Monday, March 30, 2009

**THIS JUST IN**

Bond Girl
Gemma Arterton Joins
‘Clash Of The Titans’


Gemma Arterton, the Bond girl known as “Strawberry Fields” (who met an unfortunate and oily demise in Quantum of Solace), revealed in Empire Magazine’s “Empire Awards” this past Sunday that she will be joining the cast of director Louis Leterrier’s (The Incredible Hulk) upcoming remake of Clash of The Titans (2010).



Gemma Arterton will be sharing the screen with actor Sam Worthington, who is poised for a major breakout this year with his roles as Marcus Wright in Terminator Salvation (which hits theaters this May), and a forthcoming role in James Cameron’s Avatar later this year. Not bad company to be in.



Clash of The Titans is largely based on Greek Mythology. It tells the tale of Perseus (Worthington), the son of Zeus and a human princess, Andromeda (Arterton) who embarks on a series of adventures to win true love and glory. Along his journey, Perseus manages to encounter pretty much everything to the 3 blind witches, Medusa and the Kraken.



I'm really excited about this remake and extremely happy to see it moving forward. I wouldn't have picked Worthington for Perseus, but I'm sure he'll do a good job. As for Arterton, I feel she'll do a great job as Andromeda. She definitely looks the part.

Thursday, March 26, 2009

Twilight Fans... Enjoy!

When I saw this I couldn't stop laughing. OMG! This. Is. HILARIOUS! It's by far the best Twilight parody I've seen to date - much better than that piece of crap movie they made. Even if you know nothing about the movie this will make you laugh regardless. Bella's voice is definitely my favorite part. LOL


FAVORITE QUOTE

Edward: We’ll follow you and fight them there.
Bella: Why don’t we just lure them somewhere here and fight 'em?
Edward: Because shut UP!

Tuesday, March 24, 2009

BEST & WORST Movie Remakes

I can’t help but wonder where all the creativity in Hollywood has gone. Take for instance all these movie remakes. They have been doing this for years now, and while some are really good attempts, most fall short. Generally remakes are lazy, cynical attempts to cash in on nostalgia of past years and are usually irredeemably lame. The fact that these movie producer and directors get paid millions on someone else’s idea kind of annoys me.

With that being said, I have decided to make a list of some of the BEST, not to mention the WORST movie remakes.

WORST

Although this (1998) version is in color and features a different cast, it is nearly a shot for shot that copies the (1960) Hitchcock's camera movements and editing. What's the point? It was a classic ripped to shreds. Thanks Cus Van Sant. (shakes head)

This (1998) remake of The Parent Trap neither strays too far from the original nor follows it too closely. Even though Lindsay Lohan was adorable in this remake (which was pretty much her last), the film was completely stripped of all its charm and beauty that made the (1961) original so adorable and memorable.

This sad remake is far inferior to the original. It’s a travesty they even considered remaking this film and furthermore it’s a slap in the face and nothing more than a cheap imitation cash-grab. Steve Martin used to be funny, and has made some very enjoyable films in the past. However, his recent remakes of previously done material have been awful stinkers.

War of the Worlds is a 2005 science fiction-DISASTER film based on H. G. Wells' original novel. An intelligent action thriller? Mmm, not quite. More like an extremely forgettable film. Sure, the special effects are astounding in this remake, but I prefer the 1953 version instead.

This film has decent special effects but that's about it. Everything else is way below average and the overall experience is resoundingly mediocre. The acting is weak and it seems the actors were there simply for the pay-check. Granted, Godzilla himself was pretty impressive, but the rest of the film was just blaaaah.



BEST

Martin Scorsese takes his first whack at the thriller genre with the remake of a 1962 classic. I feel Scorsese brought a touch of genius that changes the remake slightly from the original to make it even better.

Enter Steven Soderbergh’s world and his cast comprised of who's-who in Hollywood. Soderbergh captures the fun and spontaneity of the (1960) original without sacrificing the heist itself. George Clooney picks up where Sinatra left off - playing Danny Ocean, a felon who assembles a motley crew of misfits in order to rob three Vegas casinos simultaneously. An Excellent remake!

The Italian Job did exactly what we expected - charming us with style, wit, and the simple boldness of real-life car chases. The characters were fun and the plot, although simple, was exciting. This (2003) remake surpasses the (1969) original version, by far, which is average at best.

It's a gory, stylish, and pretty freakin’ scary movie. It's full of shocks and shrieks, which in my opinion is remarkably better than its (1974) predecessor. However, it's doubtful that the (2003) Texas Chainsaw Massacre will attain the cult status of its original, but as far as remakes go, this creepy and eerie remake is a solid piece of work.

