Friday, December 23, 2011
Monday, December 19, 2011
Anarchy at the Movies: Sherlock Holmes: Game of Shadows review
A disappointing followup to a promising beginning.
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
80's Hair Metal: The Musical
I should not be looking forward to this. It's a jukebox musical (which are rarely any good), its lead actors are from primarily a singing background, and it's directed by Adam Shankman. And yet...
Damn my weakness to musicals and 80's rock!! Please tell me that someone breaks into Aerosmith's "Dude (Looks Like a Lady)" right after that lame joke 30 seconds in.
Plot looks pretty standard, bohemian rock 'n roll lovers versus straw man religious fundamentalists. Tom Cruise will probably end up being the highlight performance as the aloof, washed-up, eternally wasted rock star. You can tell they have little faith in their two lead actors (both relative unknowns and singers by profession), given how many big names they've filled the supporting cast with. Hell, they're barely even featured in this trailer.
So, people who've seen the play: Is it any good? Is this just another Mama Mia with the story awkwardly built around the songs? What're we looking at here?
Damn my weakness to musicals and 80's rock!! Please tell me that someone breaks into Aerosmith's "Dude (Looks Like a Lady)" right after that lame joke 30 seconds in.
Plot looks pretty standard, bohemian rock 'n roll lovers versus straw man religious fundamentalists. Tom Cruise will probably end up being the highlight performance as the aloof, washed-up, eternally wasted rock star. You can tell they have little faith in their two lead actors (both relative unknowns and singers by profession), given how many big names they've filled the supporting cast with. Hell, they're barely even featured in this trailer.
So, people who've seen the play: Is it any good? Is this just another Mama Mia with the story awkwardly built around the songs? What're we looking at here?
Saturday, December 10, 2011
Movie Review: Rango
Rango is one of those films that wear's its influences on its sleeve. It's equal parts Sergio Leone and Hunter S. Thompson, a point driven home by two separate cameos featuring the Man with No Name & Raoul Duke. But oddly enough, the thing that sprung to my mind when pondering this film was the Cutie Mark Crusaders from My Little Pony (yes, my curiosity about the "Brony" movement got the better of me), in as much as both are based around the idea of building a character as a complete blank slate in search of an identity.
Friday, December 9, 2011
"The Lorax" trailer
An adaption of a Dr. Seuss book with needless story padding & generic kid's movie slapstick? Fourth verse, same as the first.
The thing that continuously disappoints me about the Dr. Seuss movies is that they all have seemingly no interest in actually capturing the tone of a Dr. Seuss book. They just take the basic plot and the aesthetics and drape it over a formula slapstick kids movie. There's no real sense of the surreal or childlike wonder. When I was a little kid my mom used to read me stuff like The Butter Battle Book & The 500 hats of Batholomew Cubbins, and they always felt to me like bizarre fairytales & fables that existed in a world all their own, not some wacky sugar rush. These movies feel more like the cereal commercials I watched in the 90's rather than the bedtime stories that soothed me to sleep.
Once again they seem to be really stretching out & filling in relatively small parts of the book to pad out the running time, in this case giving a name & a backstory to the previously nameless boy to whom the Once-ler narrates his encounters with the titular Lorax too. This strikes me as particularly unnecessary. Unlike The Cat & the Hat, The Lorax was one of the longer of Dr. Seuss's books, it seems to me there's plenty there to work with. Even more baffling, they seem to have reworked things so that he is in fact the star of the film, with the Once-ler & the Lorax as merely side characters whose story inspires him to "speak for the trees!" For the trees have no tongues, you see.
Yes, I do apologize for that joke.
Also, WHY CAN WE SEE THE ONCE-LER's FACE??!! I know that seems like a nitpick, but The once defining visual aspect of the Once-ler was that all you ever saw of him with a pair of long green gloves. These movies have at least been good at replicating Seuss's artwork up until now.
The thing that continuously disappoints me about the Dr. Seuss movies is that they all have seemingly no interest in actually capturing the tone of a Dr. Seuss book. They just take the basic plot and the aesthetics and drape it over a formula slapstick kids movie. There's no real sense of the surreal or childlike wonder. When I was a little kid my mom used to read me stuff like The Butter Battle Book & The 500 hats of Batholomew Cubbins, and they always felt to me like bizarre fairytales & fables that existed in a world all their own, not some wacky sugar rush. These movies feel more like the cereal commercials I watched in the 90's rather than the bedtime stories that soothed me to sleep.
Once again they seem to be really stretching out & filling in relatively small parts of the book to pad out the running time, in this case giving a name & a backstory to the previously nameless boy to whom the Once-ler narrates his encounters with the titular Lorax too. This strikes me as particularly unnecessary. Unlike The Cat & the Hat, The Lorax was one of the longer of Dr. Seuss's books, it seems to me there's plenty there to work with. Even more baffling, they seem to have reworked things so that he is in fact the star of the film, with the Once-ler & the Lorax as merely side characters whose story inspires him to "speak for the trees!" For the trees have no tongues, you see.
Yes, I do apologize for that joke.
Also, WHY CAN WE SEE THE ONCE-LER's FACE??!! I know that seems like a nitpick, but The once defining visual aspect of the Once-ler was that all you ever saw of him with a pair of long green gloves. These movies have at least been good at replicating Seuss's artwork up until now.
