3 TV Shows That Disappointed Me This Fall

Even though it has only been two and a half months, I feel like I can look back on the Chris that started out the Fall TV Season with such idealistic hope and say, “Look at you, you’re so young and naive. Little do you know of the countless hours you will waste in front of the television screen watching your so-called favorite shows only to realize that those hours have been wasted watching shows that don’t love you back.” That is not to say that there haven’t been shows that I have thoroughly enjoyed, but the ones that I most looked forward to seem to have been the ones that have let me down.

Let me start with some new shows that I had high hopes for.

#3 The Walking Dead

I want so much to like this show. I even went so far as to tout the first episode as a pinnacle of hope for the lackluster season. However, it has steadily declined and like that oft mentioned train wreck, I cannot look away. I cannot ignore the stupidity of the main characters and the gaping plot holes. These people should all be dead and as much as I don’t like his character on the show, Darryl should be the only one left alive right now. Granted he is the loudmouth, stereotyped, white supremacist redneck that everyone hates, including me, but he is the smartest one right now. He uses a crossbow so as not to attract noise and he is all for shooting people as soon as they get bit to eliminate the risk.

Actually it looks like he just likes shooting everything in general.

Enough about how Darryl though, the show as a whole is as slow-moving as the zombies. I think this is a great idea for a show, but you have to do it right. I love zombie films and while in a movie setting you deal with stupid characters making stupid decisions, you only have to deal with it for an hour and a half or so and  is usually so jam packed with swarming zombies you can forgive the stupidity in the heat of the moment. I was willing to overlook it for the first episode because I didn’t know how much more that there would be in the rest of the show. Plus, these people aren’t making heat-of-the-moment stupid decisions, because they hardly ever get attacked by zombies. Instead, the characters prolong their stupidity and sometimes even plan for it.

Yeah....this is a good idea.

So, I’m sorry Walking Dead, I have given you several chances to fix yourself. While you still may have my viewership for the time being, I cannot back you or recommend you to anyone else.

#2 Boardwalk Empire

Boardwalk Empire, much like The Walking Dead, was a new show that I thoroughly enjoyed watching the first episode. There was great production value, great character development, great acting, and it looked like the sky was the limit. However, the show decided that getting two feet off the ground was good enough.

Granted, I stopped watching after Episode 6, but that’s how disappointed I was. There was so much potential and  quality squandered on what seemed like nothing. Kind of like Dave Chapelle‘s description of Lil’ Jon, who sounds like he is about to rap, but never gets around to it, Boardwalk Empire sets up great plots and subplots only to never go anywhere with them. It teases you mentioning them really briefly and then zooming in Steve Buscemi‘s teeth, or shooting someone for no reason.

Oh yeah, and that....

Maybe one day I will finish the season and I will find out I am wrong. But, that’s the problem with the first six episodes, even if I am wrong, they weren’t good enough to make me really care to find out.

#1 Dexter

Oh, how the mighty have fallen. After one of the most genius and suspenseful season finales in the history of television, the writers had Dexter’s world in the palm of their hand. Season Five was set up to be one of the most, if not the most, intense and gripping of the series. Instead, it is by far my least favorite, and that is saying something since Season Three was a major dud as well. They had a million directions to go with the show to keep people interested. Instead, it seems like the writers had came up with a great idea and just didn’t know what to do with it. They created a cliffhanger and decided that the best way to deal with that was to just plummet the show slowly and painfully to its death.

They are focusing on all the wrong things with this season. I don’t care about the romance between the unlikely romance between the anorexic Quinn and Deb or the even worse romance between LaGuerta and Batista. I don’t care about what Julia Stiles has to say. Yes, it was terrible how she was raped, one description was fine. It seems like every time she opens her mouth, 10 minutes of the episode is wasted as, with a quivering lip, she tells yet another horrible tale (and I don’t just mean how horrible things happened to her). Those were 10 minutes that Dexter could have been outsmarting Quinn and Robocop. Hell, he could have just been sitting there drinking coffee watching people and it would have been more interesting than Lumen’s incessant babble.

Wow, this is a rare moment...her mouth is closed.

The writers, in my opinion, should have had a story that involved Dexter dealing with the disturbing aftermath of the season 4 finale. He had been held back, pussyfooting around Rita to commit his crimes and it would have been a great opportunity for telling a story about a Dexter who is uninhibited by Rita. Oh well, it is a little late for all that now. I really hope this season ends well because if not, it is going to be a lot harder to feel like getting into the show next season.

What are some shows that have let you down? Are there any you recommend?

TAKE TWO: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (2010)

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (2010)

Rated: PG-13

Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, Ralph Fiennes

Director: David Yates

Chris’ Take: There are a couple of factors that might play into my opinion of this film and I think I may need to see this again. The first factor was that I had just finished engorging a meal at The Melting Pot and had the Itis. The second played similarly (and not well with) the first, we went and saw a 10pm showing on a Friday night when I was already worn out. So, my enjoyment of this film may not have been on par with what I think when I watch this the second time.

After Dumbledore’s death, the wizarding world is in an uproar as the looming threat of Voldemort and the Death Eaters secure their chokehold on the wizarding world. As Harry, Ron and Hermione race to find the Horcruxes to bind Voldemort, they stumble upon the secrets to the most powerful objects in magic, the Deathly Hallows.

The films, just like the books, continue to become darker and darker as is seen in the lighting and cinematography. The film produces an overwhelming sense of dread and depression, almost mirroring the effects that the necklace Horcrux has on its bearers. Even the brightest scene in the film, a wedding, seems shrouded in darkness. Normally, if a film is as dark as this it is almost unbearable, but it works well with its subject matter.

The acting, as has always been the case with the three leads, is very strong and brings credibility to what could have easily been a series of cheesy films. The consequences of the desperation and dire circumstances plays out differently in each character and continues the great chemistry that was established in the very early films.

What do you mean I will be typecast for the rest of my career?

David Yates, the director, is good, and has proven himself in the previous two films, but Deathly Hallows seemed to lack direction sometimes and needed a good bit more editing. I am sure die-hard fans will counter with, “Well, that’s the way it was in the books.” My counter is that not everything that is in the books needs to be in the movie. The combined time of the films will be about 5 hours as is and you’re telling me that some of that couldn’t be cut? The film seemed to drag on forever and while Harry Potter is better suited for the theater, I found myself wishing I was chilling on the couch in a more comfortable seat.

I can’t quite put my finger on it, but while I thought it was a decent film, there was just something about it that made it hard for me to say it was great or think that it was anywhere close to the best Harry Potter movie. Maybe it was  that I still miss Gary Oldman’s presence in the series.  Maybe it was the fact that since it ends in the middle of the story that it seemed to wander and never really find a cohesion that I look for in a film.

Or maybe it was...The Itis.

