackson’s promise remained strangely unfulfilled.

It is a lesson to those generations most affected by Jackson’s enormous influence : Never wait on what you could do today. While most of us do not have the opportunity to have the kind of stunning and unique talents that Jackson once possessed, each one of us has gifts to contribute to the world, or at least our smaller version of it. It’s easy to become distracted by the everyday cares of life. But sadder than the loss of life itself is the loss of what might have been.

In Jackson’s case, the brilliance of his ten year contribution to music and film is completely overshadowed by the following fifteen years of controversy and non-musical pursuits. It’s confounding to imagine that a man of Jackson’s talents could be better remembered by history as a child molester and urn collector. It is not wrong to consider this. While we might desire to think of the positives at the end of someone’s life, so many high-profile negatives come to mind too easily in the case of Jackson.

If we want to assign blame, we can quickly point to father Joe Jackson for much of it. The elder Jackson mercilessly abused and exploited his gifted son, rendering him incapable of dealing with reality for much of his adult life. No doubt we will be subjected to many exclusive interviews, books, and television specials featuring a “grieving” Joe Jackson over the loss of his son, but, like most things Jackson, that will be a publicity grab more than a display of actual emotion.

But ultimately the blame lies with Michael himself. Rather than focus on his music, Michael allowed himself to spiral into a vortex of amusement park rides, unhealthy child relationships, and drugs. Think about the vast fortune wasted by Jackson during the last fifteen years of his life. Not just THRILLER money, but also the Beatles money and all of the endorsements. Michael probably wasted well over a billion dollars in the last decade of his life on legal fees and extravagances. While sad, it is also hard to forgive or cast aside.

Even worse, Jackson wasted what many tonight are calling a seminal and special talent. Most of us will never be able to sing, dance, or write music like Michael Jackson. We will never know the thrill of entertaining hundreds of thousands of fans all at once. We will never have a world eager to touch us, see us, or own our face on a lunchbox. Yet, Michael Jackson’s talents earned him that opportunity … for a while.

But his death leaves us wondering … what happened? What could have happened? Someone with his talents, abilities, and financial status could have done anything in his life, but he decided to live in hotel rooms, collect statues, and carouse with young boys. In some way it is reflective of the message in CITIZEN KANE - a young man leaves behind his most valued possession in order to compile a great legacy, only to end up alone in a pile of junk. Michael was all alone at the end of his life, surrounded with the meaningless pursuits that had crowded out his truly magical gifts.

It is so easy to get carried away with the everyday that we lose sight of what we could be or what we could accomplish. Michael Jackson certainly lost sight of that, tarnishing his early brilliance with many years of foolishness that left his potential unfulfilled. It is a sobering thought for those of us left behind, those of us who might be squandering our own goals in life for the temporary … the transitory … the momentary. We only have one shot at this silly little exercise called life. Do the right thing, do it as well as you can, and do it right now.

Or, as Michael once sang, don’t stop ’til you get enough. The time might come sooner than you think when enough simply isn’t.

Review: TRANSFORMERS: REVENGE OF THE FALLEN

First of all, I actually DO realize that TRANSFORMERS: REVENGE OF THE FALLEN is a film about giant alien robots beating the crap out of each other. I get it - it’s not supposed to be CITIZEN KANE 2: ELECTRIC BUGALOO.

Even so, it is still a very bad film. Possibly a contender for worst of the year.

The “story” cannot be summed up or even partially described. In fact, I dare anyone - even members of the production itself - to describe the storyline of this film. Phrases like “incomprehensible” or “indecipherable” or “mercy kill me with a hatchet” spring to my pulverized mind. Even the Flying Spaghetti Monster would have difficulty touching a single plot point with his noodly appendage.

But it isn’t the fact that the film is just DUMB in terms of having giant robots fight each other. No, the film is DUMB in terms of basic filmmaking attributes like plot and character development, editing, and screenwriting. Let’s look at a couple of ridiculous moments to illustrate the point:

1. At the beginning of the film, our “hero” Sam Witwicky (Shia LeBeouf) grabs his old jacket from the first film, and a shard from the energy cube falls out and onto the floor … and then the shard immediately burns through two levels of his house! So apparently Sam has a special jacket that is able to contain the power of the shard. Interesting. It’s never explained at all.

2. At college, Sam is molested by a beautiful but predatorial classmate. During one of their kissing sessions, the girl turns into a Decepticon robot. Then she disappears. Of course, this makes no sense whatsoever, since the Transformers are machines that transform into other machines … they do not have flesh. The point quickly evaporates from the film without explanation.

3. There is a long, protracted “comedy” segment in the early part of this very bloated film involving Sam’s parents eating pot brownies and freaking out. It’s not funny, remotely realistic, or useful to the rest of the film. It’s what we call padding, something quite unnecessary for a film that runs for two and a half hours.

I could go on for days like this. This is sloppy filmmaking at its most incompetent. The script appears to be fashioned from three or four different screenplays, which was then assembled haphazardly by blind lepers in the darkest basement of the WGA. The film barely has a plot, yet it takes forever for the characters to start doing anything important. And once you get to the important plot points, you discover that it wasn’t really all that important anyway. Characters speak in dialogue farts, coughing up information they could not possibly have in order to continuously explain the plot. Absolute laziness on the part of the THREE PROFESSIONAL SCREENWRITERS credited for this abortion. Incredible.

Even worse are the absolutely misguided attempts at humor throughout. Humping dogs (not once, but TWICE!!), Transformers with testicles, REEFER MADNESS-styled freak outs, and robots humping the leg of Megan Fox. I kept waiting for Optimus Prime to grab his nutsack and scream out: “Hey Megatron, suck my camshaft!” Maybe they’re saving that for the next film. Remember that sick feeling when you first saw Jar Jar Binks step in a pile of shit on Tatooine, and then have an animal fart in his face? This entire film causes that feeling again and again. It’s TRANSFORMERS by way of Skywalker Ranch.

Speaking of Jar Jar, this film might be the most racist abomination since that digital idiot from PHANTOM MENACE. In particular are two robots named Mudflap and Skids. They are two jive-talkin’ niggerbots, basically. One has a gold tooth! And neither of the robots can read! Isn’t that fucking HILARIOUS???? I love it when we can dump this kind of brainless, racist, gloriously-empty trash into the laps of twelve year-olds! MORE MORE MORE!!! 

When archeologists wonder what happened to Western Civilization a thousand years from now, their collective answer will be two words: Michael Bay.

I can almost hear the groan of fanboys … “But Ray, what about those awesome special effects?” Who gives a shit? We live in a day when almost anything can be realized with computer graphics. So why would anyone use that as an excuse to justify a film like this? I don’t care about realistic metal robots smashing into each other when the rest of the film is amateurish and intolerable garbage.  What does it matter when the view of those flashy and very expensive special effects is obscured by director Michael Bay’s God-awful framing and sense of space?? You cannot tell what’s happening in each battle thanks to the terrible direction and similar design of each robot. If you want to save ten dollars on a movie ticket, throw a bunch of car parts into your dryer and watch them tumble around … you’ll get virtually the same effect, and the same amount of thrills.

This is the worst movie experience I have had since that horrible HALLOWEEN remake a few years back, if not ever. Frankly, something like this makes me hate movies altogether, as well as the people who make and support it. I imagine that, if THE MATRIX was real, it would use horrific and mind-numbing shit like this to lull the people into a catatonic state. 

It’s time for movie fans to stop giving Bay and his minions so much slack. This is pathetic, lazy, stupid, and incompetent filmmaking on every non-technical level. This is easily one of the worst films of this year, and anyone who disagrees simply knows nothing about film. Period.

Review: DRAG ME TO HELL

I was 17 years old when my buddy Jack and I rented EVIL DEAD for the first time. I had heard about it in movie magazines, a movie so violent and boundary-pushing that it had been banned in Europe and barely seen in America. By the time it was finished, we realized that we had just experienced something special. The film managed to walk a razor thin line between comedy and actual horror with apparent ease, and the bloody effects were the cherry on this very special cake.

Over the years, director Sam Raimi has worn down my enthusiasm for his work since that one glorious night so long ago. While EVIL DEAD 2 generally worked, ARMY OF DARKNESS was a miserable attempt to take the DEAD franchise mainstream by ramping up the comedy to excruciating levels of annoyance. DARKMAN was a bomb. The SPIDERMAN series had moments that worked, but I am mostly indifferent to it. THE QUICK AND THE DEAD was campy fun, but not a particularly good Western. Never saw A SIMPLE PLAN, although it is highly acclaimed.

So when Raimi announced a welcomed break from SPIDERMAN to make a horror film called DRAG ME TO HELL, my slumbering love of Raimi’s wild side began to squirm back to life. The film stars Alison Lohman as Christine Brown, an ambitious loan officer for a prestigious bank. Christine openly covets the open assistant manager position, a job for which she competes with the devious Stu (Reggie Lee). Then one day an old gypsy lady comes to her desk to beg for an extension on her home loan. When Christine refuses, the gypsy lady curses Christine with a visit from the Lamia, a goat-demon that will take her soul to Hell in three days.

With that simple set-up, Raimi then cuts loose with a series of sequences that any fan of the DEAD series will recognize instantly. There is a terrific fight in a car early in the film that will remind DEAD fans of the undead battle in the cellar from EVIL DEAD. There is also a couple of bits of business here involving a handkerchief that reminded me of the severed hand in EVIL DEAD 2.

But do not mistake this film for a horror movie; it is strictly a comedy that involves a horror movie plot. The entire movie is a visual whirlwind of jokes and random nonsense, some of which plays on horror conventions. The best of these jokes involves the use of high pitched sound to shock audiences; long a horror movie cliche, Raimi pokes fun at its overuse by overusing it himself.

Lohman is excellent as Christine, giving her much more depth than a movie like this normally provides. We are rooting for her, which gives the final twenty minutes of the film a terrific kick. Surprisingly good also is Justin Long as Christine’s boyfriend Clay. I’ve never been a fan of Long’s, but here he is sweet and intelligent as the token disbeliever.

The script has a serious flaw that hurts the film overall. Much of what happens to Christine is supposed to be invisible to everyone around her; it’s happening in her mind. The film doesn’t play by this rule, however, making Christine’s visions real whenever it’s convenient for the movie. This detracts from any horror and distracts an intelligent audience.

I will also add quickly that I LOVED the ending of this film. It comes out of nowhere, and it made me smile broadly.