Saturday, November 19, 2011
Anarchy at the Movies: Twilight: Breaking Dawn Part 1
Probably the funniest movie of the year...if only it was trying to be.
Friday, November 18, 2011
Won't Get Fooled Again
Oh no. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. I've been on this ride already and I refuse to get my heart broken again. You won't get me hyped up this time, Sly. As far as I'm concerned this is garbage until proven gold.Saturday, November 12, 2011
Monday, October 31, 2011
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
The Lunatic Fringe: The Usual Suspects (The Extended Cut)
When the last episode of The Lunatic Fringe was released, it was missing a introduction featuring skits, cameos, and an explanation of the show's new format that had to be cut to get the episode out by the deadline. This is that episode as it was originally intended to be seen.
Thursday, October 6, 2011
The Escapist published one of my articles!
The article's called "Wonder Woman's Vanishing Boyfriend". It's basically about gender issues in comics.
Click here to read it.
Click here to read it.
Saturday, October 1, 2011
J. Edgar trailer
Hat-tip: Graham Finch
Wow, somebody actually requested I talk about this. I honestly didn't think anybody was reading these things. Well, here we go...
The reaction most people seem to be having to this seems to be "blatant Oscar bait, BUT...Clint Eastwood". And I find it hard to disagree. A film covering the life from childhood to death of a powerful, idealistic man drawn slowly into corruption, played by a talented, versatile young actor (ok, Leonardo DeCaprio isn't really young anymore, but with that boyish face of his, it's hard to tell), artificially aged with heavy makeup, it's hard not to think "this is trying really hard to be Citizen Kane". But of course, it's completely different: here they made an actual biopic rather than fictionalizing a real life person.
I kid, of course. This is Clint Eastwood after all, so it will almost certainly be good, even if it's not terribly groundbreaking from the looks of it. The old "idealist rises to power yet falls into corruption" story is one of the most popular topics for dramas, especially Oscar contenders, and frankly I think we've made too many of them already. I tend to think the Academy, and high-minded film scholars in general, perhaps place too little value on optimistic themes in storytelling. We've made a lot of Citizen Kane's, but not a lot of Mr. Smith goes to Washington's. Life is grim enough already, we don't need movies to constantly remind us of it. We could use more films with that kind've hopeful, pick-me-up spirit we used to get from Frank Capra oh so long ago.
As an aside, I find it amusing they had to name this after the title character's given name. I imagine they didn't want anyone thinking this film was about vacuum cleaners.
Wow, somebody actually requested I talk about this. I honestly didn't think anybody was reading these things. Well, here we go...
The reaction most people seem to be having to this seems to be "blatant Oscar bait, BUT...Clint Eastwood". And I find it hard to disagree. A film covering the life from childhood to death of a powerful, idealistic man drawn slowly into corruption, played by a talented, versatile young actor (ok, Leonardo DeCaprio isn't really young anymore, but with that boyish face of his, it's hard to tell), artificially aged with heavy makeup, it's hard not to think "this is trying really hard to be Citizen Kane". But of course, it's completely different: here they made an actual biopic rather than fictionalizing a real life person.
I kid, of course. This is Clint Eastwood after all, so it will almost certainly be good, even if it's not terribly groundbreaking from the looks of it. The old "idealist rises to power yet falls into corruption" story is one of the most popular topics for dramas, especially Oscar contenders, and frankly I think we've made too many of them already. I tend to think the Academy, and high-minded film scholars in general, perhaps place too little value on optimistic themes in storytelling. We've made a lot of Citizen Kane's, but not a lot of Mr. Smith goes to Washington's. Life is grim enough already, we don't need movies to constantly remind us of it. We could use more films with that kind've hopeful, pick-me-up spirit we used to get from Frank Capra oh so long ago.
As an aside, I find it amusing they had to name this after the title character's given name. I imagine they didn't want anyone thinking this film was about vacuum cleaners.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Movie Review: Rubber
Rubber is quite possibly the finest example I've seen of a film that eschews expectations merely for the sake of eschewing them...and why that doesn't usually work.Directed by French musician Quentin Dupieux, better known by his stage name Mr. Oizo, Rubber is a horror/comedy in the *cough* fine tradition of Leprechaun, Jack Frost, and other tongue-&-cheek horror flicks from the 90's. Like those films, its main gag comes from replacing the usual monster or serial killer with something utterly nonthreatening. Normally these movies feature either monstrous versions of normally friendly mythical figures (leprechauns, Santa Claus, etc) or anthropomorphic inanimate objects made animate (toys, snowmen, etc). Rubber takes this a step further by going the inanimate object route but rejecting the anthropomorphic aspect. Tragically, the films central menace is in fact not a living, homicidal condom as one might snidely discern from the title. No, here our killer is a tire. A tire that kills you with its mind. It's Scanners meets The Brave Little Toaster.
Friday, August 26, 2011
Friday, August 19, 2011
"Ghost Rider 2" trailer
You cannot tell me you don't wanna see a movie about Nicolas Cage PISSING FIRE.
I gotta admit I was excited when I heard that the duo of Mark Neveldine & Brian Taylor were directing this thing. The first Ghost Rider film was a mixed bag, it coupled a great lead (as well as some brief but great turns by Sam Elliot and Peter Fonda) with terrible villains and mediocre direction. So basically this new one is keeping what worked and ditching what didn't, which is exactly how one should approach a sequel.