•  Characters: A-
• Cinematography: A-
• Directing: B-
• Plot: B
• Performances: A-
• Overall: B+

Pac’s Take:

I want to preface my take on Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part I by saying that I have not read a single page of a single Harry Potter book.  I find this beneficial in a way to reviewing the films because I am reviewing the films and nothing else.

I think Chris did a great job at covering the main points of the film, and having the benefit of reading his take on the movie, I don’t have to rehash it in my own words.  Instead, I get the pleasure of telling you what I thought of the film that Chris summarized (thanks bud).  I’m assuming that the book in which this movie was based is very long and the filmmakers were left with a decision, either make 2 films, both around 2-2.5 hours or make a 3-4 hour movie; and while I agree that this film could have cut some scenes and didn’t really have an ending, I think they made the right decision.  If they instead chose to go the Lord of the Rings route this film would have dragged on even more, upset fanboys (and girls) by leaving too much out, and minimized the replay value because it’d be too freakin’ long.

The Return of the King, and the departure of their careers.

What Chris thinks should have been cut and what I thought needed to go may differ though.  I enjoyed the dragging on of these characters in the woods, hiding from their enemies, and clashing with one another.  Though it may have seemed a little long in the tooth, it accomplished its goal, I sympathised with the characters and their trials, felt like I was with them in the woods for weeks, tension building.  There was enough action at the beginning of the film and sporadically throughout to wet my appetite and leave me satisfied.

However, there are two scenes that stick out in my mind as simply dumb and needed to go.  First, was the dance scene between Harry and Hermoine.  In short, it reminded me of Tobey Maguire dancing in Spider-man 3.  Secondly, there was a scene where Ron’s fears manifested themself on-screen and the CGI was unacceptable for a blockbuster of this caliber. 

Caution: ridiculous over the top dancing may cause your franchise to get prematurely rebooted

All in all, the two criticisms above are the only flaws I saw in the film.  Though the run time was long, I did not find myself bored and was able to overcome my own case of the itis.  Was this the most enjoyable film in the series? No.  Like Chris, I too miss the presence of Gary Oldman on-screen and hope that the final film do this great series the justice it deserves.  Here are my grades:

• Characters: A-
• Cinematography: B+
• Directing: B-
• Plot: B+
• Performances: A-
• Overall: B+

Nolan Teases Answers to Inception Questions

This past summer, Inception spawned many discussions, usually when the people having  them could have been doing something more productive, about what exactly happened at the end of the film. There were several ways to argue and legitimately defend each point of view, but is there one answer? Was there a specific point of view that Christopher Nolan tried to impart? He vaguely answers some of the questions behind many of  the theories in a recent article in Wired magazine, but it is just enough to create more discussion in the workplace and cost several companies many man hours. Here is what Nolan had to say about some of the interpretations:

*** SPOILER ALERTS THROUGHOUT***

1. When asked about one of the main interpretations, that what Cobb says about the spinning top providing a way for him to determine the real word from the dream world and that what happens at the end is all real, Nolan had this to say:

“[The top] gives Cobb a baseline reality. But, he is an untrustworthy narrator.”

Essentially, Nolan addressed the issue, but immediately refuted it in the same sentence, seeming to imply that more than likely it was not reality.

2. The next, although less plausible interpretation, that just the ending is a dream and that Saito and Cobb make their reality together in limbo when Saito honors his agreement, was presented to Nolan and responded:

“Uh, that’s not how I would have read the movie…”

Read: Whoever just asked that....choke yourself.

3. In a more creative theory, Wired asked him about whether the whole film was just a meditation on architecture. Nolan said:

“I wanted to show the potential for the real world to have analogies to the dream world. The mazelike city of Mombasa does that….The film is about architects. It’s about builders.”

While this is a nice idea, I think what Nolan is saying is that there is a lot about architecture in there, it provides more of the backdrop than provide answers to the ending.

4. Then, there came the question about whether the film was an analogy for the filmmaking process. Nolan responded:

“I didn’t intend to make a film about filmmaking, but I gravitated toward the process that I know. I wouldn’t say that I tried to use the grammar of the film to tell the audience what is dream and what is reality.”

5. Finally, the most popular theory…was the whole film just a dream? Wired stated that Nolan used ambiguity as a storytelling tool and that there isn’t just one answer. Nolan (I can imagine with a smirk) said:

“Oh no, I’ve got an answer…”

He was also laughing like a crazed evil genius.

In a continued response about whether the whole film is a dream he had this to say:

“I don’t think I am going to tell you about this.”

But, he also went a little bit more in depth regarding Cobb’s perception of reality:

“In order for the ambiguity at the end to work you need to see that Cobb’s world and the dream world are very similar. And you need to doubt Cobb.” And later said, “The important thing is that Cobb’s not looking at the top. He doesn’t care.”

Then, came a rather frustrated response to the question about the kids not aging and wearing the same clothes:

“The kids are not wearing the same clothes at the end!! And they do age! We are working with two sets of kids.”

I think Nolan gives viewers enough to work with in these responses to lead them to the idea that the whole film is Cobb’s dream world, but at the same time he still remains vague enough that you still can’t completely get behind that theory. 

But, what are your thoughts? Is Inception just a dream? Or is there more to it? What do you think Nolan’s answer is from these responses?

TAKE TWO: Megamind (2010)

Megamind 3D (2010)

Rated: PG

Starring: Will Ferrell, Tina Fey, Brad Pitt, Jonah Hill

Director: Tom McGrath, Cameron Hood

There are very few films that tout “3D” that I can walk out of and say, “Man, that was worth it to see in 3D,” and this is one of them. Plus, the rest of the film wasn’t too bad to boot either.

Megamind opens with a similar premise as this year’s Despicable Me, the villain is the protagonist and he is always second best. Megamind (Will Ferrell) is constantly attempting to defeat Metro City’s renowned hero, Metro Man (Brad Pitt), and take over the city. When he finally does, he realizes that without his antagonist his life is pointless and comes up with a plan to scientifically create a new hero, Titan (Jonah Hill), to do battle with. When his plan backfires, the tables are turned and Megamind must find the hero within him before Titan destroys the whole city.

With a lot of animated competition from such films as Toy Story 3 and Despicable Me, I expected to be disappointed with this film, even though the trailers did look pretty humorous. I was pleasantly surprised to discover that not only was it one of the most visually stunning films this year, it delivered a hefty amount of laughs as well.

Will Ferrell has a tendency of over-acting for a laugh, which works in some cases (i.e. Anchorman, Old School), but brings down everyone else around him in others (i.e. Semi-Pro). The role of Megamind allowed Ferrell to allow his more cartoonish nature to flourish and his off-the-wall antics fit perfectly into that world. David Cross also played a great “Minion” and together they made a great comedic duo and carried most of the script on their capable shoulders.

In fact, I think Will Ferrell should be replaced in all his movies with Megamind.

