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?
Showing posts with label News. Show all posts
Showing posts with label News. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
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.
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.
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!
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.)
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...).
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.
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.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
The New Nick Fury
Well, Sam Jackson's out. Even if he still wants the role, he's out it my mind. Yeah, I know that sounds like fanboy blasphemy, but hey, that's why they call me the Anarchist. Maybe it's just me, but I've always had a certain philosophy when it comes to casting: the character is more important than they actor (feel free to quote me). I still haven't completely forgiven Gene Hackman for refusing to shave his head for Superman. So when I heard Samuel L. Jackson was walking away from the role of Nick Fury because he wanted more money, my thought was this: screw him, lets move on. Jackson was quoted as saying: “I would love to do it. I’m not sure that they would love for me to do it. It seems as though they’re having money problems," and “they’re caught up in the economic crisis also. Iron Man 1 didn’t make much money, so they can’t afford to pay the rest of us anymore.” Frack. You. You are either a colossal snob, an incredible idiot, or both. Iron Man made over $582 million worldwide. If they can't afford you, then you've got to be the most greedy dick on the planet.
What the hell happened, Sam? You used to be cool. Crap, only two months ago you were cool. You practically held the record for never turning down a role. Seriously man, you were in The Spirit, you'd do anything! Now your gonna turn down Iron Man 2 because you want more money? Dude, the money you'd make off of your rep alone after being in that movie would be more than they could ever pay you. You want to be remembered? You want true cinematic immortality? Just a guest role in a series like Iron Man, one that will doubtless be remembered as this generations Terminator or RoboCop, would cement your place in history permanently. But is all you care about is money, then clearly your not as cool as we all thought you were. Maybe you never were. Are you are now is just another soulless Hollywood demagogue.
Well, now that my disillusioned rant is out of the way, it's time to move on. And by move on, I mean fruitlessly harp on my personal choice for the new Nick Fury, since obviously nothing I say will be have any effect on the film's outcome. Of course, if Hollywood execs started listening to me, I could really call myself an anarchist, could I? Anyway, it's highly unlikely that they'll simply write Nick Fury out of the movie. They might try to simply have him be an unseen character, spoken of but never actually appearing. Now I'd be really upset if they did that because I have my own horse in this a race, someone who I'd like to see even more than Sam Jackson. I'm an old school comics guy, and as much as I like the Ultimate Marvel Universe, I will always be faithful to the originals, especially Nick Fury. After all, the original's been around for 40 years, while the Ultimate version's less than a decade old. The first, cigar-chomping, blue jumpsuit-wearing, Infinity formula-laced, WWII vet Fury deserves to be in the film, and there's one guy in particular who'd be perfect for the role. No, it's not David Hasselhoff (but that'd be ridiculously cool). It's Thomas Jane. Yes, Thomas Jane.
I know, not the most obvious choice right? Besides, he already played the Punisher for Marvel, right? Well, Marvel already rebooted that franchise again (worst call since the Star Wars prequels!) so he's home free. And I no I've said this before, but the guy's a total badass. And believe it or not, I wasn't the one who came up with the idea of him playing Nick Fury. Not long after The Punisher came out, Tim Bradstreet, who had done some promotional artwork for the film, convinced Jane to pose as Nick Fury for the cover of Punisher #13. Take a look as these shots and tell me Tom Jane would not rule as the director of SHIELD.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Hillary Duff is remaking "Bonnie & Clyde"....Oh God, Kill Me Now
...
...
...
...
Hillary Duff...is playing Bonnie Parker...in the upcoming film The Story of Bonnie & Clyde.
...
...
...
...
...
...
HILLARY DUFF is PLAYING BONNIE PARKER in the upcoming film The Story of BONNIE & CLYDE!!!!!
OK, everyone calm down. Don't panic. There's obviously a perfectly reasonable, logical explanation for this ludicrous yet horrific development....we're all dead and in hell. (In what world can a privileged starlet of little-to-no talent hope to find herself in a remake of one of the greatest achievements in American cinema? Only in the darkest depths of Lucifer's lair. A lesson courtesy...of The Twilight Zone.)
OK, admittedly this could be worse (though imagining anything worse is threatening to send me into a 12-year coma). They could have gone with any of Hollywood's ever expanding collection talentless, dumb sluts (OK, that was probably out of line, but I'm seriously pissed here), like Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan, Vanessa Hudgens, or Megan Fox (who better not get the part of Lara Croft, by-the-way!...or Cassie Hack!) Hillary Duff, admittedly, has at least tried to maintain a reasonably clean image...or at least she did before War, Inc. came along. But still, the girl has the acting talent of a 3rd grader! She's pretty much been stuck on Lizzie McGuire mode her entire career. Even in War, Inc. she was acting like Lizzie, just the slutty version of her, with the same bad accent she had as her own french double in The Lizzie McGuire Movie. Face it Hil, you're a one trick pony...and that one trick wasn't impressive in the first place. Seriously babe, stick to singing, at least you're reasonably decent at that.
Now those of you that have done your homework (your 30 page essay on how awesome I am is due at the end of the week) know that The Story of Bonnie & Clyde is not technically a remake of the classic 1967 crime film Bonnie & Clyde (a film so badass it brought about the R rating). But, seriously, what does it matter? A film about Bonnie & Clyde is a film about Bonnie & Clyde, so it might as well be a remake.
Seriously Hil, what do you want from us? Haven't we always been nice to you? I mean sure, a most of us aren't exactly fans, but we've always let you do your thing without much complaint. Hell, Miley Cyrus takes more crap than you ever did! So why? Why are you doing this? What did we ever do to you to warrant this defacing of such a classic? WHY!?