The thing about Ghost Rider is that even the first one was probably way better than the character deserved. Ghost Rider's really had nothing more than a massively badass look to go on since day one, because his actual character was an after thought. They just had this cool design and needed something to do with it (if memory serves he was originally going to be a Daredevil villain). So when there's really nothing more to your movie's hero beyond having a flaming skull for a head, the kind of go-for-broke insanity that Neveldine & Taylor bring to their work is probably the best way to go.
It is kind of disappointing that Peter Fonda isn't returning as the Devil, but on the plus side Christopher Lambert is apparently playing a sword-wielding monk. Holy Christ, if he plays this role with the sly sense of humor he did Raiden, this will be priceless.
I gotta admit I was excited when I heard that the duo of Mark Neveldine & Brian Taylor were directing this thing. The first Ghost Rider film was a mixed bag, it coupled a great lead (as well as some brief but great turns by Sam Elliot and Peter Fonda) with terrible villains and mediocre direction. So basically this new one is keeping what worked and ditching what didn't, which is exactly how one should approach a sequel.
The thing about Ghost Rider is that even the first one was probably way better than the character deserved. Ghost Rider's really had nothing more than a massively badass look to go on since day one, because his actual character was an after thought. They just had this cool design and needed something to do with it (if memory serves he was originally going to be a Daredevil villain). So when there's really nothing more to your movie's hero beyond having a flaming skull for a head, the kind of go-for-broke insanity that Neveldine & Taylor bring to their work is probably the best way to go.
It is kind of disappointing that Peter Fonda isn't returning as the Devil, but on the plus side Christopher Lambert is apparently playing a sword-wielding monk. Holy Christ, if he plays this role with the sly sense of humor he did Raiden, this will be priceless.
Saturday, August 13, 2011
Movie Review: Super
There's a new genre of film emerging, so new it doesn't even have a name yet. "Realistic Superhero Movies", "Hipster Superhero Movies", "Indie Superhero Movies", whatever name we eventually settle on, this genre has already established its own formulas and clichés, despite there being only four entries so far, give or take a few. Super is the latest of these entries, and while it is one of better ones, it also does absolutely nothing new.Wednesday, August 3, 2011
The End of the Secret Six
"Good don't last. But messed up, that goes on forever."
-Deadshot, Secret Six #36
Today, the final issue of one of the greatest comic book series of the last five years at least was released. If you haven't been following Secret Six (like you SHOULD be!) it's appeal can be a little hard to describe. Gail Simone's writing style while working on this book tends to be equal parts Joss Whedon & Quentin Tarantino: All of Whedon's clever witicisms and endearing character development combined with Tarantino's sudden, brutal violence and dark sense of humor.
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
"Battleship" trailer...no, really
So apparently the very idea of making a movie out of a board game wasn't enough stupid for them. They had to throw in the Decepticons.
This honestly could not look more like fail if it tried. Sure we already knew that a Battleship movie would have next to nothing in common with the actual game aside from the title and involving battleships in some way. After all the game has no recognizable story or characters for them to adapt. At least Candyland has characters and locations and could conceivably be made into a Hanzel & Gretel-meets-Alice in Wonderland style kids movie. But a Battleship movie would presumably just be a generic Naval war film.
But NO. They couldn't stop there. A well-known brand name alone does not a blockbuster make. And so we get this utterly blatant attempt to ape the Transformers movies. Seriously, you could rewrite the title card to say "Transformers 4" and you wouldn't notice anything amiss.
Oh, and they don't show her in the trailer, but Rihanna is in this. Yup. She's making her cinematic debut. Joy. Look I know a pop star turning out to be a good actress isn't unheard of, but for every Justin Timberlake there are dozens of Britney Spears's (and yes, she had a stab at an acting career).
You know, whenever people hear about things like this: remakes, adaptions, etc. they always say Hollwood is out of ideas. Not true. Hollywood is swimming in good ideas. They're just running out of marketable ideas, or at least they think they are. There are tons of comic books and novels begging for a movie, tons of enterprising young filmmakers with great scripts and ideas. But nobody's ever heard of them. And I think that's what pisses me off about this the most. Sure we could make great movies out of Hawkman, the Suicide Squad, the Spectre, hell, even Ragman would make a pretty awesome flick! Oh, but those things are only popular with a niche audience. But everybody's played Battleship! Sure it has no plot and people will make fun, but who cares, it's brand recognition! Guaranteed box office hit! Greenlight that shit!
This honestly could not look more like fail if it tried. Sure we already knew that a Battleship movie would have next to nothing in common with the actual game aside from the title and involving battleships in some way. After all the game has no recognizable story or characters for them to adapt. At least Candyland has characters and locations and could conceivably be made into a Hanzel & Gretel-meets-Alice in Wonderland style kids movie. But a Battleship movie would presumably just be a generic Naval war film.
But NO. They couldn't stop there. A well-known brand name alone does not a blockbuster make. And so we get this utterly blatant attempt to ape the Transformers movies. Seriously, you could rewrite the title card to say "Transformers 4" and you wouldn't notice anything amiss.