Everything about director Peter Jackson's (2005) remake of King Kong is bigger than the (1933) original. The film is stronger, technically elaborate and more exciting than the original film. King Kong is a visually gorgeous spectacle that deserves to be seen.



If you’re going to cash in on someone else’s idea without adding some new twists and turns what’s the point? The challenge for movie remakes is for directors to supersede the older version or else it will flop faster than you can say “gee, that was stupid.” Remakes that are actually able to top their predecessors are few and far between. However, like the examples above, it's clearly proven it can be done.

In conclusion and to my greatest dismay (sigh), there is talk of remaking some of the BEST 80’s classic films ever, starting with Footloose (2010), Adventures in Babysitting (2010), Clue (2011) and The Neverending Story (2012). (shakes head) These films are amazingly perfect, not to mention crazy-rad the way they are! LEAVE. THEM. ALONE. And you know what kills me? (rolls eyes) The movies that are in dire need of a remake will most likely never see one – ahem, Twilight. (sigh) Curse you, Hollywood! But not to end on a sore note, I will say I am super excited for The Clash of the Titans (2010) remake. The original (1981) is still awesome, but with today’s special effects/CGI I have strong hopes this remake will surpass the original. I have been wanting a remake for years. Let's hope it lives up. And let's not forget the soon to be released Star Trek (5/8/09) remake. I am really excited for that one as well. It looks awesome! Here's hoping.


So readers, what are some of your best
and/or worst movie remakes?

Thursday, March 12, 2009

Movies That Just Won't Quit!

Do you miss the good old days when (movie) production companies took their time when making a movie? The out come, for the most part, was pretty good, right? It seems those days are long behind us. I've concluded that the movie industry has no shame when it comes to making sequels. It's like the industry went from, let's take our time, originality, think it through first to... how do I say this... who the heck cares, mass marketing, money profiting mongols.


To prove my point I have made a list of movies that are in the works as we speak, or shall I say as you read. These movies, in my humble opinion, should have never gone as far as they have already. I will say, however, there are few on the list that were actually pretty good in the beginning and well now (pauses and shakes head), due to the "let's keep going, more money, more money attitude" - thanks mo
vie industry (rolls eyes) - they up and ruined it for us. And let's not forget those movies on the list that were completely retarded from the very beginning and should have never seen the light of day. Why spend millions on a crap-shoot when there are starving kids in Africa?? Two words... GREED and stupidity.


Now I understand the concept of making more money, but really?... I mean, reeeeally? Why ruin a good thing? Gee, I really wish I could ask George Lucas the same question. But since I haven't won the lottery, haven't found a cure for cancer or met Johnny Depp, the universe is reminding me once again that we don't always get what we want now do we.





Tron 2.0 (2010) - Si-Fi fanatics, all over the world, most likely peed their pants at Comic Con this past year with breaking news of a sequel to the 1982 Tron. I remember watching this movie with my family long ago. It was suppose to be the top of the line in technology and visually striking and I'm sure it was for the time. But seeing it now with those out of date special effects and monstrous dish washer size computers is just funny. You can't help but laugh. The movie was fun and silly, but is it really great enough to continue with a sequel? And better yet, if it was so great why did they wait almost 30 years to proceed? Have we not learned anything?!!! Don't make me say The Godfather 3 and Indiana Jones 4. Hmm...

The Pitch: A virtual-world worker looks to take down the Master Control Program. Click here for teaser:
http://gizmodo.com/5029479/tron-2-trailer-video-makes-pants-wet-worldwide



The Ring Three (2011) - Sometimes the prequels are better than the sequels (Underworld - Rise of the Lycans, Red Dragon), but I'm a little leery about this one. The Ring was such a brilliant movie from beginning to end. The idea of making a sequel seemed so cool, but The Ring Two was far from cool. It was just embarrassing and sad, not to mention really stupid. I don't have much hope for this latest installment as I see they hired the same director as The Ring Two - Hideo Nakata. BOO!


The Pitch: The film revolves around the events that took place before the 2002 remake of The Ring starring Naomi Watts. This reported prequel will tell the story of the years before the video tape came to be and the beginning of how Samara's terror began



Scream 4 (2011) - Now I thought the first movie was fun, shocking and original. Their marketing scheme was brilliant too - Drew Barrymore, anyone? Then they made Scream 2 and 3 - blah. blah. blah. They just got worse and worse in my opinion. So all I have to say to this self righteous, ghostface killer is; "Get over your pathetic whine-whine, I'm so abused, mommy issues and GIVE. IT. UP. already! No one cares anymore!