While many reviews are calling this Raimi’s return to form, DRAG ME TO HELL is a long way from touching the momentum and pure visual verve of his early works. But Raimi does a terrific job of dragging us more than halfway there, and it’s a blast.

Discovering Stanley Kubrick

Last week I gave myself a gift that has been occupying my time. I bought The Stanley Kubrick Director’s Series collection from Warner Home Video. The set contains the last five films of Kubrick’s life, minus the poorly-received BARRY LYNDON - 2001:A SPACE ODYSSEY, A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, THE SHINING, FULL METAL JACKET, and EYES WIDE SHUT.

I had seen most of these films at some point in my life, but none in many years. Amazingly, I have never owned a Kubrick film in any form. I must admit, placing this set in my collection is much like owning an original Monet. It is art.

Here are my thoughts on these films:

2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY - Beautiful, profound, boring, annoying, joyous. The film defies explanation because it refuses explanation. Concepts and ideas are painted with forms, light, and images; words are irrelevant. The special effects still work because they are not treated as special; rather, they are crafted as a series of iconic images that are just as symphonic as the overlaid score. It is science fiction distilled and purified.

A CLOCKWORK ORANGE - This is like a mixture of DR. STRANGELOVE and 2001. It is comical, yet realistically futuristic. MY favorite aspect of the film is the use of language, and how it changes with each successive generation into something less than intelligible. It’s a bit too long and overindulgent, but still a fascinating moral parable.

THE SHINING - Although frequently cited as one of the scariest films ever made, I must admit that the film has never frightened me. But there can be no doubt that Kubrick infinitely improved Stephen King’s novel, infusing it with psychological depth. Kubrick again leaves it ambiguous, never really telling us whether the events are purely hallucinogenic or ghostly. An amazing technical achievement, and also one of the few times that Kubrick elicits some great performances.

FULL METAL JACKET - Tinkering with movie form and conventions, Kubrick makes an unsentimental and unblinking film about war. The bathroom scene is one of the most perfect moments captured on film. The end battle sequence is harrowing. Matthew Modine is terrific, Kubrick’s best hero. And what can you say about R. Lee Ermey as Gunnery Sergeant Hartman except WOW?? Unflinching and brutal.

EYES WIDE SHUT - Beautifully photographed, but ultimately a failure. Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman are mostly decent, but the film is top heavy with symbolism and stylistic flourishes. Again, Kubrick is at his best when he holds his camera on a performance and lets it sink in. Kidman’s blunt admission of adultery in her heart, exposed in her underwear, is a long and eviscerating scene. The film is too cold and too clinical to actually strike to the heart of this kind of subject matter. It doesn’t help that he’s saddled with mediocre actors this time around.

Kubrick was a once-in-a-generation phenomenon, whose eye and intellect are sorely missing from film since his death. He is often generalized as a technical director obsessed with machines rather than humans. While it is true that Kubrick’s films dealt with man’s disconnect from nature through machinery, he was also very interested in human nature. However, he didn’t approach humanity the way Steven Spielberg does; Spielberg embraces the warmth of human nature, while Kubrick hangs back, wary. Kubrick was keenly aware of human shortcomings, and he was always eager to place a mirror in front of them. He was like a caring and curious god, watching his creation with detached affection.

Although Kubrick was a distinct visual director, he never allowed his style to interfere with his attention on telling the story or relating a persepctive. That’s not to say that Kubrick’s messages are particularly easy to grasp; they are rarely presented on a platter for easy dissection. But Kubrick always focused on characters, their faces, their relationships to other people or machines, their motivations, desires, dreams. The much-vaunted style was merely the eye through which we would see these particular relationships and people.

When we look at the current crop of young directors in Hollywood, it’s hard to find someone who approaches Kubrick’s depth of vision or style. Of the bunch, David Fincher might come closest, although he has shown more style than substance in most of his films. Most of the younger directors have grown up ruined by video games and tentpole movie entertainment, and their films reflect these influences. Kubrick’s training came from still photography; the new generation of directors trained on Nintendo and TOP GUN. The artists are largely gone from Hollywood, their canvases profaned on the altar of opening weekend grosses. It’s sad state of affairs.

I miss Stanley Kubrick. I miss having that thrill of discovery inherent in his films. I especially miss him in this age of carbon-copy blockbusters and their generic mindlessness. But I am so glad to finally have some of his output on my shelves next to crap like GODZILLA and INDEPENDENCE DAY. Like Kubrick himself, they class up the joint a little.

The Tarantino Problem

Think about those directors you would consider to be the greatest of all time. For myself, I would choose Stanley Kubrick, Steven Spielberg, Martin Scorcese, and Alfred Hitchcock. They are all directors with a signature style, yet the stories they tell are always front and center. Even a directorial style as eccentric as Kubrick’s manages to work in service to the story.

And that is my basic problem with Quentin Tarantino, and the instantly ejaculatory praise he regularly receives from fanboys and the media. He doesn’t deserve the immense praise he receives because he doesn’t care about telling an engaging and complete story.

Let’s look at Tarantino’s meager output in the fifteen years he has been making movies:

RESERVOIR DOGS - His first film contained electric dialogue and dynamic shot selection that kept the viewer’s eye off the low production values. Unlike CLERKS, Tarantino made his low budget film look professional and intentional.

PULP FICTION - His one true masterpiece. This is the film that catapulted him to the level of automatic auteur. It has style up to its eyebrows, yet the characters and situations are engaging. It also helps that there is an underlying point to the snappy dialogue and mixed-up structure.

JACKIE BROWN - A fine film that was unfairly castigated because it was not PULP FICTION 2. It might be Tarantino’s most “normal” and accessible film overall, although it lacks a discernible amount of energy.

KILL BILL 1 and 2 - Utterly pointless besides the magnificent cinematography. The story is as simple as it gets, and could have been made as one short film, rather than two very long ones. It simply doesn’t get any more self-indulgent.

GRINDHOUSE / DEATH PROOF - Awful in almost every way. While Robert Rodriguez blew the roof off in the opener, PLANET TERROR, Tarantino indulged in a 90 minute talk fest. Not to mention the lack of a cohesive or engaging story behind it all.

INGLORIOUS BASTERDS - We shall see about this one, although initial reviews are indicating another talky, referential traipse through the filmic memory of Tarantino himself.

Like an only child that has been given everything it wants except discipline, Tarantino firmly believes that any idea he has is worthy of filming. Rather than tell a story, Tarantino would prefer to engage in tributes and references that scream out: Look at what I’m doing now! Isn’t this genius?? You never see the great directors act like this from behind the camera.

Here’s the question that nags at me : Does Tarantino actually have a story to tell? Does he have a point to make besides references to other films?

One might argue that, after his first two films, Tarantino is simply having fun with his material, requiring his audience only to go along for a fun ride. That might be true, but isn’t that basically the same aesthetic that Michael Bay employs? Why is Bay castigated and Tarantino glorified?

Extending the Bay comparison, I would contend that Bay’s last few films (TRANSFORMERS, TRANSFORMERS 2, BAD BOYS 2) are better films than Tarnatino’s last few films. They are structurally sound, well-made, and entertaining. Even more, Bay’s films are not trying to be anything other than a cohesive thrill ride. I despise all of Bay’s films, but at least they do not pretend to be something they simply are not. Tarantino’s recent masturbatory output certainly does.

To make my point, the best comparative example I can give is Kevin Smith. Like Smith, Tarantino managed to create a film that touched a nerve with the community, garnering massive press and attention. And while I admit that Tarantino’s subsequent output is of much higher quality than Smith’s - of course, a wet mop could do that, too - it certainly reveals a director whose overall body of work is vastly overpraised.

It would have been interesting to see what Tarantino might have made had PULP FICTION remained in semi-obscurity, or if the press had reigned in their adoration. Unrestrained as he is, Tarantino has become the art-house version of George Lucas, a promising yet unfulfilled talent in desperate need of fewer yes-men and stronger ideas.

Is ANTICHRIST Art?

This year’s Cannes film festival has been mostly uneventful. A few sales, perhaps one break-out hit, nothing spectacular. Of course, leave it to Lars von Trier to shock the place into action.

His newest kick to the groin is ANTICHRIST, which is shaping up to be von Trier’s ugliest and most controversial film yet. It features a married couple played by Willem Defoe and Charlotte Gainsburg who, after the accidental death of their child, retreat to their cabin in the woods (named Eden, of course) for healing. Then all sorts of bizarre things happen. Here’s the trailer:

Reviews have been all over the map.

The Bad:

Variety: “Lars von Trier cuts a big fat art-film fart with Antichrist. As if deliberately courting critical abuse.”

Reuters: “Antichrist elicited derisive laughter, gasps of disbelief, a smattering of applause and loud boos …”

Hollywood Elsewhere: ” … easily one of the biggest debacles in Cannes Film Festival history and the complete meltdown of a major film artist in a way that invites comparison to the sinking of the Titanic.”

The Good:

Movieline: “beautiful, violent, and cringe-inducing … Antichrist is the most original and though-provoking work von Trier has done since Breaking the Waves. That said, I might entirely change my mind tomorrow — yet another reason why this film is remarkable. RATING (out of 10): 9?”

The Wrap : “an utterly strange and deeply perverted take on the horror genre … At first, it’s an elegant grief drama. Then — suddenly, shockingly — it transforms into “The Shining” meets Evil Dead with green politics, torture porn and a fair amount of Lynchian abstractions … Gripped by the calculation of the design, I think I loved it, but might have been blindsighted by the sheer audacity of its twisted conception. Like many audience members from tonight’s crowd, I need to let it sit for awhile — in my nightmares, most likely.”

Just when you thought movies were becoming too safe, along comes von Trier to fart in the closed elevator and irritate everyone.

According to most accounts, this film features graphic sex and even more graphic violence (including genital mutilation) that pushes the farthest edge of the NC-17 rating into a new rating: LVT. That rating describes a Bermuda Triangle-like area of filmmaking that lies between torture porn, sexual porn, and twenty hours of Gitmo waterboarding.

My question is this: What is the point of being shocking merely for the sake of shock? Does the shock itself make it art?

I could go out and film myself cutting the head off of a cute little bunny rabbit - is that art? What if I then intercut that with shots of Ron Jeremy buttfucking a starlet in a field of spring flowers? Is that art? At what point do shots of graphic sex and violence tip over the line of provocation and become art?

