For some time now word has been floating around that the old video game Spy Hunter was planned to be made into a movie. The original game dates back to the 80's, and was a coin-op, on the Atari and NES game systems. For those that have never seen it here is a video
It was later updated to a more modern version featuring the voice (and image) of Duane "The Rock" Johnson
In fact, in 2005ish there was talk of The Rock starring in the movie based on the game at the time. It was expected that John Woo would direct, which made fans drool. But the deal fell through due to money.
The idea was kept alive though when Paul W.S. Anderson, of the Soldier, Death Race, and Resident Evil series fame, was attached to the concept. Which might have also been good, though he also made Mortal Kombat.
Now things look like they are moving forward. Chad St. John has been writing a script for the film version for Warner Bros. They now own the rights, along with all of the Midway games rights.
St. John is known for nothing yet, but he will be the writer responsible for the Sgt. Rock movie (comic book to movie conversion), Outland (remake sci-fi), and Motor City (action). It's a wide range, but who knows if any will be good or what his best genre is.
Still I could see this movie being really good, a kind of Jason Bourne on wheels, or miserable, Knight Rider as a motion picture.
The concept so far is that the Spy Hunter is a merc that goes after rogue spies and removes them. It could work really well. I wonder who they might get to direct and be the lead? And suggestions?
Keep this on your radar. Expect more information in early 2011, possibly late this year.
Showing posts with label action movie. Show all posts
Showing posts with label action movie. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Friday, March 19, 2010
Willis and Foxx are Kane & Lynch
So what do you get when you take a video game, 2 a-list celebrities, and decide to make a movie? Well you can either have a great movie (probably Prince of Persia), a good movie (Resident Evil, Hitman, Max Payne), or you can have crap (BloodRayne, Super Mario Brothers, Double Dragon, ect).
In this case the video game is Kane & Lynch. If you aren't familiar with the game it can be summed up by this video.
Yep, this is a game all about the massive kills, explosions, and mayhem that can be done with a modern video game system. And like most video games these days there is a solid backstory, character development, and solid graphics.
The one thing the game does not have are any real heroes. Both lead characters are scum. Neither is honorable, justified, or innocent. Which makes the copious amounts of violence understandable, as no hero would inflict this kind of pain on innocents.
Now take that and imagine this on the big screen. It's just not possible. Especially when you consider that Kane will be played by Bruce Willis, and Lynch is reported to be Jamie Foxx.
I'm not saying either actor is incapable, because they can definitely act. It's that the characters, as they exist, are just too violent and despicable for movie theaters. Willis and Foxx have also built up reputations as playing good guys, or at least the most good person in a movie of very grey characters. The roles of Kane & Lynch will dent those on-screen images. Which might be a reason for the actors to take the roles.
Still I see massive rewriting in the film version. I expect that at least Kane, possible also Lynch, will be toned down. The characters will be made less homicidal, and given a heroic cause for the mayhem they will create. Possibly even a bit of redemption too. Which could destroy the feel of the movie, or could cause viewers to cheer on the leads. It all depends on the writing.
And writing is something that Hollywood has been skimping on these days.
Whichever way the film goes, it will be interesting to see how it all comes together. Plus watching Willis and Foxx in an action movie sounds fun. Like the match up of Willis and Damon Wayans in the Last Boyscout (a good film by the way), but with a lot more action.
Figure it will be 1 - 2 years before the film is out. Until then, you can play Kane & Lynch 2 (out in August) and just imagine the film to come.
In this case the video game is Kane & Lynch. If you aren't familiar with the game it can be summed up by this video.
Yep, this is a game all about the massive kills, explosions, and mayhem that can be done with a modern video game system. And like most video games these days there is a solid backstory, character development, and solid graphics.
The one thing the game does not have are any real heroes. Both lead characters are scum. Neither is honorable, justified, or innocent. Which makes the copious amounts of violence understandable, as no hero would inflict this kind of pain on innocents.
Now take that and imagine this on the big screen. It's just not possible. Especially when you consider that Kane will be played by Bruce Willis, and Lynch is reported to be Jamie Foxx.
I'm not saying either actor is incapable, because they can definitely act. It's that the characters, as they exist, are just too violent and despicable for movie theaters. Willis and Foxx have also built up reputations as playing good guys, or at least the most good person in a movie of very grey characters. The roles of Kane & Lynch will dent those on-screen images. Which might be a reason for the actors to take the roles.
Still I see massive rewriting in the film version. I expect that at least Kane, possible also Lynch, will be toned down. The characters will be made less homicidal, and given a heroic cause for the mayhem they will create. Possibly even a bit of redemption too. Which could destroy the feel of the movie, or could cause viewers to cheer on the leads. It all depends on the writing.
And writing is something that Hollywood has been skimping on these days.
Whichever way the film goes, it will be interesting to see how it all comes together. Plus watching Willis and Foxx in an action movie sounds fun. Like the match up of Willis and Damon Wayans in the Last Boyscout (a good film by the way), but with a lot more action.
Figure it will be 1 - 2 years before the film is out. Until then, you can play Kane & Lynch 2 (out in August) and just imagine the film to come.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Movie Preview: The Expendables
Sometimes a movie is just what you expect it to be. With the Expendables the promise is action, explosions, and a few snappy lines. I see no reason for the film to fail to deliver on all 3.
This is an action movie first and foremost. It's a combination of the stars of the 80's and the latest action movies. Stallone, Lungdren, Rourke, Statham, Li, and Austin. What a combination of testosterone, with enough bullets and explosiuons to level a mid-sized city. Which is pretty much the plan of the film.
The plot is simple enough. A group of mostly older mecenaries is hired to take out a South American dictator. Along the way they get double crossed by former associates, and have to fight to survive. Cliche but it works.
If you were going to see this film with the hope of understanding the greater meaning film can bring to the inhumanity of war and combat, wrong film.
The fight scenes look good (and they should since Stone Cold Austin would up fracturing Slyvester Stallone's neck in their fight scene). Obviously the stars of this film all will get their moment to show off their particular talents and style. But we can also see that plenty of money was spent to ensure the battles would look huge and devastating. Because in an action film there is no such thing as overkill.
Plus there looks to be more than a few well timed and funny one-liners and situational jokes. Likely there will be other attempts that will fail, but as long as the writers didn't try to fill every scene with a hoped for catchy phrase (Like in Running Man with the Governator) it should work more often than not.
Also keep an eye out for the rest of the 80's stars. Which includes Arnold Schwarzenegger and Bruce Willis. Forest Whitaker had a role written for him, but had to drop out, initially to be replaced by 50 Cent (the thought sends a chill down my spine), and ultimately filled by Terry Crews who should fill in well. Jean-Claude Van Damme, Steven Seagal, and Kurt Russell all turned down roles in the film. Which is a shame as they really would have completed the mix of 80's to current action film stars.
This won't win Oscars, or likely any award other than from Spike TV or MTV. But this will almost certainly be one of the biggest money makers of the year. The real question is who out of the entire cast will have the best fight scene? My money goes on Jason Statham. Best one liner will almost definitely go to Stallone - it is his movie after all.
**Spoiler Alert**
Not everyone on the team will survive (Li and Crews are the likely victims). But there is already talk that those who do, will be in a sequel. Seagal and Russell might make it yet.
This is an action movie first and foremost. It's a combination of the stars of the 80's and the latest action movies. Stallone, Lungdren, Rourke, Statham, Li, and Austin. What a combination of testosterone, with enough bullets and explosiuons to level a mid-sized city. Which is pretty much the plan of the film.
The plot is simple enough. A group of mostly older mecenaries is hired to take out a South American dictator. Along the way they get double crossed by former associates, and have to fight to survive. Cliche but it works.
If you were going to see this film with the hope of understanding the greater meaning film can bring to the inhumanity of war and combat, wrong film.
The fight scenes look good (and they should since Stone Cold Austin would up fracturing Slyvester Stallone's neck in their fight scene). Obviously the stars of this film all will get their moment to show off their particular talents and style. But we can also see that plenty of money was spent to ensure the battles would look huge and devastating. Because in an action film there is no such thing as overkill.
Plus there looks to be more than a few well timed and funny one-liners and situational jokes. Likely there will be other attempts that will fail, but as long as the writers didn't try to fill every scene with a hoped for catchy phrase (Like in Running Man with the Governator) it should work more often than not.
Also keep an eye out for the rest of the 80's stars. Which includes Arnold Schwarzenegger and Bruce Willis. Forest Whitaker had a role written for him, but had to drop out, initially to be replaced by 50 Cent (the thought sends a chill down my spine), and ultimately filled by Terry Crews who should fill in well. Jean-Claude Van Damme, Steven Seagal, and Kurt Russell all turned down roles in the film. Which is a shame as they really would have completed the mix of 80's to current action film stars.
This won't win Oscars, or likely any award other than from Spike TV or MTV. But this will almost certainly be one of the biggest money makers of the year. The real question is who out of the entire cast will have the best fight scene? My money goes on Jason Statham. Best one liner will almost definitely go to Stallone - it is his movie after all.
**Spoiler Alert**
Not everyone on the team will survive (Li and Crews are the likely victims). But there is already talk that those who do, will be in a sequel. Seagal and Russell might make it yet.
Monday, March 01, 2010
Movie Preview: Repo Men
If flattery is the highest form of compliment, then Hollywood gives more compliments than a politician trying toget funds to get re-elected. But Hollywood is usually a bit less blatant in its compliments than the upcoming film Repo Men is.
Repo Men is the rip off of 2 film predominantly. Logan's Run and Repo! the Genetic Opera. You might have heard of Logan's Run but I doubt you heard of Repo!
The plot is basic. Our hero is running from the bad guys. In this case he is a former repo man - in a world where augmenting the body is a life-saving and profitable business, those that don't pay lose whatever was replaced. Repo men are the guys that collect on the bad debt. Remy (Jude Law) and his partner Jake (Forest Whitaker) are the best at collections. Remy winds up getting an augment, and failing to pay becomes next on the list for collection.
You've seen this movie in Logan's Run, as the former pair of friends now are at odds with each other. You saw a take on the idea in Running Man, as the oppressive authority forces a hero to rise up and the people to join him.
What you didn't see is how it works in a world like this. That's where Repo! comes in.
Given that Repo! had Paris Hilton in it, and it's a musical. 2 great reasons you never saw the film. But ti doesn't make Repo Men any more original. Still the question is if it is a good movie.
Well the film looks better than Repo! which says a lot. Plus it does NOT have Paris Hilton in it, which is a HUGE statement for it's quality.
Forest Whitaker is a great actor. He has been in more than a few great films. So to see him in this adds credibility to the film, and an assurance that it's not a complete waste of time.
Jude Law is also a solid actor and more than capable of a film of this nature. So again this is a plus for the film.
The fact that it copies some of the more time honored ideas in Hollywood, friends as rivals, futuristic drama, decent helpings of actions and new gadgets, helps.