Oh, and they don't show her in the trailer, but Rihanna is in this. Yup. She's making her cinematic debut. Joy. Look I know a pop star turning out to be a good actress isn't unheard of, but for every Justin Timberlake there are dozens of Britney Spears's (and yes, she had a stab at an acting career).
You know, whenever people hear about things like this: remakes, adaptions, etc. they always say Hollwood is out of ideas. Not true. Hollywood is swimming in good ideas. They're just running out of marketable ideas, or at least they think they are. There are tons of comic books and novels begging for a movie, tons of enterprising young filmmakers with great scripts and ideas. But nobody's ever heard of them. And I think that's what pisses me off about this the most. Sure we could make great movies out of Hawkman, the Suicide Squad, the Spectre, hell, even Ragman would make a pretty awesome flick! Oh, but those things are only popular with a niche audience. But everybody's played Battleship! Sure it has no plot and people will make fun, but who cares, it's brand recognition! Guaranteed box office hit! Greenlight that shit!
Monday, July 25, 2011
Anarchy at the Movies: Captain America: The First Avenger
Joshua the Anarchist reviews the best movie of the Summer.
Saturday, July 23, 2011
Your Daily Dose of Awesome
OK, I still have zero hope that the Spider-man reboot will be anything more than bland and unnecessary. But this...well played, Mr. Garfield.
Friday, July 22, 2011
"In Time" trailer
Oh, hell yeah.
For those not familiar with Andrew Niccol, he's a director who specializes in my favorite kind of movie: high concept science fiction. He wrote and directed Gattaca & S1m0ne, AND scripted The Truman Show. This is his first sci-fi film in nine years, so needless to say I'm pretty psyched to see this. Gattaca & The Truman Show were masterpieces, and this looks to be in the same vein of thinly veiled science fiction allegories used for the purpose of social commentary.
Sure it's more science fantasy than science fiction, for example the premise involves a technology that switches off the "aging gene". I'm terrible at science, but I'm pretty certain no such thing exists, it's just the nature of matter, organic or inorganic, to break down over time, so it's more like they rewrote the laws of physics. Still, that's pretty much how Niccol's films work, the story isn't about how whatever sci-fi tech involved works, but about how it's presence affects the characters lives.
So yeah, definitely one to look forward to. Probably gonna fly under the radar for most people considering the release date unfortunately, but I'd encourage you all to check it out, or at least hunt down Niccol's other work if you haven't already.
For those not familiar with Andrew Niccol, he's a director who specializes in my favorite kind of movie: high concept science fiction. He wrote and directed Gattaca & S1m0ne, AND scripted The Truman Show. This is his first sci-fi film in nine years, so needless to say I'm pretty psyched to see this. Gattaca & The Truman Show were masterpieces, and this looks to be in the same vein of thinly veiled science fiction allegories used for the purpose of social commentary.
Sure it's more science fantasy than science fiction, for example the premise involves a technology that switches off the "aging gene". I'm terrible at science, but I'm pretty certain no such thing exists, it's just the nature of matter, organic or inorganic, to break down over time, so it's more like they rewrote the laws of physics. Still, that's pretty much how Niccol's films work, the story isn't about how whatever sci-fi tech involved works, but about how it's presence affects the characters lives.
So yeah, definitely one to look forward to. Probably gonna fly under the radar for most people considering the release date unfortunately, but I'd encourage you all to check it out, or at least hunt down Niccol's other work if you haven't already.
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
"The Amazing Spider-man" Trailer
It's finally here, the first trailer for Mirror's Edge the movie--I mean, the Spider-man reboot.
Yeah, I'm not a gamer, and even I immediately made the connection after that first-person platformer shot that takes up half the goddamn trailer. Also, why did the spider bit his neck instead of his hand? NERD RAGE!!
Well, nitpicks aside, there's really nothing terribly wrong with the trailer. Honestly, the movie probably won't be horrible taken on it's own, and I never thought otherwise. The problem with this whole reboot idea is in concept. It's not just that it's unnecessary, that's obvious to anyone who was alive when the first Spider-man movie came out, which I'm guessing is most of you. But the fact is, while the first film is not that highly regarded in comparison to other superhero films (it's liked but not loved, vastly eclipsed by the way better sequel), It has been around just long enough to have proved itself a classic. Everybody saw it, everybody remembers it. Everybody remembers the upside down kiss, the opening narration etc. It's embedded itself into pop culture in a lasting way. An to remake it so soon it nothing short of laughable. It not like The Hulk, where the just calling a do over after they tripped at the starting line. This is them scrapping the franchise after ONE critical failure of an otherwise successful series of films, even though it still made a profit. What, THIS is the franchise where Hollywood actually listens to the critics? What happened to that attitude when they were making the Transformers movies?
Yeah, I'm not a gamer, and even I immediately made the connection after that first-person platformer shot that takes up half the goddamn trailer. Also, why did the spider bit his neck instead of his hand? NERD RAGE!!