The Pitch: Set 10 years after Scream 3, we see a group of young adults being stalked, once again by ghostface himself. Don't think Nev Campbell will be staring in this movie. Bummer, cuz I to'ally would have seen it if that were the case. (sarcasm at its best)



Final Destination: Death Trap 3-D (8/09) - Otherwise known as #4 in this ridiculous, gore-ified, (clearly) never ending tale of Mr. Death himself claiming stupid, horny kids lives one by one. I call it Darwin at its best. And what's so "final" about this movie anyway? They've been saying that for almost a decade now. FINISH IT ALREADY! Ya know? Granted, the 4th installment is in 3-D and is bound to attract more viewers then usual, but still, let's be honest, this series is lame, overplayed and should have seen its final day after the first movie in 2000. Not even the 3-D gimmick will lure me into the theater for this one.


The Pitch: If you must know, our story begins after a teen's premonition of a deadly race-car crash. He then proceeds to help save the lives of his peers. Death sets out to collect those who evaded their end. Blah. Blah. Blah. Yeah, I remember that story in the first movie. We're over it.



Cabin Fever 2: Spring Fever (2009) - (shakes head after barfing profusely) I can't 'even' begin to tell you how absurd this is...(long pause)... If someone were to ask me what the worst movie on the planet is I would say Cabin Fever (2002) while rolling my eyes. I kid you not, you will loose I.Q. points just by looking at the cover of this movie in the video store. With the dumbest plot that never explains itself and actors who clearly know the "right" people in Hollywood, this movie couldn't be more ridiculous and furthermore has NO redeeming qualities what so ever. The fact that they are making a sequel to this never-should-have-happened movie just proves my point, there are a lot of dumb-asses out there - both movie industry and movie goers alike.


The Pitch: A high school prom faces a deadly threat: a flesh-eating virus that spreads via a popular brand of bottled water. (rolls eyes)



Jeepers Creepers 3 (2011) - First of all, what the heck is with this movies title? Honestly, I'd really like to meet the guy who said to his boss, "Hey, after giving this a lot of thought I finally have a really cool name for our next movie!" And I'm sure that's exactly how it went too. So I remember watching the 1st movie with my friend back in 2001 and being completely freaked out (pause), until the first 20 minutes was up. After that the movie proceeded to take us on a downward spiral into the sty of lameness. The movie had promise till it went all Si-Fi on us. WTH?! And to hear they made a sequel?! (shakes head) WOW! And now this?! (continues to shake head)

The Pitch: It includes a prologue in the Old West and might bring back several characters from the first two films. Well, why didn't you say so? If they bring back Justin Long (He's Just Not That Into You), I'm sooooo there.


28 Months Later (2011) - Uh, what's next, 28 Years Later? And why stop there? We can go on forever with this one - 28 Decades Later, 28 Centuries Later even. (sighs) I saw the first movie back in 2002 and to be honest Zombies just don't do it for me, unless we're talking about Shawn of the Dead - great movie btw! I just don't see the fascination with zombies, and that's OK, different strokes/different folks. But what I really don't understand is how can the story line be any different from the first film? I mean it's all the same isn't? A group of humans find safety from the zombies, humans are found, humans die with the exception of one, maybe even a few, the end. The fact that they made a sequel boggled my mind a little and now this. I have no doubt after the 3rd installment they'll continue with a 4th and a 5th.


This movie is still in production, so no script has been written yet, but if you've seen the 1st or 2nd I'm pretty sure you've already seen this one.


Crank: High Voltage (4/09) -
Or better known as Crank 2. This movie oozes the words ridiculous and silly all over the screen. I'm sure it's fun for wha
t it is. I mean it has high intense energy, tons of action and a shirtless Jason Statham - yum. But even he co
uldn't persuade me to spend $10.00 on this movie. I draw the line at Transporter 3 - horrible btw.


The Pitch: Chelios faces a Chinese mobster who has stolen his nearly indestructible heart and replaced it with a battery-powered ticker that requires regular jolts of electricity to keep working. Wow, they've really outdone themselves this time folks. Be sure to look for Crank: 'IT UP' in 2011.


Fast and Furious (4/09) -
Not to be confused with THE Fast and THE Furious of course. The first movie is a
Guilty Pleasure of mine. Hey, we've all got 'em, right? After “2 Fast 2 Furious” and “Tokyo Drift” came along (which I never saw, I might add) it really set the bar low — like, really low — leaving potential for the 4th movie in this over-the-top series. I'll be the first to admit, these movies encompass bad acting and poor writing, but they're also fun and silly. And while we're on the I-admit-it-path, I will most likely see F&F when it comes out next month - which in my opinion should have been the true sequel. The other 2 should have never been made.