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Oscar Nominations are in...and yes, I am pissed.
Well, the Oscar nominees are in, like it matters. Obviously I am not a fan of the Academy, but for some reason I expected them to act like human beings this year, and once again they let me down. Don't get me wrong, I seen them make more stupid decisions than this but...well, just take a look.
Best Picture
Best Actor
Frank Langella for Frost/Nixon
Sean Penn for Milk
Brad Pitt for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Best Actress
Meryl Streep for Doubt
Kate Winslet for The Reader
Best Supporting Actor
Josh Brolin for Milk
Philip Seymour Hoffman for Doubt
Best Supporting Actress
Amy Adams for Doubt
Viola Davis for Doubt
Taraji P. Henson for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Marisa Tomei for The Wrestler
Best Director
David Fincher for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Ron Howard for Frost/Nixon
Gus Van Sant for Milk
Stephen Daldry for The Reader
Danny Boyle for Slumdog Millionaire
Best Foreign-language Film
The Baader Meinhof Complex from Germany
The Class from France
Departures from Japan
Revanche from Austria
Waltz With Bashir from Israel
Best Adapted Screenplay
Eric Roth and Robin Swicord for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
John Patrick Shanley for Doubt
Peter Morgan for Frost/Nixon
David Hare for The Reader
Simon Beaufoy for Slumdog Millionaire
Best Original Screenplay
Courtney Hunt for Frozen River
Dustin Lance Black for Milk
Best Animated Feature Film
WALL-E
Best Art Direction
Changeling
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
The Dark Knight
Revolutionary Road
Best Cinematography
Changeling
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
The Dark Knight
The Reader
Slumdog Millionaire
Best Sound Mixing
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
The Dark Knight
Slumdog Millionaire
WALL-E
Best Sound Editing
The Dark Knight
Slumdog Millionaire
WALL-E
Wanted
Best Original Score
Alexandre Desplat for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
James Newton Howard for Defiance
Danny Elfman for Milk
A.R. Rahman for Slumdog Millionaire
Thomas Newman for WALL-E
Best Original Song
"Down to Earth" from WALL-E by Peter Gabriel and Thomas Newman
Best Costume Design
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
The Duchess
Milk
Revolutionary Road
Best Documentary
Best Film Editing
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
The Dark Knight
Frost/Nixon
Milk
Slumdog Millionaire
Best Makeup
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
The Dark Knight
Best Visual Effects
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
The Dark Knight
Iron Man
OK, where do I begin? Obviously I was rooting for The Dark Knight to snag both Best Picture and Best Director, but knowing the Academy I wasn't expecting it. At least they had the decency to give Heath Ledger his supporting actor nom (he doesn't get it and they'll be blood to pay). But What the hell is up with the Best Actors? Mickey Roarke I expected (it was about the only good thing about the film), but Brad Pitt? Seriously? He was the weakest part of Benjamin Button! A part of me really wished Michael Rapaport could walk away with a nom for Special, but obviously there's no way the Academy would give that a second glance, the gorram snobs. BUT WHERE THE FRAKING HELL IS CLINT EASTWOOD!!!??? WHERE!!!!???? You've done some despicable things in your time Hollywood, but denying one of the greatest actors that ever walked the Earth his Best Actor Award is unforgivable!! Vengeance!! Retribution!! Anti-life justifies my hate!! My rage!! AAAAUUUUURGH!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sorry, I'm allergic to Hollywood bullcrap. Anyway the rest of the noms have the usually going on, the same five or six films hogging half the awards. I was pleasantly surprised by Robert Downey Jr. getting tapped for Tropic Thunder. And it was cool to see Hellboy II get recognized for is costume design. But what's up with Wanted? Honestly, Wanted?! With two noms!? Are they out of they're minds!? Ugh, whatever. I'll be in the corner of my closet, curled in the fetal position whispering repeatedly "they don't really matter, they don't really matter, they don't really matter".
What about you? What do you think about the nominations?
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
News: Stallone as the Dark Knight?
Hey, hey, calm down! Christian Bale isn't going anywhere. However, Sylvester Stallone has just been named by Frank Miller as his first choice to portray Batman Sr. should his most successful graphic novel, The Dark Knight Returns, ever get cinematic treatment. In a recent interview with the LA Times' Geoff Boucher, Miller was quoted as saying “Just that mouth of his, the scowl and the way it would look in a mask. I loved Rocky Balboa. This wounded warrior, that’s what Batman is in The Dark Knight Returns.”
Obviously, The Dark Knight Returns is the popular Batman graphic novel of them all, and for my money the best. The prospect of bringing it to the big screen definitely excites me. But I don't know about you, but when I picture such a movie in my head, the face I attach to Bruce Wayne isn't Stallone's. Don't get me wrong, he's one of my favorite stars of all time, he just doesn't seem to fit the role.
Geoff Boucher himself didn't seem too fond of the idea. “Put Stallone in a mask and you get Judge Dredd again," he later said, "and nobody wants that.” (personally I liked Judge Dredd, but I wouldn't waste time defending it.)
It's always been my dream to one day have a Dark Knight Returns movie with Clint Eastwood in the lead role. Sure he may be so old that major special effects and stuntmen use would be needed, but I still can't think of anybody even close, unless you want to wait 30 years for Christian Bale to grow old. I'm not saying I couldn't see Stallone as Batman. After all, he did two similar movies, Rocky Balboa & Rambo, that dealt with bitter aging fighters much like The Dark Knight Returns did with Batman. People haven't been too fond of Frank Miller lately, but I for one still have faith in him. The Spirit is one thing, but there's no way he could screw up The Dark Knight Returns. Could he?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)