P.T. Anderson, Uwe Boll, crap: all words that come to mind when one thinks of video game adapations. For some reason, nobody has found the way to do a good one yet, even though some will argue Silent Hill (which I still have not seen). So when PETER JACKSON said he would be producing a Halo movie with WETA technology and a script by Alex Garland (28 Days Later) back in 2004, the worlds first good video game movie looked as if it would be GREAT.
Jackson went on to hire a first time director: Neill Blomkamp was when problems first arrived. Well, it wasn't that he was a first time director, it was that Jackson asked for too much money for either studio that was making it to produce it. Thus Halo seemed to never be made... but Jackson kept plugging on and developing the film until they found a new distributor.
Well, with Halo 3 coming out very soon, Blomkamp was given the chance to make live action short films showing his vision for Halo...
And it is incredible. It reminds me of Terminator 2, and that is a very good thing. He has made two, and in the 2nd... well... you just have to check them out.
Arm's Race: Blomkamp's first Halo short.
Blomkamp's 2nd Halo short:
Well, I have got my hands on the first draft of the script, which, while much have been changed supposedly, there are plot points taken from it. The draft is dated 2005, so yes, it is pretty old. I will review this though in its full form, since I have no idea how much has been changed. SPOILERS:
The film opens with a flash back of Master Chief's. It is Reach and there is a large battle between Spartans (super soliders for Earth) and Elites (super soliders for the Covenant). Spartans are being killed in mass amounts. We then cut back to the modern day. The covenant has taken over a space ship called "The Pillar of Autumn." Well, they are taking it over fast. Captain Keyes, the commander of The Pillar of Autumn, unlocks Chief from the cryogenic sleep he is in. They do this so Chief can take Cortana (the ships computer) away from danger because if the covenant find it they would have directions to Earth... which is 360 degrees of bad.
So Chief breaks his way out of the Pillar of Autumn, with a bunch of other soldiers. They land on an alien world. There they are tracked down and action scene after action scene happens. In between one of the action scenes above ground, they find out that the planet is called HALO and it is religious to the Covenant. It was built by "the Forerunners" aka their gods. Halo is highly religious because well... it is the biggest baddest weapon ever created. So they get a grand idea, to go underground to find the control room of Halo and find out some information that really doesn't matter.
Once they get underground, they fight a bunch of Covenant warriors. Then they split up. While they split up, something terrible attacks the troops. Leaving them all dead.
Meanwhile, Master Chief and Cortana make their way to the controll room while kidding baddies. They get there and for some, unexplained reason, it sucks Cortana in and makes her "drunk with power." Chief sees the same world from the beginning except that there is a strange vegetation everywhere. This is the flood. It is a virus thing that swarms in numbers and digs into people, taking over their body.
Chief snaps back to reality, and now Cortana is seemingly dead, but he still takes the chip with him again. Chief then makes his way out while killing covenant and the flood.
Out of no where, Cortana returns and tells him that nothing short of apocalypse will get rid of the Flood. Chief meets the one person who is still alive on the surface, a pilot, who says that if you blow up the crashed Pillar of Autumn it will destroy Halo. Well, they do it and the only people left is Master Chief and Cortana...
BUT WAIT! They see a covenant ship and talking about going back to Earth. SEQUEL!
Not to mention there is a little thing at the end involving a "sentinal." Which are these things that are underground that is like HAL but they are more evil and fly around.
This script, if you couldn't tell by now, is VERY disappointing. Especially coming from the guy who wrote 28 Days Later. You would figure that theyere would be great character development, story and dialouge. But nope! The dialouge in this is cringe worthy with everyline. One such bit that sticks out to me is when a character that serves no purpose to the plot but to be an asshole named Captain Silva is blaming Chief for the deaths on Reach.
Cortana: Don't listen to him. He can't blame those deaths on you.
Chief: Why not? I do.
That is a lot like much of the dialouge. Really terrible dialouge that one expects to find in... well... a video game. In fact, it takes the exact same twists and turns of the video game (as I understand. I've never played it in story mode). It at least feels like it. Since I would say a good, two-thirds of the script is action sequences.
Which is the scripts redeeming quality. The action is awesome and everything a Halo fan wants to see. What is your favorite weapon and or vehicle? Well, I garuntee you it is in it. There are a lot of great set pieces in this that just... well... rock. My favorite being a fight with Ghosts involved. The problem though, is that once they get underground, which takes up a good third of the script, the action is not as exciting as in the first half until what SHOULD be the climax. The last sequence involves blood, guns, a warthog and a lot of explosions (but the way they find the warthog is stupid). But after that we have another 10 pages of action and the resolution of the film is about 2 pages, one of which being the set up for the sequel.
This entire movie actually reads as if it is one giant action sequence with horrible dialouge and story that unfolds terribly. I wish we could have seen a Halo movie of the critically hailed "Fall of Reach" but what we have is a very shallow movie that, if made in its current state, will be about as entertaining as the first Resident Evil film. Which isn't a terrible thing, that movie is simply entertaining but there are extremely stupid parts of the story and dialouge.
This script, if used in its state, would have demolished the hope for a finally great video game movie. Luckily, they have had 2 re-writes which hopefully take some good things about this and added a lot of better dialouge and story elements.
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Saturday, August 25, 2007
The Maltese Falcon: An Interesting Tale of the Times
"The stuff that dreams are made up." One of the only original lines from the 1941 version of Dashiell Hammet's classic mystery tale. Not many people know there were 2 other film versions before this one, one in 1931 by the same name and one in 1936 entitled "Satan Met A Lady." Recently, WB had the genious idea to release all three films in one DVD set, and guess what has two thumbs and got it for his birthday? If you said "Rob" that is correct.
The 1941 version has always been a much by myself since I saw it when I was about ten. One day I was sick from school with nothing to do, so I started flipping through the channels to discover that this old movie my dad had recently been talking about was on.
It was "The Maltese Falcon." From beginning to end I was hooked on every line, every movement, and every actor. This eventually led me to finding one of my favorite genres: Film Noir.
So when I got this DVD, I was intrigued? What would the differences be in each movie? Will they be vast, or will the others just be not as well done tellings of the novel. So I popped it in.
While watching the DVD's I realized that each film represented a distinct time in film history, and each had their own certain charm to it.
The first film I watched was the 1931 version of the film. It starred Ricardo Cortez as Sam Spade and Bebe Daniels as Ruth Wonderly (more commonly known as Brigid O'Shaugnessy). It was a bit jarring at first to be watching this film, because, well, it was much like the 1941 film. It had much of the same dialouge and was a very faithful adaptation of the book. Of course, none of the acting was as good. I mean, come on, famous version put John Huston on the map as a great director, Humphrey Bogart on the map as a leading man, Sydney Greenstreet on the map as.... Sydney Greenstreet and who can forget Peter Lorre's powerful thrust into mainstream film. But there were still two large differences, both stemming from the fact that the movie was made pre-code.
For those of you who don't know what "pre-code" means, I shall inform you. Well, very simply, it means a film made before the Hays Code took effect in 1934. What is the Hays Code? Well, it was created by the catholic church in responce to the large amount of sexual innuendos and violence that was in films during the 1920's. The 20's of course was a large time of organized crime and sexual freedom, which was largely reflected in the films of that time that made heros out of gangsters. The Catholic Church got sick of all this riff-raff and made it a law that a film must follow a certain amount of guidelines that included no blood, no sexual references and pretty much nothing bad. In 1967, as films went underground, the code was abolished for MPAA (which we now use today).