The Pitch: What difference does it make? Just like the three predecessors in the "F&F" franchise, this vroom-vroom, bang-bang extravaganza runs on hot wheels, sexy dames and macho men. New Model. Original Parts. Ah-Yeah!




The word on the street is they are making a
Pirates of the Caribbean 4 (2012), The Brazilian Job - aka The Italian Job 2 (2011), Bourne 4 (2010), Jurassic Park 4, and Top Gun 2.

You know, those movies were really good in the beginning and for some that's exactly where they needed to stay. It's a shame they ruined that greatness by continuing with sequel after sequel. I'm OK when they continue the story if it is done right - Bourne Supremacy/Ultimatum anyone? I'm NOT OK when they up and ruin it for no good reason other than more money, more money.


Take your time when making a movie, think of something original, write a good script, get the right actors, hold out if ya have to and more importantly LEARN WHEN TO STOP. There is no point in ruining and/or rushing a good thing. Now, I understand why the movie industry continues with these ridiculous sequels - they can be relatively cheap to make and since there's a market for these lame movies, which is unfortunate, in return they make $bank$. However, just because that is doesn't mean it should be.

Monday, March 9, 2009

The Watchmen Review

Who's watching Watchmen? Everybody apparently. This book - or comic book, graphic novel, whatever you want to call it - has been picked apart endlessly in the last 20 years since it was published. So much has been said about Watchmen. Some call it the “Holy Grail” of graphic novels, while others say the book is responsible for changing the face of modern comic books. To date, Watchmen remains the only graphic novel to win a Hugo Award, and is also the only graphic novel to appear on Time Magazine’s 2005 list of “the 100 best English-language novels from 1923 to the present.” It's no wonder this is one of the most celebrated comic books of all time.

Now I'm not a huge Watchmen fan. Frankly, I didn't know a thing about it till I saw the trailer a year ago. I am however a huge fan of comic book movies. I feel when done right (Batman, Superman, X-Men) it can translate into an exciting and interesting joy ride from start to finish. I love the comic book stories, the adventure, the action and most of all the altered universe with the realistic world backdrop in which we live in. It opens the doors for fictional creativity, which to me is fascinating.

Gritty and visually striking, Watchmen is a faithful adaptation of Alan Moore's graphic novel. We begin our story in a grimy and alternative 1985 world, in which Richard Nixon still resides in the White House, superheroes have been outlawed and the world is ticking closer to the brink of nuclear war. The only superhero still in operation is under direct control of the United States government and suddenly he is brutally murdered. This crime brings those outlawed superheroes together once again to investigate this vicious murder. "An attack on one is an attack on all of us." During their investigation they find themselves targets by an unseen enemy, who wants to kill them off one by one.

I read somewhere that if you don't read the comic book prior to seeing the movie you will be completely lost. Uh... I don't know who those people are because I followed the story line perfectly. I mean it's not rocket science. It's also not your usual comic book, action movie either. From the trailer I was expecting tons of action. Don't be fooled - it is about 15% action while the remainder is more or less character development. It was done really well that I didn't seem to mind. It was a refreshing surprise - a lot more depth then I expected, not that there's a great deal of depth, but still. When there was action those scenes were amazing! Like I said if done right comic books can translate very well on the silver screen. That's exactly what this film did.

I'm was a big fan of Zack Snyder's visionary work in 300. I had no doubt his latest work (Watchmen) would shine through with awe and wonder. I love his work, his use of color against the darkness, the special effects and most of all I love his action scenes - he slows down the action senses at just the right spot only to speed it up again. The movie was complex, thrilling, artistic, fun and exciting from start to finish. The ending was a little thought provoking too. It made'ga kinda think a little - didn't expect that coming from a superhero movie.

There's only a couple things I would have changed. I would have picked better music. I know the setting is in the mid 80's, but this is a dark movie and in my book calls for "dark" music. The light, happy-go-lucky music kind of detracted from the mood a little. Also, I will say for a comic book of this stature I felt the sex/nudity scene was unnecessary, as well as the excessive gore and violence. They could have toned down a couple scenes a tad and been just fine. Other than that I was impressed with this movie. If you're going to see this film I highly recommend seeing it at the IMAX. A-MA-ZING!!


RATING: C-


powered by: