The Blog That You’ve Read Before

For the past few years we’ve seen a steady increase in remakes at the movies. James Cameron’s Avatar and Christopher Nolan’s Inception are about the only 2 movies in recent history that have made huge numbers at the box office that aren’t based on a previous film, comic book, or any other pre-existing property. A lot of people complain about the lack of originality in the movies and question weather or not Hollywood is out of ideas.

Now I can agree with the fact that we’re running a little low on complete originality at the cinema, but I don’t believe remakes are completely worthless. I’m always interested to see a new take on an old favorite. It’s fun to see a different film maker’s take on a familiar subject and with the advances of technology and visual effects it can be exciting to see how a classic film would look with today’s resources.

I even think there are certain films from yesteryear that could benefit from a remake. One’s that had great visuals but didn’t have the budget to fully realize them. One’s with epic stories, but no thoughts of a franchise that would eventually (and unfortunately) come. Here’s a few movies that if remade with the right group of people, could be amazing.


Road House

To many, this action classic falls in the “so bad it’s good” category. I’m inclined to agree with them, but I also saw it as a franchise that never was. Patrick Swayze’s Dalton could have easily been the American counterpart to James Bond. Every movie Dalton goes to a new bar, with a new chick, and a new bad guy to take down. Its biggest obstacle as a remake is that most probably couldn’t see anyone filling Swayze’s shoes in the role of the bouncer who’s nice…until it’s time to not be nice.


Highlander

This franchise of a swashbuckling immortal clansman is the constant subject of parody these days and I’m a firm believer that most of that is thanks to the sequels that make absolutely no sense. The original Highlander as a stand alone film I still say is an epic classic with it’s biggest flaw being (spoiler alert) that it completely ended the story, leaving no logical opening for a future installments. This is of course why we get a Highlander 2 where the immortals turn out to be aliens in the future, and a third installment that completely denies the second’s existence, and a few more after that are practically unwatchable. When the remake finally gets moving (and it will), hopefully the film makers involved will lay out the story with plans of a franchise. I personally think it would be amazing to see a trilogy filmed back to back Lord of the Rings style and have each film set in a different time period and shot by a different director. Tell me that wouldn’t be awesome!


Hellraiser

The first two (of what a billion now) Hellraiser films are still pretty good by today’s standards in the make up and gore department. But now that so many horror movies are going the Batman Begins route and diving deeper into the psychological and character end of their killers, I’d say it’s time Pinhead came back to the big screen and give all the people who like the lackluster Saw franchise something to really be afraid of. I say get someone like Hugo Weaving to play pinhead and make his journey from man to cenobite the main story arc, and leave the sequels to expand that along with the originals tale of a broken families handling of the mysterious puzzle box. The rumor is Dimension Films has a director attached and a script that will be more teen focused with a PG-13 rating. i.e. It will suck big time.

What other classics do you think need to be remade?

The Blog You Saw Coming A Mile Away

This past weekend I saw the Ben Affleck bank heist film The Town and the first words I heard from the audience when the closing credits rolled was a guy 2 rows behind me saying “how predictable”. My first thought of response was “fuck you man, that movie was amazing” and my almost immediate second thought was that I didn’t agree, and even if I did, I didn’t care.

Of course that guy 2 rows back was a pretentious douchebag who had that statement planned and ready to spout probably before the movie even started, but it still got me thinking. I really hate when someone spoils the ending of a movie or tells me everything that happens. Let me figure it out on my own, but does it really matter if a movie is “predictable”? Does the movie completely suck if it goes down the way you thought it would? And really, aren’t all (or at least most) movies pretty predictable? Did you really think that the Titanic wasn’t gonna sink?

I’m a firm believer that it’s the journey and not the destination that makes a movie entertaining. I want to see a movie that has a good story, good characters, and good visuals, and as long as the complete package is satisfying I’m happy. An ending that comes completely out of left field may not be predictable, but it’s also not necessarily satisfying. I saw the indie film Catfish this weekend and all of the marketing (or lack there of) behind it was not showing too much and just promoting how unexpected the events of the third act were. This idea got me so pumped to see it. I couldn’t wait to see it and find out what was going to happen. So I went, and the first 2/3 of the movie were pretty enjoyable and interesting, and it was going down a path of complete uncertainty. But then it got to the reveal, and although I would have never predicted it in a million years, I was beyond disappointed. For me, it just goes to show that different does not automatically mean good.