This is yet another non-Oscar worthy film. Which means that someone besides the Oscar community will see it. It will likely give action and sci-fi fans what they are looking for. Some ladies (possibly men too I suppose) will get their fix of Law, and the afrocentric crowd gets Whitaker in a lead support role. It's got almost something for everyone.
I would see this in a theater. It's likely better than most of the films coming out for the 2010 summer blockbuster season. And considering the repercussions of the recession, this will be one of the few films of any note for most of the year. Though it won't be the last rip-off film, it is far from the worst.
Repo Men is the rip off of 2 film predominantly. Logan's Run and Repo! the Genetic Opera. You might have heard of Logan's Run but I doubt you heard of Repo!
The plot is basic. Our hero is running from the bad guys. In this case he is a former repo man - in a world where augmenting the body is a life-saving and profitable business, those that don't pay lose whatever was replaced. Repo men are the guys that collect on the bad debt. Remy (Jude Law) and his partner Jake (Forest Whitaker) are the best at collections. Remy winds up getting an augment, and failing to pay becomes next on the list for collection.
You've seen this movie in Logan's Run, as the former pair of friends now are at odds with each other. You saw a take on the idea in Running Man, as the oppressive authority forces a hero to rise up and the people to join him.
What you didn't see is how it works in a world like this. That's where Repo! comes in.
Given that Repo! had Paris Hilton in it, and it's a musical. 2 great reasons you never saw the film. But ti doesn't make Repo Men any more original. Still the question is if it is a good movie.
Well the film looks better than Repo! which says a lot. Plus it does NOT have Paris Hilton in it, which is a HUGE statement for it's quality.
Forest Whitaker is a great actor. He has been in more than a few great films. So to see him in this adds credibility to the film, and an assurance that it's not a complete waste of time.
Jude Law is also a solid actor and more than capable of a film of this nature. So again this is a plus for the film.
The fact that it copies some of the more time honored ideas in Hollywood, friends as rivals, futuristic drama, decent helpings of actions and new gadgets, helps.
This is yet another non-Oscar worthy film. Which means that someone besides the Oscar community will see it. It will likely give action and sci-fi fans what they are looking for. Some ladies (possibly men too I suppose) will get their fix of Law, and the afrocentric crowd gets Whitaker in a lead support role. It's got almost something for everyone.
I would see this in a theater. It's likely better than most of the films coming out for the 2010 summer blockbuster season. And considering the repercussions of the recession, this will be one of the few films of any note for most of the year. Though it won't be the last rip-off film, it is far from the worst.
Friday, February 26, 2010
Who would you pick for Captain America?
The craze for comic book to movie conversions continues unabated. One of the bigger concepts is for one of the most symbolic characters in comic books. Captain America.
Much like Uncle Sam, Captian America is a symbol of the American way of life. He is even more of the living embodiment of our laws and national view than even Superman was meant to represent. He is the Red White and Blue in action, with the highest levels of vitrue and honor intact.
Because such a character is so tied to what America is and can be, a movie version of this hero demands high attention. It's not just another comic-movie, its a statement. So the writing and the acting must be spot on. Even if the movie fails, it can't be because the lead sounds like a buffoon, and looks like an inbred redneck (as an example).
Thus the casting call is out right now for The Captain America. The key prerequisites? Well he has to be White, because Hollywood couldn't imagine anyone with more color than a tan being a symbol of America (plus the comic book character has always been White). He has to be American. He should be in his mid-20's to early 30 (depending on the exact timeline he could be as young as 18 - 20 but 25ish seems more of a likely middle ground). And while the comic book champion has never been considered astoundingly good looking, an actor with better than average looks will likely be picked. (for those that want to say Tom Cruise - he is too old, too short, and honestly not a good enough actor in my opinion)
So far the choices have been John Krasinski, Michael Cassidy, Patrick Flueger, Scott Porter, Wilson Bethel, Chace Crawford, Jensen Ackles, and Garret Hedlund. Not one of which I can recall by name nor am I aware of anything they have been in. But that can bode well since all of these actors are not weighed down with prior expectations of ability, nor are they typecast to any degree. Being relative unknowns allows them to capture part of the everyman aspect of Captain America that is critical for the character (as much as a White, blonde, mid-western, christian man can embody everyone in America anyway).
But here is the question I pose to you. If you could have any actor, living or dead, play the role of Captain America, who whould you pick? Why?
Much like Uncle Sam, Captian America is a symbol of the American way of life. He is even more of the living embodiment of our laws and national view than even Superman was meant to represent. He is the Red White and Blue in action, with the highest levels of vitrue and honor intact.
Because such a character is so tied to what America is and can be, a movie version of this hero demands high attention. It's not just another comic-movie, its a statement. So the writing and the acting must be spot on. Even if the movie fails, it can't be because the lead sounds like a buffoon, and looks like an inbred redneck (as an example).
Thus the casting call is out right now for The Captain America. The key prerequisites? Well he has to be White, because Hollywood couldn't imagine anyone with more color than a tan being a symbol of America (plus the comic book character has always been White). He has to be American. He should be in his mid-20's to early 30 (depending on the exact timeline he could be as young as 18 - 20 but 25ish seems more of a likely middle ground). And while the comic book champion has never been considered astoundingly good looking, an actor with better than average looks will likely be picked. (for those that want to say Tom Cruise - he is too old, too short, and honestly not a good enough actor in my opinion)
So far the choices have been John Krasinski, Michael Cassidy, Patrick Flueger, Scott Porter, Wilson Bethel, Chace Crawford, Jensen Ackles, and Garret Hedlund. Not one of which I can recall by name nor am I aware of anything they have been in. But that can bode well since all of these actors are not weighed down with prior expectations of ability, nor are they typecast to any degree. Being relative unknowns allows them to capture part of the everyman aspect of Captain America that is critical for the character (as much as a White, blonde, mid-western, christian man can embody everyone in America anyway).
But here is the question I pose to you. If you could have any actor, living or dead, play the role of Captain America, who whould you pick? Why?
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Movie Preview: King of Fighters
I love kung-fu movies. Bruce Lee, Jackie Chan, Jet Li. There is something about a well done martial arts movie that just draws in fans by the boatloads. I mean Jean Claude Van Damme is anything but Oscar material, yet one good movie (Bloodsport) made him a star.
But that's when a martial arts movie is done well. Then there are those movies that stand out for being different (by American standards) with stars we are just dying to see more of. Movies of this type include the well done Ong Bak (and Ong Bak 2) and Chocolate (Thai film).
King of Fighters doesn't fall into any of those categories. It is in the realm of films like Mortal Kombat: Annilhation, Street Fighter, and all the other video game to movie conversions. In other words this is a movie not worth seeing.
The first thing I know will shock you is that this is a $12 million film. That wouldn't be so bad except it looks like a low budget quickie film. I would sooner expect this quality to come from a SyFy Channel "original" film than a major motion picture.
Obviously most of the money probably wasn't spent on the look of the film. And the writing appears to be equally as thin. This style of conversion film rarely cares about plot, or logic. They just need to get from one fight to another, which can still be worth watching if the fighting is good. It's not.
Ray Park is hands down a respected martial artist. His name may not be the most familiar, but his most famous role is. Darth Maul. Yep, this is him (he also was Toad in the first X-Men movie).
Will Yun Lee has respectable martial arts movie skill. He's been in Elektra (the lead bad guy), the short lived televison show Thief (which was quite good), and several other films and movies. He will also be the in the upcoming Red Dawn remake.
Maggie Q is perhaps easiest of the films stars to recognize. She was featured as part of the IMF team in Mission Impossible III. She was the "crazy kicking chick" that beat the crap out of Bruce Willis (till he dropped a SUV on her) in Live Free or Die Hard. She is indeed interesting to watch.
Given the talent of this film you might expect that the movie would be good. But then there are the minor issues of plot, scenery, lot's of CGI and special effects. Put a diamond into crap and you won't notice it shine.
Either the director, movie studio, and whatever other exec involved wanted to lower the expectations (which the movie trailer does in spades) or the film is what I believe it is. It's a shame because I like the cast. But I won't spend $20 to have a bad time. I suggest you don't either.
But that's when a martial arts movie is done well. Then there are those movies that stand out for being different (by American standards) with stars we are just dying to see more of. Movies of this type include the well done Ong Bak (and Ong Bak 2) and Chocolate (Thai film).
King of Fighters doesn't fall into any of those categories. It is in the realm of films like Mortal Kombat: Annilhation, Street Fighter, and all the other video game to movie conversions. In other words this is a movie not worth seeing.
The first thing I know will shock you is that this is a $12 million film. That wouldn't be so bad except it looks like a low budget quickie film. I would sooner expect this quality to come from a SyFy Channel "original" film than a major motion picture.
Obviously most of the money probably wasn't spent on the look of the film. And the writing appears to be equally as thin. This style of conversion film rarely cares about plot, or logic. They just need to get from one fight to another, which can still be worth watching if the fighting is good. It's not.
Ray Park is hands down a respected martial artist. His name may not be the most familiar, but his most famous role is. Darth Maul. Yep, this is him (he also was Toad in the first X-Men movie).
Will Yun Lee has respectable martial arts movie skill. He's been in Elektra (the lead bad guy), the short lived televison show Thief (which was quite good), and several other films and movies. He will also be the in the upcoming Red Dawn remake.
Maggie Q is perhaps easiest of the films stars to recognize. She was featured as part of the IMF team in Mission Impossible III. She was the "crazy kicking chick" that beat the crap out of Bruce Willis (till he dropped a SUV on her) in Live Free or Die Hard. She is indeed interesting to watch.
Given the talent of this film you might expect that the movie would be good. But then there are the minor issues of plot, scenery, lot's of CGI and special effects. Put a diamond into crap and you won't notice it shine.
Either the director, movie studio, and whatever other exec involved wanted to lower the expectations (which the movie trailer does in spades) or the film is what I believe it is. It's a shame because I like the cast. But I won't spend $20 to have a bad time. I suggest you don't either.
Monday, January 25, 2010
Movie Review: Legion
What do you expect from a film that has the name of a demon, the revisioned plot of Armmagedom on Earth, and Angels that are anything but angelic? In general you get a mix of The Prophesy, Terminator, and perhaps a bit of the Road Warrior.
I realize that is an odd mix of generally good to great films. And to put them all together in one film sounds strange, and unlikely. Yet Legion does all of that. Sadly the end product is not as good as any of its parts.
Let's just jump right into the plot. God has suddenly lost faith in humanity. No reason why or why now. Yet there is an unborn child that can save humanity; from what is never stated. We can stop right there.
I'm not the most religious individual. But my understanding of God, in any religion, is that the closest non-religious word would be omnipotent. How could anything stop God? Ok, taking a slightly different tack, the Angels. They are powerful beyond belief, smoting entire cities and virtually beyond comprehension to see. The Archangels are even more powerful than that.
