An article posted by my friend Andrew Wheeler (here) examines which female characters Marvel could potentially adapt to film following the success of the AVENGERS, and another article posted on DC WOMEN KICKING ASS (here) highlights Joe Quesada's disappointing lack of enthusiasm for investing in developing a franchise around a female character.
AVENGERS has changed things signficantly for Marvel...not only is it the highest grossing film this year (I'm going to go out on a limb and just call it now, as I don't think anything coming up is going to surpass it), but at over a BILLION and climbing in revenue, it also has the significance of being the highest grossing film EVER. Even up to a few years ago making a superhero movie was still seen as taking a chance...you were pretty much assured to do some bank, but it was with your fingers crossed. For every SPIDER-MAN or THOR there's a GHOST RIDER or GREEN LANTERN. Hell, even X-MEN: FIRST CLASS, a personal favorite of mine, only did respectable box office as compared to the rest of the franchise, making more the the first movie in it's opening weekend, but less than it's sequels and spin-offs (X-MEN: THE LAST STAND and WOLVERINE: ORIGINS).
So every movie was a risk...AVENGERS proves that it's not. Marvel has created something new in cinema; a shared universe with a diverse cast of characters spread across various franchises, all loosely interconnected and interacting with each other. If you want to see the next movie, chances are you'll see every other movie tied into it, and with AVENGERS, every Marvel movie is now tied together, compelling the audience to constantly anticpate the next film and which of their favorites characters will be pop up next.
Not only that, but Marvel Studios has also stumbled upon a bankable formula for their films;
1) Cast a charismatic actor, usually someone with a low, but growing profile (remember; IRON MAN is the movie that reinvigorated Robert Downey...he's always been a good actor, and has a great body of work, but he wasn't a bankable start until IRON MAN reminded people of how talented he is) such as Hemsworth and Chris Evans, both character actors looking to make the jump to Leading Man. Content is King in Hollywood right now...a good actor breathes life into the character, but before THOR, you weren't going to see that movie for Chris Hemsworth...you were going to see it for Thor. Thor made Hemsworth just as much as Hemsworth made Thor (my friend Andrew Wheeler will disagree of course, but he's hugely biased by how sexy Hemsworth is. :B)
2) A tight script rooted in character as much as plot. Character is key, and always has been for Marvel. In my opinion, it's the thing that Marvel has always had over DC's properties. DC characters are iconic, and often flounder when not in costume. There's very little Bruce Wayne in BATMAN BEGINS or DARK KNIGHT, and SUPERMAN RETURNS main failing was that it was about Clark Kent instead of Superman...and among GREEN LANTERNS MANY failings is that Hal Jordan just isn't an interesting guy. Iron Man is about Tony Stark...he barely even referred to as Iron Man in ANY of the movies he's been in...he's Tony, or Mr. Stark, or just Stark. The armor is referred to as the Iron Man. Thor has no dual identity, he IS the character, so he has to be someone you're willing to both suspend your diselief for and fall in love with for about 2 hours. Same with Captain America; while he physically changes from frail to superhuman, all the qualities he has as Steve Rogers are still there when he becomes Captain America.
3) Humor. It's a very simple thing that is often overlooked; Marvel makes FUN movies. IRON MAN roots it's comedy in character; Robert Downey is a funny guy playing a manic, cocky, loudmoth with a self assured swagger. THOR rooted it's comedy in situation, making the most of the Stranger-in-a-Strange-Land theme to make for some great phsyical comdey and some hilariously awkward situation. CAPTAIN AMERICA's humore was more tongue-in-cheek and came up naturally. AVENGERS was a combination of these, filled with one-liners and sight-gags (GALAGA was my favorite). BATMAN is dark and the injection of humor undermines that gritty, unyielding, seriousness. SUPERMAN was meloncholy. GREEN LANTERN attempts at humor, despite having cast the usually hilarious Ryan Reynolds, were insincere and out of place. The same can be said of early Marvel attempts like DAREDEVIL and ELEKTRA, while BLADE II made sure to inject some humor (I'm convinced that this is what inspired Marvel to adopt this approach to future films) that was absent from the first movie (though BLADE TRINITY took it WAY to far...). The reason people are turning out in droves for Marvel movies is because they know that they're garunteed a GOOD TIME.
4) Show people something they haven't seen before. How GOOD do Marvel movies look? How exciting and visually distinctive are they? How diverse are the directors that have worked on them? From the slick, Spielbergian, production design Jon Favreau brought to IRON MAN, to the majestic, Kirby inspired, set and costume design of THOR, and the color, serial film, slightly camp feel of Captain America. Each film has it's own distinctive look and feel, and some brilliant and impressive special effects and action. Iron Man doesn't look like Thor doesn't fight like Captain America. Yes, you are garunteed to see certain things in a Marvel film, but you're also garunteed to get a movie experience that is unique to that film
With this in mind, what is really keeping Marvel from applying the above to any of their stable of female characters? There's nothing there that is not applicable to a movie with a female lead.
One theory suggested by DC WOMEN KICKING ASS was that while Marvel has a diverse and well represented cast of female characters, they have also traditionally treated them with much less respect from a publishing standpoint. At the time I'm writing this, Marvel has NO solo title with a female lead (thought Carol Danvers is sheduled to get a promotion from Ms to Captain Marvel, which I'm looking forward too), and it always seems like any book featuring a female lead is the first to get cancelled and the last to get a second or even third chance (why no She-Hulk book? She's supported long runs before, and Dan Slott established the PERFECT way to handle her in a series, one of my favorite runs of comics of all time). Most every female Marvel character is either affliated with a team or is a female version of a male hero, and thus inevitably tied to that character in some way (She-Hulk and X-23, for example). As such, most characters are less developed on an individual basis, making it hard to build a movie around them as individuals rather than as part of a team...most of their villains are shared with their teammates, and any standout characters arcs are also tied into their teammates.
Still, given the success Marvel has had, I believe they may be in a very good position to start taking some chances and put the effort into developing and distinguishing these characters as a way of raising their profile and reaching a demographic that is woefully underserved. I have a number of my own ideas on how you'd approach doing so, and since it's my blog, I'm going to indulge myself in some speculation. I usually find this kind of thing self-indulgant because, well, who am I to say, "This is what they should do", but that's the thing...I'm the audience Marvel is targetting, and this is something I WANT to see, and right now Joe Quesada is telling me that it can't be done, and I find it ridiculous that Marvel's Editor-In-Chief has so little faith in the characters he's supposed to be promoting.
Here I will examine both the Pro's and the Con's attached to each character, as I see them.
---
BLACK WIDOW
Black Widow would be the best bet. First off she's already established
in the Marvel movies, they've got a bankable actress who has proven
capable of doing both the drama and action, and there's a lot of cool
stuff to mine in her backstory (THE RED ROOM!). Black Widow has a great and
very cinematic origin, and as she's the female character most grounded
in reality (even moreso than Captain America) it'd be an easy film to
make on a more reasonable, less risky, budget; a globe-trotting spy thriller, a la THE BOURNE IDENTITY or a female James Bond, with a little bit of a sci-fi for flavor, given her origins as a human experiment. Tie her into S.H.I.E.L.D. or maybe even CAPTAIN AMERICA by introducing the Winter Soldier.
The only thing Black
Widow really lacks is a definitive villain...it's usually just evil
Russian guys in uniforms or suits, or her dead husband, though I suppose
you might be able to elevate Snapdragon or Iron Maiden somehow...Iron
Maiden would make for a great visual. Or, perhaps introduce the second, blonde, Black Widow as a villain; it worked in the comics. Other characters that could possibly be worked in are personal favorites of mine that never get respect; the Soviet Super Soldiers, Crimson Dynamo, Titanium Man, the Gremlin, etc etc. You've gone too far if you get to the Presense, though. ^_^;;;
SHE-HULK
She-Hulk would make a better TV series taking cues from Dan Slott's
awesome run...I don't really think there's enough there for a big summer
movie, particularly since the Hulk movies (INCREDIBLE HULK was actually
the perfect Hulk movie to me, but other disagree) tradtionally don't do
well to begin with. She's a great character and there's a lot to play
with in a more intimate and decompressed story, but as a big summer
tentpole, I don't know what you'd do with her in a standalone movie...but as a TV show, it's LAW AND ORDER with a big, sexy, green woman who fights monsters and aliens and is both intelligent and funny.
The other good thing about a TV show is that you don't need a 'mastermind' villain to define She-Hulk...you have the entire gallery of Marvel's loser villains and super-thugs to draw from, and while Titania doesn't have enough movitivation to carry a movie, she'd be a great recurring foe in a TV show!
Casting this would be next to impossible, and even CGI would be difficult as She-Hulk is much more human looking than the Hulk. Hulk is distorted and there's a lot more room for suspension of disbelief in a CGI Hulk than there would be for a similarly CGI created She-Hulk. But where are you really going to find a 6'6" plus woman with a body builders physic who both looks beautiful and can act? Then there's the problem of Jennife Walters...do you cast another actress? How do you make the same actress less impressive as Jennifer Walters than as She-Hulk? Can people suspend their disbelief if Jen Walters and She-Hulk are two different actresses? Can you have a show where Jen Walters is just She-Hulk all the time? There are a number of logistical issues to overcome in adapting a live action She-Hulk...not to mention how much you want to tie her into the Hulk. The Hulk is most probably not going to be doable on a TV budget, and the Hulk cameoing in a She-Hulk movie isn't going to do her any favors, considering he can't even carry his own movie.
A live action She-Hulk is something I'd love to see, but almost impossible to produce from a practical standpoint.
MS MARVEL
Ms Marvel could be rebranded (as they're already doing so in the comics)
as Captain Marvel. She's a character I'd take a lot of creative
license with in terms of adapting to the big-screen to streamline her
origin. Plus with the failure of GREEN LANTERN, you already know what
things to avoid when doing a more cosmic type of character. Lots of
good stuff to mine with Ms Marvel though...you can bring in the Kree,
she's got a great power-set that would make for some awesome action
(lifting tanks, blowing up space ships, and even when she doesn't have
powers, she's still a highly trained and decorated soldier and pilot
which would allow you to open the movie with some action). The real
problem here, again, is that she has no definitive villain...unless you
count Mystique, Rouge, and the Brotherhood of Mutants, who are all
attached to another franchise at another studio. Maybe you can adopt
Ronan the Accuser?
In terms of who I'd cast for Ms Marvel...Michelle Rodriguez would be
great, but I'm not sure that Marvel, or fans, would accept the idea of
casting against ethnic type, which is BULLCRAP, but I can't think of a
blonde actress that could carry both action and the toughness. Maybe
Eliza Dushku with a dye-job? That has potential.
Getting a 'star'
isn't a big deal for these movies, as they tend to MAKE stars. Look at
Hemsworth or Jackman, for example. Get someone right for the part with
that Marvel Movie Star quality of charisma and humor, and you've got
yourself a movie star.
HEROES FOR HIRE feat. MISTY KNIGHT and COLLEEN WING
I'm cheating a little here, as the best approach in my mind would be for and ensemble TV show, but how sick would it be to see Misty Knight and Colleen Wing share the screen with Luke Cage and Iron Fist to solve a super-mystery every week? Four great characters who all have proven chemistry in the comics, and an easy to adapt formula, with a possible arc that you could touch on in every episode and pay off in the season finale! Plus, all of these characters are very grounded in reality, and easy to cast and adapt on a TV budget (as terrible as it was, NO ORDINARY FAMILY at least proved that you could do a good looking superhero effects on a TV budget). A little make-up for Misty's cyborg arm, some wire-work for Colleen Wing and Iron Fist, and some CGI for Luke Cage tossing around cars and bouncing bullets off of his well defined chest (which would inevitably become bare for the ladies and the gays. ^_~).
Sexiness is what would be the greatest sell for this show...four attractive people having tense relationships and being in close proximity to each other...it's like superhero MOONLIGHTING! I know that only Misty and Danny Rand (Iron Fist) have chemisty in the comics, but you could either manufacture a will-they/won't-they thing for Luke Cage and Colleen Wing, or introduce Jessica Jones (this is presuming that AKA JESSICA JONES never gets green-lit, which would be sad).
That's not to say that the show wouldn't work with just Misty Knight and Colleen Wing...or maybe even adapt Jimmy Palmiotti and Justin Gray's run and add in Black Cat and a few other b-string female heroines to round out the cast and make it a VIP type show (yes, I know that VIP was terrible, but it was also POPULAR, and it's formula is applicable here). I just like Luke Cage and Iron Fist, and I like those characters together, and I also think tha tif your goal is to appeal to a (straight) female audience, you need a little man-candy in there for them to oogle (also for the gay nerds, of which there are many).
It might also work as a movie, but I really feel like that formula would be wasted on a movie, when it could be so well served as a weekly TV show.
X-23
HANNA was already sort of the prototype for X-23, but HANNA isn't tied to what is arguably Marvel's most popular character, and she has a great origin, much like Black Widow. Make no mistake...it would be a very dark movie, but hopefully with a little heart. I like the idea of a very serious and hardcore female action movie though. Some will inevitably see it as torture, but it's about the strength to ENDURE such torture, and to rise above it. There is a lot of depth to X-23 that would make for a great movie.
The problem is that she's female Wolverine, and anything involving X-23 is going to be introduced in a Wolverine movie before it'd be introduced in her own movie...unless, of course, you had Hugh Jackman serve as second banana to a young, untested, actress. The thing is...he'd do it. Hugh Jackman is one of those rare actors that is humble enough to take a lesser role in service to the character rather than making sure that that anything involving the character is in service to him, and he's proven time and again that he is one 'down' cat, willing to do almost anything if he thinks the fans will enjoy it. The problem, then, is that, even in a secondary role, Wolverine would potentially overshadow X-23 in her own story. It would take some very clever writing and directing to make X-23 on her own merits.
NOVA
Here's something no one has suggested, as it's usually decried as heresy; why not take a well known, but otherwise b-sting character and reinvent them as a woman? There is nothing that says that Nova (the Human Rocket, not the Herald of Galactus) has to be a man. You can even call her Richie Rider. The main problem is that Nova is a little too simliar to Ms Marvel, and has only one debatably good villain in the Sphinx. Still, there's a lot of good stuff there...a teenage girl accidentally inherits amazing alien powers and has to juggle highschool with preventing intergalactic war; that's some fun suff! Everything about Nova's character is as appliable to a female protagonist as it is to a male protagonist, and he's undeveloped enough in the comics that there is room to create something new and worthwhile from the character. There is no definable love interest, and there is no great, character defining, story-arc that I can think of that would stand in the way of making Nova a rigidly male character.
All that really stands in the way of doing so is that nerds are way to precious, uncompromising, and myopic when it comes to adapting characters to other forms of media. The only real argument for Nova not being a female character is that Nova has never BEEN a female character. Nova's being a man does not make him a better character, and being recast as a woman would not make him a worse character, it's as simple as that. Plus, there's already precident for recasting Nova without fan outcry in ULTIMATE SPIDER-MAN, as Nova went from being bland, white, Richard Rider to cocky, non-white (I'm assuming he's hispanic or dominican in the show, though they haven't clearly defined that), Sam Alexander without people being weird about it for once. Nova has his fans, but they aren't so vocal as to stand in they way of his being recast for a potentially positive outcome.
---
I could play this game all day, but the sad fact is, if Marvel doesn't want to do it, they won't, and that is a sad fucking story.
The most important thing that should be taken into consideration when making a female lead superhero movie is this; don't just make it for the boys...make it for the GIRLS. Get a female director; Karen Kusama made a perfect example of what a female superhero movie should be in adapting Aeon Flux to the screen...the only problem with that movie really is that it's not a good Aeon Flux movie, but it IS a good female superhero movie. She's strong, proactive, self-assure and intelligent, and most importantly, at no point in the movie is ANY woman ever a VICTIM. The only person that ever actually threatens Aeon are OTHER STRONG WOMEN. She dispatches every male villain and is never at their mercy.
But beyond that, make something sexy and sleek, throw in some man-candy. THOR is probably one of Marvel's most female friendly movies; the only one that is objectified in that movie is THOR! Staight-white-males like myself have more than enough to satisfy our various lusts and cravings; give your female (and homosexual) audiences something to oogle...because I know for a FACT that it works (looking at you Wheels. ^_~). A little romance never hurt anything, but just because your lead is a female doesn't mean we need to see her breasts...the only tits in a female lead superhero movie should be Chris Hemsworth's.
Women deserve their heroes too, and everything that makes a good male lead superhero movie is applicable to a female lead superhero movie...serve your audience, Marvel.
Showing posts with label Movies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Movies. Show all posts
Sunday, May 20, 2012
Saturday, June 11, 2011
THE SUMMER BLOCKBUSTER: What Makes a Good Summer Movie?
I'll be the first to admit that my tastes in both fiction and movies are not what people should aspire too. I cast a wide net from the high brow (TRUE GRIT being my current favorite movie) to the low brow (nothing gets my blood pumping the way FAST FIVE did), but I think the same can be said of most people. What I like from my entertainment is that, more than anything, it is ENTERTAINING. To different people this may mean different things, but it's pretty easy to see what it is that works and what it is that doesn't work.
This year has not been great for movies, but those that have hit have hit big, so I'd like to examine what it takes to make a solid piece of late spring/summer entertainment.
(NOTE: Please excuse my excessive referencing of superhero movies, but they are the most prevalent and successful franchises of late, and the ones of most personal interest to me as a viewer.)
SOMETHING I HAVEN'T SEEN BEFORE
As is becoming increasingly obvious in Hollywood, new and innovative concepts are few and far between; modern audiences have a sense of having seen it all. Thus, the first step in any summer blockbuster is an original idea, or, failing that, a fresh new take on an old one.
Now this doesn't always work, as PRIEST can prove, as sometimes, in that desperate rush to create something new, you end up with a concept that is too high, or a mix of too many genres (really PRIEST? A religious sci-fi vampire western? Talk about reach exceeding grasp).
Whatever the idea is, the conceit should be simple and concise; THOR for example, was a stranger-in-a-strange-land take on a comic book hero based on the mythic God of Thunder. A simple enough premise to wrap your mind around once you've firmly established the rules for the audience.
Similarly, when rehashing an old idea, give it a new spin; it worked wonders for X-MEN FIRST CLASS, which re-envisioned the franchise as a slick, hip, mash-up of 60's style James Bond with the modern superhero concept. It was a bold direction for a franchise already so firmly established, but paid off quite well (I actually liked it better in some ways than the first three movies).
CHARACTERS WITH CHARACTER
People want to be charmed by a protagonist. They want to be seduced by a hero with charisma. This is a quality that's shared by such recent greats as Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp), Tony Stark (Robert Downey...who also does a great turn as an equally charming Sherlock Holmes), and Thor (Chris Hemsworth). These were characters that invested a certain swagger and humor to their characters that encouraged you to get invested in their continuing exploits. At a certain point it doesn't even matter what they're doing; you just enjoy watching them do it. This takes a great actor with a lot of confidence, wit, and charisma.
This isn't something that can just be created...it's more of a happy coincidence. Casting is important, as well as the actor investing something into the character; they need to believe in the character they're portraying if they expect the audience to.
A SOLID STORY
It doesn't have to be Academy award winning, but a solid script is a must. People will suspend their disbelief for a lot, as long as there is a strong foundation to stage it all on. Clearly established characters and motivations, and effective and concise world building.
But most importantly, the script should have some HUMOR. This is why MARVEL has been so successful this summer, and why I'm so worried about GREEN LANTERN. Yes, GREEN LANTERN cast comedian Ryan Reynold's, but the trailer is humorless. There are jokes, but the movie is obviously taking the idea of a guy that makes giant fists out of light with a green Space-Ring way to seriously. THOR and X-MEN FIRST CLASS, and hell, even something like TRUE GRIT, all worked so well because there was a healthy dose of wry humor to them; a willingness to recognize some of the goofier aspects, while not becoming a parody (this is part of why I think GREEN HORNET was ill concieved...it was a parody that didn't know it was a parody).
SHOCK AND AWE
Many will argue that big budget CGI is extraneous, and at a certain point it is, but if you manage to achieve all of the above, some really eye-popping visuals can only help to cement your success at the box-office. For many, the theater experience is a short escape from reality; sometimes people just want to be dazzled by a well realized visual; a cool monster, a violent fight, a superhuman act, a big explosion...it all adds up to a world more lively and vibrant than our own. A great production design, with some original art direction, and some solid CGI can be enough for people sometimes (*cough cough* AVATAR *cough cough* AVATAR only really HAD the visual going for it, but people LOVED it and forgave it's many, many, flaws).
These are the elements that really make a great summer movie. A sort of ethereal magic formula that studio's chase after; it's almost impossible to tell what will hit and what will not, and what works for one movie, may not work for another, but a good director, a solid script, a talented cast, and some dazzling visuals will almost always ensure you at least make your money back, even if they don't guarantee a sequel.
This year has not been great for movies, but those that have hit have hit big, so I'd like to examine what it takes to make a solid piece of late spring/summer entertainment.
(NOTE: Please excuse my excessive referencing of superhero movies, but they are the most prevalent and successful franchises of late, and the ones of most personal interest to me as a viewer.)
SOMETHING I HAVEN'T SEEN BEFORE
As is becoming increasingly obvious in Hollywood, new and innovative concepts are few and far between; modern audiences have a sense of having seen it all. Thus, the first step in any summer blockbuster is an original idea, or, failing that, a fresh new take on an old one.
Now this doesn't always work, as PRIEST can prove, as sometimes, in that desperate rush to create something new, you end up with a concept that is too high, or a mix of too many genres (really PRIEST? A religious sci-fi vampire western? Talk about reach exceeding grasp).
Whatever the idea is, the conceit should be simple and concise; THOR for example, was a stranger-in-a-strange-land take on a comic book hero based on the mythic God of Thunder. A simple enough premise to wrap your mind around once you've firmly established the rules for the audience.
Similarly, when rehashing an old idea, give it a new spin; it worked wonders for X-MEN FIRST CLASS, which re-envisioned the franchise as a slick, hip, mash-up of 60's style James Bond with the modern superhero concept. It was a bold direction for a franchise already so firmly established, but paid off quite well (I actually liked it better in some ways than the first three movies).
CHARACTERS WITH CHARACTER
People want to be charmed by a protagonist. They want to be seduced by a hero with charisma. This is a quality that's shared by such recent greats as Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp), Tony Stark (Robert Downey...who also does a great turn as an equally charming Sherlock Holmes), and Thor (Chris Hemsworth). These were characters that invested a certain swagger and humor to their characters that encouraged you to get invested in their continuing exploits. At a certain point it doesn't even matter what they're doing; you just enjoy watching them do it. This takes a great actor with a lot of confidence, wit, and charisma.
This isn't something that can just be created...it's more of a happy coincidence. Casting is important, as well as the actor investing something into the character; they need to believe in the character they're portraying if they expect the audience to.
A SOLID STORY
It doesn't have to be Academy award winning, but a solid script is a must. People will suspend their disbelief for a lot, as long as there is a strong foundation to stage it all on. Clearly established characters and motivations, and effective and concise world building.
But most importantly, the script should have some HUMOR. This is why MARVEL has been so successful this summer, and why I'm so worried about GREEN LANTERN. Yes, GREEN LANTERN cast comedian Ryan Reynold's, but the trailer is humorless. There are jokes, but the movie is obviously taking the idea of a guy that makes giant fists out of light with a green Space-Ring way to seriously. THOR and X-MEN FIRST CLASS, and hell, even something like TRUE GRIT, all worked so well because there was a healthy dose of wry humor to them; a willingness to recognize some of the goofier aspects, while not becoming a parody (this is part of why I think GREEN HORNET was ill concieved...it was a parody that didn't know it was a parody).
SHOCK AND AWE
Many will argue that big budget CGI is extraneous, and at a certain point it is, but if you manage to achieve all of the above, some really eye-popping visuals can only help to cement your success at the box-office. For many, the theater experience is a short escape from reality; sometimes people just want to be dazzled by a well realized visual; a cool monster, a violent fight, a superhuman act, a big explosion...it all adds up to a world more lively and vibrant than our own. A great production design, with some original art direction, and some solid CGI can be enough for people sometimes (*cough cough* AVATAR *cough cough* AVATAR only really HAD the visual going for it, but people LOVED it and forgave it's many, many, flaws).
These are the elements that really make a great summer movie. A sort of ethereal magic formula that studio's chase after; it's almost impossible to tell what will hit and what will not, and what works for one movie, may not work for another, but a good director, a solid script, a talented cast, and some dazzling visuals will almost always ensure you at least make your money back, even if they don't guarantee a sequel.
Sunday, March 27, 2011
SUCKER PUNCHED BY SUCKER PUNCH: Exceeding my Expectations in the Wrong Way
I love movies. I love visual storytelling as a whole (as one can tell from reading just about anything on this blog, or talking to me for more than a few minutes, as I can't stop myself from making a reference to a film or TV show), and especially love sharing that experience. I love to watch things with people, observe their reactions, and talk about it afterwords; get their impressions. As much as I think the theater experience is slowly dying, I love going to the theater with a bunch of friends and enjoying a movie as a social experience.
Thus, the only time a movie actually fails in my point of view, is if it fails to entertain. A movie can be stupid, excessive, over-the-top, ever shocking or disgusting, as long as it entertains you. In fact, some of the best movies to watch with a large group of people are exactly those kinds of exploitative romps... some of my favorite times are watching stupid movies with people; shouting shit at the screen, pointing out mistakes, screaming at scares, laughing at ludicrous gags, etc. Movies like RIKI-OH: THE STORY OF RIKI, DOLEMITE: THE HUMAN TORNADO, BIG TROUBLE IN LITTLE CHINA, DEATHWISE 3, and more recent efforts like PLANET TERROR, MACHETE, or the latest (and probably most shocking and disgusting) HOBO WITH A SHOTGUN. Stupid, exploitive, and sometimes just disgusting, but all ENTERTAINING.
The thing that separates this kind of fun, enjoyable, and harmless exploitation from just straight, offensive, exploitation is the intent; the people making these movies know that they're not going to be invited to the Oscars, and in most cases they know they aren't being deep. That doesn't mean they aren't trying to communicate a message or theme, but they are conscious that their way of doing it is very blunt. They don't have any illusions about being cerebral.
That's what brings me to the subject of this review, Zack Snyder's Bad-Grrl Power opus, SUCKER PUNCH.
Having expressed my reaction to the movie since seeing it, either in person or on Twitter, people have questioned, "Well... what did you expect?" That's fair... from watching the above trailer, as I have, I imagine that most people would go into the movie have much the same expectations as I had; a fun, slightly stupid, visual rollercoaster with just enough plot to BARELY justify it's awesome, even revolutionary, visuals and action. The trailer features sexy girls kicking ass in various sci-fi and fantasy environments, all under the conceit of said action taking place in their imaginations, while they attempt to escape their horrify existence trapped in a Mental Institution. Harmless fun right?
SUCKER PUNCH is the most horribly exploitative and offensive thing I've ever seen, and not in a fun, harmless way. The film starts off with an extended, slow motion (it's Zack Snyder of course... there isn't a single motion that he can't slow) musical montage showing the tragic near rape of the films underaged protagonist, and her even younger sister, before she is framed for the death of her sister and institutionalized by her predatory Step-Father, and placed in the care of an even MORE predatory orderly. The stakes are firmly established early on; if the inappropriately named 'Baby-Doll' does not escape her unjust imprisonment within five days she will be LOBOTOMIZED and then RAPED. The film then transforms from the grim, dank, gray reality as 'Baby-Doll' escapes into a vibrant, prohibition era styled, MAD MEN inspired, fantasy land where she and her fellow victims (there are no female characters in this movie, only victims) are glamorous strippers, keep prisoner to serve the lusts of their male captors. Their solution to this; to use 'Baby-Doll's' underaged sensuality as a distraction to allow them to acquire the means to escape their imprisonment, before her virginity is sold to 'The High Roller' who arrives in five days, mirroring her grim reality.