Well, nitpicks aside, there's really nothing terribly wrong with the trailer. Honestly, the movie probably won't be horrible taken on it's own, and I never thought otherwise. The problem with this whole reboot idea is in concept. It's not just that it's unnecessary, that's obvious to anyone who was alive when the first Spider-man movie came out, which I'm guessing is most of you. But the fact is, while the first film is not that highly regarded in comparison to other superhero films (it's liked but not loved, vastly eclipsed by the way better sequel), It has been around just long enough to have proved itself a classic. Everybody saw it, everybody remembers it. Everybody remembers the upside down kiss, the opening narration etc. It's embedded itself into pop culture in a lasting way. An to remake it so soon it nothing short of laughable. It not like The Hulk, where the just calling a do over after they tripped at the starting line. This is them scrapping the franchise after ONE critical failure of an otherwise successful series of films, even though it still made a profit. What, THIS is the franchise where Hollywood actually listens to the critics? What happened to that attitude when they were making the Transformers movies?
Thursday, July 14, 2011
John Carter trailer
UPDATE: Now that the movie's out, I've made a video review of it you can view here.
It's about damn time.
Seriously, how is it that we're only NOW getting a John Carter of Mars movie? Imagine if the upcoming Conan reboot was the first time that character has ever graced the big screen? Edgar Rice Burroughs' Barsoom novels that began with A Princess of Mars in 1917 is one of those essential examples of pulp sci-fi that pretty much every major space opera owes its existence too. Before Slave Leia, Dejah Thoris was THE sex symbol of geek culture. Hell, she arguably still is.
Even if you've never read the novels in your life, you probably recognize the above image. Frank Frazetta's paintings are a large part of what kept franchises like Conan & John Carter in the popular culture, or at least nerd culture. So tell me: with a classic franchise this old and this culturally significant, why the hell did the fucking Aslyum get around to making a movie out of it before Hollywood did?!
Not that the trailer looks super-great or anything. It's pretty discouraging when the two most visible leading actors are best known for being in X-Men Origins: Wolverine. Although apparently Willem Dafoe is playing Tars Tarkas (think Goro from Mortal Kombat but green). I'm curious as to whether he with be physically playing the role or just voicing a CGI version (given the brief glimpse of an alien we see, I'm guessing the latter). Still this is yet another instance of a veteran Pixar director doing his first live action feature, so fingers crossed for Andrew Stanton. Plus I'm glad that it doesn't look like another Prince of Persia, that is it doesn't look like another action-comedy that Disney desperately wants to be their new Pirates of the Caribbean.
Still, this movie is a good 30 or 40 years overdue. I highly doubt it'll accumulate quite the cult following that the original Conan movie did, but we'll see.
(P.S. Dejah Thoris is wearing WAY to much clothing. Yeah yeah, Disney movie and all, but still that's kinda what she's known for, being basically nude. Besides, Mystique got away with it.)
It's about damn time.
Seriously, how is it that we're only NOW getting a John Carter of Mars movie? Imagine if the upcoming Conan reboot was the first time that character has ever graced the big screen? Edgar Rice Burroughs' Barsoom novels that began with A Princess of Mars in 1917 is one of those essential examples of pulp sci-fi that pretty much every major space opera owes its existence too. Before Slave Leia, Dejah Thoris was THE sex symbol of geek culture. Hell, she arguably still is.
Even if you've never read the novels in your life, you probably recognize the above image. Frank Frazetta's paintings are a large part of what kept franchises like Conan & John Carter in the popular culture, or at least nerd culture. So tell me: with a classic franchise this old and this culturally significant, why the hell did the fucking Aslyum get around to making a movie out of it before Hollywood did?!
Not that the trailer looks super-great or anything. It's pretty discouraging when the two most visible leading actors are best known for being in X-Men Origins: Wolverine. Although apparently Willem Dafoe is playing Tars Tarkas (think Goro from Mortal Kombat but green). I'm curious as to whether he with be physically playing the role or just voicing a CGI version (given the brief glimpse of an alien we see, I'm guessing the latter). Still this is yet another instance of a veteran Pixar director doing his first live action feature, so fingers crossed for Andrew Stanton. Plus I'm glad that it doesn't look like another Prince of Persia, that is it doesn't look like another action-comedy that Disney desperately wants to be their new Pirates of the Caribbean.
Still, this movie is a good 30 or 40 years overdue. I highly doubt it'll accumulate quite the cult following that the original Conan movie did, but we'll see.
(P.S. Dejah Thoris is wearing WAY to much clothing. Yeah yeah, Disney movie and all, but still that's kinda what she's known for, being basically nude. Besides, Mystique got away with it.)
Monday, July 4, 2011
Anarchy at the Movies: Transformers: Dark of the Moon
At least Green Lantern isn't the worst movie of the Summer anymore.
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
"Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol" trailer
So they're making another one of these, I guess. And it's directed by...Brad Bird?!
Yes, apparently this is Brad Bird's first attempt at a live action feature. Anyone who's seen his Pixar films (which I assume is all of you and then some), or his criminally underrated The Iron Giant, knows he can definitely tell a good story (he also wrote the even more underrated *batteries not included, but didn't direct it). Unfortunately, he didn't write this one. In fact, J.J. Abrams apparently stuck around after the last one to help with the script, and brought his Alias writing staff with him. Although Roberto Orci & Alex Kurtzmen are nowhere to be seen, which is always a plus.
This will definitely be interesting to see Bird test his range as a director. Many directors tend to sink when they stray from their well-trodden path into unfamiliar ground. Martin Campbell, a director mostly known for action pieces using old school stunt-work and on-location shooting, tried that just weeks ago with Green Lantern, a film that was roughly 78% shot on green screen, and look how that worked out. Let us hope Bird is a little more adaptable.