So in this movie, these powerful beings have no choice but to takeover the bodies of the innocent (children) and weak-willed to try to kill the mother of the would be future savior. Hello Terminator. Except not one of these possessed beings has a gun, blowtorch, lighter, not even so much as a wiffle ball bat. They won't even use their cars to get into a small, unfortified, old diner where the unborn child is at.
Ok, here I am thinking again. If this is all to kill the child, why wait until mere days before the birth? Angels are not restricted by time. Why not go back to the conception of the child, or the birth of the mom-to-be? Why not have Gabriel (one of the Archangels) walk in at the very begining and kill her then? Or have a city smoting lesser angel turn the diner and all in it to salt?
Ok, over thinking. Back to the movie.
Michael (another Archangel) chooses to become human to save this woman. So he goes out to the diner in the middle of nowhere just in time for fending off the horde of possessed humans that arrive. Not that their overwhelming numbers are used to swarm the diner. All of this leading to a confrontation between the now human Michael and Gabriel.
Simply put the plot sucks. There is just too much to try to suspend your belief on. This requires more than a leap of faith it requires absolutely the vaccuation of thought.
But if you think the action will save this film, give the movie a reason to charge $9 a ticket, you will again be disappointed. There is a small bit of gunplay, mostly after the middle of the film. It's short lived, much like half of the cast. Truely there is nothing impressive about the effects or the action. Many B-movies have more and better.
So what about the cast? Well there is Paul Bettany who is a good actor and becoming a known name. He also has a penchant for quasi-religious characters (he was the albino in The DaVinci Code). He is Michael and does a decent job of being brooding, direct, and less than comforting. His action scenes are fair, and he is moderately believeable given the shortcomings of the plot.
Charles Dutton plays a short-order cook with only one hand and a prosthetic hook. You get the feeling, though it is never clear, that he might have been in Viet Nam. Of course since my father had the same prosthetic and was a vet I may be projecting. Beyond that, the character is unremarkable. He looks concerned when he should, rushes around like everyone, and dies a noble but useless death.
Then there is Dennis Quaid. Like Dutton, far better an actor than this film deserves or requires. He is the father of a key character and owner of the forlorn diner. He is a grizzled man who gave up on life as all his dreams crumbled around him. Bitter about his divorce 5 years earlier, and as lost as everyone else in this film. Quaid is believable and adds a lot of credibility to the film, but can't save it. Ditto the noble death.
I have to mention Tyrese Gibson because he is the next most well known actor in the film. His role is the obligatory thug/gangsta wannabe, with a heart. The best that can be said about his role and acting is that it does not distract from the film. He is a useless character that likely got to die a noble (but obvious and stupid) death because of Gibson's ability to draw a female and/or ghetto audience.
The effects are common and less than spectacular. The best ones can be seen in the movie trailer for the film. Actually much of the action is in the trailer as well.
The photography is at times good and adds to the atmosphere of isolation and despair, like Road Warrior. At it's worst it is too dark and murky.
The directing is on par with a B-film. You never get to feel the intensity or impending doom after the first 10 minutes of the film. In fact it feels like there was 2 seperate ideas in the film - the first more of a Terminator feel, the second more of a Prophesy rip-off.
When it's all said and done, this film is forgettable. It does not live up to the quality of the movie trailer (whoever made that should get a raise and more work). I'd more likely buy this as a DVD ($10 or so) so I could see what extras were pulled from the film, or just watch it on cable some night when insomnia had hold of me.
Do yourself a favor and don't see this film. There is a reason this was released in January, and it lives up to that reason alone.
I realize that is an odd mix of generally good to great films. And to put them all together in one film sounds strange, and unlikely. Yet Legion does all of that. Sadly the end product is not as good as any of its parts.
Let's just jump right into the plot. God has suddenly lost faith in humanity. No reason why or why now. Yet there is an unborn child that can save humanity; from what is never stated. We can stop right there.
I'm not the most religious individual. But my understanding of God, in any religion, is that the closest non-religious word would be omnipotent. How could anything stop God? Ok, taking a slightly different tack, the Angels. They are powerful beyond belief, smoting entire cities and virtually beyond comprehension to see. The Archangels are even more powerful than that.
So in this movie, these powerful beings have no choice but to takeover the bodies of the innocent (children) and weak-willed to try to kill the mother of the would be future savior. Hello Terminator. Except not one of these possessed beings has a gun, blowtorch, lighter, not even so much as a wiffle ball bat. They won't even use their cars to get into a small, unfortified, old diner where the unborn child is at.
Ok, here I am thinking again. If this is all to kill the child, why wait until mere days before the birth? Angels are not restricted by time. Why not go back to the conception of the child, or the birth of the mom-to-be? Why not have Gabriel (one of the Archangels) walk in at the very begining and kill her then? Or have a city smoting lesser angel turn the diner and all in it to salt?
Ok, over thinking. Back to the movie.
Michael (another Archangel) chooses to become human to save this woman. So he goes out to the diner in the middle of nowhere just in time for fending off the horde of possessed humans that arrive. Not that their overwhelming numbers are used to swarm the diner. All of this leading to a confrontation between the now human Michael and Gabriel.
Simply put the plot sucks. There is just too much to try to suspend your belief on. This requires more than a leap of faith it requires absolutely the vaccuation of thought.
But if you think the action will save this film, give the movie a reason to charge $9 a ticket, you will again be disappointed. There is a small bit of gunplay, mostly after the middle of the film. It's short lived, much like half of the cast. Truely there is nothing impressive about the effects or the action. Many B-movies have more and better.
So what about the cast? Well there is Paul Bettany who is a good actor and becoming a known name. He also has a penchant for quasi-religious characters (he was the albino in The DaVinci Code). He is Michael and does a decent job of being brooding, direct, and less than comforting. His action scenes are fair, and he is moderately believeable given the shortcomings of the plot.
Charles Dutton plays a short-order cook with only one hand and a prosthetic hook. You get the feeling, though it is never clear, that he might have been in Viet Nam. Of course since my father had the same prosthetic and was a vet I may be projecting. Beyond that, the character is unremarkable. He looks concerned when he should, rushes around like everyone, and dies a noble but useless death.
Then there is Dennis Quaid. Like Dutton, far better an actor than this film deserves or requires. He is the father of a key character and owner of the forlorn diner. He is a grizzled man who gave up on life as all his dreams crumbled around him. Bitter about his divorce 5 years earlier, and as lost as everyone else in this film. Quaid is believable and adds a lot of credibility to the film, but can't save it. Ditto the noble death.
I have to mention Tyrese Gibson because he is the next most well known actor in the film. His role is the obligatory thug/gangsta wannabe, with a heart. The best that can be said about his role and acting is that it does not distract from the film. He is a useless character that likely got to die a noble (but obvious and stupid) death because of Gibson's ability to draw a female and/or ghetto audience.
The effects are common and less than spectacular. The best ones can be seen in the movie trailer for the film. Actually much of the action is in the trailer as well.
The photography is at times good and adds to the atmosphere of isolation and despair, like Road Warrior. At it's worst it is too dark and murky.
The directing is on par with a B-film. You never get to feel the intensity or impending doom after the first 10 minutes of the film. In fact it feels like there was 2 seperate ideas in the film - the first more of a Terminator feel, the second more of a Prophesy rip-off.
When it's all said and done, this film is forgettable. It does not live up to the quality of the movie trailer (whoever made that should get a raise and more work). I'd more likely buy this as a DVD ($10 or so) so I could see what extras were pulled from the film, or just watch it on cable some night when insomnia had hold of me.
Do yourself a favor and don't see this film. There is a reason this was released in January, and it lives up to that reason alone.
Wednesday, December 02, 2009
Never too soon for Deadpool
As I'm waiting to see the whatever trailer is made for the Deadpool movie that will be out in 2011 I decided to see what tidbits might be out on the web. You might think its way to early to find anything, but then you wouldn't be a fan of the Merc with a Mouth.
I hope that the writers for the Deadpool movie remember that Ryan Reynold s if a fan of the comic book. Thus we should get to jump right in, forget about X-Men Origins: Wolverine, and start blasting.
But if you have no idea who this character is, and why fans love him, here is a nice kiddie version of what he is like.
moving right along, here is a trailer for the 2011 movie
ok, so it's not a trailer. But it looked pretty cool. hopefully the real film will look at least as good.
By the way, here is what I believe IS the official look of the character.
I hope that the writers for the Deadpool movie remember that Ryan Reynold s if a fan of the comic book. Thus we should get to jump right in, forget about X-Men Origins: Wolverine, and start blasting.
But if you have no idea who this character is, and why fans love him, here is a nice kiddie version of what he is like.
moving right along, here is a trailer for the 2011 movie
ok, so it's not a trailer. But it looked pretty cool. hopefully the real film will look at least as good.
By the way, here is what I believe IS the official look of the character.
Iron Man 2 - update and story theories
So it's nearly here. The Iron Man 2 movie. And best of all is the fact that War Machine will be in the film. And it seems he may have a very large role in the movie.
The latest news on the movie is that War Machine is featured on the poster with Iron Man. The positioning of the characters is leading to some debate.
Because they are back to back the question is are they friends fighting off a horde of bad guys? Or are they pissed off at each other and at odds?
If you know the history of the 2 characters, from the comic books, they both options are available. For a while War Machine and Iron man, while still good guys, shared no love. Tony Stark and James Rhodes were at each others throat before they eventually became friends again. Part of that problem was the alcoholism of Tony Stark.
Now in the first Iron Man movie it did touch on the fact that Stark (played by Robert Downey Jr) was constantly drinking. Essentially he is a functional alcoholic, so due to his success and wealth few ever mention his problem. But what if he goes on a bender due to stress (like the world knowing he is Iron Man) and there is a need for the superhero?
That's where War Machine should step in. But based on the video trailer from Comic Con I think the real story will go something like this:
Warning!!! - though I don't know what the script is, I do know how movies get written. The following information will likely contain a lot of spoilers.
Stark is pulled before Congress where demamds are made for his new ultra-technology. He refuses to sell it. The Government decides that everything he has is eminient domain and try to take everything. Stark, either through his security/computer Jarvis or by his hand, destroys all of his lab. That includes the War Machine suit we saw with Terrence Howard in the first movie. Then Stark flies off to hide in the only other remaining suit.
Under orders Rhodes takes the War Machine suit as another Government weapons manufacturer comes in to fix it. As we see from 4:27 on, Rhodes takes the opportunity to not only rebuild the suit, but to add on a few extra perks. Now the Government has it's own version of the Iron Man suit. But there is a problem.
The arms dealer, Justin Hammer I believe, is hardly a good guy. Having worked on the suit he know has the technology too. And starts selling it to everyone who can afford it. Thus an assassin that prefers using whips gets to incorporate some of the tech into a new laser based whip weapon. And a bunch of other baddies creat tons of robots that War Machine has to take out.
Meanwhile, Stark is pissed. His greatest life work is stolen, and much - if not all - of his money is gone. His company is bought out from him, and he is drinking way too much. He get pissed off and decides to get rid of the other technology based on his design. Thus he and Rhodes are battling in full metal glory.