That's right, those are the stakes in both her reality and fantasy; LOBOTOMY, RAPE, AND THE LOSS OF HER VIRGINITY.
The real disturbing conceit of this movie is that Zack Snyder thinks that this is a strong feminist message... I mean, the girls get to kick ass right? No, they only get to kick ass in their imaginations... where they are mentored by an omnipresent male savior, who it is implied from the beginning is their only chance to escape. In the grim reality, and the vibrant fantasy framing sequences between the even DEEPER fantasy sequences, they are all VICTIMS. Helpless, crying, sniveling, unsure, and cowardly. They easily compromise their resolve multiple times at the threats and ham handed abuse of their male captors, because they are only truly strong in their imaginations. The only power any of these women have in the real world, or it's fantasy reflection, is their ability to seduce or otherwise please men.
The final insult, though, comes at the end in the form of the films only survivors parting voice over, where she attempts to impart of deep message of taking control of your life after she's SAVED BY HER MALE SAVIOR, as a way of justifying all the heinous exploitation you the audience have just witnessed.
The thing is... I don't even think that Zack Snyder is aware of what he's made... I don't think he really intended this movie as a huge love letter to the exploitation of women. I think he really thought he was making some kind of feminist opus here. His way of justifying all the horrid shit he does to everyone is to make every single male character unforgivably horrible and a heinous predator of women. There is only one male character in the movie that doesn't exploit, abuse, or attempt to rape any of the female victims, and he's a figment of their collective imaginations.
So that's what you have to look forward too in this dark, cruel, world as Zack Snyder see's it, females of the species; you'll all prey to the lusts and desires of you male captors, who are all out to get you, and you are COMPLETELY POWERLESS TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT.
(Spoilers Follow if you really did want to subject yourself to seeing this visually spectacular turd)
Powerless like 'Baby-Doll', who, after all her heroic, sexy, efforts to titillate and seduce her way to freedom, she fails and is lobotomized. There's an attempt to play it off as a heroic sacrifice to allow her fellow victimized captive, 'Sweet Pea' (none of the female cast had real names... just sexy nicknames to further dehumanize and sexualize them), but this falls flat, as she herself is ultimately turned into a living sex doll with a blissful expression on her face as she is forcefully ejected from reality and into, what one can only assume, is her escapist fantasy land, while 'Sweet Pea' is helpless to cope in the real world, and saved by her 'Guardian Angel'. The films villains only get their comeuppance due to John Hamm (in what has too, in retrospect, be an embarassing cameo for him) 'noticing a glimmer in her eyes' which prompts him to look deeper into 'Baby-Doll's' case, and exposing both the predatory orderly and her predatory Step-Father... yet another case of the man coming to the rescue in this feminist action story (roll EYES... 9_9).
The real tragedy here is how fucking SPECTACULAR the visuals were, and how AWESOME the action was. The first foray into 'Baby-Doll's' fantasy land where she fights three giant Samurai with naught but a gun and a sword was some of the best, most original and visceral, action I've seen in a movie... it was like anime truly brought to life. Why couldn't he have made THAT movie? A group of ass-kicking female superhumans fight monsters and robots on distant planets to save the universe is much close to the feminist ideal he was going for, and far less exploitative. That's the movie I wanted to see! Instead I got SUCKER PUNCHED.
If you feel the need to be truly disgusted and offended while still being visually Wowed, go see SUCKER PUNCH. Just don't tell me about it, because then you'll get an ear full.
Saturday, January 22, 2011
TRAILER TIME 2011
Been awhile since the last TRAILER TIME, but, let's face it... 2010 was a TERRIBLE year for movies. What wasn't down right terrible, was instead disappointing, with few exceptions (TRUE GRIT was the best thing I saw in 2010, and TANGLED reminded me what a GOOD Disney movie is supposed to be like... actually it was an overall pretty strong year for animation, with HOW TO TRAIN YOUR DRAGON, DESPICABLE ME, and MEGAMIND all being pretty stand out). There were very few times I was compelled to go to the theater, and even less that I was compelled to own on DVD.
So lets see what's on the deck for 2011...
EVANGELION 2.0: YOU CAN [not] ADVANCE
The first movie of 2011 I've stepped into a theater for... I'll probably do an actual review later, though I'm hesitant to write anything until I've watched it again, so I may wait until the Blu Ray comes out in... Feb/March? Either way, the so called REBUILD OF EVANGELION slowly trickles out in both Japan and North America, and is worth the wait... if you're going to go back and fuck around with your source material, it should be with the intent of making it better, and that's where Hideki Anno succeeds and George Lucas fails. Now, I can't really definitively say that the REBUILDs are better than the original in every respect (I'm not too happy with the changes made to what is my favorite moment of the original series... but, again, I'll bring that up in a later review), but in MOST respects the REBUILDs are far superior; the animation is leaps and bounds, the overall production is as groundbreaking as the original and has an even greater depth and more expansive worldbuilding, and the story is much tighter and more focused and on point. Also, it's just interesting to see how a guys worldview can change in 20 years... while most of the story elements remain unchanged, the REBUILDs are FAR less bleak then the original series, and far less concerned with torturing and isolating the characters. This may turn off fans for the original, who identified with the themes of teenage isolation and the overall intense pre-2000 Emo-ness, but I, personally, prefer the idea of Shinji as becoming a stronger, more resilient and mature, adult over the course of the series, rather than being brow beaten and psychologically tortured into catatonic insanity... though I guess there's still time for that to happen.
At any rate, as you can see from the trailer, EVANGELION delivers on the visuals with spectacular animation and outrageous actions set pieces; to put it short, EVANGELION 2.0 redefines EPIC for a new generation... other movies seem so much SMALLER by comparison to me now... no one does it big like Gainax!
THE GREEN HORNET
Already in theaters, I'll admit that I'm curious, but I have not heard good things, and quite frankly, the trailer has never really sold me... the movie looks schizophrenic; is this supposed to be a comedy, a superhero movie, both? I like Seth Rogan, but do I really want to see him as a bumbling superhero? And if he's not supposed to be bumbling, can I take him seriously as a superhero? It looks all over the place, a confusing mish-mash of various conflicting genres. Still... I am curious. I just wouldn't see it in theaters.
PREIST
Based on a Korean Manwhua that I've never read, but the art looks LOVELY, this looks equal parts pure BAD ASS and stupid as fuck. I imagine it'll be somewhere between ULTRAVIOLET and UNDERWORLD... a Post-Apocalypse monster filled psuedo-religious dystopia filled with cool visuals and hammy acting. Christopher Plumber being in it sort of makes me a little hopeful, but he's only got a very small part. Still, it's got awesome looking monsters, martial arts, and a cool Future/Western motif... there's no way I'm NOT going to watch this. My fear, though, is that it's going to be boring and self righteous, the way all Pseudo-Religious movies are... those both critical and non-critical of religion. At least it's not LEGION...
RED RIDING HOOD
Ok, this looks fucking BULLSHIT... which is why I'm assuming that it will become the biggest movie of 2011. It's a lot of stiff, stilted, performances from impossibly beautiful guys, and an "Look at me! I'm an Auteur!" production design (seriously, the first shot of the trailer with the red cape billowing against the bleak white landscape? What this someones student film?). You can totally tell that this was directed by the chick that did TWILIGHT, because it has all the same bullcrap, replacing acting with smoldering, plot with drama, and a strong female lead with a girl surrounded by guys fighting over her. This movie looks BALL SHRIVELLINGLY TERRIBLE. I'm sure it'll make a billion dollars.
BATTLE: LOS ANGELOS
Wow, they got that sequel to SKYLINE made pretty fast... No, seriously, I'll never understand how Hollywood can make the same movie almost concurrently. Still, is it wrong that I want to see this movie because it's got explosions, monsters, and Michelle Rodriguez, who I will watch in ANY movie? I didn't think so... so, despite the TERRIBLE title, I will see this at some point.
THE FIGHTER
I have a soft spot for boxing movies... I actually don't really care to watch the actual sport of boxing that much, but I love boxing movies... there's something so compelling about the human drama behind a boxer combined with the actual visceral combat element. I'm not a huge fan of Drama... I have little patience for watching just straight biopics because I need a little action in everything I see; boxing movies allow you to have the human drama and the action at the same time. Plus, Mark Wallberg is an actor I trust. He's not a great actor, and that isn't a diss because very few of today's actors are truly great, but he is a GOOD actor, and one of the only guys in Hollywood that seems to actually READ a script. He's made very few movies that I either didn't want to watch, or found to be shitty, so I'll generally see anything Mark Wallberg is in, because I'm assured that it'll probably be good. This actually looks excellent.
YOU HIGHNESS
I don't think I've ever wanted to see a movie MORE than this... this looks fucking AMAZING! James Franco always surprises me with his ability to be funny... there's a stigmatism against the super-handsome having a sense of humor, but James Franco defies expectations by being both super-handsome and super-funny. My favorite line, "... with MAGIC... Motherfucker!" Excellent. I am so excited about this!
I AM NUMBER 4
Ugh... what the fuck is this supposed to be about? The reason why movies where people try to make their own superhero franchise don't work, is because they're all inevitably crappy... like JUMPER for example. This movie looks almost BEAT for BEAT like JUMPER. Another 20-something playing a teenager, looking at his hands like, "Woah... I have powers!" Why are they always surprised they have powers? The worst part about this movie will be the shitty comic tie-in's that I'm predicting either IDW, BOOM, or DYNAMITE will inevitably publish now that WILDSTORM isn't around to do it. I'll probably see this turd eventually, because it has a guy with superpowers and I can't stop my compulsion to watch movies about guys with super powers (I'm in a group... it's being worked out), but I'm pretty sure that I'm going to get angry watching it. Michael Bay's involvement in a movie is never a good sign.
HEARTLESS
This actually looks sort of cool... it's almost like anime. A damaged kid alone against an enemy only he can see, killing cool looking monsters on the streets of London. If it wasn't for the whole "Selling His Soul For Good Looks" beat, I'd be totally on board for this. I really hate that beat... it's cheesy and compromises an otherwise cool character. I really like unconventional heroes; dudes who aren't the handsome, perfect, pretty boys. I like the knarled, scarred, dudes fighting at a deficit against impossible odds. Plus, really? A Birthmark makes him societies outcast? How shallow is London? That is the least hideous birthmark I've ever seen... I had a teacher with a birthmark that covered almost the whole side of his face so that he looked like the Phantom of the Opera, and he still managed to marry a rather attractive woman, and this kid is all like, "I will sell my SOUL to get rid of this minor imperfection!" That's a little far fetched.
THE MECHANIC
JASON STATHAM DELIVERS! This looks awesome... bad ass stunts, big explosions, and Jason Statham being a fucking bad ass. I'll watch just about any movie with Jason Statham in it, because he is Hollywoods last true action star, and unlike most action stars, he can actually sort of act. He's, like... the sensitive bad ass. Plus, I like Ben Foster. He's great at playing creepy guys, and has a cool voice. This movie looks cool, and I'll totally see it.
SUCKERPUNCH
It's embarrassing to admit that I sort of want to see this movie... Zack Snyder is one of those directors who is all surface; polished visuals, admittedly spectacular, with no substance underneath. The problem with that, though, is that he THINKS he's being really deep, much like James Cameron thought that AVATAR was really deep, and that's condescending. This movie REEKS of that... he's trying to present it like there's a deep philosophy here, when there really isn't... it's just an awesome looking psuedo-anime looking ALICE IN WONDERLAND action fetish film. And I wouldn't mind that if he wasn't acting like it was deep. Also... PLEASE get over the slow motion! Slow motion can look very cool when properly used, but he just uses it fucking EVERYWHERE. Dial it back, jackass, and then you'll have a very cool action-porno.
FAST FIVE
YES! Sorry... I have an unapologetic lust for the FAST AND THE FURIOUS franchise... but only the ones with Vin Diesel. I like Vin Diesel... like, as a person. He seems like he'd be a great guy to hang out with, plus he always delivers. This movie looks stupid and over the top, but I can accept that because Vin Diesel somehow manages to ground it. I'm SO fucking on board for this movie... my only complaint is NO MICHELLE RODRIGUEZ! You cannot believe how pissed off I was when they killed her in the last movie. I love you Michelle! ;_; On the other side; Vin Diesel? Paul Walker? THE FUCKING ROCK? If I was gay, I'd be blowing my load right now; that's some handome, burly, guys all in the same movie. ^_-
PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN 4: ON STRANGER TIDES
I'm actually excited about this. Although it had it's problems, taken together the first three movies make a decent trilogy, and I just enjoy Johnny Depp as Jack Sparrow... it's great to watch a guy who's obviously having a great time acting. Plus... Geoffory Rush? Ian McShane? It's like an ACT OFF between my three favorite actors! Super excited about this.
THOR
THOR actually looks pretty sick. This trailer has been out for awhile, and there's been a lot of debate, but I'm pretty happy with what I'm seeing. The movie looks solid as fuck, hits all the right character points, and... that dude looks like you want Thor to look! Look at his fucking SUPERHERO ARMS! I haven't seen a single superhero movie where the guy actually had a He-Man chest and Superhero arms. Plus; Anthony Hopkins is always great, and he's always having a great time in movies like these. He'll make a good Odin. Overall, I'm excited. Can't say the same about...