Pre-code films are often characterized by their more sexual feelings to them, and the '31 version of The Maltese Falcon has that. Bebe Daniels is seen without any clothing twice, but only from mid-cleavage up. She is much more sexually explict making broad, brazen attempts at Spade. Also, a part from the original book that does not remain in the famous film is in this film, because it was made pre-code. The scene involves Spade taking Miss Shaugnessy to the kitchen and making her strip to make sure she isn't hiding anything. While, in the '31 version she obeys and gets down to her underwear, the sequence is missing from Huston's film.
The most apparant thing about the original is an epilouge that is tacked onto the end from any other version. It involves Spade visting Shaugnessy when she is in jail. They are still in love, but Spade knows that she broke the law. The most daring moment of this film though, is when it is unvieled that Shaugnessy is pregnant with Sam's child. This would have been out of the deal of the fim had been made during the code years. It was against the Catholic church, and incredibly unheard of.
Another interesting aspect is that studios, back when the first film was made, were afraid that people wouldn't see a movie if the main character isn't likable, which in the book he is not. Thus, in the original film, Spade is played much more as a happy go lucky playboy rather than a man who wants whatever he can get as long as it helps him. He is hadsome, peppy, cracking jokes, and beaming through much of the movie. Not Spade, but Spade back then was not acceptable to the studio who needed to cash in on their star.
Then, after the code was instated, another Dashiell Hammett movie came out: THE THIN MAN. It is a tale of who rich socialities that solve a crime. It quickly became a very popular film series and WB needed a way to make money off of this. Then they remembered "hey, we have this movie here called 'The Maltese Falcon' which was written by Hammet also."
The problem was that "The Thin Man" was a comedy and that "The Maltese Falcon" was a hardboiled private eye film. So they changed around the premise to fit what they were looking for at the time, which was the next "Thin Man."
The Maltese Falcon quickly became a jewel encrusted horn. While the studio wanted this film to be big, and believed in it, they wanted to distance it from its counterpart that flopped at the box office 5 years earlier. All of the names were changed. The story behind the horn didn't change much, it just was a different object and thus, the name needed changing. Which led to it being titled "Satan Met A Lady."
While this title, in the original context of the book, would only really apply to Shaugnessy, in this version it applied to another: Gutman.
For comedic effect, they changed Gutman to a woman and made Cairo a large british man.
In fact, everything was played to comic effect in this film. Mostly broad slapstick, but the moments it really soars is when they get into some dark puns and the such. Once again, Spade was played as a playboy, but even more this time. In fact, to the point where he is hitting on a girl while he is on a date.
They also increased the role of his secretary to make her more of his romantic counterpart, thus making them a duo solving crime and in love at the same time, just as in "The Thin Man."
Then came 1941, which is historically considered a great year for film because it was the introduction of two, incredibly influetial young filmmakers: Orson Welles (Citizen Kane) and John Huston with The Maltese Falcon. Both filmmakers had never done anything in their life, but the studios were loking for young blood. They were looking for the next generation of filmmakers because the audience wanted something fresh and new.
Welles and Huston were both famous before they had done their breakthrough film. Huston was known for writing screenplays. Mainly Huston, pre-Falcon, would siimply write play and book adaptations. Welles, of course, was famous for his Mercury theater troop that performed radio plays. Most famously, they performed a live broadcast of "War of the Worlds" which caused mass panic throughout America because it was broadcast as if it were a news program (it is, in my opinion, the best of his work).
The studios that year decided to take huge chances by banking on these new directors with seemingly un-bankable images. Welles was given the better deal out of the two film makers since he directed, produced, co-wrote (evidently, evidence has said that it is a possiblity that he plagarized much of the film) and even starred. This was unheard of when the film was being made. Hell, it is almost unheard of today!
Then there was Huston, who was famously the protege of the great John Ford. In fact, without John Ford "The Maltese Falcon" would have never happened. You see, Huston was looking for a film project to direct and he wanted it to be something powerful and fresh. Something that nobody had seen before. John Ford read the novel and told Huston to "shoot the book." So one weekend, Huston went to his typist and told her to transcribe the book to movie form, and she did.
The studios were now putting an incredible amount of faith in two, until now, unproven directors with scripts where the main character was unlikable. In fact, there is a big similarity between Kane and Spade in being that they are always looking for a way to make more money. Other than that, Spade is a very different character from Kane. Spade does not care about his women, he will just use them for sex or to find out the case in the end. He isn't afraid to threaten a woman and you never, ever see Spade happy. He is always dead focused on his objective and the wheels are always turning in his head.
Originally the studio wanted to hire a different man that Bogart to play Spade, but Ford always knew that Bogart was the one, and he was right. It was a breakout role that shot him to the top of the Hollywood. This film was not only the launching pad for Bogart though. It also introduced the world to the great Sydney Greenstreet. Greenstreet had never done a film before this and was incredibly worried about how he would be recieved in it. All those worries were put to rest later that year though, when he was nominated for Best Supporting Actor for his role of Gutman. This is also the film that made people aware of little bugeyed Peter Lorre. 3 stars were in the makings with film, and were only solidified with their next film they all did together: arguably the best film of all time, "Casablanca."
"The Maltese Falcon" has gone on to be an extremely influential film. Not only did it provide the film achetype of the hero, it also almost single handedly created the Film Noir genre. If you were to watch the direction, it is only the first films to use the stark contrasting shadows and it was one of the first movies to always stay one step ahead of its actors.
Such a classic story has taken us through such classic and famous moments in film history, and will remain as one of the greats for centuries to come.
The 1941 version has always been a much by myself since I saw it when I was about ten. One day I was sick from school with nothing to do, so I started flipping through the channels to discover that this old movie my dad had recently been talking about was on.
It was "The Maltese Falcon." From beginning to end I was hooked on every line, every movement, and every actor. This eventually led me to finding one of my favorite genres: Film Noir.
So when I got this DVD, I was intrigued? What would the differences be in each movie? Will they be vast, or will the others just be not as well done tellings of the novel. So I popped it in.
While watching the DVD's I realized that each film represented a distinct time in film history, and each had their own certain charm to it.
The first film I watched was the 1931 version of the film. It starred Ricardo Cortez as Sam Spade and Bebe Daniels as Ruth Wonderly (more commonly known as Brigid O'Shaugnessy). It was a bit jarring at first to be watching this film, because, well, it was much like the 1941 film. It had much of the same dialouge and was a very faithful adaptation of the book. Of course, none of the acting was as good. I mean, come on, famous version put John Huston on the map as a great director, Humphrey Bogart on the map as a leading man, Sydney Greenstreet on the map as.... Sydney Greenstreet and who can forget Peter Lorre's powerful thrust into mainstream film. But there were still two large differences, both stemming from the fact that the movie was made pre-code.
For those of you who don't know what "pre-code" means, I shall inform you. Well, very simply, it means a film made before the Hays Code took effect in 1934. What is the Hays Code? Well, it was created by the catholic church in responce to the large amount of sexual innuendos and violence that was in films during the 1920's. The 20's of course was a large time of organized crime and sexual freedom, which was largely reflected in the films of that time that made heros out of gangsters. The Catholic Church got sick of all this riff-raff and made it a law that a film must follow a certain amount of guidelines that included no blood, no sexual references and pretty much nothing bad. In 1967, as films went underground, the code was abolished for MPAA (which we now use today).