Clearly, von Trier believes his film is art; the whole film reeks of it. A man and a woman … a lost child … a trip to the woods called Eden … sex at the base of a tree … hints of nature and evil everywhere. All that’s missing is an apple dropping onto Defoe’s wrinkled brow (I haven’t seen it yet - that might even be in there). Everything about this film screams BIG IMPORTANT STATEMENT. But is it art simply because it thinks it is?

This film and its reaction remind me of Piss Christ, a prize winning photograph by Andres Serrano that depicted a plastic crucifix submerged in a glass of urine. Serrano received $15,000 to support this “work,” which then outraged the religious when it won several awards. While I understand Serrano’s desire to create a firestorm of controversy, I’m less confident that such methods themselves constitute art. In this instance, what is considered artistic - the photograph, or the method employed?

In ANTICHRIST, von Trier lingers on graphic displays of sex and violence - is that art in and of itself? Is the fact that most Cannes reviewers were repulsed by the film enough to justify it as art?

In my mind, art should not merely trigger our basic instincts for revulsion or excitement - it needs to trigger our mind. Did von Trier do that here? Certainly the reviews indicate an audience left shaken, disturbed, and in a thoughtful mood. Perhaps he managed to rise above the horrors in a way that a hack like Eli Roth could never manage in a thousand careers.

If nothing else, we should applaud von Trier for being bold and attempting new ideas and film forms. He won’t be directing a TRANSFORMERS movie any time soon. In a cinematic world that is seemingly in a post-Apocalyptic wasteland, von Trier continues to be Thunderdome. Art or not, we should be grateful for that.

That Disquieting Aftertaste

Some movies reveal who they are at the first viewing. A film like TRANSFORMERS is obviously horrible from the beginning, and makes few attempts to mask its stupidity and pointlessness. An example of a good film like this might be THERE WILL BE BLOOD, which succeeds fully despite obvious flaws at the end.

Some great films improve over time. CHILDREN OF MEN and NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN are two films that I have revisited multiple times, and have shown me new facets that I wasn’t able to appreciate in the first viewing. A recent film like this is my favorite movie of last year, THE WRESTLER.

But there are some films that entertain you just enough to get you through the initial screening. Afterwards, you’re left with a disquieting aftertaste that slowly seeps into your consciousness, causing anger and shame over the fact that you’ve been had.

My first encounter with this aftertaste happened the first time I saw RETURN OF THE JEDI. Having loved STAR WARS and THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK, I was pumped to explore the dark secrets of the final chapter. Instead, I was confronted by rubber puppets, unblinking Ewoks with zippers running up the back of the costumes, and a sonambulistic Harrison Ford lifelessly droning his lines. It kept me entertained while I watched it, but after a while, my mildly pleasant feeling turned to a hatred that has continued until today.

Many films fall into this category. The simple truth is that the moviegoing experience is enjoyable, so it’s easy for a film to sneak past critical eyes even when it isn’t particularly good. I enjoyed the first X-MEN movie for the most part, but after the passage of some time, I began to dislike it.

When I first saw the completed cut of WOLVERINE the other day, I thought it was mildly enjoyable and diverting. It’s a comic book adaptation about a mutant guy with claws - it’s not trying to be CITIZEN KANE or anything. But in the days following the screening, that disquieting aftertaste returned to me.

————— SPOILERS ——————-

Several disturbing questions wafted into my mind like the last fart from a cadaver.

1. Why did Stryker spend “half a billion dollars making him indestructible” if, in the very next scene, he suddenly wants to kill him?

2. Why would Stryker dispatch Agent Zero to kill Wolverine, yet not give him the adamatium gun that is sitting on his desk?

3. Why did Wolverine walk away from Stryker in the lab without “gutting” him, which was his stated purpose at the beginning of the scene?

4. How did Wolverine get his jacket back from the Island? His brain had been blown out, and he wasn’t wearing it when he was shot. So how did he remember it when he left?

5. Why is Cyclops in this movie? He obviously would have known something about a guy with claws rescuing all of them from the Island, yet in the later movies he knows nothing at all about him.

6. If Wolverine’s girlfriend has powers of persuasion, why doesn’t she use those powers to stop Stryker in the first place and save her sister? Or when she’s lying on the ground dying, why doesn’t she convince Stryker to pick her up and take her to the lab to save her life??

7. Why did Sabretooth feel the need to kill his only blood relative??? And then he changes his mind for no apparent reason at the end. Why??

8. Why is this screenplay so episodic and idiotic? Plot points exist only to cram mutant encounters into it, like the clumsy segues into The Blob and Gambit scenes.

9. Why does almost every mutant battle in this movie begin with two combatants running at each other? It might be marginally exciting the first time; after ten times, it becomes a joke.

10. Why does a movie that cost $140 million dollars have special effects that look like they were made on an Apple 2E in 1983? The Gambit/ladder special effect is now my nominee for worst special effect of this decade. Prove me wrong.

———– End Spoilers —————

I left the WOLVERINE screening mildly entertained. I realized it had faults, obviously, but it packed enough action to distract me from its flaws. But that disquieting aftertaste is rarely wrong. This movie is an abomination, and hopefully the worst film of this summer.

The Neverending Fountain Of Youth Movie

Hollywood feels about old age the way I do about sticking my tongue in a woman’s poonie. In other words, they don’t like it, they fear it, and it makes them want to stick their tongue into a food processor to avoid doing it.

Of course, nobody likes growing older. The hair grays, the paunch expands, and you do horrible things in public like shit all over the floor at the supermarket (I saw this happen today, in fact). The worst part of growing older is remembering the golden glow of your youth, when you had energy and optimism and endless, impenetrable erections; you’d almost wish for Alzheimer’s to keep from crying.

That sinking feeling is even worse in Hollywood, a place jury-rigged around spoiled, sun-dappled youths. Even better, Hollywood’s anxiety attack about aging regularly spills out into the movies they create. Have you ever stopped to consider how many movies have been made around the premise of body-switching? There have been more of them made than almost any other genre of film, including zombie films, James Bond films, and “black guy in a woman’s fat suit” films.

And, like growing old itself, they all mostly suck.

Probably the best film ever made about this topic is BIG. The film, of course, features a fantastic performance by Tom Hanks as the adult version of a young boy who makes a wish to be an adult. Here, the formula is slightly tilted; rather than have an older person grow young, it has the only slightly-less creepy idea of having a grown man act like a little kid. And then have sex like one.

Coming in second is probably the 1976 version of FREAKY FRIDAY, which allowed Barbara Harris and Jodie Foster to switch bodies. Many might argue for the 2003 remake starring Jamie Lee Curtis and Lindsay Lohan … but I just can’t stand Lindsay Lohan at all. Amazingly, this simple premise has been remade at least four other times, and is set to be remade again in an upcoming film called FREAKY MONDAY. Ugh. I think it’s certainly lost some of its “freakiness” by now.

But beyond those two films, quality pickins are anorexically slim. 18 AGAIN … ALISON’S BIRTHDAY … BODY SWITCH … DREAM A LITTLE DREAM … THE IMMORTALIZER … VICE VERSA … LIKE FATHER LIKE SON … that’s a pretty pathetic group of films, wouldn’t you say?

It seems like these films pop up once every ten years, preying on the age-apprehension of the next generation. And so it is that we have the newest entry in this age-old genre: 17 AGAIN. The film, which was made simply as a vehicle for stud-of-the-moment Zac Efron, involves a late thirties man who longs to be in high school again. When that wish is granted, he finds himself in his 17 year old body once more.

Yawn.

While the idea of being 17 again is tantalizing given the unfettered sexual appetites of the modern girl, few of us want to deal with reliving zits, awkwardly fitting clothes, and homosexual experimentation bullies.

Of course, Zac Efron has no such worries. He has flawless skin, a bevy of beauticians to coif his luxurious hair, and a billion screaming girls willing to siphon every drop of goop from his fake-tanned, 5.75 inch wiener. In other words, Zac Efron’s 17th year is unlike anything experienced by any other 17 year old on the planet.

But he will sell this film about reliving youth only to the young, for the best thing about getting older is that everyone else old enough knows better.

REVIEW: OBSERVE AND REPORT

I love black comedies. One of my favorite comedies ever is HEATHERS, a film blacker than Whoopi Goldberg’s asshole. They say comedy is hard, but black comedies are even more difficult. Their success relies intimately on a carefully maintained tone.

Tone is the big problem with the new Seth Rogen “comedy” OBSERVE AND REPORT. In it, Rogen plays Ronnie Barnhardt, a pudgy and lonely mall security guard who dreams of becoming a real police officer. When the pretty makeup counter girl (Anna Faris) is attacked by a serial flasher, Ronnie attempts to solve the problem, much to the dismay of police detective Harrison (Ray Liotta).

Ronnie might be one of the most unpleasant lead characters I have ever seen in a big budgeted feature film. He’s racist, sexist, psychotic, and violent. Many reviews have compared him to Travis Bickle, Robert DeNiro’s breakout character from TAXI DRIVER, but that comparison doesn’t quite work here. TAXI DRIVER operated as a realistic and dramatic character study, while OBSERVE AND REPORT is playing like a comedy that appears to have little relation to the real world.

An example of this problem comes early in the film. The distressed makeup girl is brought into the security office to discuss the flashing incident. In the room is Ronnie and Detective Harrison. Harrison is trying to comfort the girl and get information from her, and Ronnie constantly - and unrealistically - interrupts Harrison’s questioning and mumbles to himself throughout. This kind of behavior would last three seconds in a real world setting. The net result of this scene is that the audience feels sympathy for the detective, and revulsion for the protagonist. I can’t tell you how poisonous that is for a film’s chances of success.

Rogen does what he can with this role. He has a lot of onscreen charm, and he lights up the few lighter, more comedic moments in Ronnie’s character. But most of what’s written for Rogen in writer/director Jody Hill’s script is beyond ludicrous, skewed too far into unpleasantness to ever win over an audience. The character is self-deluded to the extreme and violent without any apparent repercussions. One baffling scene involves Rogen and his second in command Dennis (Michael Pena) beating the shit out of skateboarders on the parking lot, but moments later Ronnie turns down the chance to steal something. Is this supposed to be a joke? If so, it’s not particularly funny. Even less funny is Ronnie’s rape of a drunken, puke-covered Faris. Again, I ask - is this supposed to be funny? Or is it some sort of serious message? I have no idea … I just found it to be ugly for the sake of ugliness.