GREEN LANTERN
I'll obviously watch this... I can't NOT watch it. I'm a huge nerd. But this trailer makes me worry. The colors are garish, the sets look fake, and, as much as I love Ryan Reynolds, I think he was woefully miscast... this sort of looks like GREEN HORNET (weird that the two GREEN movies would be so similar in their ball dropping...) in that it's a weird mish-mash of comic send-up of the genre, and serious superhero movie. It's a awkward, lumbering, looking affair... and seriously? Hector Hammond is the best villain they could find for the first movie? A creepy looking nerd with a huge head? I will say this though... Mark Strong looks AWESOME as Sinestro, who is also a much better villain. I'm not to excited about this...
ALIENS VS COWBOYS
I liked this movie when it was called OUTLANDER, and the cowboys were vikings. I have no idea what to think of this...
SUMMER WARS
I've already ordered the Blu Ray from AMAZON. It sort of looks like they took the plot to the second part of the DIGIMON movie and turned it into a full movie. I think it looks pretty sick. I'm looking forward to it.
Ok, that's it for now... we'll see what the rest of the year holds sometime in the summer!
So lets see what's on the deck for 2011...
EVANGELION 2.0: YOU CAN [not] ADVANCE
The first movie of 2011 I've stepped into a theater for... I'll probably do an actual review later, though I'm hesitant to write anything until I've watched it again, so I may wait until the Blu Ray comes out in... Feb/March? Either way, the so called REBUILD OF EVANGELION slowly trickles out in both Japan and North America, and is worth the wait... if you're going to go back and fuck around with your source material, it should be with the intent of making it better, and that's where Hideki Anno succeeds and George Lucas fails. Now, I can't really definitively say that the REBUILDs are better than the original in every respect (I'm not too happy with the changes made to what is my favorite moment of the original series... but, again, I'll bring that up in a later review), but in MOST respects the REBUILDs are far superior; the animation is leaps and bounds, the overall production is as groundbreaking as the original and has an even greater depth and more expansive worldbuilding, and the story is much tighter and more focused and on point. Also, it's just interesting to see how a guys worldview can change in 20 years... while most of the story elements remain unchanged, the REBUILDs are FAR less bleak then the original series, and far less concerned with torturing and isolating the characters. This may turn off fans for the original, who identified with the themes of teenage isolation and the overall intense pre-2000 Emo-ness, but I, personally, prefer the idea of Shinji as becoming a stronger, more resilient and mature, adult over the course of the series, rather than being brow beaten and psychologically tortured into catatonic insanity... though I guess there's still time for that to happen.
At any rate, as you can see from the trailer, EVANGELION delivers on the visuals with spectacular animation and outrageous actions set pieces; to put it short, EVANGELION 2.0 redefines EPIC for a new generation... other movies seem so much SMALLER by comparison to me now... no one does it big like Gainax!
THE GREEN HORNET
Already in theaters, I'll admit that I'm curious, but I have not heard good things, and quite frankly, the trailer has never really sold me... the movie looks schizophrenic; is this supposed to be a comedy, a superhero movie, both? I like Seth Rogan, but do I really want to see him as a bumbling superhero? And if he's not supposed to be bumbling, can I take him seriously as a superhero? It looks all over the place, a confusing mish-mash of various conflicting genres. Still... I am curious. I just wouldn't see it in theaters.
PREIST
Based on a Korean Manwhua that I've never read, but the art looks LOVELY, this looks equal parts pure BAD ASS and stupid as fuck. I imagine it'll be somewhere between ULTRAVIOLET and UNDERWORLD... a Post-Apocalypse monster filled psuedo-religious dystopia filled with cool visuals and hammy acting. Christopher Plumber being in it sort of makes me a little hopeful, but he's only got a very small part. Still, it's got awesome looking monsters, martial arts, and a cool Future/Western motif... there's no way I'm NOT going to watch this. My fear, though, is that it's going to be boring and self righteous, the way all Pseudo-Religious movies are... those both critical and non-critical of religion. At least it's not LEGION...
RED RIDING HOOD
Ok, this looks fucking BULLSHIT... which is why I'm assuming that it will become the biggest movie of 2011. It's a lot of stiff, stilted, performances from impossibly beautiful guys, and an "Look at me! I'm an Auteur!" production design (seriously, the first shot of the trailer with the red cape billowing against the bleak white landscape? What this someones student film?). You can totally tell that this was directed by the chick that did TWILIGHT, because it has all the same bullcrap, replacing acting with smoldering, plot with drama, and a strong female lead with a girl surrounded by guys fighting over her. This movie looks BALL SHRIVELLINGLY TERRIBLE. I'm sure it'll make a billion dollars.
BATTLE: LOS ANGELOS
Wow, they got that sequel to SKYLINE made pretty fast... No, seriously, I'll never understand how Hollywood can make the same movie almost concurrently. Still, is it wrong that I want to see this movie because it's got explosions, monsters, and Michelle Rodriguez, who I will watch in ANY movie? I didn't think so... so, despite the TERRIBLE title, I will see this at some point.
THE FIGHTER
I have a soft spot for boxing movies... I actually don't really care to watch the actual sport of boxing that much, but I love boxing movies... there's something so compelling about the human drama behind a boxer combined with the actual visceral combat element. I'm not a huge fan of Drama... I have little patience for watching just straight biopics because I need a little action in everything I see; boxing movies allow you to have the human drama and the action at the same time. Plus, Mark Wallberg is an actor I trust. He's not a great actor, and that isn't a diss because very few of today's actors are truly great, but he is a GOOD actor, and one of the only guys in Hollywood that seems to actually READ a script. He's made very few movies that I either didn't want to watch, or found to be shitty, so I'll generally see anything Mark Wallberg is in, because I'm assured that it'll probably be good. This actually looks excellent.
YOU HIGHNESS
I don't think I've ever wanted to see a movie MORE than this... this looks fucking AMAZING! James Franco always surprises me with his ability to be funny... there's a stigmatism against the super-handsome having a sense of humor, but James Franco defies expectations by being both super-handsome and super-funny. My favorite line, "... with MAGIC... Motherfucker!" Excellent. I am so excited about this!
I AM NUMBER 4
Ugh... what the fuck is this supposed to be about? The reason why movies where people try to make their own superhero franchise don't work, is because they're all inevitably crappy... like JUMPER for example. This movie looks almost BEAT for BEAT like JUMPER. Another 20-something playing a teenager, looking at his hands like, "Woah... I have powers!" Why are they always surprised they have powers? The worst part about this movie will be the shitty comic tie-in's that I'm predicting either IDW, BOOM, or DYNAMITE will inevitably publish now that WILDSTORM isn't around to do it. I'll probably see this turd eventually, because it has a guy with superpowers and I can't stop my compulsion to watch movies about guys with super powers (I'm in a group... it's being worked out), but I'm pretty sure that I'm going to get angry watching it. Michael Bay's involvement in a movie is never a good sign.
HEARTLESS
This actually looks sort of cool... it's almost like anime. A damaged kid alone against an enemy only he can see, killing cool looking monsters on the streets of London. If it wasn't for the whole "Selling His Soul For Good Looks" beat, I'd be totally on board for this. I really hate that beat... it's cheesy and compromises an otherwise cool character. I really like unconventional heroes; dudes who aren't the handsome, perfect, pretty boys. I like the knarled, scarred, dudes fighting at a deficit against impossible odds. Plus, really? A Birthmark makes him societies outcast? How shallow is London? That is the least hideous birthmark I've ever seen... I had a teacher with a birthmark that covered almost the whole side of his face so that he looked like the Phantom of the Opera, and he still managed to marry a rather attractive woman, and this kid is all like, "I will sell my SOUL to get rid of this minor imperfection!" That's a little far fetched.
THE MECHANIC
JASON STATHAM DELIVERS! This looks awesome... bad ass stunts, big explosions, and Jason Statham being a fucking bad ass. I'll watch just about any movie with Jason Statham in it, because he is Hollywoods last true action star, and unlike most action stars, he can actually sort of act. He's, like... the sensitive bad ass. Plus, I like Ben Foster. He's great at playing creepy guys, and has a cool voice. This movie looks cool, and I'll totally see it.
SUCKERPUNCH
It's embarrassing to admit that I sort of want to see this movie... Zack Snyder is one of those directors who is all surface; polished visuals, admittedly spectacular, with no substance underneath. The problem with that, though, is that he THINKS he's being really deep, much like James Cameron thought that AVATAR was really deep, and that's condescending. This movie REEKS of that... he's trying to present it like there's a deep philosophy here, when there really isn't... it's just an awesome looking psuedo-anime looking ALICE IN WONDERLAND action fetish film. And I wouldn't mind that if he wasn't acting like it was deep. Also... PLEASE get over the slow motion! Slow motion can look very cool when properly used, but he just uses it fucking EVERYWHERE. Dial it back, jackass, and then you'll have a very cool action-porno.
FAST FIVE
YES! Sorry... I have an unapologetic lust for the FAST AND THE FURIOUS franchise... but only the ones with Vin Diesel. I like Vin Diesel... like, as a person. He seems like he'd be a great guy to hang out with, plus he always delivers. This movie looks stupid and over the top, but I can accept that because Vin Diesel somehow manages to ground it. I'm SO fucking on board for this movie... my only complaint is NO MICHELLE RODRIGUEZ! You cannot believe how pissed off I was when they killed her in the last movie. I love you Michelle! ;_; On the other side; Vin Diesel? Paul Walker? THE FUCKING ROCK? If I was gay, I'd be blowing my load right now; that's some handome, burly, guys all in the same movie. ^_-
PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN 4: ON STRANGER TIDES
I'm actually excited about this. Although it had it's problems, taken together the first three movies make a decent trilogy, and I just enjoy Johnny Depp as Jack Sparrow... it's great to watch a guy who's obviously having a great time acting. Plus... Geoffory Rush? Ian McShane? It's like an ACT OFF between my three favorite actors! Super excited about this.
THOR
THOR actually looks pretty sick. This trailer has been out for awhile, and there's been a lot of debate, but I'm pretty happy with what I'm seeing. The movie looks solid as fuck, hits all the right character points, and... that dude looks like you want Thor to look! Look at his fucking SUPERHERO ARMS! I haven't seen a single superhero movie where the guy actually had a He-Man chest and Superhero arms. Plus; Anthony Hopkins is always great, and he's always having a great time in movies like these. He'll make a good Odin. Overall, I'm excited. Can't say the same about...
GREEN LANTERN
I'll obviously watch this... I can't NOT watch it. I'm a huge nerd. But this trailer makes me worry. The colors are garish, the sets look fake, and, as much as I love Ryan Reynolds, I think he was woefully miscast... this sort of looks like GREEN HORNET (weird that the two GREEN movies would be so similar in their ball dropping...) in that it's a weird mish-mash of comic send-up of the genre, and serious superhero movie. It's a awkward, lumbering, looking affair... and seriously? Hector Hammond is the best villain they could find for the first movie? A creepy looking nerd with a huge head? I will say this though... Mark Strong looks AWESOME as Sinestro, who is also a much better villain. I'm not to excited about this...
ALIENS VS COWBOYS
I liked this movie when it was called OUTLANDER, and the cowboys were vikings. I have no idea what to think of this...
SUMMER WARS
I've already ordered the Blu Ray from AMAZON. It sort of looks like they took the plot to the second part of the DIGIMON movie and turned it into a full movie. I think it looks pretty sick. I'm looking forward to it.
Ok, that's it for now... we'll see what the rest of the year holds sometime in the summer!
Monday, January 3, 2011
Is Blu-Ray Worth It? My Cynicism Converted to Obsession.
Well, it finally happened, after all my hatin' and denials and bold bluster on the matter; I got a Blu-Ray player.
When Blu-Ray was initially announced, I read the specs and articles about the new format war; HD-DVD vs Blu-Ray; and thought, "Oh, God, again? Didn't we just go through all of this with VHS vs DVD?" Every article arguing the merits of HD-DVD vs Blu-Ray also read like a thinly veiled obituary for the DVD format, to which I thought, "Ok, seriously, how much better could it be?"
When I got my first DVD player, during my second or third year of college, I was initially skeptical over whether DVD was even worth it, though I was more influenced by price point and the daunting task of having to replace my collection (I collect... EVERYTHING. It's part of why I have stopped playing video game, because it's just another thing for me to collect. I have very little impulse control and a collector mentality; these things do not mix well) of VHS movies on DVD than the technical aspects; it wasn't hard to convince me that DVD was indeed better, with it's digital picture, no longer vulnerable to wear and tear or cel-dirt, the ability to skip ahead or backward faster rather than awkwardly rewinding you tapes, and the inclusion of supplemental features such as making of featurettes and audio commentary tracks (I LOVE commentary tracks... when done right. Some people, like Robert Rodriguez, Guillermo Del Toro, or Kevin Smith know how to do commentary right, others not so much).
DVD was an easy sell, because it was inarguably better. They took up less room, looked better, and had added entertainment value to round out your entertainment experience; in short VHS just couldn't compete. The jump from VHS to DVD was a drastic step forward in terms of entertainment value. But DVD to HD-DVD or Blu-Ray? I just didn't see how they could significantly improve on what was already pretty much perfect.
In the end, HD-DVD was quickly subdued and then dismissed, much like the Beta-Deck from the long gone Beta/VHS wars of the first home video format wars of decades past, and Blu-Ray proved triumphant; but DVD still lingered. Once again, price point played a factor in creating a bias in me against Blu-Ray; it felt like I had only just made the jump to DVD, and invested a lot of time and money hunting for the best value on DVD (one of my favorite past times is hitting used CD/DVD stores looking for bargains, and I had gotten quite good at it), and now was expected to jump on yet ANOTHER new technology?
It had taken almost 20 years for DVD to slay the VHS dragon, but in less than a decade yet another new technology and format had come to replace DVD, and both the hardware and the discs were quite significantly more expensive. Not only that, but what did Blu-Ray actually offer, as a stop up from DVD? Slightly better picture quality? A questionable increase in supplemental content? I was skeptical.