Pre-code films are often characterized by their more sexual feelings to them, and the '31 version of The Maltese Falcon has that. Bebe Daniels is seen without any clothing twice, but only from mid-cleavage up. She is much more sexually explict making broad, brazen attempts at Spade. Also, a part from the original book that does not remain in the famous film is in this film, because it was made pre-code. The scene involves Spade taking Miss Shaugnessy to the kitchen and making her strip to make sure she isn't hiding anything. While, in the '31 version she obeys and gets down to her underwear, the sequence is missing from Huston's film.
The most apparant thing about the original is an epilouge that is tacked onto the end from any other version. It involves Spade visting Shaugnessy when she is in jail. They are still in love, but Spade knows that she broke the law. The most daring moment of this film though, is when it is unvieled that Shaugnessy is pregnant with Sam's child. This would have been out of the deal of the fim had been made during the code years. It was against the Catholic church, and incredibly unheard of.
Another interesting aspect is that studios, back when the first film was made, were afraid that people wouldn't see a movie if the main character isn't likable, which in the book he is not. Thus, in the original film, Spade is played much more as a happy go lucky playboy rather than a man who wants whatever he can get as long as it helps him. He is hadsome, peppy, cracking jokes, and beaming through much of the movie. Not Spade, but Spade back then was not acceptable to the studio who needed to cash in on their star.
Then, after the code was instated, another Dashiell Hammett movie came out: THE THIN MAN. It is a tale of who rich socialities that solve a crime. It quickly became a very popular film series and WB needed a way to make money off of this. Then they remembered "hey, we have this movie here called 'The Maltese Falcon' which was written by Hammet also."
The problem was that "The Thin Man" was a comedy and that "The Maltese Falcon" was a hardboiled private eye film. So they changed around the premise to fit what they were looking for at the time, which was the next "Thin Man."
The Maltese Falcon quickly became a jewel encrusted horn. While the studio wanted this film to be big, and believed in it, they wanted to distance it from its counterpart that flopped at the box office 5 years earlier. All of the names were changed. The story behind the horn didn't change much, it just was a different object and thus, the name needed changing. Which led to it being titled "Satan Met A Lady."
While this title, in the original context of the book, would only really apply to Shaugnessy, in this version it applied to another: Gutman.
For comedic effect, they changed Gutman to a woman and made Cairo a large british man.
In fact, everything was played to comic effect in this film. Mostly broad slapstick, but the moments it really soars is when they get into some dark puns and the such. Once again, Spade was played as a playboy, but even more this time. In fact, to the point where he is hitting on a girl while he is on a date.
They also increased the role of his secretary to make her more of his romantic counterpart, thus making them a duo solving crime and in love at the same time, just as in "The Thin Man."
Then came 1941, which is historically considered a great year for film because it was the introduction of two, incredibly influetial young filmmakers: Orson Welles (Citizen Kane) and John Huston with The Maltese Falcon. Both filmmakers had never done anything in their life, but the studios were loking for young blood. They were looking for the next generation of filmmakers because the audience wanted something fresh and new.
Welles and Huston were both famous before they had done their breakthrough film. Huston was known for writing screenplays. Mainly Huston, pre-Falcon, would siimply write play and book adaptations. Welles, of course, was famous for his Mercury theater troop that performed radio plays. Most famously, they performed a live broadcast of "War of the Worlds" which caused mass panic throughout America because it was broadcast as if it were a news program (it is, in my opinion, the best of his work).
The studios that year decided to take huge chances by banking on these new directors with seemingly un-bankable images. Welles was given the better deal out of the two film makers since he directed, produced, co-wrote (evidently, evidence has said that it is a possiblity that he plagarized much of the film) and even starred. This was unheard of when the film was being made. Hell, it is almost unheard of today!
Then there was Huston, who was famously the protege of the great John Ford. In fact, without John Ford "The Maltese Falcon" would have never happened. You see, Huston was looking for a film project to direct and he wanted it to be something powerful and fresh. Something that nobody had seen before. John Ford read the novel and told Huston to "shoot the book." So one weekend, Huston went to his typist and told her to transcribe the book to movie form, and she did.
The studios were now putting an incredible amount of faith in two, until now, unproven directors with scripts where the main character was unlikable. In fact, there is a big similarity between Kane and Spade in being that they are always looking for a way to make more money. Other than that, Spade is a very different character from Kane. Spade does not care about his women, he will just use them for sex or to find out the case in the end. He isn't afraid to threaten a woman and you never, ever see Spade happy. He is always dead focused on his objective and the wheels are always turning in his head.
Originally the studio wanted to hire a different man that Bogart to play Spade, but Ford always knew that Bogart was the one, and he was right. It was a breakout role that shot him to the top of the Hollywood. This film was not only the launching pad for Bogart though. It also introduced the world to the great Sydney Greenstreet. Greenstreet had never done a film before this and was incredibly worried about how he would be recieved in it. All those worries were put to rest later that year though, when he was nominated for Best Supporting Actor for his role of Gutman. This is also the film that made people aware of little bugeyed Peter Lorre. 3 stars were in the makings with film, and were only solidified with their next film they all did together: arguably the best film of all time, "Casablanca."
"The Maltese Falcon" has gone on to be an extremely influential film. Not only did it provide the film achetype of the hero, it also almost single handedly created the Film Noir genre. If you were to watch the direction, it is only the first films to use the stark contrasting shadows and it was one of the first movies to always stay one step ahead of its actors.
Such a classic story has taken us through such classic and famous moments in film history, and will remain as one of the greats for centuries to come.
Thursday, August 23, 2007
"Rob Zombie's Halloween" Script Review (and a little more) SPOILERS!!!!!!!
Aw... remakes of classic horror films. Some are entertaining (Texas Chainsaw Massacre/Dawn of the Dead), two are better (The Hills Have Eyes/The Thing), but most are downright terrible (see all the others). With the success of all of these remakes, we were bound to see something that should have never EVER have happened (other than the shot-for-shot Psycho massacre) and that was a remake of HALLOWEEN. John Carpenter's classic that is widely regarded the best horror film of all time (other than Psycho), and definately the most influential horror film of all time.
In 1977, John Carpenter set out to make a film that nobody had ever seen: a movie about babysitters having sex and getting murdered by an embodiment of pure evil. Yes it sounds cheesy. Yes, Jason has done more films with same plot. But this was the first. There were only two films out at the time with comprable plots: Psycho and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Both of them featuring extremely real killers in the middle of no where. Carpenter and his writing partner, Debra Hill, took this idea of somebody who could realistically be other there but set him right in the middle of suburbia. A killer right in the homes of the people who were watching? It was a terrorfying idea. Especially when the killer began as one of them, and without any warning at all snapped. Carpenter spent time developing every character so when it finally gets to the killings near the end, it is terrofying and almost as if you are watching people you know get murdered. The movie wasn't about blood and guts, it was about character and suspence with a killer that had no explanation. Halloween II explained that the main character was Michael's only sibling alive, but it kept the same feeling of the original and just made it slightly more gorey. The sequels... we don't need to talk about those.