The cast is also very talented, yet wasted here. Anna Faris does another one of her ditzy blonde routines, but it works. Pena has several memorable moments before his character arc takes a bizarre left turn and then disappears. The best performance on display here is Celia Weston as Ronnie’s drunken, slutty mother. Her every nuance is worth savoring, but unfortunately her wonderful performance in this movie is like a beautiful flower growing in a pile of hog shit.

I commend Hill for attempting to make a film this nasty and vicious. But even the darkest comedies and dramas need a character with whom audiences can relate. Veronica in HEATHERS was a shallow bitch, but we could relate to her plight and cheered her final decision to be something else. Here, the finale of the film wants us to celebrate Ronnie and his personal victory, but the character is so exhausting and unpleasant that we end up mocking him instead. We have nothing in this film to like, unless you like slow-motion shots of fat white guys streaking.

I don’t. This film is truly a mess.

The Hollywood Adaptation Machine

Back in 2002, my writing partner and I created a list of existing properties that we felt should be remade or adapted into feature films. To justify inclusion on this list, we would come up with how each remake would be tackled in the script and in the production.

Our list looked something like this:

1. SPEED RACER. At the time, the Donners owned the rights to the property, and the production had stalled for several years. So I sat down and wrote a 105 page screenplay for my version of SPEED RACER. One of my controversial decisions was killing ChimChim and putting Spritle in a coma early in the film, effectively eliminating the worst element of the show and giving Speed some motivation throughout the movie. Unfortunately, I received a cease-and-desist letter from Warner Brothers because I did not own the characters. Oh well. They learned their lesson last year with the bomb they released.

2. NOSFERATU. I actually have much of this new version written. It is very much updated from the classic 1921 film, but it retains Count Orlock’s mosquito-like sensibilities. And just as the original film played upon larger issues of plague that ravaged that world, so to does my version deal with things like AIDS on a societal level. I believe this film can very much play to today’s audiences.

3. THE CABINET OF DR. CALIGARI. I’m very surprised that a wholly new version of this public domain silent classic has yet to be updated for modern audiences. My partner and I came up with reams of notes on how we would redo this film. Imagine what CGI could do to render the fantastical world of CALIGARI! Imagine the psychological and sexual subtexts that could be explored from a modern perspective, things that were only hinted at in the original! It could be amazing.

4. M. Again, I’m surprised that this film has not been seriously tackled. It’s morally and psychologically complex, and perfect for a world rife with child abductions and murders. We didn’t get very far with adapting this one, although I have a pretty fair idea.

And our final choice for adaptation? JONNY QUEST.

First of all, note that the title of the show was JONNY QUEST, not JOHNNY QUEST.

This was one of my favorite cartoons as a child. The show centered around a young boy named Jonny, whose father was a wealthy and intelligent scientist named Dr. Benton Quest. The family had a loyal bodyguard named “Race” Bannon. And long before Madonna and Angelina Jolie started adopting children around the world, Dr. Quest had adopted an Indian boy named Hadji to be a brother to young Jonny.

For a children’s program, the show could be quite violent and scary. Episodes often centered around invisible electrical monsters, one-eyed robots on spider legs, and mysterious aquamen. The action and resolutions were often played realistically, another unique feature of the early show. And, as has often been mentioned, the show hinted at an “alternative” family arrangement, one devoid of a mother figure and two father figures … something that would still be considered a landmark even by today’s standards.

A movie adaptation of the show could have been taken in the direction of the SPY KIDS films, which would be more tongue-in-cheek. However, I felt that the adaptation should play it straight, delivering a movie that scares and thrills kids with a mixture of science and INDIANA JONES-style adventure. I think you’d need to blunt the Hadji character, making him less of a caricature. And I definitely don’t think that the Benton/Race sexuality question should be answered or even overtly suggested … it should just lie there.

With all of these ideas in my head, you can imagine my dismay at the announcement that Zac Efron will take on the role of Jonny Quest in the upcoming big screen treatment now in development. While Efron is certainly cute enough - and he will bring in the females, for sure - he is too damn old to play this part. Part of the charm of the show was the fact that Jonny was a smart little kid who would get himself into troubles while on his father’s missions. Why would a twentysomething male be cavorting around with his father on scientific missions? Clearly Warners is aiming for a version that more closely hews to the updated QUEST cartoon from the nineties, rather than the sixties version.

I wil admit that, if they pair Efron’s Jonny with another attractive young male around Efron’s as to play Hadji, they could end up with a hit like HIGH SCHOOL MUSICAL, which coasted on the appeal of Efron and co-star Corbin Bleu. From an adaptive point of view, however, I’m not really in favor of Efron as Jonny.

Even worse is the idea Warners has of removing the name Jonny Quest from the title of the movie. As has been mentioned in the trades, Warner Brothers is afraid of another debacle like SPEED RACER. And they should be. But the failure of SPEED RACER had nothing to do with the title; in fact, that title probably got them even more business than they could have gotten otherwise. SPEED RACER failed because the script was a mess and the look was disorienting.

In other words, they should have used my script. Hollywood will never learn.

Here is a neat look at a video someone created, which shows clips from the five most popular episodes of this classic cartoon:

Zombie Shit

How on Earth did Rob Zombie become a filmmaker? The guy had a bewilderingly successful career as a horrible rock icon, so he didn’t need the money. I’m fairly certain he was not called to the profession by God like some sort of retarded version of Paul of Tarsus. And, as far as I know, there are no mail order certificates available for film directors.

Unfortunately for lovers of film everywhere, Mr. Zombie had an itch he simply could not ignore. His creative juices, overflowing like a sewer pipe in New Orleans, needed to be sipped and savored by the moviegoing public. They could not be denied any longer.

So here we are, several years into director Zombie’s (ahem) unique filmography. We gamely endured Zombie’s first feeble efforts at horror films like HOUSE OF 1000 CORPSES and the ever-so-slightly-better THE DEVIL’S REJECTS. Then, in what might be the most enduring mystery in human history, Zombie managed to worm his way into directing the most unnecessary remake ever - HALLOWEEN.

Despite what a few apologists might mistakenly believe, Zombie’s HALLOWEEN is one of those very rare films that might actually be improved by being projected backwards. It not only manages to be incompetent on its own terms, but it utterly fails to make the scariest film of all time scary. Again and again, Zombie made stupid decisions that would clearly ruin the film - Let’s spend the first 45 minutes with baby Michael Myers! And his over-the-top hoosier family! And let’s not introduce the Laurie Strode character until she needs to get killed! And let’s totally change the concept of The Shape! It was one of the worst theater experiences I’ve ever had.

For fun, you might enjoy this IM discussion we had on The Rec Show the night after the premiere of HALLOWEEN.

Needless to say, I’m not a fan of Zombie’s particular brand of white trash horror films. It’s painfully obvious the guy is trying to shock people with the over-the-top theatrics of his films, which shows better than anything that the guy just doesn’t get what makes a movie scary. When you factor in the horrible dialogue, boring shot composition, and terrible casting, the only conclusion is that Rob Zombie should not be making films.

Oh, by the way … did you hear about Zombie’s upcoming HALLOWEEN 2? That’s right … Zombie is making a sequel to his unnecessary remake of a genre classic. Which itself is a remake of second film in the series. Bizarre.

I’m foaming at the mouth today about this film and Zombie in general because SlashFilm’s Peter Ciretta posted this article from ShockTilYouDrop, who were on the set of Zombie’s HALLOWEEN 2. In it, Zombie and makeup artist Wayne Toth claim that the Michael Myers character will wander around without his mask for a large portion of the running time, only to don a new mask near the end. According to the picture they ran, Myers looks something like this:

WHAT THE MOTHERFUCKING FUCK!

As was proven emphatically during the intolerably bad first half of Zombie’s first HALLOWEEN film, humanizing Myers ruins the one special thing about him. In other words, he’s not scary when he’s just a big, hulking dude. And that is the point of making a HALLOWEEN film - to SCARE people!!!

I have to believe that this is some sort of publicity joke, designed to get the fans howling for Zombie’s hollow nutshell on a platter. I simply cannot tolerate another HALLOWEEN featuring a guy who looks like your average trailer park hulk coming in from weekend deer hunting.

Again, I ask … how did this guy become a filmmaker??

Hollywood and the Movie Website Racket

A buddy of mine who works with search engine optimization (SEO) recently told me that the words “movie” or “film” are two of the worst search engine terms possible. Why? Because there are thousands upon thousands of websites out there devoted to film.

Most of these websites are small, niche-like sites that distract the owner every once in a while in between the cares of life; they’re the internet version of that old fixer-upper out in the garage. Oftentimes, some of the best stuff about movies can be found on sites like this. Some of my favorites include the brilliant Lazy Eye Theatre, the acerbic Burbanked, or the outrageously actress-centric Film Experience Blog. These owners write from their hearts, are often more knowledgeable than anyone ever armed with an Oscar ballot, and are absolutely more creative than the people on either side of the camera. Money is not their motivation - love of movies drives them. And in the case of Piper and Nathaniel, it drives them nuts.

Beyond the multitudinous myriads of niche movie sites, there is a fairly large core of serious and professional movie websites. They range from news and and insider-gossip blogs like the magnificent Hollywood Elsewhere or The Movie Blog, to more straightforward news and geek stuff like the efficient and well-oiled SlashFilm or older stalwarts like Ain’t It Cool News or CHUD. Up-and-coming pups like the ever-changing Obsessed With Film and First Showing fall into this more serious category as well. All of these sites, unlike their smaller and quirkier brethren, want to be taken seriously as movie authority figures and, to some extent, journalists.

Which leads me to the situation with Hollywood. Since the dawn of the internet, there has been a battle between the old guard of traditional media (newspapers and television critics and coverage) and the rise of internet media (blogs and websites). Hollywood has, for the most part, consistently favored traditional outlets - they’re easier to control through monetary means, have ties between parent corporations that can be manipulated or bartered, and have rules of fair play that can be enforced if necessary.

The internet is a much more difficult thing to master for Hollywood. The thousands of movie websites out there cannot be bought so easily or cheaply. Almost all of them are single-owner sites that have no bosses or authority figures editorializing their content. And as for rules … what stinkin’ rules?

When Obsessed With Film was approached by Fox on Saturday about my early look at the pirated version of WOLVERINE, we had two choices: take the material down from the site, or leave it up and risk the wrath of Fox. Since what we had up was in no way illegal, the only real risk we faced was being blackballed from future Fox materials and promotions. Given the disturbing state of much of their output lately, that might not seem like such a terrible compromise for the site’s artistic license. However, we took it down out of respect for their wishes, not wanting to disturb the general order of things.