Driving my skepticism further was what I'd seen of Blu-Ray on display in various electronic boutiques; I didn't like what I saw. Yes the picture was clearer, but something about it didn't look right to me. Blu-Ray seemed to expose all the imperfections of a film as much as enhance it; foreground elements looked separated from the background elements, like they had been matted in badly against a badly painted backdrop. Movement looked awkward and unnatural; things seemed to move to fast. The slightest jerk of the camera seemed grossly exaggerated and nausea inducing. This was especially pronounced in 3D-Animated movies, which looked like ham handed claymation to my discerning eyes.
"I don't like it," I told myself, "And I don't need it."
And that was the position I took for the past few years; much to the frustration of my media-buddy Jerry, who was one of the first converts. We'd argue back and forth, both siting the pros and cons as we saw them, trying to convince the other that his position was wrong, and finally agreeing to disagree, neither able to convert the other, and both too pig headed to concede the others point.
Until this Christmas that is.
I suppose you can actually owe my decision to get a Blu-Ray player to SCOTT PILGRIM; a movie that I already knew I'd want to get, but upon seeing how much more desirable the supplemental material that would grace the Blu-Ray release was, and having a hook-up from my good friend Kai Boysen, I bought the SCOTT PILGRIM Blu-Ray before even buying a Blu-Ray player. My reasoning was that I'd eventually have to get a Blu-Ray anyways, given that the studio's seemed to be working hard to phase DVD out of the market by making the DVD less desirable through the exclusion of certain features which are being made increasingly more exclusive to the Blu-Ray release; features such as commentary, or in the case of SCOTT PILGRIM, the coveted ADULT SWIM animated special.
With all that in mind, I decided that this would be the year to jump on; provided I could get a good enough boxing day deal. While prices have dropped, Blu-Ray players are still as overpriced as the actual Blu-Ray's, especially compared to the price point of their DVD predecessor. The average Blu-Ray, upon first release, is $29.99, as compared to the average $18.99-$19.99 DVD release; and sometimes even less than that, depending on the size of the movies Box Office. Admittedly, the best bang for your buck is to just buy a PS3, but I didn't have the money for that, and rumor has it that they are no longer backwards compatible with PS2 games; the only games I own.
The decision was taken out of my hand at any rate; my parents bought me one for Christmas; lovely people that they are, and tough son I am to shop for.
So, finally equipped with a Blu Ray player, and Boxing Day deals impending, I watched my first Blu Ray, SCOTT PILGRIM VS THE WORLD... and it was... gorgeous.
Apparently, the reason why Blu-Ray's look so choppy and unnatural in stores is because Electronic Stores boost the frame rate on the display TV's up to showcase HD-Sports, which is filmed at a higher frame rate. This causes the picture to look awkward and unnaturally jerky. On my own home theater set-up, set to factory standards, I didn't have this problem.
The image was crisp and clear; the colors vibrant, the blacks deep, the detail sharp, the audio thunderous. Even the theater print didn't look as good as what was playing on my 46" Sony Bravia. I was... enraptured.
Now convinced of just how much better Blu-Ray looked as compared to DVD, I did other tests; how did DVD look on my Blu-Ray player? Depending on the source, DVD looks much better on the Blu-Ray player, which automatically up-converts the digital information to 1080p. If it's a crappy encode; it looks crappier on Blu-Ray; if it's a solid encode, it looks almost indistinguishable from a distance... the aliasing is only noticeable if you get close to your screen, or look at it from an extreme angle. Some movies look noticeably better on Blu-Ray as compared to it'd DVD counterpart... others not so much.
I, personally, have found that 3D animate films look infinitely better on Blu-Ray, especially the newer films, which are made with HD in mind, and animated films look infinitely crisper and more vibrant on Blu-Ray, though this also depends on their age; older films still suffer from cel-dirt that would require a massive digital enhancement process to get rid of.
I find that Blu-Ray only really serves a purpose for movies that are about visual spectacle; dramas and comedies aren't really shot with an eye for visual stimulation. Action movies, science fiction/fantasy, and special effects blockbusters, all benefit immensely from the improved picture and sound.
The only sticking point with me is the supplementals. While most newer Blu-Rays have more and better or at least exclusive supplemental content, a lot of the earlier releases had next to none; and in some cases the DVD release was actually better than the Blu-Ray (the first two SPIDER-MAN movies, the entire BLADE Trilogy, and the FIFTH ELEMENT, to name a few), which seems to pretty much defeat the purpose of converting to Blu-Ray if you can't even get rid of your bulky, outdated, DVD's.
So, throughout this Boxing Week, I've been making tough decisions on what DVD's are actually worth replacing on Blu-Ray. The fact that most of the Boxing Day sales were so insanely cheap this year made those decisions a little easier, but I could play that game aaaaaaaaaall day really, which is a dangerous thing to me. At this point, I've managed to replace the majority of my comic based movies (SPIDER-MAN, IRON MAN, BATMAN BEGINS and DARK KNIGHT, etc), and some of my favorite big franchise movies (PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN, MATRIX, RESIDENT EVIL, LORD OF THE RINGS, and UNDERWORLD), as well as some personal favorites (DARK CITY, DONNIE DARKO, DISTRICT 9, SHERLOCK HOLMES). But, like I said... I could play that game all day. My intent is try turn my focus, now,to new releases that I deem worthwhile to own on Blu-Ray (TRON LEGACY and TRUE GRIT for example; both gorgeous movies in their own, much different, ways).
So, in the end, is Blu-Ray better? Yes, but not significantly in a lot of cases. DVD still looks pretty good, and only newer Blu-Rays actually have better supplemental material. The other sticky wicket is that Blu-Rays are already set to be replaced by... well nothing; by which I mean, that physical media is already set to go the way of the Dinosaurs within the next few years at the very least as digital content is looming on the horizon, set to take it's place. Within less time than it took for Blu-Ray to replace DVD, digital media will replace Blu-Ray, and instead of filling bookcases with discs, you'll be filling hard drives or streaming media.
I suggest that if you don't own a PS3, you not just wait it out a few years and skip Blu-Ray all together. While Blu-Ray is definitely better than DVD, it will not last nearly as long before it is in turn replaced.
I'm hoping it'll be the last thing I have to collect. -_-
When Blu-Ray was initially announced, I read the specs and articles about the new format war; HD-DVD vs Blu-Ray; and thought, "Oh, God, again? Didn't we just go through all of this with VHS vs DVD?" Every article arguing the merits of HD-DVD vs Blu-Ray also read like a thinly veiled obituary for the DVD format, to which I thought, "Ok, seriously, how much better could it be?"
When I got my first DVD player, during my second or third year of college, I was initially skeptical over whether DVD was even worth it, though I was more influenced by price point and the daunting task of having to replace my collection (I collect... EVERYTHING. It's part of why I have stopped playing video game, because it's just another thing for me to collect. I have very little impulse control and a collector mentality; these things do not mix well) of VHS movies on DVD than the technical aspects; it wasn't hard to convince me that DVD was indeed better, with it's digital picture, no longer vulnerable to wear and tear or cel-dirt, the ability to skip ahead or backward faster rather than awkwardly rewinding you tapes, and the inclusion of supplemental features such as making of featurettes and audio commentary tracks (I LOVE commentary tracks... when done right. Some people, like Robert Rodriguez, Guillermo Del Toro, or Kevin Smith know how to do commentary right, others not so much).
DVD was an easy sell, because it was inarguably better. They took up less room, looked better, and had added entertainment value to round out your entertainment experience; in short VHS just couldn't compete. The jump from VHS to DVD was a drastic step forward in terms of entertainment value. But DVD to HD-DVD or Blu-Ray? I just didn't see how they could significantly improve on what was already pretty much perfect.
In the end, HD-DVD was quickly subdued and then dismissed, much like the Beta-Deck from the long gone Beta/VHS wars of the first home video format wars of decades past, and Blu-Ray proved triumphant; but DVD still lingered. Once again, price point played a factor in creating a bias in me against Blu-Ray; it felt like I had only just made the jump to DVD, and invested a lot of time and money hunting for the best value on DVD (one of my favorite past times is hitting used CD/DVD stores looking for bargains, and I had gotten quite good at it), and now was expected to jump on yet ANOTHER new technology?
It had taken almost 20 years for DVD to slay the VHS dragon, but in less than a decade yet another new technology and format had come to replace DVD, and both the hardware and the discs were quite significantly more expensive. Not only that, but what did Blu-Ray actually offer, as a stop up from DVD? Slightly better picture quality? A questionable increase in supplemental content? I was skeptical.
Driving my skepticism further was what I'd seen of Blu-Ray on display in various electronic boutiques; I didn't like what I saw. Yes the picture was clearer, but something about it didn't look right to me. Blu-Ray seemed to expose all the imperfections of a film as much as enhance it; foreground elements looked separated from the background elements, like they had been matted in badly against a badly painted backdrop. Movement looked awkward and unnatural; things seemed to move to fast. The slightest jerk of the camera seemed grossly exaggerated and nausea inducing. This was especially pronounced in 3D-Animated movies, which looked like ham handed claymation to my discerning eyes.
"I don't like it," I told myself, "And I don't need it."
And that was the position I took for the past few years; much to the frustration of my media-buddy Jerry, who was one of the first converts. We'd argue back and forth, both siting the pros and cons as we saw them, trying to convince the other that his position was wrong, and finally agreeing to disagree, neither able to convert the other, and both too pig headed to concede the others point.
Until this Christmas that is.
I suppose you can actually owe my decision to get a Blu-Ray player to SCOTT PILGRIM; a movie that I already knew I'd want to get, but upon seeing how much more desirable the supplemental material that would grace the Blu-Ray release was, and having a hook-up from my good friend Kai Boysen, I bought the SCOTT PILGRIM Blu-Ray before even buying a Blu-Ray player. My reasoning was that I'd eventually have to get a Blu-Ray anyways, given that the studio's seemed to be working hard to phase DVD out of the market by making the DVD less desirable through the exclusion of certain features which are being made increasingly more exclusive to the Blu-Ray release; features such as commentary, or in the case of SCOTT PILGRIM, the coveted ADULT SWIM animated special.
With all that in mind, I decided that this would be the year to jump on; provided I could get a good enough boxing day deal. While prices have dropped, Blu-Ray players are still as overpriced as the actual Blu-Ray's, especially compared to the price point of their DVD predecessor. The average Blu-Ray, upon first release, is $29.99, as compared to the average $18.99-$19.99 DVD release; and sometimes even less than that, depending on the size of the movies Box Office. Admittedly, the best bang for your buck is to just buy a PS3, but I didn't have the money for that, and rumor has it that they are no longer backwards compatible with PS2 games; the only games I own.
The decision was taken out of my hand at any rate; my parents bought me one for Christmas; lovely people that they are, and tough son I am to shop for.
So, finally equipped with a Blu Ray player, and Boxing Day deals impending, I watched my first Blu Ray, SCOTT PILGRIM VS THE WORLD... and it was... gorgeous.
Apparently, the reason why Blu-Ray's look so choppy and unnatural in stores is because Electronic Stores boost the frame rate on the display TV's up to showcase HD-Sports, which is filmed at a higher frame rate. This causes the picture to look awkward and unnaturally jerky. On my own home theater set-up, set to factory standards, I didn't have this problem.
The image was crisp and clear; the colors vibrant, the blacks deep, the detail sharp, the audio thunderous. Even the theater print didn't look as good as what was playing on my 46" Sony Bravia. I was... enraptured.
Now convinced of just how much better Blu-Ray looked as compared to DVD, I did other tests; how did DVD look on my Blu-Ray player? Depending on the source, DVD looks much better on the Blu-Ray player, which automatically up-converts the digital information to 1080p. If it's a crappy encode; it looks crappier on Blu-Ray; if it's a solid encode, it looks almost indistinguishable from a distance... the aliasing is only noticeable if you get close to your screen, or look at it from an extreme angle. Some movies look noticeably better on Blu-Ray as compared to it'd DVD counterpart... others not so much.
I, personally, have found that 3D animate films look infinitely better on Blu-Ray, especially the newer films, which are made with HD in mind, and animated films look infinitely crisper and more vibrant on Blu-Ray, though this also depends on their age; older films still suffer from cel-dirt that would require a massive digital enhancement process to get rid of.
I find that Blu-Ray only really serves a purpose for movies that are about visual spectacle; dramas and comedies aren't really shot with an eye for visual stimulation. Action movies, science fiction/fantasy, and special effects blockbusters, all benefit immensely from the improved picture and sound.
The only sticking point with me is the supplementals. While most newer Blu-Rays have more and better or at least exclusive supplemental content, a lot of the earlier releases had next to none; and in some cases the DVD release was actually better than the Blu-Ray (the first two SPIDER-MAN movies, the entire BLADE Trilogy, and the FIFTH ELEMENT, to name a few), which seems to pretty much defeat the purpose of converting to Blu-Ray if you can't even get rid of your bulky, outdated, DVD's.
So, throughout this Boxing Week, I've been making tough decisions on what DVD's are actually worth replacing on Blu-Ray. The fact that most of the Boxing Day sales were so insanely cheap this year made those decisions a little easier, but I could play that game aaaaaaaaaall day really, which is a dangerous thing to me. At this point, I've managed to replace the majority of my comic based movies (SPIDER-MAN, IRON MAN, BATMAN BEGINS and DARK KNIGHT, etc), and some of my favorite big franchise movies (PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN, MATRIX, RESIDENT EVIL, LORD OF THE RINGS, and UNDERWORLD), as well as some personal favorites (DARK CITY, DONNIE DARKO, DISTRICT 9, SHERLOCK HOLMES). But, like I said... I could play that game all day. My intent is try turn my focus, now,to new releases that I deem worthwhile to own on Blu-Ray (TRON LEGACY and TRUE GRIT for example; both gorgeous movies in their own, much different, ways).