At some point before all that The Black Widow, a Russian spy extrodinare steals the plans from Hammer. Why buy it if you can steal it, and it's not like Russia is rolling in money. So expect a possible scene of Titanium Man for Iron Man 3. (And I think that should have been the villan in this film anyway)
But back to the fight. Eventually the 2 get interupted by some baddy bots. They fight them off, but need to work together to survive. The battle and co-operation make them understand they are really still friends.
Then comes in Whiplash (the assassin mentioned earlier played by Mickey Rourke). He get the suprise on Rhodes and disables his suit. Stark is left by himself to fend off the attack. Which he eventually does.
Left without a suit, the Government decides to forgive Stark and gives him back everything they took (mostly). It is revealed that S.H.I.E.L.D. intervened to help out Stark in exchange for his work on the Avenger Initiative (ie The Avengers comic book).
Overall that is the movie. I'm missing details of course, but I would bet that I just covered 80% of the film. The big question is if it can do what I just wrote with style. Like the look and feel for the first film?
If the scene with War Machine is any indication, he will be back and possibly in his own movie. And if he is that popular, I hope that Don Cheadle screws Marvel with a huge salary demand. After changing the character once, with huge fan disapproval, they don't dare change him again.
The latest news on the movie is that War Machine is featured on the poster with Iron Man. The positioning of the characters is leading to some debate.
Because they are back to back the question is are they friends fighting off a horde of bad guys? Or are they pissed off at each other and at odds?
If you know the history of the 2 characters, from the comic books, they both options are available. For a while War Machine and Iron man, while still good guys, shared no love. Tony Stark and James Rhodes were at each others throat before they eventually became friends again. Part of that problem was the alcoholism of Tony Stark.
Now in the first Iron Man movie it did touch on the fact that Stark (played by Robert Downey Jr) was constantly drinking. Essentially he is a functional alcoholic, so due to his success and wealth few ever mention his problem. But what if he goes on a bender due to stress (like the world knowing he is Iron Man) and there is a need for the superhero?
That's where War Machine should step in. But based on the video trailer from Comic Con I think the real story will go something like this:
Warning!!! - though I don't know what the script is, I do know how movies get written. The following information will likely contain a lot of spoilers.
Stark is pulled before Congress where demamds are made for his new ultra-technology. He refuses to sell it. The Government decides that everything he has is eminient domain and try to take everything. Stark, either through his security/computer Jarvis or by his hand, destroys all of his lab. That includes the War Machine suit we saw with Terrence Howard in the first movie. Then Stark flies off to hide in the only other remaining suit.
Under orders Rhodes takes the War Machine suit as another Government weapons manufacturer comes in to fix it. As we see from 4:27 on, Rhodes takes the opportunity to not only rebuild the suit, but to add on a few extra perks. Now the Government has it's own version of the Iron Man suit. But there is a problem.
The arms dealer, Justin Hammer I believe, is hardly a good guy. Having worked on the suit he know has the technology too. And starts selling it to everyone who can afford it. Thus an assassin that prefers using whips gets to incorporate some of the tech into a new laser based whip weapon. And a bunch of other baddies creat tons of robots that War Machine has to take out.
Meanwhile, Stark is pissed. His greatest life work is stolen, and much - if not all - of his money is gone. His company is bought out from him, and he is drinking way too much. He get pissed off and decides to get rid of the other technology based on his design. Thus he and Rhodes are battling in full metal glory.
At some point before all that The Black Widow, a Russian spy extrodinare steals the plans from Hammer. Why buy it if you can steal it, and it's not like Russia is rolling in money. So expect a possible scene of Titanium Man for Iron Man 3. (And I think that should have been the villan in this film anyway)
But back to the fight. Eventually the 2 get interupted by some baddy bots. They fight them off, but need to work together to survive. The battle and co-operation make them understand they are really still friends.
Then comes in Whiplash (the assassin mentioned earlier played by Mickey Rourke). He get the suprise on Rhodes and disables his suit. Stark is left by himself to fend off the attack. Which he eventually does.
Left without a suit, the Government decides to forgive Stark and gives him back everything they took (mostly). It is revealed that S.H.I.E.L.D. intervened to help out Stark in exchange for his work on the Avenger Initiative (ie The Avengers comic book).
Overall that is the movie. I'm missing details of course, but I would bet that I just covered 80% of the film. The big question is if it can do what I just wrote with style. Like the look and feel for the first film?
If the scene with War Machine is any indication, he will be back and possibly in his own movie. And if he is that popular, I hope that Don Cheadle screws Marvel with a huge salary demand. After changing the character once, with huge fan disapproval, they don't dare change him again.
Monday, November 23, 2009
Movie Preview: Prince of Persia Sands of Time
Well after being rumored and discussed by gamers for years, Prince of Persia has finally made the conversion to the big screen - no gaming system required. Yes another in the growing line of video game to movie conversions is coming for the 2010 movie season.
What we can tell from the trailer immediately is that much of the violence and gore that the game is known for will not be in the movie. That's because this is a Disney film and will likely be targeted to the pg-13 rating target market. So that takes away from the story - if in fact the movie will follow the well executed script of the video game at all.
Beyond that revelation the big question is if this will be done well. Will it be some kiddie action flick pr something that adults and 20-something fans can really get into. Pirates of the Caribbean proved that a conversion film could do both. But there is no shortage of films that squander the source materials following and rich content. (think of Silent Hill, or more recently Resident Evil: Extinction)
The visuals of the film look big. Very expansive and rich in detail. There is no fear of CGI in this film. And some of the scenes look like the use of CGI plays out well. Though overuse of CGI tends to give me a feeling that a film is more cartoony than anything else.
We can also see that some of the gameplay elements of Prince of Persia is in the movie. The question with that is if these elements are just incidental items that work best in a trailer, or if they are integral to the movie itself. Generally in a conversion movie the answeer is more the former than latter.
Perhaps the one thing that really bugs me is none of the above. It's the star Jake Gyllnehaal. He is matched up with Ben Kingsley who is a far superior actor (Bloodrayne excepted) and thus may not fare well in scenes with the 2 together. Add to that the fact that I don't see Gyllenhaal as a Persian. He does not seem to have those qualities to me. Which makes sense since he is of Swedish decent. It may not be a big thing to some fans, but its a bit of a distraction seeing a Swede in Arabia as the main hero to me.
But if geography, and the expectation of seeing native populations in their homelands, is not something you ever pay attention to then the film should move along well. My guess is that the film's plot will be about as engaging as Conan the Barbarian was. Not a great film, but good enough to watch without much complaint. Nor will you be bothered with remembering much of what the film was about 5 minutes after watching it.
None of this will stop the film from making at least $250 million worldwide. Much of that (maybe 35%) will come in the first weekend as fans of the video game, Gyllenhaal, action fans, and those interested in Gemma Arterton (probably best known for her role as Strawberry Fields in Quantum of Solace and soon to be seen again in the Clash of the Titans revisioning). After that weekend, I think the hype will be over and the buzz will reveal that this is an ok film but not much more.
So there you go. One of the first films of the 2010 summer blockbuster season.
What we can tell from the trailer immediately is that much of the violence and gore that the game is known for will not be in the movie. That's because this is a Disney film and will likely be targeted to the pg-13 rating target market. So that takes away from the story - if in fact the movie will follow the well executed script of the video game at all.
Beyond that revelation the big question is if this will be done well. Will it be some kiddie action flick pr something that adults and 20-something fans can really get into. Pirates of the Caribbean proved that a conversion film could do both. But there is no shortage of films that squander the source materials following and rich content. (think of Silent Hill, or more recently Resident Evil: Extinction)
The visuals of the film look big. Very expansive and rich in detail. There is no fear of CGI in this film. And some of the scenes look like the use of CGI plays out well. Though overuse of CGI tends to give me a feeling that a film is more cartoony than anything else.
We can also see that some of the gameplay elements of Prince of Persia is in the movie. The question with that is if these elements are just incidental items that work best in a trailer, or if they are integral to the movie itself. Generally in a conversion movie the answeer is more the former than latter.
Perhaps the one thing that really bugs me is none of the above. It's the star Jake Gyllnehaal. He is matched up with Ben Kingsley who is a far superior actor (Bloodrayne excepted) and thus may not fare well in scenes with the 2 together. Add to that the fact that I don't see Gyllenhaal as a Persian. He does not seem to have those qualities to me. Which makes sense since he is of Swedish decent. It may not be a big thing to some fans, but its a bit of a distraction seeing a Swede in Arabia as the main hero to me.
But if geography, and the expectation of seeing native populations in their homelands, is not something you ever pay attention to then the film should move along well. My guess is that the film's plot will be about as engaging as Conan the Barbarian was. Not a great film, but good enough to watch without much complaint. Nor will you be bothered with remembering much of what the film was about 5 minutes after watching it.
None of this will stop the film from making at least $250 million worldwide. Much of that (maybe 35%) will come in the first weekend as fans of the video game, Gyllenhaal, action fans, and those interested in Gemma Arterton (probably best known for her role as Strawberry Fields in Quantum of Solace and soon to be seen again in the Clash of the Titans revisioning). After that weekend, I think the hype will be over and the buzz will reveal that this is an ok film but not much more.
So there you go. One of the first films of the 2010 summer blockbuster season.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Movie Preview: Armored
So what happens when you have several old actors, a couple that never made it big time, and a few newbies thrown in for the hell of it? Well you could make a film that has been done a dozen times before.
Armored is a film we all have seen before. It's a heist film. Which means it's the same as Heat, or the Sting, or even a major sub-plot for The Shield. The question is really, is this a well done version of the same old thing?
As can be seen, the film is looking to convince with a couple of interesting tidbits. There is the influence of Laurence Fishburne, and Jean Reno. There is a bit of the old in Matt Dillon resurfacing in a major film after decades of straight to DVD films. Plus there is Skeet Ulrich, the go to guy for looking like you have Johnny Depp in a film.
The concept is simple and obvious. An inside job, planned to the very detail. Except a detail comes up that was never considered. And there is where the film will be made or broken.
This is not a deep film with a massive twist from start to finish like Inside Man. This is not a bad versus even worse like on The Shield. It isn't a catchy slick con like Ocean's Eleven. It isn't even cops and robbers like Heat. It's just how bad people can get like Treasure of the Sierra Madre. (hope you saw all those films to get what I mean)
The questions that hit me are far from the movie trailer itself. Is this a film that Lawrence Fishburne had enough time to really commit to since his work on CSI? Is this a good film that just doesn't fit the summer blockbuster season, or is it a fill-in until Oscar season yet better than the ususal January throw-aways? Will Matt Dillon finally make the comeback he has been hoping for or is this another cable standard?