I will talk briefly about the 3D and leave most of it to my esteemed colleague, Pac, who has been chomping at the bit to unleash his torrent of praise. However, I will just say that even with Despicable Me and Toy Story 3 bringing decent 3D to the table this year, Megamind brought the most depth to the screen. There wasn’t a whole lot of stuff breaking the fourth wall, but from the opening shot, it welcomed you into its world with breathtaking visuals. It is definitely worth dropping the extra $3 to see this one.

I also think we should all contribute $3 to Hollywood to ensure 3D crap like this never gets made again.

Even with all it had going for it, it did stumble a bit at times, mainly when Megamind or Minion weren’t talking, which was thankfully fairly little. I think that the script was only mediocre and that there was probably a lot of ad-libbing from Ferrell and Cross that made it as funny as it was. I can definitely recommend this, but it definitely has a very shaky storyline. However, if you are an adult with kids, this one won’t be a painful one to take them to, but will provide a very pleasant diversion. Even if you are an adult without kids, you shouldn’t be embarassed to say you want to see this.

• Characters: A-
• Cinematography (3D): A+
• Directing: B
• Plot: B-
• Performances: A-
• Humor: A-
• Overall: A-

Pac’s Take:

There has been some recent debate in the media between supporters of IMAX and 3D.  I still have the ticket stub for the first IMAX movie I saw, The Dark Knight and I’ve thrown away every stub from every 3D movie I’ve paid to view (Piranha and My Soul to Take to name two).  Naturally, in the IMAX v. 3D debate I’ve sided with IMAX, until I saw Megamind.

Every 3D movie should use Megamind as a guide on how to correctly use the technology.  Beautifully shot with depth and tremendous detail, I couldn’t help but constantly turn to my viewing companions and say, WOW!  TDK was able to utilize IMAX to completely envelope me into the film, and until now no 3D movie was able to capture that feeling.  Metro City felt huge, the crowds seemed endless, and whenever there was flight I had vertigo; the 3D delivered for 95 minutes.

Look, I want to make sure I drive the point home, this is worth the ticket for admission in 3D; SEE THIS MOVIE BEFORE IT LEAVES THEATERS.  Megamind should win at least two Oscars this season, best animated feature and best cinematography.

Unfortunately, I have yet to see Despicable Me but I thought the story of Megamind was fun and refreshing.  The banter between Megamind and Minion was humorous throughout and the plot was fairly original; what would a super-villain do if he defeated the hero?  I did think Tina Fey was poorly used in this film, her dialogue felt stale and at times cliche.  Otherwise I thought Megamind was the perfect animated film.

Why aren't you funny?

Megamind was not the best movie I’ve seen this year, but it was my most enjoyable film experience of 2010.  Here are my grades:

• Characters: A-
• Cinematography (3D): A+
• Directing: A
• Plot: A-
• Performances: A-
• Humor: A
• Overall: A/A+

 

Opening This Week (Nov 29 – Dec 5, 2010)

After a week long of stuffing my face full of delectable food and trying to drown out the incessant racket of the excessive playing of “Frost the Snowman” and “Jingle Bells”, I have returned to bring you the weekly movie report. I am going to avoid the long intro and just roll right into it:

Warrior’s Way

Rated: R

Starring: Dong-gun Jang, Kate Bosworth, Geoffrey Rush, Danny Huston

Director: Sngmoo Lee

Synopsis from IMDB:  A warrior-assassin is forced to hide in a small town in the American Badlands after refusing a mission.

Trailer:

Chris’ Take: Ninjas falling from the sky!!! A story that will make absolutely no sense!!! Ninjas jumping up from the ground!!! Look shiny-flashy sword!!! You probably noticed three out of four of those statements, which is what the trailer was intending. While this will be an incredibly visual film, the plot will probably be too dumb to ignore and not be worth trudging through to see all the great visuals that you already saw in the previews.

I Love You, Phillip Morris

Rated: R

Starring: Jim Carrey, Ewan McGregor, Leslie Mann

Director: Glen Ficarra, John Requa

Synopsis from IMDB: Steven Russell is happily married to Debbie, and a member of the local police force when a car accident provokes a dramatic reassessment of his life. Steven becomes open about his homosexuality and decides to live life to the fullest – even if it means breaking the law. Steven’s new, extravagant lifestyle involves cons and fraud and, eventually, a stay in the State Penitentiary where he meets sensitive, soft-spoken Phillip Morris. His devotion to freeing Phillip from jail and building the perfect life together prompts Steven to attempt and often succeed at one impossible con after another.

Trailer:

Chris’ Take: After being shelved for a while, this film finally comes to light and it doesn’t look as funny as it was touted to be. I am trying to avoid using some puns here to describe the humor. Anyway, it looks to be mildly entertaining and very topical.

Black Swan

Rated: R

Starring: Natalie Portman, Mila Kunis, Barbara Hershey, Vincent Cassel

Director: Darren Aronofsky

Synopsis from IMDB: A thriller that zeros in on the relationship between a veteran ballet dancer and a rival.

Trailer:

Chris’ Take: Darren Aronofsky delves into the rarely used psychological ballet thriller with his latest endeavor. At the beginning of the fall season I said that this film was one of my five most anticipated films of the season and from the early reviews, it looks like it won’t disappoint. With Aronofsky it will no doubt be simultaneously visceral and beautiful (Natalie Portman will also contribute to the latter of those two attributes) and will feature the return of an actress that I couldn’t care less about since she tried to ruin Hoosiers, Barbara Hershey. From the looks of it, this film will garner a lot of buzz for Oscar season.

LIMITED RELEASES

All Good Things

Rated: R

Starring: Ryan Gosling, Kirsten Dunst, Frank Langella, Phillip Baker Hall

Director: Andrew Jarecki

Synopsis from IMDB: All Good Things is a love story and murder mystery based on the most notorious unsolved murder case in New York history. The original screenplay uses newly discovered facts, court records and speculation as the foundation for an imaginative spellbinding story of family, obsession, love and loss.

Trailer:

Chris’ Take: The trailer for this film looks solid and I like both Gosling and Langella, but the early reviews have been mixed. Rottentomatoes has it at 17% with only 6 reviews in, but IMDB has it with an average rating of 7.1 out of 10. So, I don’t know if I can say that this will be worth a look yet. I think I will probably add this to my Netflix queue early next year when it will be out on DVD.

Applaus

Rated: R

Starring: Paprika Steen, Michael Falch

Director: Martin Zandvliet

Synopsis from IMDB: When the critically acclaimed, tough and coming of age actress Thea Barfoed ends her rehab, she confronts a hard choice. During her heavy drinking period she divorced and lost custody of her two boys. Now she wants them to be a part of her life again. Christian, her ex husband is quickly softened by her tough manipulative but charming figure and agrees. She has to prove to her self and to him, that she is worth the try. But the hard life on stage, and the ghosts of the past slowly comes knocking on her door. Thea is forced to face her inner voices. She is bound to give in to her faith, and make the choice.