So, in the end, is Blu-Ray better? Yes, but not significantly in a lot of cases. DVD still looks pretty good, and only newer Blu-Rays actually have better supplemental material. The other sticky wicket is that Blu-Rays are already set to be replaced by... well nothing; by which I mean, that physical media is already set to go the way of the Dinosaurs within the next few years at the very least as digital content is looming on the horizon, set to take it's place. Within less time than it took for Blu-Ray to replace DVD, digital media will replace Blu-Ray, and instead of filling bookcases with discs, you'll be filling hard drives or streaming media.
I suggest that if you don't own a PS3, you not just wait it out a few years and skip Blu-Ray all together. While Blu-Ray is definitely better than DVD, it will not last nearly as long before it is in turn replaced.
I'm hoping it'll be the last thing I have to collect. -_-
Thursday, March 25, 2010
SCOTT PILGRIM vs THE WORLD: The Muthafucking Trailer, Bitches.
I'm going to have to clean my apartment this weekend, after having exploded my nerd-wad all over it, HA HA HA!
Seriously though, after, like, two years of anticipation, and months of wondering when the fuck a trailer would come out, this TOTALLY exceeded my expectations... well, at least visually. As a trailer, I feel like this was more of a teaser trailer and didn't really give you much information on what the movie is actually about beyond the premise; but it does promise spectacular fights, romance, comedy, and just shit that you've ever seen before in a movie. There are some great sight gags in the trailer (the "Get's-It" meter is my favorite), that really seem in keeping with the spirit of the book. I had no idea what Edgar Wright's concept for this movie was going to be, much less how he'd pull it off, but I did know that he would be the guy to do it. This is beyond promising.
Cast looks good... May Whitman is well cast; excited about that. I wasn't feeling Micheal Cera before... I like him, but I've never seen him play a dude with confidence, however misplaced, but now I just look like an asshole; he kills it up in this trailer. The dude stepped up.
Overall... I'm stoked. Ravenous with anticipation and my characteristic impatience. Fuck does August seem a long ways away...
Thursday, June 4, 2009
BLOOD: THE LAST VAMPIRE - LIVE ACTION vs ANIME?
BLOOD: THE LAST VAMPIRE is an early 2000 anime film produced by Production I.G. (the studio most famously behind GHOST IN THE SHELL and in all it's various incarnations, as well as other pretty fucking sick-ass anime, many of which are personal favorites of mine) based on a novel by popular anime director Mamoru Oshii (the guy behind PATLABOR1-3/GHOST IN THE SHELL/GiTS: INNOCENCE/JIN-ROH/SKYCRAWLERS/etc) about a serious 'young' girl with a perpetual scowl named Saya, who stalks and viciously murders the FUCK out of cool looking Vampire/Monsters called Chiropterans on an American Army base in Japan in the 1970's, a few months before Vietnam. Though only, like, an hour long, BLOOD was a seriously awesome and concise action movie that clearly defines the differences between North American and Japanese views on what animation can be used for. I recently found out that BLOOD: THE LAST VAMPIRE has since been adapted to a live action film, produced by the guy that produced CROTCHING TIGER, HIDDEN DRAGON, and directed by Ronny Yu, whose made a number of shitty movies in North America (WARRIORS OF VIRTUE, that kids movie about the kung-fu Kanjaroos, BRIDE OF CHUCKY, ugh, and FREDDY vs JASON, *vomit*), and a number of awesome kung-fu movies (BRIDE WITH WHITE HAIR and FEARLESS being the only ones I know personally).
BLOOD: THE LAST VAMPIRE being adapted to live action doesn't come as much of a surprise to me; in fact it makes perfect sense. Despite the original source material being animated, the content of the film was nothing that couldn't be achieved in live action. Beyond that, unlike most anime BLOOD is much more accessible to a North American (and in fact, international) audience as it features an international cast and switches logically between English and Japanese dialogue depending on the background of the character and the necessity of it (BLOOD takes place in Japan, but is mostly set on an American army base). It also helps that Vampires are big in just about any culture. BLOOD is a slick action/thriller/sci-fi/period piece featuring a strong yet sexy, bad-ass, female lead fighting awesome looking monsters with a cool fucking sword; there is absolutely NO reason a movie like that would fail to find success in North America, or be inachivable when adapted to live action. So, just out of curiousity, I though I'd compare the two and see how they stack up.
BLOOD: ANIME TRAILER
BLOOD: LIVE ACTION TRAILER
Comparing the two trailers, I notice a lot of stuff in the live action trailer that seems to have been adapted directly from the original, such as the setting and overall plot, as well as some specific visual cues, but also a number of notable plot changes, such as the more mystical approach to the vampires rather than the animes more sci-fi slant (Chiropterans are a seperate species produced by a virus passed through fluid exchange), and the inclusion of a central villian in the form of 'Onigen', rather than the anime Saya's mandate to just genocide the shit out of the entire species. Also notable is the CYBERSIX-esque plot point that Saya needs to drink the blood of the 'Oni' to survive.
While I am somewhat nervous about these plot changes, I can't really say I find them offensive; to be fair, it'd be pointless to directly adapt an already successful film directly, not to mention that BLOOD was only like an hour long to begin with. Logically some changes would need to be made to pad out the narrative. It just bothers me that the changes made are so... done to fucking DEATH. Seriously? "She killed my FATHER!"? That's a little weak. But, like I said, non-offensive, just disappointingly weak and unoriginal. I still think this looks like an overall strong movie and a good stab at adapting an anime to live action for a North American audience... at the very least it's a far sight better than the fucking steaming pile that was DRAGONBALL: EVOLUTION. I am filled with indescribable RAGE at the thought of that movie.
I'm also impressed that the first five minutes of the movie are an almost shot for shot adaptation of the opening of the anime.
FIRST FIVE MINUTES
Overall, I'm pretty excited about this. I feel like there is at least a 75% chance this will not blow. That's pretty high for a movie these days.
BLOOD: THE LAST VAMPIRE being adapted to live action doesn't come as much of a surprise to me; in fact it makes perfect sense. Despite the original source material being animated, the content of the film was nothing that couldn't be achieved in live action. Beyond that, unlike most anime BLOOD is much more accessible to a North American (and in fact, international) audience as it features an international cast and switches logically between English and Japanese dialogue depending on the background of the character and the necessity of it (BLOOD takes place in Japan, but is mostly set on an American army base). It also helps that Vampires are big in just about any culture. BLOOD is a slick action/thriller/sci-fi/period piece featuring a strong yet sexy, bad-ass, female lead fighting awesome looking monsters with a cool fucking sword; there is absolutely NO reason a movie like that would fail to find success in North America, or be inachivable when adapted to live action. So, just out of curiousity, I though I'd compare the two and see how they stack up.
BLOOD: ANIME TRAILER
BLOOD: LIVE ACTION TRAILER
Comparing the two trailers, I notice a lot of stuff in the live action trailer that seems to have been adapted directly from the original, such as the setting and overall plot, as well as some specific visual cues, but also a number of notable plot changes, such as the more mystical approach to the vampires rather than the animes more sci-fi slant (Chiropterans are a seperate species produced by a virus passed through fluid exchange), and the inclusion of a central villian in the form of 'Onigen', rather than the anime Saya's mandate to just genocide the shit out of the entire species. Also notable is the CYBERSIX-esque plot point that Saya needs to drink the blood of the 'Oni' to survive.
While I am somewhat nervous about these plot changes, I can't really say I find them offensive; to be fair, it'd be pointless to directly adapt an already successful film directly, not to mention that BLOOD was only like an hour long to begin with. Logically some changes would need to be made to pad out the narrative. It just bothers me that the changes made are so... done to fucking DEATH. Seriously? "She killed my FATHER!"? That's a little weak. But, like I said, non-offensive, just disappointingly weak and unoriginal. I still think this looks like an overall strong movie and a good stab at adapting an anime to live action for a North American audience... at the very least it's a far sight better than the fucking steaming pile that was DRAGONBALL: EVOLUTION. I am filled with indescribable RAGE at the thought of that movie.
I'm also impressed that the first five minutes of the movie are an almost shot for shot adaptation of the opening of the anime.
FIRST FIVE MINUTES
Overall, I'm pretty excited about this. I feel like there is at least a 75% chance this will not blow. That's pretty high for a movie these days.
Saturday, May 30, 2009
WOLVERINE vs STAR TREK vs TERMINATOR SALVATION: Franchise Rescue, Sucess or Failure?
It's been awhile since my last post where I promised to start posting again, but people should be used to me breaking internet promises (I'll always come through on real life promises, but internet promises don't really hold much weight with me).
Anyways, I've recently had the chance to see the summer's three first "blockbusters", all of which are basically attempts at rescuing failing franchises from the shitty last shitty movie that almost ruined them. It shouldn't be news to anyone, but Hollywood is out of ideas. There is literally no new shit left to do in Tinseltown, apparently, so the snake has finally gotten around to eating it's own tail; everything old is new again... but is this a good thing?
X-MEN ORIGINS: WOLVERINE
X-MEN 3... sucked. Seriously, there is nothing good anyone can say about this turd. X-MEN shocked the shit out of people, and was the first successful (both conceptually and financially) comic to screen translation (I'm not really counting BLADE as vampire movies have their own audience) of the new century, and basically set the framework for what comic book superhero movies should strive be. X-MEN 2 was equally shocking because it took a strong start and managed to somehow run with it, making for a far, FAR, stronger movie on all levels. X-MEN showed the potential for the comic book superhero as serious cinema, but X-MEN 2 legitimized it. Then someone fucked up somewhere and Marvel lost Bryan Singer to SUPERMAN RETURNS (which I liked, despite it's obvious flaws, though I have to agree that Superman REALLY did need to fucking punch something), and someone else had the fucking genius idea to give what to this point had been a hugely successful franchise, both financially and critically, to fucking Brett Ratner.
Now, I'm not going to quibble over why you would think the guy that directed increasingly shittier movies since the first RUSH HOUR (which was actually a pretty decent throwback to buddy-cop movies the likes of BEVERLY HILLS COP or LETHAL WEAPON), but to give your biggest, most successful, franchise to a dude with no passion or concept for the project? Why would you expect success? You get what you pay for; an uninspired effects driven movie with no character and a fucking mess of a plot (there were some good idea's in the script, but they were all squandered and mishandled in favor of campy looking art direction and lackluster action set pieces).
So, considering how hugely unsuccessful THAT plan turned out to be, it's completely confounding to me that MARVEL STUDIOS would repeat this formula with what had the potential to be a hugely successful new franchise in WOLVERINE. And I'll admit it; I was fooled.
In the buildup to this movie, I was excited. The trailer looked good, Hugh Jackman was notorious for his passion for the character that he made (and that made him), and from what you could pick up from the trailer, it looked like they really had an idea about what this movie should be about; the long, hard, life of an unkillable soldier caught in an unbreakable circle of tragedy, violence, and lost love. Early hype had this billed as being MARVEL's version of THE DARK KNIGHT; which was appealing because the DARK KNIGHT was exactly what you wanted a BATMAN movie to be: RATED R. No compromising, no pussying out or pulling punches. The promise of a serious, violent, adult WOLVERINE was appealing to me. But that is not what I got.
X-MEN ORIGIN: WOLVERINE ended up totally copping out on all fronts. I was promised THE DARK KNIGHT, instead I got BATMAN FOREVER. A PG-13 shitfest full of cheezy jokes, campy looking costumes and effects, and a directionless, characterless, and worst of all PASSIONLESS story. Even the fights were lame! If you're going to turn in a turd of a comic book movie, at LEAST deliver on some good action (the lightsaber fight with Darth Maul is the only thing that allows me to forgive PHANTOM MENACE)!
Really, it should be no surprise. The movie was given to a guy that would logically have no passion or interest in doing WOLVERINE. I've never seen TSOTSI or RENDITION, but that doesn't seem like a dude that would give a fuck whether he "got" Wolverine. This movie went in every direction but the one it should have, instead trying to focus on pointless easter-egg cameo's by characters that added NOTHING to the plot, and souless action set pieces where Wolverine didn't even get to do anything remotely Wolverine-like! Like, say, GUTTING A FUCKING GUY WITH HIS CLAWS!
And so MARVEL STUDIOS manages to take a potentially money making franchise give it to a bunch of people that don't give a fuck, and shit out another turd, but Hugh Jackman, bless his optimistic, head-up-his-ass, heart, thinks that there's potential to shit out ANOTHER turd! Sorry guy... I like your passion, your dedication, and your hussle, but if you couldn't get it right the first time, you definately won't get it on the second go-around.
Please just let this franchise die for, like, 5-10 years before attempting to resurrect it.
STAR TREK
Anyone see STAR TREK: NEMESIS? If ever there was a movie to kill a franchise, THAT was it. Of course... INSURRECTION, FIRST CONTACT, GENERATIONS, FINAL FRONTIER, VOYAGE HOME, SEARCH FOR SPOCK, not to mention the ridiculously boring THE MOTION PICTURE probably didn't help. All told, there were two good STAR TREK movie; WRATH OF KHAN and THE UNDISCOVERED COUNTRY. WoK was basically RED OCTOBER in space, and TUC was basically A FEW GOOD MEN... in space. And really, isn't that what a STAR TREK movie should be? A naval movie set against a sci-fi backdrop? Isn't that really what ANY good sci-fi movie should be? Something familiar set against the backdrop of the fantastic? An ordinary, mundane, concept taken to it's extreme? I believe someone once said that when you're writing science fiction, you're not writing about the future, you're writing about now.
And that's why J.J. Abrams STAR TREK is such a successful movie. Without the blinders of fandom on, Abrams managed to look at STAR TREK with eyes unclouded by nostalgia and took everything that was good about the STAR TREK and do it bigger, sexier, and most of all BETTER.