None of the questions I pose are the ususal ones asked about a film by the general public. Still they all reflect the quality of the film. In all likelyhood I expect this film to do 2 things:
Justify the desire to have a nice thriller/action film before the feel good and Oscar (boring) contenders come out
Keep the audience busy for 1 1/2 hours of their life
Now I will add to this. I felt the same way prior to seeing Inside Man. I came away from that film far more rewarded than I went into it. Low expectations can be a good thing when you get a quality piece of film. But low expectations are more the norm from the copycat and derivative nature of Hollywood films these days.
Still I think that this might live up to more than what it looks like. There are far too many good actors for me to think this is just a throwaway. The trailer is not filled with just random action impling the lack of a plot. It almost asks you to see it to be sure exactly how good it might be.
Would I see this instead of Ninja Assassin? No. But I would see both films. The only thing is that I am pretty sure what I will get from Ninja Assassin. I'm not as sure this will be worth the $20 a ticket. Though it at least seems like it might be, which is better than most films out around this time of year.
Armored is a film we all have seen before. It's a heist film. Which means it's the same as Heat, or the Sting, or even a major sub-plot for The Shield. The question is really, is this a well done version of the same old thing?
As can be seen, the film is looking to convince with a couple of interesting tidbits. There is the influence of Laurence Fishburne, and Jean Reno. There is a bit of the old in Matt Dillon resurfacing in a major film after decades of straight to DVD films. Plus there is Skeet Ulrich, the go to guy for looking like you have Johnny Depp in a film.
The concept is simple and obvious. An inside job, planned to the very detail. Except a detail comes up that was never considered. And there is where the film will be made or broken.
This is not a deep film with a massive twist from start to finish like Inside Man. This is not a bad versus even worse like on The Shield. It isn't a catchy slick con like Ocean's Eleven. It isn't even cops and robbers like Heat. It's just how bad people can get like Treasure of the Sierra Madre. (hope you saw all those films to get what I mean)
The questions that hit me are far from the movie trailer itself. Is this a film that Lawrence Fishburne had enough time to really commit to since his work on CSI? Is this a good film that just doesn't fit the summer blockbuster season, or is it a fill-in until Oscar season yet better than the ususal January throw-aways? Will Matt Dillon finally make the comeback he has been hoping for or is this another cable standard?
None of the questions I pose are the ususal ones asked about a film by the general public. Still they all reflect the quality of the film. In all likelyhood I expect this film to do 2 things:
Now I will add to this. I felt the same way prior to seeing Inside Man. I came away from that film far more rewarded than I went into it. Low expectations can be a good thing when you get a quality piece of film. But low expectations are more the norm from the copycat and derivative nature of Hollywood films these days.
Still I think that this might live up to more than what it looks like. There are far too many good actors for me to think this is just a throwaway. The trailer is not filled with just random action impling the lack of a plot. It almost asks you to see it to be sure exactly how good it might be.
Would I see this instead of Ninja Assassin? No. But I would see both films. The only thing is that I am pretty sure what I will get from Ninja Assassin. I'm not as sure this will be worth the $20 a ticket. Though it at least seems like it might be, which is better than most films out around this time of year.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Movie Preview: Zombieland
Sometimes you just want to go to a movie and be completely distracted from reality. Those types of movies that acheieve this distraction the best tend to never win Oscar's or anything else. But at their best they are like what some call comfort foods. They satiate out need for visual fluff, and that's it.
Zombieland looks like a film that fits right into that comfort zone.
There not much to say about this film. The writing won't be grand. The acting will likely not be above most television fare. The plot will have holes big enough to fit a Transformer through. But none of that really matters.
This is a kill-the-zombies film. The bigger the bang, the more absurd the explosion, the more outlandish the violence, the more the film will please.
Woody Harrelson looks like he was just having fun in this film. In fact all the lead actors seem to be. Which bodes well for this film.
As a bonus, the film looks like there won't be any CGI involved - which means the focus is on stunts, explosions, and guns. All the things a good zombie film should have. Add to that a good sense of humor and it's a win-win.
Could the trailer be the best parts of the film? Undoubtedly. But if we can race along from zombie killing scene to the next without some Hollywood introduction to the cause of the week, audiences should get what they paid for. And lately that has become a rare treat at the movies.
My expectations are low for this film. They should be. Which means that it very likely may be the best film this year so far.
Zombieland looks like a film that fits right into that comfort zone.
There not much to say about this film. The writing won't be grand. The acting will likely not be above most television fare. The plot will have holes big enough to fit a Transformer through. But none of that really matters.
This is a kill-the-zombies film. The bigger the bang, the more absurd the explosion, the more outlandish the violence, the more the film will please.
Woody Harrelson looks like he was just having fun in this film. In fact all the lead actors seem to be. Which bodes well for this film.
As a bonus, the film looks like there won't be any CGI involved - which means the focus is on stunts, explosions, and guns. All the things a good zombie film should have. Add to that a good sense of humor and it's a win-win.
Could the trailer be the best parts of the film? Undoubtedly. But if we can race along from zombie killing scene to the next without some Hollywood introduction to the cause of the week, audiences should get what they paid for. And lately that has become a rare treat at the movies.
My expectations are low for this film. They should be. Which means that it very likely may be the best film this year so far.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Movie Review: Gamer
First there was Rollerball (the original) then came The Running Man. Add in a bit of Resident Evil (at least how it plays off of it's video game origins) and when you mix it all up you get Gamer. Well a handfull of hallucinogens helps too.
Perhaps its the fact that I'm a bit older than the target audience of Gamer. Or maybe I'm just not ADHD enough to flow with the kalidescope of scenes that dominate this film. But whatever the reason, this film sucked.
Let's start with the opening of the movie. It's frentic. Filled with explosions and and guns and lots of running around. Kind of like what you got in Saving Private Ryan, except not as focused or motivating. If you are prone to epileptic fits, good luck to you.
The film doesn't get much better from there. It's constantly trying to have things moving at hyperspeed at every step. Even just moving from one place to another without any gunfire is a series of jumpaction, shaky, flashes. It gives me the impression that the editor was on cocaine, and the director wanted the audience to feel that same kind of rush. Sadly though, it doesn't work in a positive way.
Aside from that, there of course is what passes for a plot these days. To say that it is full of holes and bad would be an upgrade of my opinion. The remake of Deathrace 2000 (called simply Death Race with Jason Statham) is almost logical and intellectual comparatively.
What are the problems?
**Spoiler**
Well let's go with the girl in the prison/holding area. How did she get there? Why doesn't anyone notice her interaction with Kable (Gerard Butler - our protagonist)? Why isn't she spotted since she stands out massively?
Another issue is the world domination theme. Was it really necessary? And why would the rest of the corporate lackeys go along with it, without being controled?
Or how about killing Kable in the most simple way possible. Just hold him in place as anyone shoots him. It's not like the film doesn't mention that there are internet drags and glitches just like now.
Or how does the kid, who had all his computers hacked, suddenly have the power to get back in control of Kable? Why is Kable a hero to the masses that have no clue what is going on? How does all of that get broadcast live?
Spoiler over
Seriously there are a dozen different issues in the film. But as bad as they are, the contrived end of the movie is just the worst part of it. Like they couldn't figure out what to do next so they stole the ending from Blade Runner, essentially.
Ok, skip what little plot there was. How was the acting?
Well I must say that Ludacris was not out of place. Which considering that I find his acting about as good as gangsta rap, is not a compliment. Yes, it was really that bad. He was about as emotive and compelling as watching static.
The shame is that he was on par with all the other actors in the film. Everyone was just here for the paycheck and it shows (Kyra Sedgwick, John Leguizamo, Amber Valleta, Keith David all included). Perhaps Michael C. Hall (of Dexter fame) was the best actor in the film. And he seemed asleep virtually every time he has a scene. Except when he was singing and dancing. That showed a bit of the talent that he has.
The soundtrack was good though. Several interesting revisions of older songs that really work well with the more stable scenes. And a few that hit the right tone for the more addict-looking-for-a-fix scenes.
I love videogames. I'm an avid fan of MMO's (I've played almost all the major ones to date). Explosions and gunfire are always a bonus to most any film. But none of these things can combine to make Gamer a good film.
If you haven't seen the film in theaters yet, congratulations. Don't buy the DVD. I wouldn't even recommend watching this when it hits cable.
If you want to spend 90 minutes watching something to entertain and distract your mind, try any of the films I've already mentioned. This film steals ideas from all of them, and they all do it much better.
Perhaps its the fact that I'm a bit older than the target audience of Gamer. Or maybe I'm just not ADHD enough to flow with the kalidescope of scenes that dominate this film. But whatever the reason, this film sucked.
Let's start with the opening of the movie. It's frentic. Filled with explosions and and guns and lots of running around. Kind of like what you got in Saving Private Ryan, except not as focused or motivating. If you are prone to epileptic fits, good luck to you.
The film doesn't get much better from there. It's constantly trying to have things moving at hyperspeed at every step. Even just moving from one place to another without any gunfire is a series of jumpaction, shaky, flashes. It gives me the impression that the editor was on cocaine, and the director wanted the audience to feel that same kind of rush. Sadly though, it doesn't work in a positive way.
Aside from that, there of course is what passes for a plot these days. To say that it is full of holes and bad would be an upgrade of my opinion. The remake of Deathrace 2000 (called simply Death Race with Jason Statham) is almost logical and intellectual comparatively.
What are the problems?
**Spoiler**
Well let's go with the girl in the prison/holding area. How did she get there? Why doesn't anyone notice her interaction with Kable (Gerard Butler - our protagonist)? Why isn't she spotted since she stands out massively?
Another issue is the world domination theme. Was it really necessary? And why would the rest of the corporate lackeys go along with it, without being controled?
Or how about killing Kable in the most simple way possible. Just hold him in place as anyone shoots him. It's not like the film doesn't mention that there are internet drags and glitches just like now.
Or how does the kid, who had all his computers hacked, suddenly have the power to get back in control of Kable? Why is Kable a hero to the masses that have no clue what is going on? How does all of that get broadcast live?
Spoiler over
Seriously there are a dozen different issues in the film. But as bad as they are, the contrived end of the movie is just the worst part of it. Like they couldn't figure out what to do next so they stole the ending from Blade Runner, essentially.
Ok, skip what little plot there was. How was the acting?
Well I must say that Ludacris was not out of place. Which considering that I find his acting about as good as gangsta rap, is not a compliment. Yes, it was really that bad. He was about as emotive and compelling as watching static.
The shame is that he was on par with all the other actors in the film. Everyone was just here for the paycheck and it shows (Kyra Sedgwick, John Leguizamo, Amber Valleta, Keith David all included). Perhaps Michael C. Hall (of Dexter fame) was the best actor in the film. And he seemed asleep virtually every time he has a scene. Except when he was singing and dancing. That showed a bit of the talent that he has.
The soundtrack was good though. Several interesting revisions of older songs that really work well with the more stable scenes. And a few that hit the right tone for the more addict-looking-for-a-fix scenes.
I love videogames. I'm an avid fan of MMO's (I've played almost all the major ones to date). Explosions and gunfire are always a bonus to most any film. But none of these things can combine to make Gamer a good film.