Then, in the 90's the world had a falling out of any good horror. All we were recieved was Scream and some low budget hilarious splatter films from Peter Jackson. By the end though, the horror world heard echos of a film made by Universal and written and directed by singer/songwriter and horror movie geek: Rob Zombie. This film was entitled House of 1,000 Corpses and was causing huge controversy.
First of all, it was rated NC-17 by the MPAA, one of the first horror movies in a while to do that (now adays they shoot for NC-17 and release that as the UNRATED cut). Script changes were made throughout the production and it had gone over schedule and over budget. When they recieved the NC-17 rating, Universal dropped the picture and decided not to release it.
With such a tantalizing name as "House of 1,000 Corpses" and by such a loved metal singer, people were anxious to see the movie.
2003, a great company named Lion Gates Film picked it up and distributed it. The movie was met with bad reviews and bad fan reactions. Until it was released on VHS and DVD. It was there that the film gained momentum and grew a large cult following. The crazy characters and the feeling as if you are watching a nightmare. It was bound to happen, and this reviewer was sucked into it.... but not originally.
First I had to see "The Devil's Rejects" which was Zombie's sequel to it. He did away with all the fantasy aspects and created one of (if not THE) best horror film of the decade so far. It was disturbing, refreshing, and felt like a great 70's film. It had the music, the editing, and the story build up of a great throw back to when horror was great.
So when it was announced he would be directing the remake of Halloween, I had mixed feelings. On one hand, it was Halloween! HOW CAN YOU DO THAT?! On the other hand, Zombie had stated his love for the film many times before being hired to the project. And a remake of one of my all time favorite movies of all time (Dawn of the Dead) had been pulled off very well with somebody who had a fresh eye to it. Zombie was also able to change his style with every movie so far, so I was contented.
Until I heard he had messed it up with his script. It was basically said that the script would be in 3 parts: Michael PRE-Asylum, Michael IN asylum and "the night HE came home." Okay okay, So I could live with that as long as he didn't mess with the story that much. Maybe he would show his family being worried because he never talks and seems very removed, then show Loomis becoming obsessed with him, so on and so forth.
Details about the script started being released and, to say the least, I was unhappy.
Then I was ecstatic to get my hands on the script. This was the first time I got a script that was hadn't been made yet, that, and the film wasn't even in production! So I was going to be able to sort of see how this remake of a film that I hold in such high regards was going to be done (note: this film is more a remake of parts I and II).
So how is it and how does it stack up against the feel of the original?
(NOTE: THE FOLLOWING REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS AND IS OF AN EXTREMELY EARLY DRAFT)
Well... just okay.
What Zombie has really done here is shaped a film that is more a prequel to his character Otis Driftwood than to Michael Meyers. It is all about how Michael's family was a bunch of rednecks and hicks and how he was abused and hated his family.
You see, his motehr is a stripper, his real father is dead, his sister is always banging her boyfriend, and his step father abuses. Poor Michael. So sad for him.
In the very first scene in the film we see how he is already messed up as he takes out pictures of animals he has killed, plays audio of it, and masterbates in his room with "Black Sabbath" posters, cause he is evil, ya know.
We also see his school life. Michael is picked on and treated really terrible.
At school, children make fun of his mom for being a stripper and Michael snaps, beating the shit out of them. The principle finds pictures of Michael's mom that Michael has written very not nice things about her on (calling her a "whore" and a "slut"). They decide to send Michael off to a pyschiatric ward.
The next day is Halloween. After school, he follows two little girls home wearing his clown mask and takes them on a "short cut" and kills both of them. I absolutely loved this scene for two reasons: the way it was intended to be shot was from first person of Michael for a very long time, which is a Halloween trademark and it created a great deal of suspence. Michael also had NO reason to kill the little girls, except because he had a bad day, but that clearly isn't the motivation behind this. Once again, extremely Michael... then Zombie went his redneck way again and had Michael piss on their dead bodies... which killed that entire scene.
That night he is stuck at home with a clown mask, his sister fucking her boyfriend and his drunk stepdad. His mom isn't there cause she is off stripping. Michael gets the idea to kill them all. This scene, I loved from beginning to end. It does what a remake should do: stick to the original, but up the antee. It even supplies the orgin for the mask (his sister's boyfriend is wearing it when they have sex... not as stupid as it sounds when I type it here). This is, once again, first person up until the actual moment of the killings and it is really a great scene.
His mother returns home that night to see Michael covered in blood with a knife and the family dead. He is off to funny farm.
This first section of the film is what I have my main problems with. Simply for this reason: There is way too much to explain why Michael is a killing machine. Yes, the killing of the little girls is uncalled for, but that is it. Michael is a killing machine, trying to wipe out his family and whoever gets in his way of doing so. He has no explanation. He wasn't beaten, his mom wasn't a stripper. He grew up in a middle class family with middle class values. I mean, we see his parents come back in fancy clothing in the opening scene of the original. That is what has always been most scary about Michael, he comes from a neighborhood that most people do.
There he is looked over by Dr. Loomis. The scenes between Michael and Loomis are great and pop and sizzle. They are creepy and great. What Michael says, which isn't much, is creepy and very good.
We then get a montage of Michael growing up and Dr. Loomis becoming more and more aware that Michael is the embodiment of pure evil.
Michael is grown up and we discover that he has made a mask for every feeling he has... which gets to my problems with Loomis. Loomis is a dignified character that uses elegant words to express his feelings and what he is thinking. He would never say a line "even a mask for when he has to shit." Which is A) A stupid idea and B) A terrible line for Loomis. Loomis even says "fuck." I couldn't believe it. It was jarring because he had some very good dialouge, but there are moments that Zombie could do away with.
Then there is the night that Michael escapes from the Asylum. It is fast, brutal, but once more, because of something Zombie added, it is kills the mood of the scene. The way he does it is begin with a rape of a retarded girl that makes Michael very angry and he kills the two guys... as if he is doing it for good. This isn't the Michael who "has been looking forward to this date" this is a good michael who is doing the right thing... sort of. It really makes him an anti-hero in this scene, which Michael is not.
Then we get to the "night when he came home." Remember the original movie? Condence it all down to 30 to 45 minutes. Everything is the same, except without the creepy appearances of Michael. He comes and he reaks hell. Once more, Zombie knows how to create a really good, Halloween scene and then kill it.
The big climax is not just bad, it is laughable. You see, in an earlier scene when he was a child we see Michael connecting to a baby that he calls "Boo." Guess who "boo" grew up to be? That is right, Laurie Strode. It is a very good moment in the opening of the movie. Very nice foreshadowing of what is to come, but then it is blown to hell. When Michael finally confronts Laurie he starts saying "Boo" over and over again. Nothing more, nothing less. Just "Boo" "Boo" "Boo" "Boo" it is embarrassing. Especially when Michael basically begins to cry.
The film ends the same way as the original, except with home movie footage of Michael at the end.
So that is it, Rob Zombie's Halloween. Personally, there are many moments that I really liked in the script and that if Zombie cuts out certain things, will make the movie much better. He also better adapt Carpenter's style to the best of his abilities. I know that Zombie has kept the red-neck family thing, but hopefully it pans out better on the screen.
See ya next friday when he comes home once more.