Trailer:

Chris’ Take: Looks to be a simple, but powerful look at the consequences that stem from personal mistakes and accepting responsibility. While this will probably be hard to find at a theater, this looks like it could be a very interesting film.

**TRAILER TIME**: The King’s Speech, Battle: Los Angeles, The Way Back, and Cowboys & Aliens

Here are some trailers for upcoming films. Some you might have heard of, but others have probably fallen by the wayside since they aren’t shrouded in special effects and shiny objects.

                              The King’s Speech

Starring: Colin Firth, Helena Bonham-Carter, Geoffrey Rush

Director: Tom Hooper

Synopsis from IMDB:  The story of King George VI of Britain, his impromptu ascension to the throne and the speech therapist who helped the unsure monarch become worthy of it.

Trailer:

Chris’ Take: Most likely another Oscar-worthy performance by Firth and a Supporting Actor nod for Rush. This film looks like an intriguing blend of comedy, drama and inspiration.

Battle: Los Angeles

Starring: Aaron Eckhart, Michelle Rodriguez, Bridget Moynahan

Director: Jonathan Liebesman

Synopsis from IMDB: A Marine platoon faces off against an alien invasion in Los Angeles.

Trailer:

Chris’ Take: I am usually quick to write off an alien invasion film as cheesy effects-driven films, but the trailer for this one surprised me with its morose soundtrack and intense battle sequences. With Aaron Eckhart starring, it looks promising. The only thing that bothered me was the presence of Michelle Rodriguez, playing her stereotypical woman-in-uniform role.

The Way Back

Starring: Ed Harris, Colin Farrell, Jim Sturgess

Director: Peter Weir

Synopsis from IMDB:  A fact-based story centered on soldiers who escaped from a Siberian gulag in 1940.

Trailer:



Chris’ Take: This looks like a very promising film, featuring great actors and an amazing director. Weir definitely has a great directorial eye and the Himalayas as seen in the film Himalaya are a perfect place for beautiful filmmaking.

Cowboys & Aliens

Starring: Daniel Craig, Harrison Ford

Director: Jon Favreau

Synopsis from IMDB:In Silver City, Arizona, Apache Indians and Western settlers must lay their differences aside when an alien spaceship crash lands in their city.

Trailer:

Chris’ Take: I have no idea what just happened in that trailer. I get the gist and I like Daniel Craig and Olivia Wilde provides some great eye candy, but….what? I get that it is based on a graphic novel, but the premise seems kind of lame. I do think that Jon Favreau would be the right director for this, but I just think it will be a ridiculous movie that I will have a hard time enjoying.

News from the Rumor Mill: More Batman 3 Villain Rumors, 5 Year Engagement, and Paranormal Activity 3

Yet Another Batman Villain Rumor

Even I am getting a little bit tired of all The Dark Knight Rises rumors, but I feel obligated to tell all of you the latest that has been vomited from the mouth of the web (namely Collider.com got it from an unnamed source) that the villain for the film might now be Hugo Strange. Strange is a super-genius who uses his brilliant mind for crime. He also is one of the villains that uncovers Batman’s true identity.

To me, this is a better option than Killer Croc, just because I think it would be better for Bruce Wayne to battle someone more with his mind than his brawn. Also, even though in previous films he gets his personal life messed with, it might be more interesting to have that be a prolonged story arc to torment him throughout the film. Hugo Strange also has an odd obsession with Batman and his personal life. When I say obsession, I am talking Buffalo Bill puts-on-women’s-skin-to-be-more-like-them crazy obsession. So, that type of story arc might work better for Nolan’s darker side.

That would be one messed up Bat Cave

On the other hand, Strange’s storylines in the comics usually somehow stumble across medical tampering and making Monster Men, or mindless zombie-like creatures. Somehow I just don’t see that working for a Nolan film, but with a strong enough arc from Strange’s obsession with Batman and Bruce Wayne, I would think that he could steer clear of that.

The Five Year Engagement Finds a Partner

Moving on to news in the comedy genre, Emily Blunt (The Young Victoria, The Devil Wears Prada) is in talks with Jason Segel to be his co-star in the upcoming film The Five Year Engagement. The film would also reunite Segel with his Forgetting Sarah Marshall director, Nicholas Stoller. The film covers the trials and tribulations of (you guessed it) a couple’s five year engagement.

Forgetting Sarah Marshall is one of my favorite comedies and Segel seems to have a good sense of finding the humor in relationship struggles. I look forward to seeing how this one turns out.

Paranormal Activity 3 Gets a Release Date

Finally, I leave you with this piece of news. Setting its bar just that much lower to try to emulate Saw, Oren Peli and crew will release the third installment in the Paranormal Activity series on Oct 21, 2011, only one year after the last one was released. The second film hasn’t even left theaters yet!

I have to do this again?

Granted, the second film wasn’t that bad, but it was a step down from the original, which leads me to believe that this one, much like Saw in its campaign to release a new film every year, will just continue to decline in quality until the genius of the original is completely forgotten and then just becomes a parody. Just wait, it will probably be Paranormal Activity 3D and feature a preview of Katie reaching out of the screen to grab someone from the audience.

What are your thoughts on all of this? Is Strange a good fit? Is PA 3 going to be worth anything?

New Trailer for Green Lantern Has Landed

After a lot of buzz from Comic-Con and Entertainment Tonight, Warner Bros. and DC Comics have released their official trailer for The Green Lantern, set to hit theaters next summer and it looks like they are going to pull it off pretty well. Here is the trailer (Courtesy of Apple):

What do you all think? Will this be another green superhero flop, like The Hulk? Or will Ryan Reynolds give moviegoers another success?

Robert Zemeckis to Direct Remake of Wizard of Oz?

I don’t know why I feel so shocked. Hollywood is rebooting and recycling classic films at a breakneck pace, it was only a matter of time before one of the most popular movies of all time, The Wizard of Oz, got re-made. I am sure they will at least make some changes to make it their own…

Lions and Tigers and Remakes...Oh My!

Or not. Robert Zemeckis has recently been tagged by Warner Bros. to remake this musical theater and stoner classic and instead of rebooting it to make it his own, he is using the exact same script. This makes even less sense to me than doing a sequel or a “re-imagining” because I don’t see a reason why you would want to make the exact same film, leave it as it is and let it be remembered for the classic that it became.

What’s next on the remake list? Casablanca? What are your thoughts?

The Walking Dead is Staggering Toward Ridiculous

First off, let me say that I am a fan of The Walking Dead. I enjoy the idea that a tv show is being made out of the zombie apocalypse, and I have been doing my best to ignore the stupidity of the characters for plot advancement, but Episode 3 may have finally been too much idiocy for its own good.