If you haven't seen the film in theaters yet, congratulations. Don't buy the DVD. I wouldn't even recommend watching this when it hits cable.
If you want to spend 90 minutes watching something to entertain and distract your mind, try any of the films I've already mentioned. This film steals ideas from all of them, and they all do it much better.
Friday, August 14, 2009
Movie Preview: Ong Bak 2
You just knew there had to be a sequel. Tony Jaa became too much of a hit to not get another crack at this film. But this new film takes a very different direction indeed.
Unlike most sequels, Ong Bak 2 is jumping right to a prequel stage. Instead of going forward with the storyline the movie goes back in time to present us with a historical and perhaps more epic view of Thailand. Think of it as a kind of Braveheart with martial arts. The movie trailers are definitely giving it that kind of a feel.
I love the music choice in this trailer. The fight scenes definitely look like the Tony Jaa that took America by storm. But if you recall the first film you will also note that something is different. The direction and storytelling is not the same pace or style. It really shows in this imperfect trailer of a fight scene.
The reason that it has such a different look and feel is because the director has changed. This time out it is Tony Jaa himself that is taking the helm. And from what I can see he does a good job. Though the above scene is a bit slow in pace for American audiences it is good in defining the narrative and motivations of Tien (Jaa). Also keep an eye out for Dan Chupong (Crow Ghost) in this film.
I think this will be a hit in America. It has already done very well in Thailand. But it has one potential problem. This story ends in a less than happy American movie way. That is because there is a 3rd film that continues this story. Which I would expect to be just as good, though I can’t imagine the reported “boneless” fighting it contains.
This is a good film from what I can tell. It has all the elements of what you might expect from Jaa and a martial arts film. It adds to the growing trend of Thai martial arts films that are growing in recognition in this genre. I’m looking forward to this, and Ong Bak 3 next year or so.
Unlike most sequels, Ong Bak 2 is jumping right to a prequel stage. Instead of going forward with the storyline the movie goes back in time to present us with a historical and perhaps more epic view of Thailand. Think of it as a kind of Braveheart with martial arts. The movie trailers are definitely giving it that kind of a feel.
I love the music choice in this trailer. The fight scenes definitely look like the Tony Jaa that took America by storm. But if you recall the first film you will also note that something is different. The direction and storytelling is not the same pace or style. It really shows in this imperfect trailer of a fight scene.
The reason that it has such a different look and feel is because the director has changed. This time out it is Tony Jaa himself that is taking the helm. And from what I can see he does a good job. Though the above scene is a bit slow in pace for American audiences it is good in defining the narrative and motivations of Tien (Jaa). Also keep an eye out for Dan Chupong (Crow Ghost) in this film.
I think this will be a hit in America. It has already done very well in Thailand. But it has one potential problem. This story ends in a less than happy American movie way. That is because there is a 3rd film that continues this story. Which I would expect to be just as good, though I can’t imagine the reported “boneless” fighting it contains.
This is a good film from what I can tell. It has all the elements of what you might expect from Jaa and a martial arts film. It adds to the growing trend of Thai martial arts films that are growing in recognition in this genre. I’m looking forward to this, and Ong Bak 3 next year or so.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Machete - the 2010 film you aren't expecting
So I have been a bit busy covering the Health Care Reform debate over at my political blog (VASS). But now its time to get back to more simple and pleasant things.
Though I’m not sure that Machete is simple, or pleasant. This is a film that you will likely be hearing a lot about as 2010 approaches. And there will be no lack of coverage by critics big and small. (and if you are wondering, the film has nothing to do with the character from the Spy Kid’s films.)
The reason is that the film is directed by Robert Rodriguez. The cast for this action film will include: Lindesy Lohan, Jessica Alba, Don Johnson, Steven Segal, Cheech Marin, Danny Trejo, Michelle Rodriguez (no relation), and Robert DeNiro (in roughly order of their acting ability). Talk about a wild mix.
The star of this film is also quite different from what most Americans would expect. It’s Trejo as a former Mexican Federales. The bad guy is pretty much everyone, but basically DeNiro as a corrupt elected official (as if there are non-corrupt ones). Everyone else is in and out of the film adding their own flair and crashes, bashes and explosions to the story.
The big question is if this can work. Can a film starring a Mexican, with an American bad guy, hold up? The fact that there will be some martial arts fighting, a couple of young starlets likely in tight nothing, and lots of gunfights will not hurt a bit.
I say that the film will work. Director Rodriguez has more than proven that films starring, and entirely comprised of Hispanic/Latino characters (other than the bad guys) can be huge hits. He has also proven his ability to do a decent film with a good helping of explosions and adult fare (think Sin City). The only place I would worry about this film would be the writing.
Simply put, if you see this film hit in January 2010, it will likely be a horrible flop. If it comes out in April, which I think it will, then that means it all came together great. A mid-summer release means they really nailed it.
Personally I hope it is a good film. Danny Trejo has put in his dues over the decades and having a leading role that works would be a nice feather in his cap. And if you are wondering who he is, well you have seen him. He was the original driver with DeNiro in Heat, he was the uncle in all 3 Spy Kid’s movies, he is Enrique on King of the Hill, he is a bartender on the Young and the Restless.
He has been in 69 movies and television show over the past 25 years. Many actors never even get to do that many films in a lifetime. Not to bad for a former drug addict, ex-con, and prison welterweight boxing champ. Like I said, he has paid his dues, worked hard, and earned the shot at a leading role. So I want to see him do well in this chance.
Though I’m not sure that Machete is simple, or pleasant. This is a film that you will likely be hearing a lot about as 2010 approaches. And there will be no lack of coverage by critics big and small. (and if you are wondering, the film has nothing to do with the character from the Spy Kid’s films.)
The reason is that the film is directed by Robert Rodriguez. The cast for this action film will include: Lindesy Lohan, Jessica Alba, Don Johnson, Steven Segal, Cheech Marin, Danny Trejo, Michelle Rodriguez (no relation), and Robert DeNiro (in roughly order of their acting ability). Talk about a wild mix.
The star of this film is also quite different from what most Americans would expect. It’s Trejo as a former Mexican Federales. The bad guy is pretty much everyone, but basically DeNiro as a corrupt elected official (as if there are non-corrupt ones). Everyone else is in and out of the film adding their own flair and crashes, bashes and explosions to the story.
The big question is if this can work. Can a film starring a Mexican, with an American bad guy, hold up? The fact that there will be some martial arts fighting, a couple of young starlets likely in tight nothing, and lots of gunfights will not hurt a bit.
I say that the film will work. Director Rodriguez has more than proven that films starring, and entirely comprised of Hispanic/Latino characters (other than the bad guys) can be huge hits. He has also proven his ability to do a decent film with a good helping of explosions and adult fare (think Sin City). The only place I would worry about this film would be the writing.
Simply put, if you see this film hit in January 2010, it will likely be a horrible flop. If it comes out in April, which I think it will, then that means it all came together great. A mid-summer release means they really nailed it.
Personally I hope it is a good film. Danny Trejo has put in his dues over the decades and having a leading role that works would be a nice feather in his cap. And if you are wondering who he is, well you have seen him. He was the original driver with DeNiro in Heat, he was the uncle in all 3 Spy Kid’s movies, he is Enrique on King of the Hill, he is a bartender on the Young and the Restless.
He has been in 69 movies and television show over the past 25 years. Many actors never even get to do that many films in a lifetime. Not to bad for a former drug addict, ex-con, and prison welterweight boxing champ. Like I said, he has paid his dues, worked hard, and earned the shot at a leading role. So I want to see him do well in this chance.
Monday, August 10, 2009
Movie Review: GI Joe
The summer movies of 2009 have been a series of letdowns. Which is not to be confused with the amount of money that the films have generated. When all you have is the equivalent of sand instead of the water of entertainment, well many go and spend their money anyway. Add in the cost of going to a movie and the numbers look astounding.
GI Joe was a film that some hoped would defeat that trend. And having seen the film I can honestly say that such hopes are completely dashed. GI Joe is almost exactly what it seems. A waste of time and less entertaining than the Saturday Morning cartoon.
Let's start with the basics. The visual looks of the film are decent. Not great, not wonderful, just ok. Part of that is due to the constant use of massive amounts of CGI throughout the film. It just takes a bunch of the realisim the film was hoping to attain in live action, and throws it off a roof. Seperate of the CGI, well it's just not visually compelling.
The acting is another thing. If the visuals are just average, the acting takes the film to a new low. In thinking about the whole cast, I cannot name a single actor that sttod above the others. With the exception of Snake Eyes (Ray Park) and the 2 child actors portraying Snake Eyes and Storm Shadow (Leo Howard and Brandon Soo Hoo, respectively).
Snake Eyes stands out for one main reason. He never spoke in the whole film. All he had to do was move around. We didn't even get to see his face, not even his eyes, once in the film. Which made this the standout role in the film. Literally this was the best acting and character simply because that role had the least problems.
The worst acting would likely be Marlon Wayans, or Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Cobra Commander. Followed closely by every other character in the film. There isn't a single character you could care about, nor that you might believe. Not one had any spark that would make you root for or against them.
But if you were wondering about the plot - perhaps it provides a reason to still see the film - don't worry. It too is as bad as every other element in the film. Obviously the writers were lost between making a kid's film and something for adults.
Start with the fact that the film rewrote the entire team. GI Joe is supposed to be an all American military force. But to make the film sell overseas they have been changed to a secret NATO force. So already the film revisions its source material.
Considering the intelligence of all the military forces involved, I would be surprised if the Boy Scouts wouldn't be a better choice for defending the nation. Not a single writer was probably involved in the military, nor the director or producers or the Hollywood execs.
***Spoiler Alert***
Destro (Christopher Eccleston) is a multi-national arms dealer that sells 70% of all the arms and defenses used in the world. Which is just dumb to start with. But he sells NATO, and the GI Joe team, all their equipment. So why is any of their gear equal to the COBRA troops? Or how about having a failsafe that prevents their weapons from working against his guys? Or why not just hack into their systems to find out what they know and when? Besides the fact that he should know where their secret bases are since he could track each and every item they have?
Then there are the accelerator suits. Really useless. Which is why they are unused throughout 90% of the film. Other than the big scene in the trailer. Because if they used the suits they should mop up the COBRA guys in minutes. Not that COBRA had any equivalent outfits, which they should since DESTRO sold them.
I won't even get into the nanobot issue.
***SPOILER END***
So back to the plot. GI Joe is so secret that the whole outfit is exposed some 7 minutes into the film. They are so good that all of 4 people handle 90% of all the work.
The one thing the team seems really good at is creating massive destruction as they go about their jobs. What they do in France is a contruction workers paradise. The cost in money and lives is enough to make you wonder why any nation would want these guys protecting anything. So much for never failing at anything.
Oh, and the "love story" or whatever is going on with Ripcord (Wayans) and Scarlett (Rachel Nichols) fits better for kids in elementary school than anything else.