For now, anyway.

You see, Hollywood is much like any of the corporations recently bailed out by the sucker-punched American taxpayers - they don’t want to see the end coming until it’s far too late to stop it. Until now, Hollywood has continued to live in a vast and luxurious bubble by the ocean, expecting to be catered to by her cadre of worshipful admirers. News corporations, television stations, theater owners, and even some big websites all tenderly lick her waxed undercarriage in the hopes of getting a small portion of her enormous wealth. While I’m sure people like Peter Ciretta of SlashFilm or Alex Billington of First Showing certainly love movies, they also love having a job where they cater to Hollywood, rather than pump gas at Citgo for $7 an hour. And so they play ball according to Hollywood’s rules, in turn reaping the benefits of such a relationship.

But the internet is slowly changing that game in much the same way that it’s changing the piracy of materials. In the old days, Hollywood could count on pressure to enforce its will upon movie news and review outlets. Even now, we see douche bags like Ben Lyons being coddled and bought for every idiotic phrase that slips out of his mouth. But for how much longer? You see, as traditional media outlets like newspapers rapidly sink into oblivion, Hollywood will only have those pesky movie websites out there to pump up the masses for the latest studio product. In that new world, those insignificant websites will now need to be Hollywood’s new best friends.

And that’s a problem Hollywood needs to address right now. Most websites do not need to conform to the rules of conduct and decorum once afforded to Hollywood in the days of kiss-ass corporate journalism. Nearly all websites do not have bosses, deadlines, tie-ins, or even editors. How can something like this be controlled, massaged, or directed? Simply put, it can’t. Sure, there will always be some websites that can suck goodies from Hollywood’s cock as well as any traditional outlet. But there will always be a vast and rapidly growing ocean of movie websites out there that cannot and will not be bought, no matter how many times you blackball them or toss lawsuits in their faces. The internet simply cannot be controlled.

It’s time for Hollywood to learn to co-exist with the new media.

Blu-Ray Review: The Day The Earth Stood Still

The big end-of-the-year science fiction blockbuster from Twentieth Century Fox receives the fancy Blu-Ray treatment in this deluxe edition. It’s almost too good for the movie inside.

(Read more)

Piracy And The Art Of Posturing

So I watched X-MEN ORIGINS: WOLVERINE a few days ago and posted my reactions to the rough cut of this upcoming film. Not only was I deluged with pompous, self-righteous comments from angelic beings of pure light, but the site was also targeted by FOX with demands to remove the sneak peek.

As I look over the decimation wrought this week by the internet leak of the WOLVERINE workprint, I find myself slightly nauseous at the posturing I’ve seen by many movie websites and the droning anonymous hordes that troll their message boards.

According to our dear reader “chuck”, who runs a little movie blog (officially the 200th million such site, by the way), I was immoral for watching the workprint. Nevermind that I never ripped the film, uploaded the film, downloaded the film, copied the film, or distributed the film. All I did was merely click a button and watch the film, just as easily as one might watch talking heads videos on YouTube. If what I did was immoral, then it was only in the loosest sense (the best kind of immorality, if you ask me … wink wink).

And that’s really the rub about the internet and stealing. The fact that you can push one little button and take anything you want dilutes the meaning of the idea of theft. The internet has created massive new ways to obtain stuff for free, and people are liberally taking advantage of that new business model. But while the internet may be desensitizing the way people look at stealing, it has yet to correctly change the way businessmen look at the nature of business.

The internet has completely changed the game, and it shocks me that so many of these businesses have yet to change their rules to cope with the difference. The music industry never recovered from the death stroke inflicted by the internet in the form of easily-downloaded music. Why did they not survive it? Because they failed to anticipate the rise of the technology, and then failed to capitalize on it or change their business model. You see, those record company executives liked making millions of dollars a year back in the eighties, when they could charge $20 for an album that cost them a dollar to make. They enjoyed having a stranglehold on the sound and image properties that made their companies obscenely rich with exorbitant pricing. Mixtapes, which have been around for decades, never worried the studio executives because it was a drop in the bucket. Hell, bands like Metallica made their name distributing their music for free early in their career. But once the internet began to take their money away, Metallica and the record studios greedily tried to retain the cash flows they used to enjoy, but by then it was too late. In the process, Metallica and others have actually seen a backlash … all because they failed to properly assess the power of the internet.

The movie business has been, for the most part, shielded from this type of problem because the internet was far too slow to easily distribute movies. Ten years ago, the bigger problem was DVD copying rather than internet distribution. However, for reasons not entirely clear, the movie studios did not address the situation promptly or properly. How could they not see that the same circumstances that befell the music business would eventually happen to them??? It was only a matter of time before technology would allow the distribution of movies just as easily as it had allowed music distribution in the nineties … how foolish for them to miss that fact.

It’s also a bit silly for a movie studio to bitch and complain about their movie being stolen when they’ve been freely distributing the workprint among employees for months. As Devin Faraci’s excellent article mentions, this policy almost DARES people to steal the film. My analogy to this situation goes like this: Imagine you left you house unlocked and unwatched. Someone eventually comes along, notices the door open and the house abandoned, so he steals your stuff. Of course the thief is wrong, but how much fault do you carry for the theft of your merchandise. You left it open for such an act, didn’t you?

Taking it one step further: Imagine that the thief, rather than take your stuff to his house, decides to leave your stuff on a random parking lot beside a dumpster. Eventually people will come along, see the merchandise, and take it home. Did they do anything necessarily wrong? They did not actually steal from you, nor did they really steal from anyone; they merely took stuff that was sitting there, seemingly free. Such is the case with everyone who watched WOLVERINE online - they were merely taking stuff that was sitting there for free. The real culprit in this crime is the fucking moron who left their door wide open in the first place, i.e. the dipshits currently running Twentieth Century Fox. Their stance on this issue this week has been nothing short of ludicrous and laughable.

Which leads me to this posturing over internet piracy. There have been several websites sighing and groaning over this “terrible and grievous act” (insert eye roll), each one attempting to console and coddle up to the bosses at FOX for the theft. They want to make it clear to their readers that they in no way condone the theft of movies over the internet. Fascinating. Of course, each one of these websites makes their bread and butter attempting to scoop one another with pictures taken from closed studio sets, internal studio emails, and, on occasion, the leaked movie itself. The most hypocritical movie site on this issue is Ain’t It Cool News, which has been blasting the pirates who posted the WOLVERINE print. What a fucking joke! Few can forget site owner Harry Knowles posting a breathless early review of ATTACK OF THE CLONES after watching a pirated version back in 2002. And before that, the psychotic lardass built the entire site around posting secret reports and spy photographs. Harry Knowles decrying internet piracy is like a fart complaining about the smell in the room.

The internet is never going away, folks. And the ability to obtain information and entertainment is only going to get easier, not more difficult. So the time has already come for these studios to remake themselves in light of this coming technological wave. The fact that they passed around multiple pristine copies of their big summer tentpole movie is proof enough that they have not learned their lesson yet. But if they want to survive, they need to do it fast.

And as for all the movie websites crying over internet piracy, go straight to hell and stay there. Movie websites complaining about internet piracy is like a mob lawyer complaining about mob activities; you’ve made your living doing the same type of shit that the pirates are now doing. Shut the fuck up and enjoy it, hypocrites.

Thoughts On The Wolverine Workprint

So I watched the workprint version of X-MEN ORIGINS: WOLVERINE last night.

Yeah, yeah, yeah … it’s unethical … it’s stealing … it’s just plain wrong. For my crimes, the executives from Twentieth Century Fox should guillotine me for the amusement of the masses. I should be tied down and ass raped by angry porcupines. A drunken John Goodman should sit on my face bareassed until I suffocate. Don’t bother me with that stuff, though … I’ve heard it all before from my mother.

Besides, I’ve already stated my case about stealing movies. And in this case, the studio should know better than to let a film like this get past them. How on Earth does a DVD version of this workprint get into the irresponsible hands of some studio lackey? Let this be a valuable lesson to Hollywood: don’t make DVD’s of your big tentpole films.

While the studio suits are probably squirming today about the leak of this workprint, they have little to fear. Most people who download and view the film ahead of time do so only out of intense desire to see the product and plan to see it in theaters as well. I know that’s my case. This workprint also gives Hollywood outsiders the chance to peer into the creative process and witness the changes that can take place between production and final cut. And let’s face it - seeing it in this form is simply no match for seeing it on the big screen with an enthusiastic audience.

And from what I’ve seen, the audience will be lapping it up.

As Matt Holmes reported today, this workprint is the reason for the reshoots a few months back that caused such a stir (as if many films do not go through a similar process!). Quite a few of the special effects were roughed in, with blocky CGI standing in for finished effects. Even so, much of the film was polished and ready for release.

As the full title suggests, WOLVERINE looks at the backstory behind the break-out character of the X-MEN series. As someone who is unfamiliar with the comics, I can’t say how closely the story here matches what is presented in the pages of Marvel, but I will say I was pleasantly surprised by his story. I will not even spoil it at this early stage for those in the dark, but I will say it’s an interesting and unexpected origin story.

As the unbridled star now, Hugh Jackman throws himself into the role with abandon. More than any of the previous films, Jackman reveals a nastier edge and a raw, animalistic side that truly astonishes. My only complaint about it is that the film doesn’t really provide much of an emotional reason why he is so brutal. But it’s WOLVERINE, so we’ll just go with it.

Aside from Jackman, I thought Liev Schreiber was excellent as Sabretooth, very charismatic and commanding in nearly every scene. He is a vast improvement over the wasted Tyler Mane Sabretooth from the first film, and fanboys need to stop bitching about Schreiber’s inclusion here; he’s terrific. Also stealing several scenes is Ryan Reynolds as Deadpool; his character is sure to divide fans, but I found him to be a jolt of energy in this film. In a smaller role, Dominic Monaghan shines as Beak, who has power over electricity and mechanical objects.

Like the trailers suggest, there are quite a few action scenes in the film. Some work amazingly well, particularly the more personal and hand-to-hand battles. However, the final showdown is a mess, and most likely prompted the reshoots. I will say this: I counted at least two moments that will elicit gasps and cheers from enthusiastic audiences. Studio execs should be salivating over this release, because the film has some terrific action beats in it that will bring people to their feet.