The trailer doesn't look terribly promising. Pretty standard rehash of the Mission: Impossible formula. Definitely hating the music: a hip hop song followed by a scant few cords of the Mission: Impossible theme? What the hell? The cast is fine: Paula Patton as the obligatory hot chick (this is her first big blockbuster film to my knowledge, so only time will tell if this is her breakout role into the mainstream), Simon Pegg (who seems to be appearing in more & more action oriented roles lately) as presumably the comic relief, and Tom Wilkinson, always good.
Not to doubt the great Brad Bird, but somehow I don't see this being a hit. The studio clearly isn't banking on it, considering they gave a December release date to a film clearly made for the Summer. Plus, it's the fourth in a franchise, and I highly doubt we're going to get two good post-trilogy sequels in one year. Though admittedly I did like the second one a lot more than most people, so maybe it'll be this year's guilty pleasure for me.
Yes, apparently this is Brad Bird's first attempt at a live action feature. Anyone who's seen his Pixar films (which I assume is all of you and then some), or his criminally underrated The Iron Giant, knows he can definitely tell a good story (he also wrote the even more underrated *batteries not included, but didn't direct it). Unfortunately, he didn't write this one. In fact, J.J. Abrams apparently stuck around after the last one to help with the script, and brought his Alias writing staff with him. Although Roberto Orci & Alex Kurtzmen are nowhere to be seen, which is always a plus.
This will definitely be interesting to see Bird test his range as a director. Many directors tend to sink when they stray from their well-trodden path into unfamiliar ground. Martin Campbell, a director mostly known for action pieces using old school stunt-work and on-location shooting, tried that just weeks ago with Green Lantern, a film that was roughly 78% shot on green screen, and look how that worked out. Let us hope Bird is a little more adaptable.
The trailer doesn't look terribly promising. Pretty standard rehash of the Mission: Impossible formula. Definitely hating the music: a hip hop song followed by a scant few cords of the Mission: Impossible theme? What the hell? The cast is fine: Paula Patton as the obligatory hot chick (this is her first big blockbuster film to my knowledge, so only time will tell if this is her breakout role into the mainstream), Simon Pegg (who seems to be appearing in more & more action oriented roles lately) as presumably the comic relief, and Tom Wilkinson, always good.
Not to doubt the great Brad Bird, but somehow I don't see this being a hit. The studio clearly isn't banking on it, considering they gave a December release date to a film clearly made for the Summer. Plus, it's the fourth in a franchise, and I highly doubt we're going to get two good post-trilogy sequels in one year. Though admittedly I did like the second one a lot more than most people, so maybe it'll be this year's guilty pleasure for me.
Monday, June 27, 2011
The NEW Justice League
So they tell me this will be the new post-reboot Justice League. I remain unimpressed.
I'm hoping that the theory that this is just DC's version of Heroes Reborn is correct, and everything will be back to normal in a matter of months, because nothing about what we know so far has convinced me this is a good idea. Supplying continuity-free versions of your flagship characters to attract new readers is great. Abandoning your existing readers in the process is not great.
Though looking at this picture makes me pretty confident this won't stay around very long, because nothing about it screams "timeless" to me, it screams "we're still stuck in the 90's". My first beef with it it more of a personal one, admittedly: It's a Jim Lee illustration. Yes, he's a good artist, but somehow his work just rubs me the wrong way. His facial features are always too sharp and angular for my taste (meaning he has the exact opposite problem of Ed McGuinness) and I've never liked how short he tends to draw Batman's ears (though they are longer here than normal for him).
But the main problem with these designs it that they have the same problem most comic book art had in the 90's: TOO MUCH DETAIL. Remember that godawful redesign Ant-man got in Heroes Reborn? Same basic problem. Lines, creases, all the extra surface detailing they could think of has been added, presumably to make there costumes more "realistic" (though someone needs to explain the realism in Superman wearing armor). Cyborg is the worst offender, drawn in that godawful post-Bayformers style. Apparently all robots/cyborgs by law must now be cluttered up with a ton of useless little metal bits just kinda hanging off of him. The old rule of less is more goes double for character designing. They less detail you use the more memorable the design is.
Also Wonder Woman's redesign is apparently staying. Honestly I could live with her having pants it it weren't for all the black. No matter how much more "modest" her costume gets, replacing the blue and gold of her costume with black and silver is just plain wrong. It removes any of the regal nature of the character's aesthetics. And where the hell are the stars?
Flash, Green Lantern & Aquaman are OK, design-wise, and Batman's looked worse. Although in redesigning the Big Two, it seems like the editorial mandate was "lose the jock straps." I guess they were sick of everyone making "underwear on the outside" jokes. It really bugs me when comic book companies do this kind've thing in response to old wisecracks, it just comes off as immature. Remember in the 60's when they brought the first Batwoman & Batgirl in as Batman & Robin's girlfriends solely to stop the gay jokes?
Plus, changing Superman's costume, even in the slightest, is never gonna stick. It's just won't. He has BY FAR the most iconic costume in the history of fiction. Even Batman & Spider-man have more freedom. Batman's chest emblem is almost constantly changing, Spider-man goes back and forth on the underarm webbing, etc. Superman is constant. No costume change ever sticks with him. Even people who've never picked up a comic book in their lives know every detail of his costume by heart. Hell, the man can't even get a new haircut without people noticing (though to be fair, the ponytail with a product of it's time).