How dumb is the plot? Well unless you believe fire burns underwater, and that ice doesn't float in water, the plot is incredibly stupid. Even a 5 year old will see the plot holes and illogic.
I'd go into more detail but I don't want to spoil it more. If such a thing is possible.
I wouldn't take young kids to this film. As I mentioned earlier there is lots of collateral damage. You don't see the hordes that get killed, but it is obvious that they die. A lot.
Perhaps the one great thing is the fact that the battles between Storm Shadow (Byung-hun Lee) and Snake Eyes is interesting. Short but decent.
So would I advise anyone to see this film? No. There is a reason why the film was not shown to critics (except a couple of guaranteed extra positive reviews). I honestly can't understand why this film was marketed to anyone over the age of 5. And that might be an insult to 5 year olds.
Don't see this film. Watch the cartoon version instead and at least enjoy you money.
GI Joe was a film that some hoped would defeat that trend. And having seen the film I can honestly say that such hopes are completely dashed. GI Joe is almost exactly what it seems. A waste of time and less entertaining than the Saturday Morning cartoon.
Let's start with the basics. The visual looks of the film are decent. Not great, not wonderful, just ok. Part of that is due to the constant use of massive amounts of CGI throughout the film. It just takes a bunch of the realisim the film was hoping to attain in live action, and throws it off a roof. Seperate of the CGI, well it's just not visually compelling.
The acting is another thing. If the visuals are just average, the acting takes the film to a new low. In thinking about the whole cast, I cannot name a single actor that sttod above the others. With the exception of Snake Eyes (Ray Park) and the 2 child actors portraying Snake Eyes and Storm Shadow (Leo Howard and Brandon Soo Hoo, respectively).
Snake Eyes stands out for one main reason. He never spoke in the whole film. All he had to do was move around. We didn't even get to see his face, not even his eyes, once in the film. Which made this the standout role in the film. Literally this was the best acting and character simply because that role had the least problems.
The worst acting would likely be Marlon Wayans, or Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Cobra Commander. Followed closely by every other character in the film. There isn't a single character you could care about, nor that you might believe. Not one had any spark that would make you root for or against them.
But if you were wondering about the plot - perhaps it provides a reason to still see the film - don't worry. It too is as bad as every other element in the film. Obviously the writers were lost between making a kid's film and something for adults.
Start with the fact that the film rewrote the entire team. GI Joe is supposed to be an all American military force. But to make the film sell overseas they have been changed to a secret NATO force. So already the film revisions its source material.
Considering the intelligence of all the military forces involved, I would be surprised if the Boy Scouts wouldn't be a better choice for defending the nation. Not a single writer was probably involved in the military, nor the director or producers or the Hollywood execs.
***Spoiler Alert***
Destro (Christopher Eccleston) is a multi-national arms dealer that sells 70% of all the arms and defenses used in the world. Which is just dumb to start with. But he sells NATO, and the GI Joe team, all their equipment. So why is any of their gear equal to the COBRA troops? Or how about having a failsafe that prevents their weapons from working against his guys? Or why not just hack into their systems to find out what they know and when? Besides the fact that he should know where their secret bases are since he could track each and every item they have?
Then there are the accelerator suits. Really useless. Which is why they are unused throughout 90% of the film. Other than the big scene in the trailer. Because if they used the suits they should mop up the COBRA guys in minutes. Not that COBRA had any equivalent outfits, which they should since DESTRO sold them.
I won't even get into the nanobot issue.
***SPOILER END***
So back to the plot. GI Joe is so secret that the whole outfit is exposed some 7 minutes into the film. They are so good that all of 4 people handle 90% of all the work.
The one thing the team seems really good at is creating massive destruction as they go about their jobs. What they do in France is a contruction workers paradise. The cost in money and lives is enough to make you wonder why any nation would want these guys protecting anything. So much for never failing at anything.
Oh, and the "love story" or whatever is going on with Ripcord (Wayans) and Scarlett (Rachel Nichols) fits better for kids in elementary school than anything else.
How dumb is the plot? Well unless you believe fire burns underwater, and that ice doesn't float in water, the plot is incredibly stupid. Even a 5 year old will see the plot holes and illogic.
I'd go into more detail but I don't want to spoil it more. If such a thing is possible.
I wouldn't take young kids to this film. As I mentioned earlier there is lots of collateral damage. You don't see the hordes that get killed, but it is obvious that they die. A lot.
Perhaps the one great thing is the fact that the battles between Storm Shadow (Byung-hun Lee) and Snake Eyes is interesting. Short but decent.
So would I advise anyone to see this film? No. There is a reason why the film was not shown to critics (except a couple of guaranteed extra positive reviews). I honestly can't understand why this film was marketed to anyone over the age of 5. And that might be an insult to 5 year olds.
Don't see this film. Watch the cartoon version instead and at least enjoy you money.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Movie Preview: Ninja Assassin
If you were unfortunate enough to have paid to see the Speed Racer movie, you might have noticed a character in the film called Taejo Togokahn, played by singer Jeong Ji-hoon or Rain. His fight scenes were quite impressive, and caught the attention of the Wachowski brothers and Joel Silver. Which has led to Ninja Assassin.
The movie trailer is interesting. Though a bit retro-80’s to an extent, it is an action martial arts film. It has everything you would expect – a bit of traditional homage, modern day settings, lots of fights, explosions, and more than a few guns I bet. This is a movie that is presenting itself as a face paced kick-ass fest.
Now I compare Rain to Bruce Lee or Jackie Chan. He is neither of the 2, and I think we will have a long way to go to see another of either. But he does his action scenes himself, and they work. So I think we can expect to see more of him in the future.
As for the rest of the cast, well there isn’t much to say yet. Honestly I expect very little from them as that is all that is needed. There is a female lead, Naomie Harris, who has the job of just moving the story forward to the next fight. There is the old master, Sho Kosugi (great to see him in a film again), giving us a context for the overall battle. And there is Rick Yune who must chase down Rain. (As a side note, Jet Li and Collin Chou were both originally expected to play roles in the film, but it didn’t work out.)
The settings look decent as does the camera work. The special effects are obviously where the bulk of the money was spent on this film and they seem to have been worth what was paid for. The sound is a question that we won’t know until the film comes out, but I expect it to be at least average.
This is not a hard film to figure out. It is formulatic, at least from what the trailer and synopsis presents. It is likely filled with a few plot holes the size of a black hole. And the acting will almost assuredly not win an Oscar or Golden Globe. Seriously, there is nothing more you can expect from a script that was made in 53 hours.
But none of that is important. If the job is done right this will be a popcorn munching brawl that will distract the viewer from the world for 90 minutes. And from the movie trailers that I have seen, it looks like they came to shoot that target loaded for bear.
This will be out in November. Which upsets me as this is something I would want to see now rather than wait for. And considering the lackluster, boring, overly gimmicked movies we have this summer Ninja Assassin would likely do huge business now. Still November is not that long to go, and it will give us time to see a few more trailers before it comes out.
Ninja Assassin does not look like it will be a martial arts movie classic, but it does look like it will be a solid action movie that will be worth the cost of going to a theater for the experience.
The movie trailer is interesting. Though a bit retro-80’s to an extent, it is an action martial arts film. It has everything you would expect – a bit of traditional homage, modern day settings, lots of fights, explosions, and more than a few guns I bet. This is a movie that is presenting itself as a face paced kick-ass fest.
Now I compare Rain to Bruce Lee or Jackie Chan. He is neither of the 2, and I think we will have a long way to go to see another of either. But he does his action scenes himself, and they work. So I think we can expect to see more of him in the future.
As for the rest of the cast, well there isn’t much to say yet. Honestly I expect very little from them as that is all that is needed. There is a female lead, Naomie Harris, who has the job of just moving the story forward to the next fight. There is the old master, Sho Kosugi (great to see him in a film again), giving us a context for the overall battle. And there is Rick Yune who must chase down Rain. (As a side note, Jet Li and Collin Chou were both originally expected to play roles in the film, but it didn’t work out.)
The settings look decent as does the camera work. The special effects are obviously where the bulk of the money was spent on this film and they seem to have been worth what was paid for. The sound is a question that we won’t know until the film comes out, but I expect it to be at least average.
This is not a hard film to figure out. It is formulatic, at least from what the trailer and synopsis presents. It is likely filled with a few plot holes the size of a black hole. And the acting will almost assuredly not win an Oscar or Golden Globe. Seriously, there is nothing more you can expect from a script that was made in 53 hours.
But none of that is important. If the job is done right this will be a popcorn munching brawl that will distract the viewer from the world for 90 minutes. And from the movie trailers that I have seen, it looks like they came to shoot that target loaded for bear.
This will be out in November. Which upsets me as this is something I would want to see now rather than wait for. And considering the lackluster, boring, overly gimmicked movies we have this summer Ninja Assassin would likely do huge business now. Still November is not that long to go, and it will give us time to see a few more trailers before it comes out.
Ninja Assassin does not look like it will be a martial arts movie classic, but it does look like it will be a solid action movie that will be worth the cost of going to a theater for the experience.
Movie Preview: Book of Eli
Well the movie trailer has been released and Book of Eli looks like it will be another hit for Denzel Washington.
I have to say that I am impressed. Denzel Washington is not known for his action movies. Actually, other than a couple of fist fights or shoot-outs he has no real action movies. So this is a new departure for him. And from the trailer I would say that he wouldn’t last in a fight against Riddick, but still looks good.
The post-nuclear war world this film envisions instantly draws me to the Mad Max films. It’s gritty, with harsh sunlight, desolate, and unforgiving. It sets the mood of the depressing results of a war no one escaped. So in that the visuals hit the mark.
The fact that Gary Oldman is in this film is another plus. I have always enjoyed his portrayals. My favorite has to be ‘Stan’ Stansfield from The Professional. And while we have yet to see exactly how he is in this film I’d expect a lot. Likely this is a character that crosses say Aunty Entity, Stansfield, and Cornelius Hatcher (for a bit of lightness).
Thinking about it I think that the entire film could include a few mixes of characters we have seen before. Denzel is obviously an older Mad Max, Man With No Name (Sergio Leone films), John Smith (Last Man Standing) or Hugo Toorop type of character. Weary and burdened, but willing to be the hero if reluctantly.
The big question is what is in the book? That is what is really bugging me. It is supposed to bring redemption to mankind. Which makes me think it’s a religious tome. But it could be a scientific journal containing a cure to some biological weapon released in the end of the war. Or it could be an agricultural book with farming techniques. It even could be the Declaration of Independence. I mean it really can go in a dozen different directions. Which explains why everyone might want the book, since they don’t know what it is. Kind of like the Book of Life from Circle of Iron.
Based on what the movie trailer is presenting, and the quality of the actors, this should be a must see film. The only real doubt I have on the film is the fact that it is coming out in January. Which is a notorious time for the worst films to be released. Though that has changed slightly in recent years.
I reserve my final opinion until a bit more comes out about the film. For now, the hype is still bigger than the movie. But I will still want to see it, as it does look like a good action/sci-fi film.