In 1977, John Carpenter set out to make a film that nobody had ever seen: a movie about babysitters having sex and getting murdered by an embodiment of pure evil. Yes it sounds cheesy. Yes, Jason has done more films with same plot. But this was the first. There were only two films out at the time with comprable plots: Psycho and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Both of them featuring extremely real killers in the middle of no where. Carpenter and his writing partner, Debra Hill, took this idea of somebody who could realistically be other there but set him right in the middle of suburbia. A killer right in the homes of the people who were watching? It was a terrorfying idea. Especially when the killer began as one of them, and without any warning at all snapped. Carpenter spent time developing every character so when it finally gets to the killings near the end, it is terrofying and almost as if you are watching people you know get murdered. The movie wasn't about blood and guts, it was about character and suspence with a killer that had no explanation. Halloween II explained that the main character was Michael's only sibling alive, but it kept the same feeling of the original and just made it slightly more gorey. The sequels... we don't need to talk about those.
Then, in the 90's the world had a falling out of any good horror. All we were recieved was Scream and some low budget hilarious splatter films from Peter Jackson. By the end though, the horror world heard echos of a film made by Universal and written and directed by singer/songwriter and horror movie geek: Rob Zombie. This film was entitled House of 1,000 Corpses and was causing huge controversy.
First of all, it was rated NC-17 by the MPAA, one of the first horror movies in a while to do that (now adays they shoot for NC-17 and release that as the UNRATED cut). Script changes were made throughout the production and it had gone over schedule and over budget. When they recieved the NC-17 rating, Universal dropped the picture and decided not to release it.
With such a tantalizing name as "House of 1,000 Corpses" and by such a loved metal singer, people were anxious to see the movie.
2003, a great company named Lion Gates Film picked it up and distributed it. The movie was met with bad reviews and bad fan reactions. Until it was released on VHS and DVD. It was there that the film gained momentum and grew a large cult following. The crazy characters and the feeling as if you are watching a nightmare. It was bound to happen, and this reviewer was sucked into it.... but not originally.
First I had to see "The Devil's Rejects" which was Zombie's sequel to it. He did away with all the fantasy aspects and created one of (if not THE) best horror film of the decade so far. It was disturbing, refreshing, and felt like a great 70's film. It had the music, the editing, and the story build up of a great throw back to when horror was great.
So when it was announced he would be directing the remake of Halloween, I had mixed feelings. On one hand, it was Halloween! HOW CAN YOU DO THAT?! On the other hand, Zombie had stated his love for the film many times before being hired to the project. And a remake of one of my all time favorite movies of all time (Dawn of the Dead) had been pulled off very well with somebody who had a fresh eye to it. Zombie was also able to change his style with every movie so far, so I was contented.
Until I heard he had messed it up with his script. It was basically said that the script would be in 3 parts: Michael PRE-Asylum, Michael IN asylum and "the night HE came home." Okay okay, So I could live with that as long as he didn't mess with the story that much. Maybe he would show his family being worried because he never talks and seems very removed, then show Loomis becoming obsessed with him, so on and so forth.
Details about the script started being released and, to say the least, I was unhappy.
Then I was ecstatic to get my hands on the script. This was the first time I got a script that was hadn't been made yet, that, and the film wasn't even in production! So I was going to be able to sort of see how this remake of a film that I hold in such high regards was going to be done (note: this film is more a remake of parts I and II).
So how is it and how does it stack up against the feel of the original?
(NOTE: THE FOLLOWING REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS AND IS OF AN EXTREMELY EARLY DRAFT)
Well... just okay.
What Zombie has really done here is shaped a film that is more a prequel to his character Otis Driftwood than to Michael Meyers. It is all about how Michael's family was a bunch of rednecks and hicks and how he was abused and hated his family.
You see, his motehr is a stripper, his real father is dead, his sister is always banging her boyfriend, and his step father abuses. Poor Michael. So sad for him.
In the very first scene in the film we see how he is already messed up as he takes out pictures of animals he has killed, plays audio of it, and masterbates in his room with "Black Sabbath" posters, cause he is evil, ya know.
We also see his school life. Michael is picked on and treated really terrible.
At school, children make fun of his mom for being a stripper and Michael snaps, beating the shit out of them. The principle finds pictures of Michael's mom that Michael has written very not nice things about her on (calling her a "whore" and a "slut"). They decide to send Michael off to a pyschiatric ward.
The next day is Halloween. After school, he follows two little girls home wearing his clown mask and takes them on a "short cut" and kills both of them. I absolutely loved this scene for two reasons: the way it was intended to be shot was from first person of Michael for a very long time, which is a Halloween trademark and it created a great deal of suspence. Michael also had NO reason to kill the little girls, except because he had a bad day, but that clearly isn't the motivation behind this. Once again, extremely Michael... then Zombie went his redneck way again and had Michael piss on their dead bodies... which killed that entire scene.
That night he is stuck at home with a clown mask, his sister fucking her boyfriend and his drunk stepdad. His mom isn't there cause she is off stripping. Michael gets the idea to kill them all. This scene, I loved from beginning to end. It does what a remake should do: stick to the original, but up the antee. It even supplies the orgin for the mask (his sister's boyfriend is wearing it when they have sex... not as stupid as it sounds when I type it here). This is, once again, first person up until the actual moment of the killings and it is really a great scene.
His mother returns home that night to see Michael covered in blood with a knife and the family dead. He is off to funny farm.
This first section of the film is what I have my main problems with. Simply for this reason: There is way too much to explain why Michael is a killing machine. Yes, the killing of the little girls is uncalled for, but that is it. Michael is a killing machine, trying to wipe out his family and whoever gets in his way of doing so. He has no explanation. He wasn't beaten, his mom wasn't a stripper. He grew up in a middle class family with middle class values. I mean, we see his parents come back in fancy clothing in the opening scene of the original. That is what has always been most scary about Michael, he comes from a neighborhood that most people do.
There he is looked over by Dr. Loomis. The scenes between Michael and Loomis are great and pop and sizzle. They are creepy and great. What Michael says, which isn't much, is creepy and very good.
We then get a montage of Michael growing up and Dr. Loomis becoming more and more aware that Michael is the embodiment of pure evil.
Michael is grown up and we discover that he has made a mask for every feeling he has... which gets to my problems with Loomis. Loomis is a dignified character that uses elegant words to express his feelings and what he is thinking. He would never say a line "even a mask for when he has to shit." Which is A) A stupid idea and B) A terrible line for Loomis. Loomis even says "fuck." I couldn't believe it. It was jarring because he had some very good dialouge, but there are moments that Zombie could do away with.
Then there is the night that Michael escapes from the Asylum. It is fast, brutal, but once more, because of something Zombie added, it is kills the mood of the scene. The way he does it is begin with a rape of a retarded girl that makes Michael very angry and he kills the two guys... as if he is doing it for good. This isn't the Michael who "has been looking forward to this date" this is a good michael who is doing the right thing... sort of. It really makes him an anti-hero in this scene, which Michael is not.
Then we get to the "night when he came home." Remember the original movie? Condence it all down to 30 to 45 minutes. Everything is the same, except without the creepy appearances of Michael. He comes and he reaks hell. Once more, Zombie knows how to create a really good, Halloween scene and then kill it.
The big climax is not just bad, it is laughable. You see, in an earlier scene when he was a child we see Michael connecting to a baby that he calls "Boo." Guess who "boo" grew up to be? That is right, Laurie Strode. It is a very good moment in the opening of the movie. Very nice foreshadowing of what is to come, but then it is blown to hell. When Michael finally confronts Laurie he starts saying "Boo" over and over again. Nothing more, nothing less. Just "Boo" "Boo" "Boo" "Boo" it is embarrassing. Especially when Michael basically begins to cry.