Everything that was great about the original STAR TREK (which, to me, is really the only STAR TREK worth a damn. That's right, I said it. FUCK GENERATION. FUCK VOYAGER. And especially FUCK ENTERPRISE. But not DEEP SPACE NINE, that was actually pretty good), is all present in this film. The action, the humor, the characterization, even the sexiness; everything that made STAR TREK worthwhile viewing is present in the new one, but amped up like the franchise drank, like, 30 Red Bulls and dropped some wicked powerful E before blasting out at you from the big screen in vibrant color and huge, pounding, epic soundtrack. And most of all, Abrams managed to capture the original series by-the-balls sci-fi adventure attitude. Characters are intelligent but proactive. Rather than spouting unintelligable technobabble at their problems, they rush in, fists clenched and guns blazing. Action sci-fi at it's finest!
That's not to say that meant taking a big shit on the fans of the old show. The real genius of the movie to me is that Abrams did it in such a way as to leave nerds, notoriously afraid of change, with absolutely nothing to be pissed off about! He's not saying "Fuck what you know! I did it better!" (unlike a certain Micheal Bay or Shia LeBouf, who just LOVE to shit all over the fandom that made their franchise a massive, surprising, success), he's saying, "Everything that you love... happened. It's still just as real and legitimate as it ever was, and nothing has been thrown away. This is just something exciting and new, and you're free to come along if you like." Abrams made a movie that doesn't pander to fans, but also makes great efforts not to alienate them. THAT'S the sign of a guy that gives a fuck. And that's why this franchise resurrection was successful. STAR TREK has risen like a majestic pheonix from the ashes of countless shitty movies that preceded it.
I'm totally onboard with this new franchise; every aspect from the cast onward was inspired, and there not one weak point I can see. No, not only was this a good STAR TREK movie, it was just a GOOD MOVIE. And THAT'S what every movie should strive to be.
TERMINATOR: SALVATION
Unlike WOLVERINE, I can't say that this movie was a turd. But unlike STAR TREK, I can't say it was a huge success either. Really, after the third TERMINATOR movie, it's not like the bar was set too high (though I have to admit... while TERMINATOR 3 was by no means a great or worthwhile sequel to TERMINATOR1 -2, it was still a entertaining movie to me; but I'm totally biased because I find mostly ALL Arnold Swartzenegger movies entertaining... except for SEVENTH DAY). But it's not like SALVATION tried to hard to hurdle that bar either.
SALVATION's good points are that it delivers on the action, which is what you're really there for in both a TERMINATOR movie and a summer blockbuster, and some great effects and production design. As for the plot... at least it wasn't, like, completely ludicrous. It was just sort of stupid.
The real problem comes from trying to take what was a simple, effective, sci-fi concept for a 1980's chase movie, and taking it entirely too far. Time Paradox just doesn't work on a large scale like this. There's to many variables to do it in any sort of hap-hazard fashion. You either dedicate yourself to working out the mechanics of the Paradox, or you JUST DON'T DO IT. Otherwise, what happens is that if you sit down and really think about any of SKYNET's plans or motivations, it just becomes ludicrous. It's best if you just turn you mind off, sit back, and watch shit explode. The problem with that, though, is that TERMINATOR 2 left you expecting more from your sci-fi action movie plot. You WANT to be challenged. You WANT there to be more to the plot. You WANT there to be a worthwhile character arc. And TERMINATOR: SALVATION just doesn't deliver on that. It's very much what you see on the surface.
That said, the slick, shiny, sheen of McG's (ugh. >_<) music-video direction, and the general ignorance of the target audience of this movie, combined with the modern movie audiences lowered expectations, will probably result in at least one, most probably, shitty sequel.
On a more selfish level, I just can't help but think that this franchise just doesn't work without Arnold Swartzenegger.
IN CONCLUSION
Of the three franchises that Hollywood has tried to resurrect, only one has delivered, and there's more to come this summer. Another TRANSFORMERS, which I'm ambivalent about, GI JOE, which could go either way, really, and another HARRY POTTER on the way, which may be a good thing, as it's the only franchise to consistantly deliver without fucking it up. And probably more on the way. It's been said, "There are no new stories", but now it's becoming entirely too literal.
Anyways, I've recently had the chance to see the summer's three first "blockbusters", all of which are basically attempts at rescuing failing franchises from the shitty last shitty movie that almost ruined them. It shouldn't be news to anyone, but Hollywood is out of ideas. There is literally no new shit left to do in Tinseltown, apparently, so the snake has finally gotten around to eating it's own tail; everything old is new again... but is this a good thing?
X-MEN ORIGINS: WOLVERINEX-MEN 3... sucked. Seriously, there is nothing good anyone can say about this turd. X-MEN shocked the shit out of people, and was the first successful (both conceptually and financially) comic to screen translation (I'm not really counting BLADE as vampire movies have their own audience) of the new century, and basically set the framework for what comic book superhero movies should strive be. X-MEN 2 was equally shocking because it took a strong start and managed to somehow run with it, making for a far, FAR, stronger movie on all levels. X-MEN showed the potential for the comic book superhero as serious cinema, but X-MEN 2 legitimized it. Then someone fucked up somewhere and Marvel lost Bryan Singer to SUPERMAN RETURNS (which I liked, despite it's obvious flaws, though I have to agree that Superman REALLY did need to fucking punch something), and someone else had the fucking genius idea to give what to this point had been a hugely successful franchise, both financially and critically, to fucking Brett Ratner.
Now, I'm not going to quibble over why you would think the guy that directed increasingly shittier movies since the first RUSH HOUR (which was actually a pretty decent throwback to buddy-cop movies the likes of BEVERLY HILLS COP or LETHAL WEAPON), but to give your biggest, most successful, franchise to a dude with no passion or concept for the project? Why would you expect success? You get what you pay for; an uninspired effects driven movie with no character and a fucking mess of a plot (there were some good idea's in the script, but they were all squandered and mishandled in favor of campy looking art direction and lackluster action set pieces).
So, considering how hugely unsuccessful THAT plan turned out to be, it's completely confounding to me that MARVEL STUDIOS would repeat this formula with what had the potential to be a hugely successful new franchise in WOLVERINE. And I'll admit it; I was fooled.
In the buildup to this movie, I was excited. The trailer looked good, Hugh Jackman was notorious for his passion for the character that he made (and that made him), and from what you could pick up from the trailer, it looked like they really had an idea about what this movie should be about; the long, hard, life of an unkillable soldier caught in an unbreakable circle of tragedy, violence, and lost love. Early hype had this billed as being MARVEL's version of THE DARK KNIGHT; which was appealing because the DARK KNIGHT was exactly what you wanted a BATMAN movie to be: RATED R. No compromising, no pussying out or pulling punches. The promise of a serious, violent, adult WOLVERINE was appealing to me. But that is not what I got.
X-MEN ORIGIN: WOLVERINE ended up totally copping out on all fronts. I was promised THE DARK KNIGHT, instead I got BATMAN FOREVER. A PG-13 shitfest full of cheezy jokes, campy looking costumes and effects, and a directionless, characterless, and worst of all PASSIONLESS story. Even the fights were lame! If you're going to turn in a turd of a comic book movie, at LEAST deliver on some good action (the lightsaber fight with Darth Maul is the only thing that allows me to forgive PHANTOM MENACE)!
Really, it should be no surprise. The movie was given to a guy that would logically have no passion or interest in doing WOLVERINE. I've never seen TSOTSI or RENDITION, but that doesn't seem like a dude that would give a fuck whether he "got" Wolverine. This movie went in every direction but the one it should have, instead trying to focus on pointless easter-egg cameo's by characters that added NOTHING to the plot, and souless action set pieces where Wolverine didn't even get to do anything remotely Wolverine-like! Like, say, GUTTING A FUCKING GUY WITH HIS CLAWS!
And so MARVEL STUDIOS manages to take a potentially money making franchise give it to a bunch of people that don't give a fuck, and shit out another turd, but Hugh Jackman, bless his optimistic, head-up-his-ass, heart, thinks that there's potential to shit out ANOTHER turd! Sorry guy... I like your passion, your dedication, and your hussle, but if you couldn't get it right the first time, you definately won't get it on the second go-around.
Please just let this franchise die for, like, 5-10 years before attempting to resurrect it.
STAR TREKAnyone see STAR TREK: NEMESIS? If ever there was a movie to kill a franchise, THAT was it. Of course... INSURRECTION, FIRST CONTACT, GENERATIONS, FINAL FRONTIER, VOYAGE HOME, SEARCH FOR SPOCK, not to mention the ridiculously boring THE MOTION PICTURE probably didn't help. All told, there were two good STAR TREK movie; WRATH OF KHAN and THE UNDISCOVERED COUNTRY. WoK was basically RED OCTOBER in space, and TUC was basically A FEW GOOD MEN... in space. And really, isn't that what a STAR TREK movie should be? A naval movie set against a sci-fi backdrop? Isn't that really what ANY good sci-fi movie should be? Something familiar set against the backdrop of the fantastic? An ordinary, mundane, concept taken to it's extreme? I believe someone once said that when you're writing science fiction, you're not writing about the future, you're writing about now.
And that's why J.J. Abrams STAR TREK is such a successful movie. Without the blinders of fandom on, Abrams managed to look at STAR TREK with eyes unclouded by nostalgia and took everything that was good about the STAR TREK and do it bigger, sexier, and most of all BETTER.
Everything that was great about the original STAR TREK (which, to me, is really the only STAR TREK worth a damn. That's right, I said it. FUCK GENERATION. FUCK VOYAGER. And especially FUCK ENTERPRISE. But not DEEP SPACE NINE, that was actually pretty good), is all present in this film. The action, the humor, the characterization, even the sexiness; everything that made STAR TREK worthwhile viewing is present in the new one, but amped up like the franchise drank, like, 30 Red Bulls and dropped some wicked powerful E before blasting out at you from the big screen in vibrant color and huge, pounding, epic soundtrack. And most of all, Abrams managed to capture the original series by-the-balls sci-fi adventure attitude. Characters are intelligent but proactive. Rather than spouting unintelligable technobabble at their problems, they rush in, fists clenched and guns blazing. Action sci-fi at it's finest!
That's not to say that meant taking a big shit on the fans of the old show. The real genius of the movie to me is that Abrams did it in such a way as to leave nerds, notoriously afraid of change, with absolutely nothing to be pissed off about! He's not saying "Fuck what you know! I did it better!" (unlike a certain Micheal Bay or Shia LeBouf, who just LOVE to shit all over the fandom that made their franchise a massive, surprising, success), he's saying, "Everything that you love... happened. It's still just as real and legitimate as it ever was, and nothing has been thrown away. This is just something exciting and new, and you're free to come along if you like." Abrams made a movie that doesn't pander to fans, but also makes great efforts not to alienate them. THAT'S the sign of a guy that gives a fuck. And that's why this franchise resurrection was successful. STAR TREK has risen like a majestic pheonix from the ashes of countless shitty movies that preceded it.
I'm totally onboard with this new franchise; every aspect from the cast onward was inspired, and there not one weak point I can see. No, not only was this a good STAR TREK movie, it was just a GOOD MOVIE. And THAT'S what every movie should strive to be.
TERMINATOR: SALVATIONUnlike WOLVERINE, I can't say that this movie was a turd. But unlike STAR TREK, I can't say it was a huge success either. Really, after the third TERMINATOR movie, it's not like the bar was set too high (though I have to admit... while TERMINATOR 3 was by no means a great or worthwhile sequel to TERMINATOR1 -2, it was still a entertaining movie to me; but I'm totally biased because I find mostly ALL Arnold Swartzenegger movies entertaining... except for SEVENTH DAY). But it's not like SALVATION tried to hard to hurdle that bar either.
SALVATION's good points are that it delivers on the action, which is what you're really there for in both a TERMINATOR movie and a summer blockbuster, and some great effects and production design. As for the plot... at least it wasn't, like, completely ludicrous. It was just sort of stupid.
The real problem comes from trying to take what was a simple, effective, sci-fi concept for a 1980's chase movie, and taking it entirely too far. Time Paradox just doesn't work on a large scale like this. There's to many variables to do it in any sort of hap-hazard fashion. You either dedicate yourself to working out the mechanics of the Paradox, or you JUST DON'T DO IT. Otherwise, what happens is that if you sit down and really think about any of SKYNET's plans or motivations, it just becomes ludicrous. It's best if you just turn you mind off, sit back, and watch shit explode. The problem with that, though, is that TERMINATOR 2 left you expecting more from your sci-fi action movie plot. You WANT to be challenged. You WANT there to be more to the plot. You WANT there to be a worthwhile character arc. And TERMINATOR: SALVATION just doesn't deliver on that. It's very much what you see on the surface.
That said, the slick, shiny, sheen of McG's (ugh. >_<) music-video direction, and the general ignorance of the target audience of this movie, combined with the modern movie audiences lowered expectations, will probably result in at least one, most probably, shitty sequel.
On a more selfish level, I just can't help but think that this franchise just doesn't work without Arnold Swartzenegger.
IN CONCLUSION
Of the three franchises that Hollywood has tried to resurrect, only one has delivered, and there's more to come this summer. Another TRANSFORMERS, which I'm ambivalent about, GI JOE, which could go either way, really, and another HARRY POTTER on the way, which may be a good thing, as it's the only franchise to consistantly deliver without fucking it up. And probably more on the way. It's been said, "There are no new stories", but now it's becoming entirely too literal.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
GRAN TORINO: An Old Man's Strength.