Now don’t get me wrong, there are sometimes when unpredictable can mean completely awesome for a film. An ending that comes as a complete surprise, but still makes sense, is a rare but amazing thing. The last five minutes of The Mist I would’ve never have guessed, but it went along with the social commentary of the rest of the film and how quick we are to take the “easy way out” and jump to insane conclusions in intense situations, not to mention that it ensured the movie would be talked about years after its release. David Fincher’s Se7en is another prime example of an unpredictable ending in cinema. Not only did most not really expect it to happen (even though they’ll tell you they saw it coming to impress you), it made the movie what it is, the go to guide on how to make an amazing crime drama.

At the end of the day, a good movie is a good movie, regardless if I figured out every little twist and turn before it happened or not. What are your thoughts? Does knowing what’s going to happen in a movie effect how much you enjoy the movie?

Punisher War Journal: The Blog File

Frank thinking he's getting too old for this shit.

So this weekend at the San Diego Comic Con (which I sadly did not attend) Marvel announced that they are yet again going to reboot the Punisher film franchise. This will now be the fourth time an attempt has been made to make a movie based on the violent vigilante. The first time was in 1989 with a Dolph Lundgren, followed by Thomas Jane in 2004, and finally (and unfortunately) in 2008 with Ray Setevenson. All three films were far from box office success stories. The upcoming film will be made directly by Marvel who now has complete creative control over the film version of Frank Castle.

I read this news and was actually kind of intrigued. I’m all for Marvel trying again after the last 3 didn’t work. Keep doing it until you get it right I guess. I only have one question: Why hasn’t a good Punisher movie been made?

It’s not like the character is all that complex. Former soldier turned family man Frank Castle’s wife and kids get killed by the mob and he flips out, taking all of his training and exacting vengeance on the criminal underworld of New York with a skull painted on his shirt, and that’s about it. Yet they still find ways to mess it up.

Dolph Lundgren was completely flat in a cheesy direct to video version. Thomas Jane was a great Punisher, but everyone and everything else around him was weak. The Punisher in Florida? Come on. And Ray Stevenson was barely given any lines in Punisher: War Zone, which felt more like a slasher movie than a comic book/action film.

If Marvel wants to do it right they need to get a leading man who can capture the brooding anger and intensity of the Punisher. This guy is a tortured soul to the nth degree and has the training and tools to turn that torture on his enemies. He’s not a traditional super-hero and the film makers that take on the project should be aware of that and should sample ideas and the tone from movies like Taxi Driver and Man on Fire rather than Spider-Man. The Punisher is killing mobsters and common criminals in back alleys, not super villains on roof tops. Frank Castle is more like Travis Bickle than Peter Parker. Movies like the original Mad Max, Death Wish, and even Gran Torino have way more in common with what a Punisher movie should be like than X-Men, Iron Man, and The Incredible Hulk.

In a perfect world, Martin Scorsese or Tony Scott would be directing this new Punisher movie and they would get a credible actor who could approach the character with the mental, physical, and emotional devotion that he deserves. Like I said, I’m intrigued, but something tells me I should prepare for a fourth disappointment.

THE BLOG THAT BOMBED (BUT IT'S STILL AWESOME)

Everyone’s got one. That one movie that they love so much and watch again and again, but everyone else can’t stand and didn’t even turn a profit at the box office. You might not share to the world that you dig it, but as soon as you get home you pop in the DVD (because it hasn’t done well enough to get a blu-ray release yet) and you end your day with a smile on your face.

There are also the types of people that fight for their flops. They stand up for them and will get in heated discussions that make the Friday night party at your friend’s house either extremely awkward or 10 times more awesome. Every flaw that audiences and critics point out is shot down with justifications and explanations and they will not rest until your opinion is identical to theirs.