The film ends the same way as the original, except with home movie footage of Michael at the end.
So that is it, Rob Zombie's Halloween. Personally, there are many moments that I really liked in the script and that if Zombie cuts out certain things, will make the movie much better. He also better adapt Carpenter's style to the best of his abilities. I know that Zombie has kept the red-neck family thing, but hopefully it pans out better on the screen.
See ya next friday when he comes home once more.
Monday, August 20, 2007
Superbad
In the 70's, teenagers and college students had Harold Ramis and that crew. In the 80's, teenagers and college students had John Hughes. The 90's... really didn't have one person. Now, the 2000's have Jud Apatow and his crew. Their latest movie is Superbad.
And it is a modern comedy classic. The movie was sold out and the shortest gap that there wasn't a laugh was about 2 minutes and that was because people were trying to catch their breathe and listen to the next joke. There were dozens of great lines that were missed simply because everybody was laughing over them. This movie has hit, and it has hit big time. In fact, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that this will be the Animal House/the Breakfast Club/the Clerks of my generation.
This is a hilarious film from beginning to end with an incredibly simple plot. Seth (Jonah Hill) and Evan (Michael Cera) have been best friends their entire life. Seth has a crush on a girl named Jules (Emma Stone) and Evan has one on a girl named Becca (Martha MacIsaac, who Seth hates for an incredibly funny reason). Jules is having a party and askes Seth to get her some alcohol. Thus kicks off Seth and Evan's quest to find liquor and get laid. There is also a subplot with a friend of Evan's and an enemy of Seth's named Fogell AKA McLovin and the time he spends with the cops.
There is not one person in this movie who doesn't supply at least ONE hilarious moment in this film, but the heart of this is Jonah Hill and Michael Cera as Seth and Evan. These two have such great chemisty and they are both hilarious in very different ways. Jonah Hill is crass, loud and saying something that involves a penis almost all the time, but behind this all you can tell he is just using his comedy and personality to have people not realize how unhappy he is with the situations he is in. Michael Cera is very subtle and nervous throughout. He is a genuinely good guy who doesn't want anybody to get hurt by the things he does. He keeps secrets, but it is simply to keep the people around him happy. Oh, and of course, Christopher Mintz-Plasse as Fogell aka McLovin! This is his first movie and he is very funny playing a total nerd who is just trying to be cool by anyway neccessary.
The directing in this is very basic, but it serves the purpose of the film. Truthfully, this film is not about the directing it is about the writing and acting and the directo knows this. He sits backs, relaxes, and allows the actors to do what they do best. The thing he doesn't do either is drive away the drama and, unlike the other movies like this, the drama isn't done in large dialouges (not that I don't LOVE when they do that). The drama and heart of this film relies in your own personal experiences, and with many of my friends leaving to college the heart of this movie and how the "drama" plays out is much more realistic than the other movies. There is only about 2 scens where the drama is in the forefront, and one of those is still extremely funny.
This is the funniest movie of the year, if not this decade so far. Hilarious and everything a teenage comedy should be. I have 2 parting words for you all: Period Pants.
And it is a modern comedy classic. The movie was sold out and the shortest gap that there wasn't a laugh was about 2 minutes and that was because people were trying to catch their breathe and listen to the next joke. There were dozens of great lines that were missed simply because everybody was laughing over them. This movie has hit, and it has hit big time. In fact, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that this will be the Animal House/the Breakfast Club/the Clerks of my generation.
This is a hilarious film from beginning to end with an incredibly simple plot. Seth (Jonah Hill) and Evan (Michael Cera) have been best friends their entire life. Seth has a crush on a girl named Jules (Emma Stone) and Evan has one on a girl named Becca (Martha MacIsaac, who Seth hates for an incredibly funny reason). Jules is having a party and askes Seth to get her some alcohol. Thus kicks off Seth and Evan's quest to find liquor and get laid. There is also a subplot with a friend of Evan's and an enemy of Seth's named Fogell AKA McLovin and the time he spends with the cops.
There is not one person in this movie who doesn't supply at least ONE hilarious moment in this film, but the heart of this is Jonah Hill and Michael Cera as Seth and Evan. These two have such great chemisty and they are both hilarious in very different ways. Jonah Hill is crass, loud and saying something that involves a penis almost all the time, but behind this all you can tell he is just using his comedy and personality to have people not realize how unhappy he is with the situations he is in. Michael Cera is very subtle and nervous throughout. He is a genuinely good guy who doesn't want anybody to get hurt by the things he does. He keeps secrets, but it is simply to keep the people around him happy. Oh, and of course, Christopher Mintz-Plasse as Fogell aka McLovin! This is his first movie and he is very funny playing a total nerd who is just trying to be cool by anyway neccessary.
The directing in this is very basic, but it serves the purpose of the film. Truthfully, this film is not about the directing it is about the writing and acting and the directo knows this. He sits backs, relaxes, and allows the actors to do what they do best. The thing he doesn't do either is drive away the drama and, unlike the other movies like this, the drama isn't done in large dialouges (not that I don't LOVE when they do that). The drama and heart of this film relies in your own personal experiences, and with many of my friends leaving to college the heart of this movie and how the "drama" plays out is much more realistic than the other movies. There is only about 2 scens where the drama is in the forefront, and one of those is still extremely funny.
This is the funniest movie of the year, if not this decade so far. Hilarious and everything a teenage comedy should be. I have 2 parting words for you all: Period Pants.
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Stardust
I remember when I saw the trailer for this one word came to mind: LAME! It looked terrible to me, and I had no desire to see it. Until I started to read early reviews from test screenings. People calling it "The New Princess Bride." What?! How could this be!? Well, I was bored and had 5 dollars and I needed to rinse the taste of RUSH HOUR 3 from my palette, so I journeyed on over to the State Theater and gave this action/fantasy/comedy a try.
And I'm very glad I did. This is one of those magical movies that only come around once every few years. A movie for everyone who enjoys anything to have a good time with. The action is very entertaining, the comedy is very funny (and dark), and the romance is sweet and very well developed.
Tristan is a boy who is in love with a girl. He never knew his mother, but the boy is in love. One night, when he is speaking with his love, Victoria, they see a shooting star. Tristan, trying to win over her heart, tells her he will go get the star for her. She gives him the dead line of a week because that is when another man will propose to her. So Tristan crosses a wall, that nobody is supposed to, into a very magical world. He finds the Star, who is actual a beautiful woman Yvaine. At the same time there are 3 witches looking for the star to cut outs it heart, which will give them youth and power. While, the witches search her out, so do a group of brothers looking to be king. You see, their father sent out a stone that they must retrieve that shot down the star.
This cast is very well cast. Michelle Pfeiffer plays another villian in a about a 3 week stretch of time and once more, she is enjoying the hell out of it. She is evil and funny, and begins super ugly, becomes super hot, and then her boobs sag and she loses hair and she is ugly again. Very evil and very good. Robert DeNiro is, strangely, the funniest part about this movie. I'm not going to spoil why, but as Captain Shakespeare he is HILARIOUS, albeit weird, but very very funny and very actually sweet. Mark Strong plays Septimus, the 7th brother, and the most ruthless of them. He is a very good villian and the most entertaining action sequence in the movie involves him. Claire Daines plays the star and she is extremely charming. The audience falls in love with her beauty, sweetness, and quick tounge. She is very talented and she glows in this movie (figuratively and literally). The real find in this whole thing is Charlie Cox as Tristan. This guy makes the perfect transition from zero to hero, mainly because he never FULLY becomes a hero. Yes, he does deal with things near the end very well, but he still is a bit clumsy and is not fully comfortable with what he is doing. He and Daines have such a great chemistry in this movie that by the end we are rooting for them to get together.