We can't see enough of the rest of the characters to comment on their costumes: There's Deadman (interesting choice), Green Arrow, the Atom, Hawkman, someone I'm told is called Element Woman (I haven't been reading Flashpoint), A blonde who could be either Power Girl or Black Canary (it's not clear from the headshot), Firestorm, and Mera. This being a reboot, it looks like Firestorm is a white guy again, score one for equality. Though it is interesting that Aquaman AND his wife are now fellow league members together. Not thrilled at Hawkman showing up without Hawkgirl though. I mean, by the very nature of their backstory I've always felt they should be a package deal, but whatever.
Oh well, here's to the safe return of our continuity very soon (please don't let this be permanent, please don't let this be permanent...).
I'm hoping that the theory that this is just DC's version of Heroes Reborn is correct, and everything will be back to normal in a matter of months, because nothing about what we know so far has convinced me this is a good idea. Supplying continuity-free versions of your flagship characters to attract new readers is great. Abandoning your existing readers in the process is not great.Though looking at this picture makes me pretty confident this won't stay around very long, because nothing about it screams "timeless" to me, it screams "we're still stuck in the 90's". My first beef with it it more of a personal one, admittedly: It's a Jim Lee illustration. Yes, he's a good artist, but somehow his work just rubs me the wrong way. His facial features are always too sharp and angular for my taste (meaning he has the exact opposite problem of Ed McGuinness) and I've never liked how short he tends to draw Batman's ears (though they are longer here than normal for him).
But the main problem with these designs it that they have the same problem most comic book art had in the 90's: TOO MUCH DETAIL. Remember that godawful redesign Ant-man got in Heroes Reborn? Same basic problem. Lines, creases, all the extra surface detailing they could think of has been added, presumably to make there costumes more "realistic" (though someone needs to explain the realism in Superman wearing armor). Cyborg is the worst offender, drawn in that godawful post-Bayformers style. Apparently all robots/cyborgs by law must now be cluttered up with a ton of useless little metal bits just kinda hanging off of him. The old rule of less is more goes double for character designing. They less detail you use the more memorable the design is.
Also Wonder Woman's redesign is apparently staying. Honestly I could live with her having pants it it weren't for all the black. No matter how much more "modest" her costume gets, replacing the blue and gold of her costume with black and silver is just plain wrong. It removes any of the regal nature of the character's aesthetics. And where the hell are the stars?
Flash, Green Lantern & Aquaman are OK, design-wise, and Batman's looked worse. Although in redesigning the Big Two, it seems like the editorial mandate was "lose the jock straps." I guess they were sick of everyone making "underwear on the outside" jokes. It really bugs me when comic book companies do this kind've thing in response to old wisecracks, it just comes off as immature. Remember in the 60's when they brought the first Batwoman & Batgirl in as Batman & Robin's girlfriends solely to stop the gay jokes?
Plus, changing Superman's costume, even in the slightest, is never gonna stick. It's just won't. He has BY FAR the most iconic costume in the history of fiction. Even Batman & Spider-man have more freedom. Batman's chest emblem is almost constantly changing, Spider-man goes back and forth on the underarm webbing, etc. Superman is constant. No costume change ever sticks with him. Even people who've never picked up a comic book in their lives know every detail of his costume by heart. Hell, the man can't even get a new haircut without people noticing (though to be fair, the ponytail with a product of it's time).
We can't see enough of the rest of the characters to comment on their costumes: There's Deadman (interesting choice), Green Arrow, the Atom, Hawkman, someone I'm told is called Element Woman (I haven't been reading Flashpoint), A blonde who could be either Power Girl or Black Canary (it's not clear from the headshot), Firestorm, and Mera. This being a reboot, it looks like Firestorm is a white guy again, score one for equality. Though it is interesting that Aquaman AND his wife are now fellow league members together. Not thrilled at Hawkman showing up without Hawkgirl though. I mean, by the very nature of their backstory I've always felt they should be a package deal, but whatever.
Oh well, here's to the safe return of our continuity very soon (please don't let this be permanent, please don't let this be permanent...).
Sunday, June 26, 2011
The Geek Chorus #2: Who Reviews the Reviewers?
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
The Latin phrase meaning "who guards the guards themselves" or more commonly translated as "who watches the watchemen" thanks to some graphic novel in the 80's no one remembers.
I'm certainly not the first person to do a bad takeoff of the famous phrase and I certainly won't be the last. I bring it up only because I think people tend to take the wrong message away from this saying sometimes, or at least different from what I take away.
The Latin phrase meaning "who guards the guards themselves" or more commonly translated as "who watches the watchemen" thanks to some graphic novel in the 80's no one remembers.
I'm certainly not the first person to do a bad takeoff of the famous phrase and I certainly won't be the last. I bring it up only because I think people tend to take the wrong message away from this saying sometimes, or at least different from what I take away.