The only other problem with the film is a central love story that only partially works. I’m not sure at this stage where the problem lies, or if it’s something addressed by the reshoots. I’m just not sure if there was any reasonable chemistry between Jackman and Lynn Collins, and they have very few scenes establishing their intense love for one another. Like I said, it partially works, and I seriously doubt the lack of romance is a fatal flaw in a film like this.

I must admit that, after the clumsy showdown, there is a conclusion here that is truly special. It solves the problem of continuity with the previous series, while also adding a layer of pathos that I found very appealing and mature. I sincerely hope director Gavin Hood does not alter these final moments much, because I thought it hit just the right notes.

There is also a special surprise for fans at the very end that nearly had me clapping by myself at home. It’s a wonderful coda to this film that I’m sure will please fans of the X-Men series.

From this rough cut, I’d say without reservation that Fox has a huge winner on their hands. I wasn’t too excited about this film before, not understanding what could possibly be gained except more money. But there is a legitimate origin story here, one with depth, tension, and excitement. While I wouldn’t put it in league with the very best comic book origin stories like last year’s IRON MAN, WOLVERINE satisfies in a big, big way.

Damn You, Bill Murray

There have been recent rumblings about production starting soon on a third GHOSTBUSTERS film. In the last week or so, Harold Ramis dropped big plot bombs in an effort to excite the fanbase. The biggest news to fans was the inclusion of Bill Murray in the upcoming and unnecessary sequel.

Finally running out of money, Bill?

The third film would have been released years ago had it not been for Murray’s stonewalling any possibility of the film being made with him in it. At the time, Murray was a huge, bankable star riding the glorious waves created by critical smashes like GROUNDHOG DAY. He didn’t need GHOSTBUSTERS like it sorely needed him … so it went unmade.

And we were all better for the lack.

Murray was, for many years, my favorite comedian. Despite his casually nasty screen persona, Murray had that intangible something that made everyone love him. Perhaps it was his lumpy, unusual face. Or perhaps it was his endearingly hung-dog slouching. Or maybe it was his laser-like comic timing. Who knows for sure.

Whatever the reason, Murray created an enviable string of hits following his release from Saturday Night Live; his post-SNL success might be second only to Eddie Murphy, another former comedian gone sour. His early work in CADDYSHACK and STRIPES is iconic. His perfect performance in GHOSTBUSTERS probably rescued what was, on paper, a pretty silly movie. His performance in KINGPIN is, in my mind, one of the greatest comedic performances ever put to film. And in his later years, he has created gems like GROUNDHOG DAY and the underrated WHAT ABOUT BOB.

But something has changed in the guy. Rumor always pegged him as a pompous asshole, but lately we’ve seen the cynicism and selfishness reveal itself in less flattering ways. Few in the media will forget his nastiness after losing the Oscar for LOST IN TRANSLATION, publicly showing his displeasure for losing what he considered his deserved award.

But it’s his recent acquiescing to this GHOSTBUSTERS nonsense that wrinkles my panties a little bit. For years Murray stood firmly against any involvement in the sequel. The second movie was embarrassing shit, he rightly reasoned, and so that should effectively end the franchise. So why are we seeing him sign on the dotted line now? Is it the fact that the film roles have dried up in recent years? Is it a lack of money? Has he lost a valuable part of his mind?

We know it’s not the script or the idea. This is a money-grab flick all the way; it is a dead and decaying franchise hoping for one more whirl on the cash carousel. They’ve decided to resurrect it with one of the oldest plays in the book: older mentors teach a new generation of ghostbusters … YAWN. There is absolutely no reason for Murray to suddenly feel creatively energized by this new film, unless he is being paid an enormous sum of money for the cameo.

And for that, I’m sad. Murray was always one of my favorite comedic actors, someone who had the chops to cross over into dramatic territory. Now he has slandered those former achievements with this pathetically worthless endeavor, one that will, in all probability, embarrass him more than it will help him.

He’s lost all credibility by giving in to the beast.

“Fuck You Saddam Hussein Of Iraq”

The upcoming Seth Rogen comedy OBSERVE AND REPORT has been getting peculiar word of mouth. From all apparent indications, the film is only a comedy in the barest sense of the word. Most people who have seen it seem to be bewildered by the amount of violence and sadism in the film.

Those reactions mirror the feelings I had after seeing Rogen’s PINEAPPLE EXPRESS, a promising comedy that, in my mind, devolved into a gratuitously violent bloodbath. I never could make that leap between the two disparate halves of the film.

I’m not sure if it’s Rogen or someone else pushing for this type of comedy/psychodrama, but the effect is uncomfortably jarring. I have no problem with a film goosing our expectations, or taking us in entirely new and unexpected directions, but the violence is so off-putting and extreme in comparison to the genial, buddy-buddy vibe given off by Rogen and the script. Rogen comes off as a nice guy; it’s painful to see him get shot or go on a rampage. It would be like Tom Hanks picking up an Uzi halfway through FORREST GUMP and hunting down Jenny.

From this clip, the film looks like it has some funny moments. I really like this banter here, especially Rogen’s delivery of the line that forms the title of this article. Hopefully there are more moments like this one, and less like the half hour killing spree that ended PINEAPPLE EXPRESS.

I’m not sure if the levels of violence in OBSERVE AND REPORT are justified in a film about a mall cop. We shall see. But it makes me curious as to why Rogen continues to pick films that combine these elements in such extreme ways. He would do well to observe the career path of Jim Carrey, who attempted such material with THE CABLE GUY, only to see it tarnish his golden run of hits. I’d hate to see that happen to Rogen as well

Yearning For A Flop

I suppose movie critics are supposed to go into every movie with an open mind, but I certainly am not one of them. I want certain movies to fail.

Yesterday I came across these three reviews for the upcoming Will Ferrell disaster LAND OF THE LOST. While reading them, I suddenly felt this intense anger and revulsion. We all know what this movie is: a very expensive, name-recognized and group-marketed crap collage designed to capitalize on Ferrell’s usual nonsense. The idea and execution of this film is so utterly pointless that I’m surprised everyone involved didn’t simply wander away out of sheer boredom.

Listen to this “rave” on Ain’t It Cool News:

***I mean, no fucking lie here: there is a Will Ferrell/Pterodactyl egg/’A Chorus Line’ dance number set piece that had me pissing my pants!!!!! Need I say more???****

Um, is this supposed to be a positive aspect of the movie? It sounds atrocious. Then another reviewer says this:

Ferrell and McBride play this whole thing like Ricky Bobby and Kenny Powers’ Excellent Adventure.” Soo For example, one of McBride’s earliest lines is calling a firecracker a “Mexican vasectomy.” Later he tells the British Holly character (I looked it up and it’s Anna Friel — don’t know her) that she should sit on this gigantic vibrating pyramid sculpture they find. Cracked out.

My God. These reviewers are praising the film for bullshit like this. Meanwhile, I’m thinking the Four Horsemen are nearing the final turn.

I have not seen this movie. I know the television show on which it is (supposedly) based. I’ve seen the terrible trailer for the film, and a horrendous clip of Ferrell playing guitar and singing the infamous theme song. But much of the film has been hidden from sight, probably for very good reasons.

But not seeing this movie has no bearing on my feelings. I want this film to fail. I will go into it hating it completely, and it will probably be a moderately chilly day in hell before I would ever enjoy this film. I may take illegal pharmaceuticals to endure the experience of watching it. Reviews like those quoted above only confirm my suspicions about what this movie contains, and I now hate it even more than I previously did.

Yeah, I know movie critics and people who report on media developments should go into every film with an open and accepting mind. But not me. There are certain movies I want to see fail completely, and LAND OF THE LOST is definitely one of them. In my mind, the success of a bilious, weeping cunt-sore like LAND OF THE LOST would only encourage other filmmakers to mimic it in order to chase the fucking dollar, and I don’t want to see that continue. Do we really need more mocking, self-referential takes on other crappy television shows like this one? How about a “hilarious” post-modern take on SMALL WONDER? Or maybe a $150 million dollar big screen adaptation of H.R. PUFNSTUF, except with all of the drug references blatantly put back in and starring Seth Rogen and James Franco in their PINEAPPLE EXPRESS mode? It’s gold, baby!! GOLD!!!

So I’m warning you right now - I will probably hate this film, and I will cheer at every dollar it loses in box office once people realize that they’ve been duped yet again. It may not be right, but hey … at least I’m honest about it.

Fuck The Catholic Church With A Crucifix

There might not be any other pursuit in life less worthwhile than religion. It’s divisive, condemnatory, and completely devoid of actual answers to the very questions it claims to emphatically solve. Religion makes shit like blogging seem like the penultimate achievement of mankind.

Religion has managed to avoid extinction from things like logic and reason due to its roach-like ability to adapt to its environment. Whenever the coffers dry up, some catastrophe is used to play on fear/sadness and force open wallets (see: 9/11). The most unbelievable aspect of religion is the fact that it’s still allowed to exist and prey on the political/economic axis of human society.

Out of all the religions of the world, none are more despicable and ridiculous than the Catholic Church. Seriously. Their Bible says that worship should not contain idols; their churches are filled with them. Their God demands that his followers not pray to anyone but Him; Catholics pray to everyone except the guy trimming the rose bushes outside the church. Jesus preached charity and humility, while the Vatican has lined her altars with solid gold by investing in guns and cigarettes and warfare. The church whored around with Hitler, then apologized for it fifty years later, burned people at the stake for holding a Bible, and tortured people indiscriminately for having different beliefs. Catholics are Christ-like only if Jesus is a drunken, hypocritical psychopath.
(Read more)

Giant Monsters Attack!

In his review of the upcoming MONSTERS VS. ALIENS, CHUD’s Devin Faraci said that the film, “certainly made my mouth water for a legitimate American giant monster movie. And no, Cloverfield doesn’t count. A giant monster movie where we can see the monster.”

While CLOVERFIELD was enormously successful at the box office - not to mention as a viral marketing campaign - most fans of the genre would grudgingly agree that the film fell far short of its potential. In part, the film failed because it gave audiences insinuated destruction, rather than the grand, sweeping scenes normally associated with those kinds of pictures. We never saw the creature in full glory. Closely associated with that failure is the fact that the creature itself was fairly ridiculous looking. While I have no problem with an alien life form actually looking alien, the CLOVERFIELD creature looked like a pissed-off paraplegic.