Does this movie twist and turn to places you don't expect? Nope. It is a fairy tale, and dark one at that. You can predict everything about it. I mean, literally the last line is "and they lived happily ever after." But the enchanting way it is done is so much fun that it makes a brand new adventure out of everything. There are very interesting aspects of it that are very funny and original. One involving a band of dead brothers which is very smart and funny.
The direction of Michael Vaughn is very fun and very "epic." A lot of long swooping shots that set the surroundings before continuing the story, but it doesn't hinder the pacing of the film. He has been signed on to do THOR now, and with the script that was reviews on AICN, I cannot wait to see him do that movie.
This movie is something that everyone can enjoy no matter what you like and no matter what the age is. Too bad this didn't do that well, hopefully Gaiman's next film, BEOWULF, does better so we can see more things from him in the future.
And I'm very glad I did. This is one of those magical movies that only come around once every few years. A movie for everyone who enjoys anything to have a good time with. The action is very entertaining, the comedy is very funny (and dark), and the romance is sweet and very well developed.
Tristan is a boy who is in love with a girl. He never knew his mother, but the boy is in love. One night, when he is speaking with his love, Victoria, they see a shooting star. Tristan, trying to win over her heart, tells her he will go get the star for her. She gives him the dead line of a week because that is when another man will propose to her. So Tristan crosses a wall, that nobody is supposed to, into a very magical world. He finds the Star, who is actual a beautiful woman Yvaine. At the same time there are 3 witches looking for the star to cut outs it heart, which will give them youth and power. While, the witches search her out, so do a group of brothers looking to be king. You see, their father sent out a stone that they must retrieve that shot down the star.
This cast is very well cast. Michelle Pfeiffer plays another villian in a about a 3 week stretch of time and once more, she is enjoying the hell out of it. She is evil and funny, and begins super ugly, becomes super hot, and then her boobs sag and she loses hair and she is ugly again. Very evil and very good. Robert DeNiro is, strangely, the funniest part about this movie. I'm not going to spoil why, but as Captain Shakespeare he is HILARIOUS, albeit weird, but very very funny and very actually sweet. Mark Strong plays Septimus, the 7th brother, and the most ruthless of them. He is a very good villian and the most entertaining action sequence in the movie involves him. Claire Daines plays the star and she is extremely charming. The audience falls in love with her beauty, sweetness, and quick tounge. She is very talented and she glows in this movie (figuratively and literally). The real find in this whole thing is Charlie Cox as Tristan. This guy makes the perfect transition from zero to hero, mainly because he never FULLY becomes a hero. Yes, he does deal with things near the end very well, but he still is a bit clumsy and is not fully comfortable with what he is doing. He and Daines have such a great chemistry in this movie that by the end we are rooting for them to get together.
Does this movie twist and turn to places you don't expect? Nope. It is a fairy tale, and dark one at that. You can predict everything about it. I mean, literally the last line is "and they lived happily ever after." But the enchanting way it is done is so much fun that it makes a brand new adventure out of everything. There are very interesting aspects of it that are very funny and original. One involving a band of dead brothers which is very smart and funny.
The direction of Michael Vaughn is very fun and very "epic." A lot of long swooping shots that set the surroundings before continuing the story, but it doesn't hinder the pacing of the film. He has been signed on to do THOR now, and with the script that was reviews on AICN, I cannot wait to see him do that movie.
This movie is something that everyone can enjoy no matter what you like and no matter what the age is. Too bad this didn't do that well, hopefully Gaiman's next film, BEOWULF, does better so we can see more things from him in the future.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Rush Hour 3
Have you ever had re-heated chinese food from a good, but not great restaurant? You know what I mean, it tastes okay but you only want one helping. Then you know the feeling of watching this movie.
Carter is now working as a traffic officer, and Lee is now the assistant to the ambassador of China. Ambassador of China gets shot at and almost dies. Carter and Lee must go to Paris to stop the people behind the attempted murder and they have all sorts of CRAZY adventures and fights involving women and tired out jokes.
Chris Tucker hasn't done a movie since the last Rush Hour, which was 6 years ago, and it seems as if there is good reason. Don't get me wrong, he does supply enough laughs in this movie to make it enjoyable, but he gets very annoying and the jokes have ALL been heard before. If not in the first 2, then in any other buddy cop movie. In fact, the funniest guy in the movie is Yvan Attel as George the taxi driver. I won't tell you what his deal is, because it is the one original bone this movie has in its body, but it is very funny and the saving grace of this movie. Roman Polanski, while playing out a very over done joke, is very funny if you know Polanski's history.
Chan is getting old and it shows in everyway. In parts, his acting has gotten much better and he has a better grasp on the english language, but he has many very cringe worthy lines. Except when he speaks Chinese, it is much more fluent and has much better emotion than when he is saying stuff like "I'm fly" or another comment I'm pretty sure was in either Rush Hour 1 or 2. The moments that his age shows the worst though is during the action scenes.
The action scenes were the weakest of the series and it is very sad. Chan just doesn't have it in him anymore. He has done all the great crazy stunts that we love him to see and he simply can't outdue himself anymore. That and he moves slower and his body doesn't move as much. When you see a Rush Hour movie you really want to see Chan kick ass, and while he did some cool things there really wasn't anything that exciting. Which could have been helped with Ratners direction.
Ratner is known in Hollywood as a copy cat. Somebody who, if he has seen someone do similar material before him, he can capture the look and feel, but on a much cheapened level. This has been proven since he has finished up 2 trilogies that had much better directors who did the first two (Red Dragon and X3). Truthfully, I didn't hate either of those movies like many did. In fact, I thought Red Dragon was better than Hannibal and that X3 was entertaining. So what happens he has to *gulp* copy himself. He just seems to shoot his actors from different angles and not cutting it down that much. He could have cut down some shots of Chan to make him look more swift, or done different angles with Chan. He could have made it so everytime Tucker said a line it didn't feel forced, but nope.
Don't get me wrong, this film is entertaining at moments, but so much of it feels as if I have seen it before. From them poorly redoing "Who's On First" to Tucker dancing and singing. Thank god I didn't have to sit through that clip of them singing in the Taxi cab that was in EVERY trailer. I would give this film a shot on the screen if you really liked the first 2, but if you won't see it in theaters, don't see it at all.
Carter is now working as a traffic officer, and Lee is now the assistant to the ambassador of China. Ambassador of China gets shot at and almost dies. Carter and Lee must go to Paris to stop the people behind the attempted murder and they have all sorts of CRAZY adventures and fights involving women and tired out jokes.