Saturday, June 25, 2011
Celebrate "The Rocketeer's" 20th Anniversary
Tuesday was one year to the day that The Rocketeer was released, a fun little pulp superhero movie that sadly gets overlooked too often. If you haven't seen it, you probably should, if for no other reason than to quell any reservations you might have about the new Captain America film (they have the same director, don't 'cha know?). It included, among other goodies, Nazi fighting (always a plus), Timothy Dalton playing an evil Errol Flynn parody (Flynn was rumored to be a nazi sympathizer, they do a take off on that), and the ever-ageless Jennifer Connelly at the sexiest she gets with her clothes on (yum yum).
Anyway, being a cult item the film is not without it's diehard fans, and talented ones at that, as evidenced by this animated fan film that's been circling the net. Check it out after the jump.
Thursday, June 23, 2011
The Lunatic Fringe: The Usual Suspects
On the two year anniversary of the show, The Lunatic Fringe gets a brand new start with this look at Bryan Singer's The Usual Suspects.
PLEASE NOTE: A lot of my fellow reviewers went out of their way to provide cameo footage for this anniversary episode. All their efforts are greatly appreciated, and it pains me to inform them that none of it is featured here. This is due to two reasons 1) Time. I simply didn't have time to complete the entire video, skits and all, by the due date I set for myself, and 2) On the advice of a friend I have decided to cut back on cameos, in-jokes, skits, and other material in order to make the show more accessible to new viewers and focus on my strengths as a writer and performer. However, I do plan to complete the full video, cameos included, and release it at a later date. I offer my thanks to all those who contributed and my assurances that their efforts will not go in vain. Stay tuned.
PLEASE NOTE: A lot of my fellow reviewers went out of their way to provide cameo footage for this anniversary episode. All their efforts are greatly appreciated, and it pains me to inform them that none of it is featured here. This is due to two reasons 1) Time. I simply didn't have time to complete the entire video, skits and all, by the due date I set for myself, and 2) On the advice of a friend I have decided to cut back on cameos, in-jokes, skits, and other material in order to make the show more accessible to new viewers and focus on my strengths as a writer and performer. However, I do plan to complete the full video, cameos included, and release it at a later date. I offer my thanks to all those who contributed and my assurances that their efforts will not go in vain. Stay tuned.
Saturday, June 18, 2011
Anarchy at the Movies: Green Lantern
A great light has gone out in the universe...it's the fans' hopes for a good Green Lantern movie.
Saturday, June 11, 2011
Hope for Green Lantern?
Yes, the CGI looks like shit. I think at this point it's an accepted fact at this point that this, like The Incredible Hulk, was rushed out and will enter theaters looking unpolished at best. In this era of CGI over-saturation that happens more than it should, but hey, what're ya gonna do?
Nonetheless, this clip gives me hope, mainly because it seems that the film is getting a lot of the important stuff right. For one thing, it's well-shot, bad CGI not withstanding. You can clearly see everything that's happening, which shouldn't be a big deal, but it is. The shots are steady and at a good distance, the editing is natural and un-intrusive. Even in the good action movies these days, I'm sick of wanting to reach out and steady the damn camera myself. Not really surprising in retrospect. Martin Campbell did direct three of my favorite action films of the last few decades (GoldenEye, The Mask of Zorro, and Casino Royale).
But the thing that really excites me is that it actually feels like the way a Green Lantern fight scene should. If you've ever read the Green Lantern comics, you've probably given yourself a headache trying to picture any of it playing out in live action. Every other panel the rings produce a different shape or item. Even the Justice League animated series struggled with this, which is why they gave Jon Stewart a more no-nonsense tough guy attitude, not prone to complicated and elaborate constructs. Mostly he just used the ring to fly, shoot lasers and erect force fields. Later in the series he would flex his creative muscles and give us the occasional giant drill or set of fists, but that was about it.
Compare that to this. In the space of less than a minute, Hal Jordan pulls out no less than four different constructs. Jon Stewart would've just blocked the flaming Parallax lugie with a force field, threw the truck with a simple tractor beam, then shot it with a laser blast. Not Hal. Catapults, springs, gun turrets, that's the way a Green Lantern handles things. This shows a real grasp of and respect for the source material. Fingers crossed folks. This could be a good one.
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
Anarchy at the Movies: X-Men First Class
It took them five tries, but the finally got it right...for the most part.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Anarchy at the Movies: Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides
If the friggin' ship couldn't be bothered to show up, you probably shouldn't either.
Monday, May 16, 2011
Anarchy at the Movies: Thor
Whosoever watches this review, if he be interested, shall go see the film Thor! Joshua the Anarchist give's his belated opinion on the Thor movie.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Friday, March 25, 2011
The Geek Chorus: DC Needs to Grow a Pair
Klaatu Barada Nikto, everybody! Joshua the Anarchist here. Like most attention-hogging internet…person-types, I often have many a thought pop through my geeky little brain. And due to the aforementioned attention hogging, I can’t bear the thought of not forced my crazy stream of conciseness on the nearest unsuspecting ear. Unfortunately, since 140 characters have become unsuitable to contain my uncensored madness, I had to seek out an alternate means of venting. And since ripping off better and more successful reviewers than me worked out so well on youtube, I figured I’d swip another concept from MovieBob and create my own nerd soapbox column. So now, whenever I feel that old itch returning, I’ll resist the urge to kill again, and instead give you all a terrifying inside peek into the inner workings of my brain.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Monday, January 31, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)