I’d say I’m a mix of the two sides. I can totally admit a movie is complete crap, but still enjoy it, but there are some movies that get ripped on that I believe are far better than most people think and wish more people would give it a second, deeper, look at.

Some examples of ‘flops’ I stand by are:


The Fountain

Darren Aronofsky’s science fiction love story that spans 1,000 years didn’t even make 1/3 of its production budget back, and it’s not necessarily a surprise. The storytelling relies the viewer to decipher a lot of things on their own and its beautiful but extremely unconventional styling of the future and space travel would leave the mass movie going public scratching their heads. I’m not calling general audiences dumb, but I do notice that a sequel to Baby Geniuses got made. But what people who haven’t seen this are missing is one of the most original films of the decade with a heart breaking love story and visuals that rival sci-fi classics. Clint Mansell’s wonderful score take this film to an even higher place and is worth listening to as its own masterpiece.


Constantine

I can still hear all the fanboys whining that Keanu Reeves wasn’t blonde, British, or in a brown coat. But let’s not forget that in the comics The Joker does not have a Glasgow grin scar, Spider-Man doesn’t have organic web shooters, and the X-men didn’t wear black jump suits, and all those movies were pretty well received. I’ve only read a handful of the John Constantine: Hellblazer comics and thought they were ok, but I thought Francis Lawrence’s directorial debut based on the DC/Vertigo comic was amazing. It had sleek Blade Runner-esque look, some interesting takes on Heaven, Hell, demons, and angels, and was just a fun time on top of that. Keanu Reeves portrayal as a rogue exorcist who knows Heaven exists, but guaranteed to go to Hell was honestly one of his strongest performances and shows he can carry a movie without saying “woah”. All that along with Rachel Weisz looking her best and Peter Stormare in the most unique take on Lucifer make this a movie I watch again and again.


Halloween II

Most agree that Rob Zombie’s Batman Begins origin approach to his Halloween remake was pretty good. Unfortunately, most also agree that his sequel was horrible. I’m gonna have to disagree. Zombie’s original remake of the classic slasher was great, but I thought his follow up in Halloween II was nothing short of brilliant. Scout Taylor-Compton’s performance as Laurie Strode made me really believe these events happened and this girl was truly tormented and the character of Michael Myers actually had just that, character. Most saw the return of Sheri Moon-Zombie in the ‘white horse’ scenes as a bit too supernatural and out of place for the franchise, but I saw a unique psychological view of the Myers family and gave more insight and emotional weight to Michael Myers. Overall what did it for me was Zombie’s complete lack of fear in making this movie. He wasn’t afraid to completely turn the franchise on its head, try new things, and take it in a darker, more serious direction than any other slasher movie, even if it meant losing some fans in the process.

Those are just some of mine. I could do about 10 more blogs on movies of this nature, and maybe I will down the road. Leave a comment below with your favorite flops and why you think they deserve more credit.

That's A Response

http://www.hitfix.com/articles/2010-7-11-exclusive-edward-norton-s-agent-responds-to-marvel-ceo-s-statement

This Just In 7/10/09

Hulk angry because Hulk not know who play him in movie. RARRRRR!


Marvel has just announced that they plan to find a new 'name' actor to play Bruce Banner/The Hulk in the upcoming Avengers movie rather than bring back Edward Norton. Marvel Studios President Kevin Feige issued the following statement:

"We have made the decision to not bring Ed Norton back to portray the title role of Bruce Banner in the Avengers. Our decision is definitely not one based on monetary factors, but instead rooted in the need for an actor who embodies the creativity and collaborative spirit of our other talented cast members. The Avengers demands players who thrive working as part of an ensemble, as evidenced by Robert, Chris H, Chris E, Sam, Scarlett, and all of our talented casts. We are looking to announce a name actor who fulfills these requirements, and is passionate about the iconic role in the coming weeks."

First off, that's kind of a low blow/attack on Edward Norton and just a douche way of saying it. Edward Norton is a good actor and I feel this statement is implying he's garbage. You don't want to bring him back, whatever, you don't have to mudsling. Unprofessional sir.