SPOILER ALERTS THROUGHOUT

The episode opens on an abandoned Merle, handcuffed on the roof of a building in Atlanta. He is slowly going crazy and he frustratedly tugs at the handcuffs. It is safe to say that he has been up there for a little while and when we left him after the last episode the zombies were clawing at the roof door. When the zombies return he immediately begins frantically thrashing around and trying to reach a hacksaw that had been lying there the whole time.

Now, you would think that Merle, being as frustrated as he was, especially since he had heard the zombies earlier that day, would have already exhausted that option. Or, how about how he ended up getting the hacksaw? He was trying to get it with a belt, when he could have easily swung his body under the pipe and moved it closer with his legs.

I mean, come on....

Move to exterior woodland camp where the survivors meet up with Rick and crew after escaping the city. They survivor camp is heartily greeted by Glenn driving a siren wailing car, even though he had the option of getting in the quiet truck outside the city with the others. Granted, Glenn really wanted the car, but come on…you’re telling me that one of the others didn’t tell him to get out for everyone else’s safety? His siren, as potentially witnessed by the deer-eating zombie, could have attracted some that were nearby, since Dale said that he hadn’t seen the zombies up that far in the woods.

The venison-craving zombie brings up another ridiculous plot point. When they find this zombie they beat him to death with stakes, pitchforks and eventually a crossbow to the head, so that they won’t make noise to attract attention. Shane seems to be a stark advocate of this method and doing everything he can to remain off the zombie radar, yet when they are in the water splashing around he is yelling at the top of his lungs and laughing. Real smart, Shane.

We are then introduced to Daryl (Norman Reedus), Merle’s brother, who took acting lessons from Samuel L. Jackson for this role, to ensure that he is always yelling. After the guys tell him that they handcuffed his brother to a roof and left him there, his anger and yelling guilts them into going on an ill-advised rescue mission. I am willing to suspend plausibility and defend this idiotic move here because they now have weapons and they are trying to remain human in a decreasingly human society.

Stereotypes still apply though: The white guys get the weapons and the Asian kid goes first.

Then comes the kicker. The gang gets to the rooftop and Merle is gone and his handcuff is dangling from the pipe. Oh okay, he got out, just like they were foreshadowing at the beginning of the episode, he must have hacksawed through the handcuff…..wait….is that his hand on the ground? What? Why did he hack off his own hand instead of sawing through run-of-the-mill handcuffs? These weren’t like the shackles in Saw where they couldn’t be cut with a hacksaw. That is the point we were left with….Merle is an idiot and so is everyone else on the show.

I mean, now they are worried about where he is, and if he will track them down and try to kill them like the crazy redneck he is. But, if you ask me, they should have just started laughing right there like, “What an idiot….” If he ever does find them, there is little to be intimidated by. He is dumb as all get-out and could easily be distracted if you tossed a jug of moonshine at him. The only way they could make him be intimidating with one hand would be this….

Despite all my ranting, I still like the show as a whole so far. It is just getting harder and harder to suspend my disbelief, and if they don’t rein it in for the next episode, it is going to be difficult to continue watching. But, since I am now hooked to the point of being intrigued that natural selection hasn’t taken its course on this rag-tag band of survivors, I at least want to see one of them meet the demise they deserve on the show.

An On-set Look at John Cusack as Edgar Allan Poe

A while ago, the news came out that John Cusack would be playing Edgar Allan Poe in the upcoming film The Raven. In the article I wrote, some might recall that I was skeptical about his ability to play the role, but a recent on-set picture of him was snapped and he at least looks the part. All he needs is a flask….and to get rid of those sneakers.

 

What are your thoughts? Will Cusack pull off Poe?

Opening This Week (Nov 15 – 21, 2010)

Despite what you may think, there are other films coming out this weekend besides Harry Potter. Will they pose any box office threat? Nope. Will they be any good? We’ll see. Here are the wide releases for this weekend:

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part I

Rated: PG-13

Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, Helena Bonham-Carter

Director: David Yates

Synopsis from IMDB: Voldemort’s power is growing stronger. He now has control over the Ministry of Magic and Hogwarts. Harry, Ron, and Hermione decide to finish Dumbledore’s work and find the rest of the Horcruxes to defeat the Dark Lord. But little hope remains for the Trio, and the rest of the Wizarding World, so everything they do must go as planned.

Trailer:

Chris’ Take: I started out, despising the Harry Potter series. Especially, when the first film came out and I thought it was pretty lame. Overcoming my prejudice took the help of my brother, Jerome, who told me to give the second film a chance and I was very surprised at the increase in quality and the series keeps getting better. I look forward to the final installments and hope that when I see this film on opening weekend, I won’t be surrounded by a throng of people, from middle school to adults who peaked in middle school, with lightning scars and coke bottle glasses.

The Next Three Days

Rated: PG-13

Starring: Russell Crowe, Elizabeth Banks, Liam Neeson

Director: Paul Haggis

Synopsis from IMDB: A married couple’s life is turned upside down when the wife is accused of a murder.

Trailer:

Chris’ Take: Russell Crowe, at one point he was one of the best actors around and seeing his name on the marquee was something worth noting, but in the last five years, it seems like while the movies he is in are decent, his performances are rather boring. I think I would enjoy this film a lot more if Liam Neeson was playing the lead since he has proven he has a knack for kicking people’s asses to get his family back. Plus, Neeson is  a better actor in general. Even with Paul Haggis (Crash, Casino Royale) as writer and director, I think this will be a film that will be exciting to watch, but easy to forget.

Heartless

Rated: R

Starring: Jim Sturgess, Clemence Poesy, Noel Clark

Director: Phillip Ridley

Synopsis from IMDB:  Jamie Morgan, a young man with a large heart-shaped birthmark on his face, discovers that there are demons on the streets of East London.

Trailer:

Chris’ Take: This is a film I didn’t know about until about 20 minutes ago, which is odd considering it is a wide release. This was released in the UK last year to moderate critical acclaim and has pretty good reviews in the U.S. so far. If you are not into Harry Potter and Russell Crowe’s increasingly haggard looking jowls are not enough to entice you to the theater, this might be something for you to see.

Limited Releases

White Material

Rated: Unrated

Starring: Isabelle Huppert, Isaach De Bankole, Christopher Lambert

Director: Claire Denis

Synopsis from IMDB: Denis revisits Africa, this time exploring a place rife with civil and racial conflict. A white French family outlawed in its home and attempting to save its coffee plantation connects with a black hero also embroiled in the tumult. All try to survive as their world rapidly crumbles around them.

Trailer:

Chris’ Take: French film is some of the most beautiful out there, at least the stuff that makes it to the States and this film looks like no exception. It received great reviews and critical acclaim at several festivals. Obviously, this isn’t one that really needs to be seen in the theater and will probably be just as good if seen on DVD.

More Batman News… Sort Of

Brian “Pac” Sostak

It’s funny what passes for news these days when we’re talking about the Batman franchise.  Christopher Nolan has created so much  buzz and angst surrounding the release of his 2012 sequel to The Dark Knight that if he sneezes and it sounds like an actor or actresses name it makes headlines.  With that being said, I’m a complete sucker for all news (or rumor) Batman and I’m going to comment on it anyway.

Deadline is reporting that Christopher Nolan is meeting with a handful of actresses for two unknown roles in the third installment of his Batman franchise.  Though the specific roles were not released, rumor is that one of the roles is a potential love interest for Bruce Wayne and the other… a villain.  Names floating around the roles include Rachel Weisz, Naomi Watts, Blake Lively, Natalie Portman, Anne Hathaway, and Keira Knightley.

The same actresses have also floating around my dreams

This rumor is the second “news” of a villain coming to the screen in the next Batman film, remember not too long ago when we posted about Tom Hardy being cast to play an unknown villain.  Personally, I could care less about who is cast to play his love interest I just hope it’s not someone who almost ruins the movie.  The real news to me in this article is that Nolan is interested in casting a female for a villain lead.  When thinking of female villains in the Batman franchise there are two names that immediately come to mind, Catwoman and Poison Ivy.  I can’t believe that Catwoman will be the villain because this report states that he’s looking into two actresses, one to play the love interest and one to play the villain.  If Catwoman were scripted as the next villain, one would believe that only one actress would be needed to fill both roles. 

Poison Ivy seems like the more likely choice, and I like a few of these names for that character.  The last time Poison Ivy appeared on-screen was not the greatest success, and I’d personally like to see Nolan go in another direction.  My pitch to Nolan is for him to throw a dark horse out for a female villain, and bring us Harley Quinn.  Quinn would be the perfect villain to conclude the Nolan trilogy; though she hasn’t been part of the Batman history for very long (she was first introduced in 1992), she has been a fan favorite ever since her inception.  Introducing Harley Quinn would allow Nolan to continue on from the last film seamlessly despite the untimely death of Heath Ledger, leaving the Joker’s role in question.  Furthermore, it could introduce the audience to an aspect of the Batman lure that we haven’t seen portrayed in film yet, Arkham Asylum. 

The only PG picture of Harley Quinn I could find.

My infatuation with Natalie Portman has been documented previously in this blog, so it’s no surprise I’d love to see her play Harley Quinn.  Second to Portman, I support the casting of Anne Hathaway.  This would definitely break the type cast of Hollywood’s ultimate girl-next-door, but I think she is very capable of capturing this character. 

...very capable

Daniel Radcliffe Moves to Horror in Post-Potter Career

There will be a tough adjustment for the three young Harry Potter stars (Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, and Emma Watson) after having ten straight years of a steady paycheck. However, with the talent that three of them showed, they show a lot of promise; it will just be up to them to make the right moves.

Radcliffe, the series’ main star, has picked a period horror film as his next vehicle. It is called The Woman in Black, directed by James Watkins (Eden Lake), written by Jane Goldman (Kick-Ass), and revolves around a lawyer who travels to a small village to investigate the death of one of his clients. While he is there he catches a glimpse of a  mysterious woman dressed only in a black dress. The locals remain silent and he realizes that is up to him to reveal her true intentions.

Here is a look at one of the first pictures to come out from the project:

I think this is a good move for Radcliffe. While it is not moving away from a fantasy genre, it gives him the chance to play a more grown up character in an attempt to break free of the “childish” mode he has had to play for a while. Plus, he is attached to a film that has a renowned writer and director and this film will probably be a success. Look for it to come out in theaters late next year.

What are your thoughts? Is this a good move for Radcliffe? Will be able to break away from the “Potter” stigma?

Roland Emmerich’s “The Zone” Gets the Boot

Shortly after reading my article, Hollywood studios now have pulled the plug on Roland Emmerich’s found footage alien feature The Zone. They were sitting there thinking, “Hmmm…I’ve seen this idea somewhere before, but I can’t quite put my finger on it,” when they stumbled across my blog and realized that it was the exact same thing as Cloverfield, and that Emmerich was just trying to recycle Independence Day under the guise of using a home camera.

Not really, but they did pull the plug on his project, thank God. Anyway, according to totalfilm.com, for an unknown reason, the project is now dead. The only explanation was from Emmerich’s reps who said, “This is not a project (Emmerich) is pursuing right now.”

Which should read: “The studio caught on that this is a crap movie.”

Emmerich himself has yet to make a comment about it, but whatever the case may be, I am glad that it seems that Hollywood made a good choice for once in letting this idea die.

 

 

TAKE TWO: Due Date (2010)

Due Date

Rated: R

Starring: Robert Downey Jr., Zach Galifianakis, Michelle Monaghan, Jamie Foxx

Director: Todd Phillips

Chris’ Take: Due Date has a lot going for it. It has Todd Phillips, one of the best current comedy writer/directors, and Robert Downey Jr. and Zach Galifianakis, currently two of the funniest people in Hollywood. The question going into the film was whether Phillips could follow up the great success of his last film The Hangover.  I thought that while the film was very entertaining, it will go down as one of Phillips’ more forgettable comedies, right along with School for Scoundrels and Starsky and Hutch.

The premise, is one of the oldest in the comedy genre, the odd-couple road trip. Peter Highman (Robert Downey Jr.) is flying cross country to get to his pregnant wife in time for the arrival of their child, when his plan is completely uprooted by an unruly wannabe-actor nutjob named Ethan Tremblay (Zach Galifianakis). After being placed on the no-fly list, Peter accepts a ride from Ethan, and the two embark on an ill-fated road trip across the United States.

The success of the odd-couple road trip comedy (or OCRTC) relies heavily on the chemistry between the two main characters and this one was pretty successful in that regard. Rumor has it that Galifianakis and Downey Jr. did not get along that well in real life, which you could kind of tell on screen, which actually made it that much better. My problem wasn’t so much with the chemistry, but that the two actually became friends. There was a lot of hatred in the first half of the film that was established and then just seemed to dissipate, actually it was while they were smoking a joint, so logic didn’t really have to apply.

Weed: Therefore your argument is invalid.

 But, still, I didn’t think there were enough reasons for the two to actually become friends after that trip. Maybe enough to strike up a five minute conversation if they ran into each on the street afterwards, but not exactly the friends that Phillips tries to convince you they became.

There were a decent amount of laughs in the film, but outside of what was in the previews, I am kind of forgetting what they were, outside of one particular scene with Downey Jr and some unruly children. Both lead actors have great comedic chops, but I think the script wasn’t quite strong enough for them to make it really memorable.

While, again, this film was pretty entertaining, in my opinion, it failed to reach the levels of some of Phillips better work like Old School and The Hangover. I know Pac probably has a different take , but I  think I can’t give this any higher than a solid B.

• Characters: A-
• Cinematography: B-
• Plot: B-
• Directing: B-
• Performances: A-
• Humor: B
• OVERALL: B

Pac’s Take:

I find this take two particularly interesting because of the difference in opinion Chris and I have with this film.  While it is not unheard of for us to disagree on a film (see Let Me In), it is peculiar that some of the concepts Chris thought hindered this film enhanced it for me.  I think the lack of memorable moments or shock-value in the comedy gave me a strong belief that this film will have some lasting value for me upon subsequent viewings.  That may sound strange but bear with me for a moment.  Consider my favorite genre to talk about, horror; while the Saw movie franchise leave a lot of shock value and memorable kills for the viewer to talk about after the movie, there’s not much staying power for the sequels of this franchise over time.  Back to comedy, a similar example would be American Wedding, leaving the theater you remember Stiffler eating the poop and how shockingly funny that was, but after seeing the film 2 or 3 times it loses its laugh. 

Career foreshadowing...

What Due Date did for me is left me with a feeling of pure enjoyment without really having a stand out moment, it was a steady laugh throughout.  Additionally, the development of the relationship between the two main characters gave this film an endearing quality that is lacking in some of Phillip’s other films.  The internal struggle of Downey Jr’s not only provided laughs but gave his character a depth that allowed this movie to convincingly have some heart.  I did not think that Ethan Tremblay (Zach Galifianakis) had much depth past him coping with his father’s death, but he was more a catalyst for the evolution of Highman (Downey Jr).

I don’t think this film will shine as bright over time as Old School or The Hangover, but I think it was a more mature comedy than these films and will not only have replay value, but will get better with additional viewings.  This film doesn’t come without some concern, however.  You see often with actors such as Adam Sandler and Ice Cube that when they start making more mature comedies a lot of what you loved about the actor’s work and style becomes compromised.  I hope that this film is not the film that leads Todd Phillips down that path as a director, it will be interesting to see what original work he produces after The Hangover 2 and if they escalate from “Raunchy with some heart” to “I want to be able to enjoy my movies with my kids”.

• Characters: A-
• Cinematography: B
• Plot: B+
• Directing: B
• Performances: A
• Humor: A-
• OVERALL: High B+

Opening This Week (08 – 14 Nov, 2010)

This week offers three wide release films that will most likely all fall into box office oblivion. I mean, last week there were two highly anticipated releases, Due Date and Megamind, and one that has acquired vast amounts of critical acclaim and fainting in the theater, 127 Hours. This week offers almost none of that to compete, and next week these films will definitely fall off the radar after the release of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part I. But still, let’s take a look at what we’ve got:

Unstoppable (#1 Recommendation for this Weekend) (only for lack of competition)

Rated: PG-13

Starring: Denzel Washington, Chris Pine, Rosario Dawson

Director: Tony Scott

Synopsis from IMDB: Unstoppable, a 20th Century Fox drama about a runaway train carrying a cargo of toxic chemicals. Pits an engineer and his conductor in a race against time. They’re chasing the runaway train in a separate locomotive and need to bring it under control before it derails on a curve and causes a toxic spill that will decimate a town.

Trailer:

Chris’ Take: Tony Scott and Denzel, team up for the fourth time in the last six years, to bring their audiences is another movie about….trains. This time the wise old train guy teaches the brash young train guy about the intense life of these speeding steel monsters using cheesy one liners and will no doubt feature Tony Scott’s crazy editing style. I think this will be entertaining, most of Scott’s films are, with the exception of Domino, but about five minutes after you walk out of the theater will leave you going, wait….what? While, the early reviews are decent, well the first five anyways, I still think this will be a mediocre film at best. The sad part about this film is that out of the wide releases, it gets my recommendation out of the three films that are being released.

Skyline (Monday Movie)

Rated: PG-13

Starring: Donald Faison, Eric Balfour, David Zayas, Scottie Thompson

Director: Colin Strause, Greg Strause

Synopsis from IMDB: Strange lights descend on the city of Los Angeles, drawing people outside like moths to a flame where an extraterrestrial force threatens to swallow the entire human population off the face of the Earth.

Trailer:

Chris’ Take: I don’t know what to think about this film. It looks like it is trying to be Independence Day without Will Smith, or any other big name actor for that matter. It will either be a moderate success or totally suck. I don’t think there is any other way for this to go, but I could be wrong. Another bad sign is that it wasn’t previewed for critics, at least not yet, which means they could be worried about negative critical feedback dissuading moviegoers from seeing it. I recommend that you wait until after we review it as the Monday Movie to make your decision.

Morning Glory

Starring: Rachel McAdams, Harrison Ford, Patrick Wilson, Diane Keaton

Director: Roger Michell

Synopsis from IMDB:  A hotshot television producer is set the challenge of reviving a struggling morning show program, despite the constant feuding of its high-profile anchors.

Trailer:

Chris’ Take: This film is being touted as being written by the same person who penned, The Devil Wears Prada. But, let me also remind you that this is the same person that wrote 27 Dresses. The preview is boring and it looks like it is trying too hard to be like The Devil Wears Prada-esque. Harrison Ford plays a gruff anchor for the morning show, except this time he is going for laughs, much like Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. I do like Rachel McAdams and Ford, but the preview didn’t grab me and this is getting mixed early reviews. I think, if anything, this can be reserved for DVD viewing.

Limited Releases

Tiny Furniture

Starring: Lena Dunham, Grace Dunham, Rachel Howe, Laurie Simmons

Director: Lena Dunham

Synopsis from IMDB:  About a recent college grad who returns home while she tries to figure out what to do with her life.

Trailer:

Chris’ Take: This looks like the female version of Garden State, except a little more dull. It apparently won some awards at the SXSW Film Festival, but it really doesn’t look that engaging.

Helena from the Wedding

Rated: Unrated

Starring: Lee Tergesen, Melanie Lynskey, Paul Fitzgerald, Gillian Jacobs

Director: Joseph Infantolino

Synopsis from IMDB:  Newlyweds Alex and Alice host a New Year’s Eve party for their closest friends at a remote cabin in the mountains. However, when an unexpected guest shows up, the group’s facades begin to crumble.

Trailer:

Chris’ Take: I think that while this will no doubt be a very slow moving film, that it will provide a thoughtful look at relationships and will be worth viewing at least once for the talking points that it will raise.

So your movie is getting remade…Deal with it.

By Brian Pac Sostak

Total Film reported today that Niels Arden Oplev, the director of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is unhappy that his film is being remade in the United States.  In the guise of defending his lead actress, Noomi Rapace, Oplev had this to say about the David Fincher version:

“The Sony PR machine is trying to make their Lisbeth Salander the lead Lisbeth Salander, that’s highly unfair because Noomi has captured this part and it should be all her.  That’s her legacy in a way I can’t see anyone competing with it.”