As you may remember from one of my earlier "Trailer Time" segments, I really liked the trailer for GRAN TORINO, Clint Eastwood's lastest starring role, which he also directed, but I have to admit; it had me fooled. As good as the trailer looked, I just couldn't get myself on board with the idea of seeing what seemed like it would amount to an artsy DEATH WISH-esque movie; a grisled old man, hardened by a long, difficult, life gets crossed by some punk-ass wannabe gangsta's and sets out to get himself some sweet, violent, vigilante justice. I'm no prude. I like a violent revenge movie just as much as the next guy, but being afflicted by a case of the winter blah's and current events (Re: the shooting at Osgoode station is just a little to close to home) really just doesn't leave me in the mood to glorify murder, no matter how righteous or justified it might be. But providence left me with no choice but to watch GRAN TORINO tonight, which I planned on doing eventually anyways, and I was shocked to find that this movie was not what I was lead to believe at all.
Let's face it: Clint Eastwood knows how to direct a fucking movie. GRAN TORINO, from the first few seconds to the last word to roll off the credit's, is just a masterfully crafted piece of storytelling. Without having to even speak a single word, you know everything about Eastwood's character by the end of the first scene, as he reacts to the things around him, so by the time he does speak, he doesn't have to waste any time on pointless exposition, or bullshit movie dialouge meant to convey information to the audience that the people speaking it would otherwise have no need to say in reality, and reality is the word of the day for GRAN TORINO. Everything about the movie feels genuine and real. There's nothing staged or over dramatic. Even the way the camera is set up has a matter-of-fact attitude about it. There's no elaborate crane shots or extreme angles; it's just where it needs to be to tell a story. That's not to say that the movie doesn't look good; the framing and use of lighting to sell the mood or heighten drama makes some scenes feel like painting in their quiet, subtle, beauty.
Beyond this, though, Eastwood isn't afraid to confront some tough issues, such as selfishness, the generation gap, racism, gang violence, and just general violence as a means to an end, but not in such a way as to appear preachy or to make the audience purposely uncomfortable; quite the opposite, I was surprised by how many outbursts of laughter the movie provoked, with it's wry and ironic sense of humor and straight forward delivery, illustrating the difference between blind hatred and ignorance, and how knowledge and understanding can overcome a lifetime of preconceptions and bad habits.
But aside from those issues, the movie has a great humanity to it. Eastwood portrays a stubborn man, a man trying to be strong in the face of lose, now left alone with nothing but his regrets. He feels the world start to pass him by and fears what comes next, but is too proud to confide those fears in anyone. Then we have a boy desperately seeking his identity, afraid of what the future holds for him, and in danger of being swallowed up by the world around him. Violence brings them together, and then tears them apart, and in the movies final, climactic, scene, you see what a true hero is willing to sacrifice to give the people he's come to identify and sympathize with a chance to make a future for themselves.
GRAN TORINO is a complex but entertaining movie, masterfully directed, with a memorable performance by one of Hollywood's true greats, on and off the camera, that defied my expectations. I was expecting a good movie, and instead I got a GREAT one. A movie that combines subtlety with straightforwardness, and filled with great humanity.
On a side note, GRAN TORINO is also significant in that I can now add it to the short list of movies that have actually brought a tear to my eye. What can I say? It unmanned me.
Saturday, July 19, 2008
WATCHMAN TRAILER
Haven't had any really good thoughts to post about in a while, but expect me to write a LOT about THE DARK KNIGHT... as soon as I'm sure I'm not ruining anyone's day.
In the meantime, since there's no way I can possibly spoil this for anyone, take a look at the WATCHMEN trailer (see left).
Now, see, embarassingly enough, I have yet to read Alan Moore's seminal, industry changing, politically charged, graphic novel. I know enough about it... I know the premise and key story elements, I know the characters, I've just never really gotten around to reading it (Jerry has informed me that a new hardcover will be made available soon, so I'll probably buy that and then read it, as the ABSOLUTE EDITION is way to pricey for something I don't really have strong feelings about... yet, anyways), so I can't really say I have any expectations for how they could fuck this movie up, beyond the usual ways that Hollywood usually fucks up movie adaptations of comics I like (GHOST RIDER anyone? I think GHOST RIDER is, like, the worst case scenario for any comic book movie... maybe the old CAPTAIN AMERICA, but you can at least forgive that for being so shitty because it was the 80's and they had no budget... GHOST RIDER had millions of dollars and modern technology and they STILL fucked it up beyond all recognition). That said... this trailer looks pretty fucking sick.
This is obviously really early stuff, as the movie is almost an entire year away, but I sort of like how artificial Doctor Manhattan looks, as it plays to the idea that he's turned himself into an idealized version of himself, and distanced himself from humanity. I've noticed a number of visual cues from the graphic novel (most notably the Owlship rising from the river), and I got a little chill listening to Rorscach's creepy little monolouge. That SMASHING PUMPKINS song is creepy too.
Frankly, I've gone from absolutely Zero interest in this movie to frenzied anticipation. I'm totally excited. Of course, I'll probably pay for saying that the next time I see Jason Azzopardi.
Sunday, June 22, 2008
DRAGONBALL MOVIE: WHERE ARE ALL THE ASIAN PEOPLE!?!
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1098327/
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Where the fuck are all the Asian people? I mean... there are SOME Asian people in this movie... set in Asia, based on a Japanese comic, based on an Asian Folktale, with predominantly Asian characters... but there's only, what, like Asian's in the entire cast... not one of which is Goku?
Ok, maybe I'm just being stupid... Goku isn't technically Asian... he's a Saiyan, so, yeah, he can be whatever ethnicity you want, I suppose. Still... something seems wrong about that. I think the only good thing about the cast for this movie is that James Marsters (Spike from Buffy) is Picollo... just because James Marsters is awesome. Hell... he might even be a good Picollo. Still won't stop this movie from sucking ass. I-I... don't even recognize most of these characters... and ERNIE HUDSON!?! I have nothing against Ernie Hudson... he helped give up GHOSTBUSTERS, one of the best movies of all time... but still... why is he in this movie, playing a character that was never in DRAGONBALL?
This movie is just a huge mistake... not only is DRAGONBALL unadaptable, but it's waaaaaaaaay past it's popularity. I'm sorry, that's just how it is. Let's focus on better things... like METAL GEAR SOLID. That could potentially be pretty sexy given the level of input that Hideo Kojima seems to have in the project (I like how he actually stated that Uwe Bowell was not even allowed to fart in the direction of this movie).
On another note, I saw GET SMART and KUNG-FU PANDA this weekend, and neither sucked... in fact they were both pretty fucking good. I'm pretty content.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Where the fuck are all the Asian people? I mean... there are SOME Asian people in this movie... set in Asia, based on a Japanese comic, based on an Asian Folktale, with predominantly Asian characters... but there's only, what, like Asian's in the entire cast... not one of which is Goku?
Ok, maybe I'm just being stupid... Goku isn't technically Asian... he's a Saiyan, so, yeah, he can be whatever ethnicity you want, I suppose. Still... something seems wrong about that. I think the only good thing about the cast for this movie is that James Marsters (Spike from Buffy) is Picollo... just because James Marsters is awesome. Hell... he might even be a good Picollo. Still won't stop this movie from sucking ass. I-I... don't even recognize most of these characters... and ERNIE HUDSON!?! I have nothing against Ernie Hudson... he helped give up GHOSTBUSTERS, one of the best movies of all time... but still... why is he in this movie, playing a character that was never in DRAGONBALL?
This movie is just a huge mistake... not only is DRAGONBALL unadaptable, but it's waaaaaaaaay past it's popularity. I'm sorry, that's just how it is. Let's focus on better things... like METAL GEAR SOLID. That could potentially be pretty sexy given the level of input that Hideo Kojima seems to have in the project (I like how he actually stated that Uwe Bowell was not even allowed to fart in the direction of this movie).
On another note, I saw GET SMART and KUNG-FU PANDA this weekend, and neither sucked... in fact they were both pretty fucking good. I'm pretty content.
Saturday, June 14, 2008
THE INCREDIBLE HULK: Exceeding My Expectations
The first teaser trailer for the new INCREDIBLE HULK movie did not do much for me... the story looked to simplistic, and the CG not much of a step up from the laughable first movie... which Ang Lee just butchered. I won't say his heart wasn't in the right place, or that the cast was wrong, as I really liked Eric Banna and Jennifer Connelly... that movie SHOULD have been good, and would have... IF Ang Lee had ANY FUCKING IDEA HOW TO MAKE THAT MOVIE. He didn't.
Understanding WHY the first movie was such a huge disappointment and a failure as not just a movie, but specifically a HULK movie, you sort of get why MARVEL would want to distance themselves from that with this second movie... which is actually more like the FIRST. It's a complete revisualization of the INCREDIBLE HULK franchise, from the ground up... only this time they get it all RIGHT.
Actually, this movie not only gets the HULK right, but it gets how to make a comic book movie right the first time... it doesn't bother retelling the origin, but rather barely touches on it... gives you a TASTE of how Banner became the Hulk, and focuses more on Banner himself than the Hulk. This new vision of the HULK franchise actually has more in common with the BOURNE movies than any superhero movies, focusing on Banner being on the run. It's more of a globe trotting chase movie, with superhero elements in the background, and has the character of Bruce Banner in the foreground, showing WHY he's on the run, and why the character of Bruce Banner is just as important to the movie as his green alter ego is... Banner is portrayed as being a character that's not only on the run from the Government that betrayed him and made him a fugitive, but from himself; afraid of the monster he's become, and the immense power which he desperately tries to hold in check.
The great thing about Ed Norton's Banner is that he's made as compelling a character as the Hulk is... and you have to be interested in Banner, because the Hulk just can't be on screen all the time. The theme of Banner is that of sacrifice... he sacrifices everything: his job, his life, his family, his love, and even his dignity, letting people walk all over him and taking pitiful jobs that are beneath him, shunning emotional and physical contact to ensure that he stays hidden and stays in control of himself. He's smart and he thinks ahead, moving silently throughout the world, all the while cobbling together equipment to work on a cure, with the help of the mysterious "Mr. Blue."
That's not to say that you don't get a healthy dose of the title character... this movies Hulk isn't the same soulful, puppy-eyed, sympathetic Frankenstein of Ang Lee's efforts... he's savage and uncontrollable, and even when you get moments of sympathy, they're contrast by his sudden turn towards anger and savagery. This Hulk isn't misunderstood... there's a very good reason that Banner is afraid of what he'll do if he loses control.
Which isn't to say that the Hulk is portrayed as a villain. The movie walks this very fine line between the Hulk being a monster and a hero, by showing the hypocrisy of Banner's conflict with General Ross. Banner was trying to create something that would save the world, but Ross was trying to create a weapon; and succeed when he corrupted Banner's experiments. Ross then turns Banner into a scapegoat, claiming that he's a dangerous, uncontrollable monster, but secretly, that's exactly why he wants Banner... he wants to create more monsters, all in the name of Home and Country. To this end he recruits Emil Blonsky, a Russian born British Special Forces soldier, who is just reaching the end of his career; a fighter that doesn't want to stop fighting. To capture the Hulk, Ross ends up creating an even worse monster; one obsessed with power and combat... an abomination that desires only strength and carnage. It's this hypocrisy that leads to the portrayal of the Hulk as both monster and hero... because what it comes down to is that the Hulk, for all his anger and lack of intelligence, still has Banner's soul, and only wants to be left alone; he's provoked into lashing out, but never means to hurt anyone that doesn't mean him harm, whereas the Abomination is a mirror for Blonsky's twisted soul... a monster inside and out. The Hulk will fight to protect, be it himself or the one he loves, while Blonsky only wants to fight.
The movie was brilliantly directed. The pacing was perfect, moving back and forth between the A and B story of Banner and the "Hulk Busters", with regular set pieces to keep you from becoming bored with either, the cinematography stunning (I especially liked the use of wide framed shots showing framing foreground and background elements against each other to show depth, and really give a sense of scale to everything), a combination of steady cam and violent hand-held style, though not as jerky and disorienting as other movies (*cough* BOURNE *cough*).
The CG was pretty impressive... they really upped their game in the final passes, and the acting in the CG, particularly the Hulk's facial expressions, was pretty incredible, particularly in the rare quiet moments. I also like how they portrayed the Hulks skin as being very thin and stretched out over his incredibly dense muscle mass, though I do wish they'd designed him as being a little more top heavy... he looked a little more lean than massive to me.
The cast was excellent. I was a little surprised by how much I liked Ed Norton as Banner... I really didn't think he'd pull it off, but he had the perfect blend of self deprecating humility and self loathing. You feel sympathy for him and how much he has to give up too keep himself in check. Liv Tyler was adorable as usual, and while I still liked Jennifer Connelly more, her and Norton had some real chemistry. William Hurt was a great General Ross, and Tim Roth was really menacing and threatening as Blonsky. The guy that played Samuel Stern (AKA the LEADER... THE FUCKING LEADER! More on that later...), was also perfect, considering who he'll become.
The other thing that really impressed me in this movie was MARVEL's efforts to integrate their franchises, dropping early references to STARK ENTERPRISES, and later even a nerd-wad exploding cameo from the every excellent Robert Downey Jr., stringing along the idea of an AVENGERS movie. There were also a LOT of references and setup for CAPTAIN AMERICA, setting up the SUPER SOLDIER Project as being the foundations for Banner's research, and even introducing the Super Soldier serum, actually created by Doctor Bernstein (the guy that created the serum in the comics! I think I was the only person in the theater that picked up on the significance of that and subsequently LOST MY SHIT) in the concept of the movie. EXCELLENT. I also liked that they integrated the origin of the potential sequels villian into this movie in a sort of unceremonious, almost throw away, fashion, showing just the beginning of Doctor Stern's transformation into the Leader. EXCELLENT. NERD-GASM!
Overall... I was in complete nerd Heaven. It was GREAT. MARVEL is batting two for two this summer. Hell, I actually almost liked the HULK better than IRON MAN, and had just as much fun with this as I did with IRON MAN. It was everything I wanted and more. I cannot wait to see what MARVEL's going to do next, and I hope to GOD they don't fuck it up, like they've allowed to happen in the past...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)