A year earlier, Korea scored a hit with THE HOST. I don’t consider the film to be a genre classic like so many others, but it definitely had its moments. I felt the film suffered from way too much family drama, and a stupid looking fish creature that was far too small to make that much trouble. And while the film was definitely more successful than any Korean film had the right to expect, it did not reach out beyond the borders of the rabid genre fan base.

Before that, you need to go all the way back to 1998’s disastrous GODZILLA to find a giant monster film of any merit. I count the film as a guilty pleasure - I own it, in fact. I don’t think it’s a very good movie, and I think it’s even worse as a giant monster movie. The movie spends far too much time with Matthew Broderick’s boring scientist, as well as that blond reporter bitch. It also fails in the creature department, giving us a Godzilla without any personality or terror. And let’s not even mention the baby Godzillas running around JURASSIC PARK-style.

As you can see, I kinda like the giant monster movie myself.
(Read more)

Review - KNOWING

I have studied the Bible, the Qur’an, and even bits and pieces of the Book of Mormon. All major religions have some sort of belief in apocalyptic events that will end the world as we know it. In light of that background, it’s been interesting to see how horrific spectacles like the 9/11 terrorist attacks on America have influenced the arts, and in particular, movies. Since 2001, we have seen a rush of films that have played on the fears that such beliefs and events conjure in our psyche. We can’t just have a movie that features a villain … now the villain is Armageddon, or an unstoppable force ready to destroy mankind. It’s as if the stakes need to be raised to the greatest degree in order to have any impact anymore; we’ve already seen monumental and cataclysmic nightmares play out on our television screens, so anything at the movies needs to be even larger and more terrifying.

Even though we’ve recently had several years of Hollywood-sized, Earth-threatening disaster movies at the multiplexes, I would venture that none of them can compare to the pure nerve of the new Alex Proyas film KNOWING. Jeffrey Wells over at Hollywood Elsewhere correctly called it Doomsday Porn. While he’s right, the film is even more bizarre, ambitious, and ludicrous than that moniker could ever attempt to describe. It nearly left me speechless, which in itself might be a sign of the Apocalypse. (Read more)

Review: GIGANTIC

Ever since LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE surprised the industry with a healthy box office take and a near-win Best Picture Oscar, independent filmmakers have been desperately attempting to replicate the breezy, quirky, offbeat romantic-comedy-drama that led to its success. It’s gotten to the point that, what once seemed light, airy, and fun, now feels oppressively like a formula for disaster.

The latest hairball of quirky nonsense, GIGANTIC, stars Paul Dano as a mattress salesman in New York named Brian who desperately wants to adopt a child from China. He is also attacked almost daily by a homeless man on the street, who follows him around wherever he goes. But his life is somewhat altered by the arrival of a very rich customer (John Goodman) and his beautiful daughter Harriet (Zooey Deschanel). Do they fall in love? What do you think?

First time writer/director Matt Aselton has collected an impressive cast of well-known character actors to populate his film. Goodman plays Harriet’s brain cancer-surviving father with just enough reality to sell his brash and slightly zany performance. Ed Asner matches Goodman’s zaniness with a performance of humor and warmth that, while threatening, never tips over into full-blown irritation. Also wonderful is is Ian Roberts as Brian’s loudmouthed brother John. In all, the supporting cast terrifically fleshes out this material.

More disappointing are the two leads. Dano, handed the lead after his turn in THERE WILL BE BLOOD, turns in a halting, annoying performance that barely registers a pulse. After his mute performance in LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE and his weird, stilted performance in THERE WILL BE BLOOD, his performance as Brian comes off as some sort of affectation rather than an attempt to build a character. There are corpses floating upside down in a river that would bear closer resemblance to living human beings; perhaps Dano should find a role in the next version of INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS … he would make a terrific pod.

Deschanel repeats the same goofy, eye-rolling, cutesy-pooh shtick that she has coughed up in every role in her filmography. Deos she have any other mode? Deschanel has fallen into the same routine that ruined Meg Ryan’s career in the nineties, but here it hurts even more because her character is an underwritten and annoying mess. Nothing about the character is appealing enough to justify the romance attempted here; it’s almost as if Aselton expected Deschanel’s cuteness to sell the role, rather than make the character a full-fledged human being.

But the worst offender is Aselton’s script, which throws caution to the wind and allows every sort of “wackiness” to pervade every corner of this movie’s universe. So we have endless and pointless asides and unrealistic character affectations that litter the script like a tornado of garbage and overwhelm it. For example, Goodman’s character cannot simply get into a car - we lies down on a bed, and the bed retracts into the car so he can lie down while he is driven around town. Deschanel is served goat meat stew at some point ( in a bit referred to constantly for five minutes), which she then throws up all over the bathroom. Asner’s character makes pinatas representing famous dictators. Brian’s brother spends his Tuesday afternoons getting handjobs from hookers with a group of Japanese businessmen. Brian’s best friend apparently lives in a laboratory playing with rats, which then serve as meaningful subtext for the story.

It’s all very film school psychobabble, filled with “subtext” and “meaning” while supposedly being light and fluffy and breezy. In other words, it’s complete horseshit. The film ultimately tells us nothing about these characters except their foibles and quirks. We are meant to be drawn into this wacky world of strange and interesting characters, but since none of them register beyond their cliches and tics, it all devolves into a pointless exercise just as meaningless as the title itself.

The one saving grace from Aselton is his direction, which I thought sparkled at times. He has a keen eye for composition, with some nice shots accentuating the fairly flat and meandering conclusion. Perhaps next time he would better serve his talents if he stuck to directing real scripts, rather than a collection of notes from his second year film class.

In other words, GIGANTIC is quite a bit less than that.

Review - THE WATCHMEN

Let me just preface this review by stating that I have never even gazed upon a WATCHMEN comic strip, and that, prior to seeing the first trailer for this film, I had no understanding of THE WATCHMEN universe. In other words, I’m representative of 99.99999999% of the population of Earth unfamiliar with Alan Moore’s alternative universe graphic novel.

For those billions of potential fans, the story (condensed) goes something like this: In an alternate 1985, a group of retired superheroes are being picked off by an unknown assailant just as President Richard Nixon is pushing the world to the brink of nuclear war. The most devoted of the group, a mysterious and violent vigilante named Rorschach, reunites with his former superhero team to discover the murderer, and attempt to avert Armageddon.

Of course, the graphic novel, spread over twelve issues and acclaimed for its density and depth, goes into much greater detail than my tiny little summary … but unfortunately the film does as well. And ultimately, that failure to trim material for the sake of brevity and intensity undoes director Zach Snyder’s brave attempt to adapt this material.

(Read more)

Bad Awards, Good Award Show

Well, the 2008 Oscars are over, and there are more than a few lingering thoughts.

- How did Zac Efron end up all over this damned thing?? He’s cute and all, but seriously … does he represent young Hollywood or something? Is it to appeal to freshly-ripened tweenagers? I saw this guy more than Hugh Jackman, for cryin’ out loud.

- How does a magnificent film that consists of sound effects not win any of the sound awards? WALL-E was an amazing achievement in sound, yet the Academy silenced it in favor of Slumdog Millionaire and The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button. Completely wrong.

- What the hell was Tilda Swinton wearing? A potato sack??

(Read more)

Oscar Twitter

Lots of people will be liveblogging the Oscars tonight, but I thought I would use my Twitter as my live blog, since I will be attending an Oscar party and will unlikely be near any computer. Why am I so nervous about tonight’s telecast????

Inglorious Trailer

I loved the script when I read it, but the first trailer for Quentin Tarantino’s upcoming Inglorious Basterds comes off much hokier and goofy than it read on the page. The draft I read had some amazingly tense scenes, particularly in the opening minutes. While they contained Tarantino’s trademark use of rambling, referential dialogue, the entire script seemed more focused than anything he’s done in years. But the trailer, despite loads of attitude, seems much more comical than the tone of the script.

First and foremost is the very distracting dialect used by Brad Pitt, who seems to think he’s playing a bloodthirsty Benjamin Button. It’s over-the-top and somewhat cringe-worthy. Perhaps in the course of the film, the accent will grow into the performance. I just don’t know if Pitt is good enough to pull that off.

The script is terrific, though. Hopefully Tarantino can restrain himself to some degree and tell a great story.

Here’s the trailer:

Indy 4 Trailer

I hated Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull with all of my heart and soul. I wanted to disembowel myself in front of the audience with whom I watched it.

Of course, audiences everywhere were teased into the theater by misleading trailers that hid the prairie dogs, psychic greaser monkeys, and flying, nuclear-safe refrigerators. But what might have happened to the box office had Spielberg and Lucas told the truth in those trailers?

Behold:

Responsibility Of Film Journalism

In the last year, we’ve seen quite a few film critics dismissed from major publications across the country. But unlike the reaction to layoffs in other industries, there is a noticeable sense of “so what?” among industry types. The job simply doesn’t seem to be as important as real jobs, especially as old guard stalwarts like Roger Ebert pass from the scene. I mean, if Ben Lyons were to lose his job, who would really care?

But those fortunate enough to still have a job as a film journalist need to perform their duties to the fullest extent possible. In other words, they should review movies, report on events in the entertainment industry, interview industry figures, and give their general impression of the film world. It’s a fairly ridiculous job, and the rewards and perks far outweigh the work involved; let’s see one of these puffy, creme-filled journalists smash rocks in a quarry for $8.00 an hour, for instance, and see how much more they appreciate their job. Film journalists have an easy and rather superfluous job by most standards.

And that’s why it’s so disheartening to see someone like Jeffrey Wells of Hollywood Elsewhere acting in such a reprehensible manner when he is asked to perform his fairly simple and superfluous duties as a film journalist.
(Read more)

TR2N Trailer Already?

It was a year ago this week that unsuspecting audiences at Comic Con ‘08 shit their collective pants over test footage for Tron 2. The sneak peek hit every geek nerve center; lightcycles, hyper new visuals, and a barefoot Jeff Bridges. In my mind, it was one of the best geeky moments I’ve had in quite some time, and the teaser kicked all sorts of ass:

But now comes the surprising announcement that we are going to see a full-length trailer for the film at this year’s festival, even though the film isn’t on the slate to be released until 2011. Is that possible? Despite the fact that filming began back in April of 2008, the film requires massive amounts of CGI to render the world of Tron. I’m quite amazed that Disney has anything worthwhile to show, let alone enough material to make a full trailer.