I have to say that I am impressed. Denzel Washington is not known for his action movies. Actually, other than a couple of fist fights or shoot-outs he has no real action movies. So this is a new departure for him. And from the trailer I would say that he wouldn’t last in a fight against Riddick, but still looks good.
The post-nuclear war world this film envisions instantly draws me to the Mad Max films. It’s gritty, with harsh sunlight, desolate, and unforgiving. It sets the mood of the depressing results of a war no one escaped. So in that the visuals hit the mark.
The fact that Gary Oldman is in this film is another plus. I have always enjoyed his portrayals. My favorite has to be ‘Stan’ Stansfield from The Professional. And while we have yet to see exactly how he is in this film I’d expect a lot. Likely this is a character that crosses say Aunty Entity, Stansfield, and Cornelius Hatcher (for a bit of lightness).
Thinking about it I think that the entire film could include a few mixes of characters we have seen before. Denzel is obviously an older Mad Max, Man With No Name (Sergio Leone films), John Smith (Last Man Standing) or Hugo Toorop type of character. Weary and burdened, but willing to be the hero if reluctantly.
The big question is what is in the book? That is what is really bugging me. It is supposed to bring redemption to mankind. Which makes me think it’s a religious tome. But it could be a scientific journal containing a cure to some biological weapon released in the end of the war. Or it could be an agricultural book with farming techniques. It even could be the Declaration of Independence. I mean it really can go in a dozen different directions. Which explains why everyone might want the book, since they don’t know what it is. Kind of like the Book of Life from Circle of Iron.
Based on what the movie trailer is presenting, and the quality of the actors, this should be a must see film. The only real doubt I have on the film is the fact that it is coming out in January. Which is a notorious time for the worst films to be released. Though that has changed slightly in recent years.
I reserve my final opinion until a bit more comes out about the film. For now, the hype is still bigger than the movie. But I will still want to see it, as it does look like a good action/sci-fi film.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Jaden Smith and Jackie Chan redo The Karate Kid
Jaden Smith is really turning out to be quote they superstar. After finishing the film with his father, and then showing up Keanu Reeves in The Day The Earth Stood Still (hard not to show up that fiasco of acting), he is now out in China with Jackie Chan. That’s a pretty impressive summer job he has for himself.
Considering his age, and the general trends of Hollywood, it’s impressive to see that he is growing in his abilities and that directors are taking notice. The only real shame is that so far he has not really been in a huge success. Yes the films with Reeves and his dad made money. But they are not big hits.
The latest film, Kung Fu Kid, is a revisioning of The Karate Kid. While I generally despise revisioned films, the inclusion of Jackie Chan makes this interesting. It will take place in Bejing, is current day, and will emphasize the abilities of Jaden. This very well could be a huge hit for this young actor.
Of course the fact that his father is one of the producers, plus the fame of Chan, and then add in the nostalgia for the original, and you have a film that should definitely be a hit. Except there is one hitch in the film. The director.
That would be Harald Zwart. He was responsible for the flops One Night At McCool’s and the revisioned refuse Pink Panther 2. The only other film he has done that you might know internationally is Agent Cody Banks, which was decent but no blockbuster.
How this director was attached to this project is unknown to me, but likely the only thing that could cause the film to be worthless. Well that and writer’s that have no clue what made the original worth watching.
If this does turn out to be a hit film, I think that Jaden will be well on his way to a career that will exceed his father. Considering that Will Smith is familiar with working his way to the top, has had the experience of losing it all, and knows the fickle nature of critics and fans I expect that Jaden will be well prepared for added fame. This is one child actor that should never see the front page of a tabloid – except for any woman he might date.
If this film fails though, I expect that it will be the fault of the director. Based on his trend, this is an uphill battle. Still a bit of failure may be just the thing to keep his head from getting bigger than his britches. In fact I think that every child star should have some degree of failure to help balance out their expectations. Britney Spears and Lindsey Lohan are great examples of the potential if they don’t.
The film will be out in 2010 I expect. So there should not be too much time for speculation. Either way I think it will be another step forward for Jaden Smith. Hopefully it will be just the thing for his 12th birthday.
Considering his age, and the general trends of Hollywood, it’s impressive to see that he is growing in his abilities and that directors are taking notice. The only real shame is that so far he has not really been in a huge success. Yes the films with Reeves and his dad made money. But they are not big hits.
The latest film, Kung Fu Kid, is a revisioning of The Karate Kid. While I generally despise revisioned films, the inclusion of Jackie Chan makes this interesting. It will take place in Bejing, is current day, and will emphasize the abilities of Jaden. This very well could be a huge hit for this young actor.
Of course the fact that his father is one of the producers, plus the fame of Chan, and then add in the nostalgia for the original, and you have a film that should definitely be a hit. Except there is one hitch in the film. The director.
That would be Harald Zwart. He was responsible for the flops One Night At McCool’s and the revisioned refuse Pink Panther 2. The only other film he has done that you might know internationally is Agent Cody Banks, which was decent but no blockbuster.
How this director was attached to this project is unknown to me, but likely the only thing that could cause the film to be worthless. Well that and writer’s that have no clue what made the original worth watching.
If this does turn out to be a hit film, I think that Jaden will be well on his way to a career that will exceed his father. Considering that Will Smith is familiar with working his way to the top, has had the experience of losing it all, and knows the fickle nature of critics and fans I expect that Jaden will be well prepared for added fame. This is one child actor that should never see the front page of a tabloid – except for any woman he might date.
If this film fails though, I expect that it will be the fault of the director. Based on his trend, this is an uphill battle. Still a bit of failure may be just the thing to keep his head from getting bigger than his britches. In fact I think that every child star should have some degree of failure to help balance out their expectations. Britney Spears and Lindsey Lohan are great examples of the potential if they don’t.
The film will be out in 2010 I expect. So there should not be too much time for speculation. Either way I think it will be another step forward for Jaden Smith. Hopefully it will be just the thing for his 12th birthday.
Thursday, July 09, 2009
Movie Preview: Blood:The Last Vampire
If you want to see something outside the usual Hollywood mega-explosion, action without plot, summer blockbusters I think there is another choice. It’s a film that most have likely not heard of, unless you happen to be into anime and/or manga. Blood: The Last Vampire is a live-action film based on an anime of the same name.
The original story, in the anime, is of a girl called Saya. She happens to be at least several hundred years old, a vampire, the last of her kind, and hates an offshoot breed called Chiroptera. The Chiroptera are literally hematophagous bat-like creatures, or if you recall the comic book character Man-Bat (on steroids and not as cute). Saya kills and feeds off of the Chirptera. The story takes place in Viet Nam era Japan.
To give you a better idea of what it’s about I found this video.
This is the basis of the live-action film. While there have been a few changes, the core story is basically intact. Saya is now a half-human, half-vampire. She still is out to kill, just this time it’s other vampires. She is still incredibly old. And she still works with a mysterious government agency.
Saya has been made a bit older for the film. The time has been changed to around the 70’s, still in Japan. The film is in English with Japanese sub-titles overseas, which is a switch based on improving the number of people seeing the film (silly Americans can’t watch a film and read at the same time you know). And it looks like a solid film.
The look and feel of this movie is incredibly close to the original anime. This is likely due to the attentions of producer Bill Kong (who was producer of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon), and the original direction thoughts of Ronny Yu (known best to American audiences for Fourmula 51, Bride of Chucky, Freddy vs. Jason, and Jet Li’s Fearless) – who became a producer on the film as well. Both men are very good when they are left alone to make a non-Hollywood style film, which Blood is. As for the director Chris Nahon, the only thing he has done that I am aware of is Kiss Of The Dragon. That was a so-so film, thus this may be his break-out or break-down piece.
If you know anime, you have likely know all about this film. If you don’t I suggest it anyway. It is rare that you get to have a plot (of some degree), action, martial arts, strong female leads, and solid visuals in a single movie. The fact that the film was made in English is just another benefit and reason to go see the film.
I realize that there is no hulking CGI robots, that the lead is Korean (Jun Ji-hyun also known as Gianna Jun for this English version film), and that there is a plot. Obviously that makes this film less appealing to some that prefer intergalactic robots that apparently are idiots and plot-holes so big that the NCC-1701 could fly through them. But perhaps these comments might change your mind
Will this film win an Oscar? No. But it should fill the void in a higher quality action films that nothing so far this year has hit upon from Hollywood. At least that’s what this movie preview concludes. I’ll review the actual film as soon as I can.
The original story, in the anime, is of a girl called Saya. She happens to be at least several hundred years old, a vampire, the last of her kind, and hates an offshoot breed called Chiroptera. The Chiroptera are literally hematophagous bat-like creatures, or if you recall the comic book character Man-Bat (on steroids and not as cute). Saya kills and feeds off of the Chirptera. The story takes place in Viet Nam era Japan.
To give you a better idea of what it’s about I found this video.
This is the basis of the live-action film. While there have been a few changes, the core story is basically intact. Saya is now a half-human, half-vampire. She still is out to kill, just this time it’s other vampires. She is still incredibly old. And she still works with a mysterious government agency.
Saya has been made a bit older for the film. The time has been changed to around the 70’s, still in Japan. The film is in English with Japanese sub-titles overseas, which is a switch based on improving the number of people seeing the film (silly Americans can’t watch a film and read at the same time you know). And it looks like a solid film.
The look and feel of this movie is incredibly close to the original anime. This is likely due to the attentions of producer Bill Kong (who was producer of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon), and the original direction thoughts of Ronny Yu (known best to American audiences for Fourmula 51, Bride of Chucky, Freddy vs. Jason, and Jet Li’s Fearless) – who became a producer on the film as well. Both men are very good when they are left alone to make a non-Hollywood style film, which Blood is. As for the director Chris Nahon, the only thing he has done that I am aware of is Kiss Of The Dragon. That was a so-so film, thus this may be his break-out or break-down piece.
If you know anime, you have likely know all about this film. If you don’t I suggest it anyway. It is rare that you get to have a plot (of some degree), action, martial arts, strong female leads, and solid visuals in a single movie. The fact that the film was made in English is just another benefit and reason to go see the film.
I realize that there is no hulking CGI robots, that the lead is Korean (Jun Ji-hyun also known as Gianna Jun for this English version film), and that there is a plot. Obviously that makes this film less appealing to some that prefer intergalactic robots that apparently are idiots and plot-holes so big that the NCC-1701 could fly through them. But perhaps these comments might change your mind
“The Hollywood Reporter's Maggie Lee praised Jun's performance as Saya, feeling that she "displays ample aptitude for being an action heroine, doing most of her own tendon-twisting martial arts stunts and looking utterly fetching in a sailor suit that could turn any guy into a uniform-fetishist".
Will this film win an Oscar? No. But it should fill the void in a higher quality action films that nothing so far this year has hit upon from Hollywood. At least that’s what this movie preview concludes. I’ll review the actual film as soon as I can.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)