Niels Arden Oplev, you are entitled to your opinion but I am also entitled to mine, and I would like to humbly express my opinion as a general movie-goer and enthusiast.  Deal with it.  First of all, you may have a genuine concern for the legacy of your lead actress in your film, but I’m skeptical about your honorable defense and believe you are more concerned with the legacy of your film.  Regardless, you shouldn’t be so concerned, you should be appreciative of all the extra attention that is given to your film and how it will enhance its legacy.

Consider some of the other recent foreign films to be remade in Hollywood and how their status in global pop culture was enhanced by American adaptations.  Ju-On (The Grudge), Ringu (The Ring), Mou Gaan Dou (The Departed), Let the Right One In (Let Me In) were all films remade for Hollywood and their legacies have all been enhanced because of this.  Maybe my opinion can be dismissed as “American Ignorance”, but I would not have heard of or seen  most (if not all) of these films if it were not for their American remakes.

A film by Niels Arden Oplev. Heard of it?

If you still want to chalk my opinion up to “American Ignorance” consider this, I think American filmmakers who are having their films rebooted should be appreciative too.  As a case study, take A Nightmare on Elm Street for example.  That film was remade earlier this year and with its theatrical release came a Blu-ray release of the original, DVD box sets, television broadcasts and additional merchandise sales that otherwise would not have happened.  A remake is a promotional tool for your original film, a way to bring your legacy to an audience that may otherwise never acknowledge your film.  Remakes don’t destroy the legacy of good films, they enhance them. 

Also, don’t say that no other actress can compete with the legacy your actress has established then complain when they attempt to.  That’s like saying you make the best Frikadeller in the world but then refuse to enter a cook-off because you consider it a slap in the face.   Besides, you have no right to be miffed at Hollywood for making The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo because it isn’t your intellectual property in the first place.  Your film is an adaptation of a book by Stieg Larsson.  Is Tim Burton publically bashing Warner Bros and Christopher Nolan for making the Batman films?  Is John Wayne rising from the grave, pistol in hand, to challenge Jeff Bridges to a duel?  Neither you nor Noomi Rapace created the legacy of Lisbeth Salander so it isn’t yours to protect.

Proof that even terrible remakes cannot destroy legacies

We’ll have to wait another year for Fincher’s The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo to appear on the big screen and I bet during that year you’re going to welcome every cent the “Sony PR Machine” produces for you, directly or indirectly.  After reading your comments I’m privately hoping your film’s legacy over time is reduced down to “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is a remake?”

I’ve clearly expressed my opinion; but what do you, the reader think?  Was Niels Arden Oplev justified in his comments?  Will David Fincher’s version of the film tarnish the legacy of its predecessor?

Guillermo Del Toro vs. The Average Moviegoer

After Scott Pilgrim vs. The World bombed at the box office, it seemed like another cautionary tale of the box office. However, director Edgar Wright and his cast and crew were not going down without a fight. Knowing that they had a great and relatively unseen product, they have taken to touring the country, and Canada, with screenings of their film to promote the release of the DVD which they hope will at least secure it as a cult classic.

But, it is not only that they are touring, it is who they are touring with, that gives them a little bit more bang than just the average junket….Guillermo Del Toro. Del Toro is one of the most brilliant directors in the business today, delivering to the world such visually stunning films as Pan’s Labyrinth and the Hellboy series. He is touring with Wright and crew, acting as the moderator for their question and answer sessions. He is so impressed with the film that he has taken time out of his busy schedule to promote the DVD release next Tuesday.

Guillermo Del Toro, from the interviews that I have seen, seems like a mild-mannered, heavily accented Spanish version of Santa Clause.

Or a smarter looking version of Michael Moore.

But, this persona was shattered for me when he put out an aggressive challenge to the average moviegoer at one of the interviews. This is what he said (caution: strong language):

“To me, [this] is a really important screening because I think we all can go out to the world after this screening and tell every motherf—– out there to watch the movie. Why? Because anyone that didn’t watch it is a motherf—–. We can tell them when they ask why does Hollywood make such s—– movies because when they do great ones, you don’t f—— show up.”

Profanity aside, I couldn’t agree more. Moviegoers are a fickle and gullible bunch, myself included sometimes. Hollywood has us fooled that every good, or decent, or somewhere in the general vicinity of decent film, must have a sequel and that the memory of classics must be tainted by terrible remakes. They know that all they have to do is put together a decent trailer for a sequel and boom, people will show up in droves to the theater and they will at least make back the money it took to make it. Then, if the movie sucks, which most sequels do, the fans get all up in arms because the series gets tainted and their love of the first film usually declines as well.

It is not even just sequels, it is films that have really cool, catchy trailers, with summer blockbuster explosions, half-naked women, post-production 3D and cheesy one-liners to get people into the theater and then are cinematically abysmal.

Can you believe this made over $300 million dollars?

The audience walks out going, “Man, that sucked, why can’t Hollywood make a good movie these days?” Well, here’s a news flash, and I have harped on this before, Hollywood is a business, they care about profit and staying in the black as opposed to actual quality of their products. As long as  you keep showing up to crappy movies, they are going to make them and the modest good films will fall by the wayside and never reach an audience.

I am not saying to boycott going to the movies, I think it is a great activity, but I am advocating doing a little bit of research before you just march right into the theater and shell over money to Hollywood for making crap and taking advantage of the average moviegoers’ gullibility. Scott Pilgrim, while I wouldn’t go so far as to say it was incredible, was definitely a couple tiers above most of the box office successes of the season.

I'm looking at you Grown Ups

Chris Has Got to be Excited About This…

Written by: Brian “Pac” Sostak

George V. Higgins crime novel, Cogan’s Trade will soon be adapted to for the big screen.  The book is a dialogue driven piece about Jackie Cogan, a mob enforcer investigating a heist at a poker game for mobsters and others of the Bostonian crime persuasion.  Boston/Irish mob movies seem to be all the rage in Hollywood these days so it makes sense that this book would be adapted, and with its highly touted critical acclaim and attention to witty dialogue it seems perfect for a successful Hollywood adaptation.

What’s makes this news even more exciting though is the names that are attached to the project.  Directing the project will be Andrew Dominik, and Brad Pitt is rumored to produce and star in the film as Jackie Cogan.  Also likely to support Pitt on-screen, Casey Affleck.  Putting these three names together would be a re-teaming of The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, one of the most beautifully shot and underrated films of 2007.  For those of you who have not seen the film or don’t recognize the banner, the banner images of this blog are from that film; and if you read Chris’s posts on his 20 favorite films, you’ll notice that he is a fan.  Even this early on this film sounds like it may nab a lot of buzz once it hits theaters and I’m sure it’ll make its way into one of our Movie Mondays.  Also rumored to be attached to the project are Sam Rockwell, Mark Ruffalo, and Javier Bardem. This sounds like a great start for the cast, since most of the names attached are at the top of their game and coming off some of their best work.

Notice how I said MOST of them....

What do you think?  Does Cogan’s Trade sound like a film you’d be excited to see given the names circulating it?