Second, it's not over money? I don't believe you. Marvel is notorious for low balling their actors when it comes to pay. It was rumored that's why Terrance Howard didn't come back for Iron Man 2 and why Sam Jackson almost didn't come back to play Nick Fury. Even Chris Evans was rumored to be paid only $500,000 for Captain America. Norton's a higher up actor who's not past his prime, so I think money had at least a little to do with it.

So you're short a guy for your ensemble movie you're leading up to with all of your other movies. What are you gonna do now? Bring Eric Bana back? That'll piss off even more fanboys. You want a 'name' actor? It'll be interested to hear their choice.

One article I read on the matter made a suggestion that I found to be brilliant and probably the only one that would make this nerd remotely happy. The name they gave was


Sharlto Copely

Maybe not an obvious choice to some, but the District 9 star has got more than what it takes for this role. His physical appearance isn't drastically different than Norton's from the last Hulk movie (not as drastic as the difference between Don Cheadle and Terrance Howard anyway), he's got some star power steam going with District 9 and the A-Team both being well received, and the guy has proven he can act. Even the A-Team was an ensemble/team cast so Marvel can already see he's good in that environment.

Although idealy I would rather see Norton return to the lab coat of Bruce Banner, this is an excellent second choice that wouldn't take me out of the Avengers movie that has about as much going for it as it does working against it at this point.

WHY AREN’T VIDEO GAME MOVIES GOOD?

So this weekend I went down to my local theater and checked out the big movie released this weekend (Sex and the City doesn’t count ‘cause I’m a guy and it’s crap) Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time. I went into it with uncertain expectations. It had a few negative points for me going in. For starters, it’s based on a video game, a sub-genre that is synonymous with terrible reviews that are typically accurate. There’s also the fact that the ads keep pushing the fact that it’s from the studio and producer of Pirates of the Caribbean films a franchise I personally found to be overrated, dragged out, and frankly just not that good.

On the positive side, I find Jake Gyllenhaal to be an under rated actor and the director Mike Newell is the director of the only Harry Potter movie I’ve watched more than once. All of that and the fact that newcomer Gemma Arterton is amazingly good looking made me think it was worth a shot. So what did I think when the house lights came up?

I absolutely LOVED it!

From start to finish, I found Prince of Persia to be completely entertaining. The visuals were continuously strong, the story was simple but held my attention, and all of the performances were great. Now, I’m not saying this movie was Oscar caliber, insanely original, or extremely deep and thought provoking. I’m just saying that it was an extremely satisfying way to sit back, relax, and spend two hours of my weekend, which is what summer movies should be…unless you’re The Dark Knight and then you can be fun and deep all at once.

So the awesomeness that this movie brought raised one major question: Why aren’t all video game movies this good?

Nearly every movie that’s been based off of a video game has been bad, if not completely awful. Sure, the Resident Evil movies made money, but let’s be honest nerds, they are nothing special. I can watch the first Mortal Kombat movie, but I’m completely aware of its huge plot holes. Then there are the ones like Super Mario Bors. Wing Commander, Double Dragon, House of the Dead, and all the other ones Uwe Boll directed that are just atrocious and a waste of time. It seems Prince of Persia is alone with the exception of Silent Hill in the good video game adaptation category.

What makes it worse is that it doesn’t have to be this way. There are plenty of video games that have amazing visuals that would look fantastic on the big screen. Some of them even have decent story lines, and the ones that don’t, just leave that much more room for the filmmakers to thicken it out. Street Fighter has had not one, but two, horrible cinematic interpretations, despite its simple yet effective story and the colorful characters in it. Super Mario is one of the most well known characters in the world, but Hollywood thought it’d be smart the take all the things familiar and recognizable from the game and change it so audiences would scratch their heads and wonder what the hell they just watched.

The bottom line is, Hollywood needs to pull their heads out of their asses in the video game movie area. Video games are huge business, and so are movies. I don’t really see why video game movies can’t have the same success as comic book movies. They just need to spend the time and get decent writers and more decent directors to take them on and we’ll have more awesome adaptations like Prince of Persia.

I could be wrong of course. I read the weekend reports, and it looks like, despite being the most entertaining movie so far this year, Prince of Pearsia: The Sands of Time isn’t fairing that well at the box office.