But all I can say is BRING IT ON!

Not Quickly Enough Dead

Click to enlarge!

“S” Stands For Shit

One of the least anticipated movies of all time is coming to a video store near you very soon. This cinematic knee-to-the-cock, known officially as S. Darko, has been very quietly filmed and edited without nary a peep on the pop culture radar. And with good reason. The announcement of its production unleashed a withering fury of Biblical proportions, the film being eviscerated in Vlad-style ways on every fan site and message board; I imagine the producers wanted to keep a low profile before someone dropped a turbine onto their heads.

But now we have this, a “trailer” for the unnecessary sequel, here referred to simply as “A Donnie Darko Tale.” The sequel involves Donnie’s little sister … you know, the least talented member of Sparkle Motion. The original actress, henceforth known only as Cuntmold, has reprised her role here, presumably due to large sums of money.

The trailer is a joke. Nothing here warrants excitement or interest. In fact, it might be one of the worst trailers I have ever seen. The producers must be the lowest form of intestinal fluke, lacking even the rudimentary balls to shove the film’s nastinesss in our faces. I could have respected them a tiny bit more had they totally went for it in kamikaze fashion, throwing caution to the wind and just cramming the trailer with “fuck you” moments. But instead, nothing. Just flaccid, by-the-numbers images retread from the original, and lots of text.

Man, this was a very bad idea.

Stooges

I have never liked The Three Stooges. Even as a child, I found them weird and infantile. It’s just an uncomfortable thing to see three older guys slapping each other around and making bizarre noises. While I can almost understand why they became popular in the thirties and forties - different time, different society - I cannot fathom why anyone would ever watch them today.

So leave it to Hollywood to resurrect the concept in order to collect cash from the repressed collective memories of the Stooges fanbase. And they have apparently snagged some impressive names to flesh out the “characters” of Moe, Larry, and Curly.
(Read more)

The Blackest Hole

Click to enlarge!

Musical Glory

Click to enlarge!

Righteous Fury

The general public seems pretty satisfied with banality. Derivative movies flop onto movie screens and people sit there, shrugging silently while watching the sludge with glassy eyes.

But not my buddy Burbanked. He unleashes an enviable amount of righteous hatred for the new Matthew McConaughey rom-com The Ghosts of Girlfriend’s Past. Go read it right now by clicking here. Pure brilliance.

Less Than Super Bowl Ads

All of the big summer movies are jockeying for position in January in front of the biggest captive audience on Earth: The Super Bowl. I’m just surprised how lame these commericals seem at this point.

(Read more)

Veiled Encounters

Click to enlarge

Bland of the Lost

The seventies version of Sid and Marty Krofft’s Land of the Lost was a genuine science fiction show for kids. Sure, it had some crappy sets and sub-kindergarten acting. But the show also featured some science fiction heavyweights like Harlan Ellison, David Gerrold, and Walter Koenig, as well as some heady ideas like time portals and devolution. It also had one of the better villainous races in televised science fiction, the reptilian Sleestak. It was scary, inventive, and full of imagination.

In other words, everything that Will Ferrell’s abominable remake is not.

From the looks of this miserable Super Bowl spot, (Read more)

Hating WALL-E

Today Slashfilm incredulously announced that Pixar’s Wall-E was completely shut out of the Annie Awards. To those of you thinking that the Annie Awards go to homeless orphans with lidless, staring eyes, let me give you some info: The Annie Awards are the Oscars of the animation world.

Given the fact that animation has been relegated to the ghetto of professional filmmaking, having such an awards ceremony seems quite fitting … even if nobody gives a shit.

But they might start caring. Everyone’s favorite robot of 2008, the heartbreakingly cute Wall-E, has been near the top of most year-end best-of lists. In fact, there is a growing consensus that Wall-Eshould have been the animated feature to break into the Best Picture category since animated films were told to sit at the back of the bus in the nineties. So the fact that the Annies skipped over this film in favor of (Read more)

Review: OUTLANDER

Take a generous dose of Predator, mix it with Alien, The Thing, and Dragonslayer, and you get a pretty fair summary of Outlander, the newest attempt to wring thrills and chills out of worn-out science fiction tropes.
(Read more)

Wrestler-Mania?

As everyone surely knows by now, I loved The Wrestler. It’s just too bad that it had to star Mickey Rourke. Now, don’t get me wrong; Rourke is perfect in the title role. But Rourke has this unfortunate ability to constantly say the wrong thing, bringing unwanted attention to himself. In recent weeks he made a rambling, incoherent speech at the Golden Globes, pissed off gay people, and then insulted Sean Penn. If the guy ever manages to succeed, it will be despite his efforts rather then resulting from them.

Currently playing in the center ring of Rourke’s personal circus is this tense interview on Larry King Live, in which wrestler Chris Jericho calls out Rourke for some comments made during the SAG awards. It’s probably part of a Kaufman-esque publicity stunt, but it’s still a bit troubling to see Rourke fumbling around like this. He already looks physically terrible … does he really need this kind of attention?

Thanks SlashFilm!

Films That Fade

Most films reveal their true colors on their first viewing, and that first impression remains the final verdict on the merits of the film. For instance, when you watch something like Wild Hogs, you’re not going to have an epiphany six months later and decide that it’s a brilliant meditation on mid life issues and a deep, gut-busting comedic gem. It’s shit; you knew it five minutes past the opening credits, and it will remain that way in your mind forever.

But some films cry out for reconsideration. Occasionally you view the film on a bad day or in a bad situation, and you dislike it. Other times, a film can be so uplifting that it masks many disturbing problems that only comes to light once the euphoria wears off.

And so it is with three of last year’s big Oscar-caliber films. While their fans have been campaigning for the Oscars they feel these films deserve, I have been spending my time reconsidering them from a distance. And the whole picture isn’t quite as pretty as I once believed.

(Read more)

F Troop

So what if The A Team was a cultural phenomenon for sixteen minutes back in the early eighties? So were neon headbands, leg warmers, and Frankie Say Relax tee-shirts, but I don’t see anybody today clamoring for their returns. The A Team was on television about as long as Knight Rider, a show featuring a LIVING CAR as a crime-fighting hero. Hell, I think Sigmund and the Sea Monsters had a more significant televised run.

But the current trend in Hollywood - remake everything ever made - continues unabated with the big-screen adaptation of this fondly-remembered cheese-fest. The project, once rumored to be dead, has now picked up a new director in Joe Carnahan. His previous efforts include the well-received Smokin Aces and Narc, so perhaps he might do well with the material here.

Oh, but the material is horrible. So I cry out to the heavens … WHY MAKE THIS FILM? And Variety answered me thusly:
(Read more)

Soured On Milk?

Ryan Adams at Awards Daily noticed a curious trend on the IMDb movie rating system in regards to the Academy Awards nominations on January 22nd. This is the chart he made to illustrate the problem:

As you can see, Milktook an unfavorable bellyflop following its nomination for Best Picture, unlike other nominees like the saccharine Benjamin Button. Adams noted that this happened to Brokeback Mountain three years ago as well.

Do we have a conspiracy here?
(Read more)

Pointless Poster

Jeff over at Hollywood Elsewhere tacked up the new poster for the upcoming Oscar telecast. It’s dramatic and glitzy, something the actual awards show promises to lack thanks to poor nominees, lack of engaging host, and a crappy economy.

The original looks like this:

Jeff didn’t really like it, so he asked everyone to create a new tag line in Photoshop. Sounded like fun, so I gave it a couple of whirls. Check them out: (Read more)

Take The Money

Erik Davis over at Cinematical reports that Mickey Rourke, currently enjoying bankable success again as heir apparent to this year’s Best Actor Oscar, was offered a mere $250,000 by Marvel to play the villain in the upcoming Iron Man 2. While I would probably rim a homeless man for that kind of money, in Hollywood I think even key grips make more money than that.

Rourke has every right to be upset over Marvel’s low-balling tactics; it’s insulting, cheap, and crass. But if Rourke is smart - and there’s considerable debate over that - he will take that money and play the hell out of that role. Here’s why:

(Read more)

Good Riddance

Quick - tell me the backstory to The Green Hornet.

You probably can’t, and that’s because nobody has cared about this property for nearly forty years. So it’s a good thing when Ain’t It Cool News’ Drew McWeeny (has there ever been a more apropos name for a movie geek?) reports that the Seth Rogen Green Hornet project is on life support.

(Read more)

Not Pushed Far Enough

Back in the eighties, during the push for special effects-driven fantasy films like Krull, we had to see lots of fights involving cheesy blobs of light and sparkles and horribly-rendered lightning. And the audiences just sat there, mouths agape, watching it without any trace of wonder or excitement.

Hollywood never learns their lesson.

Coming soon is Push, about a bunch of mutants with special powers who covertly battle for supremacy. Hmmm … that premise sounds vaguely familiar. Anyway, this new clip shows off a big fight sequence from the film. The “special effects” in this sequence appear to have been rendered on an Apple 2E by a blind thirteen year old boy. I saw better fights in Spacehunter: Adventures in the Forbidden Zone without my 3-D glasses.

Thanks to Rodney over at The Movie Blog!

Spilling Ink

Most movie fans love to see little productions make it big and overachieve. Films like The Blair Witch Project, Clerks, or El Mariachi brought in more money and fans than their meager budgets suggested was possible. It takes a certain magic and a generous helping of talent to rise above the morass of independent films and achieve widespread acclaim.

One film that seems likely to break through in 2009 is a small digital production called Ink. Written, produced, and directed by Jamin Winans, the film just made its world premiere at the Santa Barbara International Film Festival; Copernicus of Ain’t It Cool News has written a breathless review of the film that compares it to The Matrix, Donnie Darko, and Dark City. Good company, indeed.

Here is the trailer for the film. It has lots of mood and some creepy visuals obviously done on the cheap. I can’t wait to see if Winans managed to spin gold out of straw with this low budget film.

Amazing Grace

One of the big hits of the recent Sundance Film Festival was a little horror film called Grace. Shown at a midnight screening, the film elicited screams and fainting spells. It was quickly picked up by Anchor Bay, and many fanboys have been following Devin Faraci’s lead in begging for a theatrical run.

Curiously, the trailer for this film has barely been seen in public, which is a shame. It’s a very effective trailer for an obviously effective film. Hopefully Anchor Bay listens to Faraci and others and releases this film wide. Horror fans deserve something great after years of MTV-slick garbage horror.

Next Page »