Chris Tucker hasn't done a movie since the last Rush Hour, which was 6 years ago, and it seems as if there is good reason. Don't get me wrong, he does supply enough laughs in this movie to make it enjoyable, but he gets very annoying and the jokes have ALL been heard before. If not in the first 2, then in any other buddy cop movie. In fact, the funniest guy in the movie is Yvan Attel as George the taxi driver. I won't tell you what his deal is, because it is the one original bone this movie has in its body, but it is very funny and the saving grace of this movie. Roman Polanski, while playing out a very over done joke, is very funny if you know Polanski's history.
Chan is getting old and it shows in everyway. In parts, his acting has gotten much better and he has a better grasp on the english language, but he has many very cringe worthy lines. Except when he speaks Chinese, it is much more fluent and has much better emotion than when he is saying stuff like "I'm fly" or another comment I'm pretty sure was in either Rush Hour 1 or 2. The moments that his age shows the worst though is during the action scenes.
The action scenes were the weakest of the series and it is very sad. Chan just doesn't have it in him anymore. He has done all the great crazy stunts that we love him to see and he simply can't outdue himself anymore. That and he moves slower and his body doesn't move as much. When you see a Rush Hour movie you really want to see Chan kick ass, and while he did some cool things there really wasn't anything that exciting. Which could have been helped with Ratners direction.
Ratner is known in Hollywood as a copy cat. Somebody who, if he has seen someone do similar material before him, he can capture the look and feel, but on a much cheapened level. This has been proven since he has finished up 2 trilogies that had much better directors who did the first two (Red Dragon and X3). Truthfully, I didn't hate either of those movies like many did. In fact, I thought Red Dragon was better than Hannibal and that X3 was entertaining. So what happens he has to *gulp* copy himself. He just seems to shoot his actors from different angles and not cutting it down that much. He could have cut down some shots of Chan to make him look more swift, or done different angles with Chan. He could have made it so everytime Tucker said a line it didn't feel forced, but nope.
Don't get me wrong, this film is entertaining at moments, but so much of it feels as if I have seen it before. From them poorly redoing "Who's On First" to Tucker dancing and singing. Thank god I didn't have to sit through that clip of them singing in the Taxi cab that was in EVERY trailer. I would give this film a shot on the screen if you really liked the first 2, but if you won't see it in theaters, don't see it at all.
The Bourne Ultimatum
I had missed the first Bourne film in theaters and I didn't see it. Until I saw The Bourne Supremecy, which blew me away. I thought it was not just bad ass, but had well crafted characters and a throughly thought out story. The key to this series has always been great acting, awesome twists, excellent use of hand held and at least one bad ass car chase.
Check them all for this movie.
This movie starts literally minutes after the great car chase from Supremecy. Bourne has been off the maps for a while, but the search is still on for him. Then, a reporter gets a hold of a story that knows more about Bourne than Bourne himself. So, in Bourne's ultimate quest to find out his past identity, Bourne goes to the reporter and that is where all the shit hits the fan, because there is Noah Vosen, a high ranking official in the CIA and who knows a lot about Bourne. He is determind to kill Bourne, and anyone who gets in his way of killing Bourne. There are twists and turns and awesome action everywhere.
Matt Damon rocks it once more as Jason Bourne. This time becoming even more stoic and sneaky. Damon has definately come to be a great actor and shows his awesome ability in this movie. One look into his eyes and you can tell he is always thinking, always calculating and ever diligant to find out who he was. Julia Stiles also returns as Nicky Parson and is a fine addition. I remember I was very skeptical of seeing how she would do when I first heard she was in Supremecy, but she has done extremely well in both films. In this one she evens adds more of a sexual tension between her and Bourne. Joan Allen's character, Pamela Landy, makes a slightly different turn in her character in this movie and she plays it off very naturally. Before she has been trying to find Bourne for the same reasons the others have, and in this one she finally realizes she should be helping Bourne. Did I also mention that David Strathairn is in this movie? I've been a fan of his since "Good Night and Good Luck" and he wows me once more. He makes an awesome chilling villian who doesn't care who dies, as long as they get Bourne. He will send "asset" after "asset" after Bourne and will go to extreme lengths to make sure he doesn't know anything.
Which leads to some GREAT action scenes and cat and mouse scenes. The best part of the action, truthfully, is not how bad ass it is (which it truly is), but that all the action serves a purpose and pushes the story along and does not seemed forced into the movie. You know, some movies it seems like, "We haven't had an action scene for 10 minutes... how can we get one to happen now?" No scene feels forced and all the action feels real, since it doesn't all of a sudden happen either. In fact, we get a good 5 or 10 minutes of a complicated "cat and mouse" scene where diferent things happen and people react to eachother until the action hits making it much more hard hitting. I really dug that during most action sequences there was no soundtrack either. It made every punch sound harder and more brutal. Especially the awesome car chase sequence. This isn't like the other slick car chases where Bourne is avoiding crashing into people, this car chase is like watching the demolition derby. It is fast, hard, and extremely brutal.
None of which could have been accomplished without the great direction of Paul Greengrass. Anybody who knows my stance on hand held know that I HATE IT! It takes me out of the scene and seems as if the director has no sence of the visuals he is displaying so he just says "here, take the camera, go crazy with it." Not with Greengrass. He has a distinct vision and knows what he is doing with every little cut and movement with his constantly shifting camera. In fact, if Greengrass and Spielberg (the only other director I feel who knows how to use hand held apporpriately) were the only directors who ever used hand held, I would not just like it, I would say more directors should try and use it because it is INCREDIBLE!
Fast, fun, and a great way to wrap up this series. Of course, there is a possibility of a 4th movie, but I do not wish it happens unless they get this team all together. Damon has stated this is his last Bourne movie and I feel that is good, because I do not want to see it destroyed with countless sequels. I know I said that Ocean's 13 was the safest bet out of the "3" movies this year, but I take that back now. This is, and I believe it is the last 3rd movie. I thought it was very good and is a great way for you to spend 2 hours of your life.
PS If you haven't seen the others, you should, because it is the only way you can full appriecate the movie
Check them all for this movie.
This movie starts literally minutes after the great car chase from Supremecy. Bourne has been off the maps for a while, but the search is still on for him. Then, a reporter gets a hold of a story that knows more about Bourne than Bourne himself. So, in Bourne's ultimate quest to find out his past identity, Bourne goes to the reporter and that is where all the shit hits the fan, because there is Noah Vosen, a high ranking official in the CIA and who knows a lot about Bourne. He is determind to kill Bourne, and anyone who gets in his way of killing Bourne. There are twists and turns and awesome action everywhere.
Matt Damon rocks it once more as Jason Bourne. This time becoming even more stoic and sneaky. Damon has definately come to be a great actor and shows his awesome ability in this movie. One look into his eyes and you can tell he is always thinking, always calculating and ever diligant to find out who he was. Julia Stiles also returns as Nicky Parson and is a fine addition. I remember I was very skeptical of seeing how she would do when I first heard she was in Supremecy, but she has done extremely well in both films. In this one she evens adds more of a sexual tension between her and Bourne. Joan Allen's character, Pamela Landy, makes a slightly different turn in her character in this movie and she plays it off very naturally. Before she has been trying to find Bourne for the same reasons the others have, and in this one she finally realizes she should be helping Bourne. Did I also mention that David Strathairn is in this movie? I've been a fan of his since "Good Night and Good Luck" and he wows me once more. He makes an awesome chilling villian who doesn't care who dies, as long as they get Bourne. He will send "asset" after "asset" after Bourne and will go to extreme lengths to make sure he doesn't know anything.
Which leads to some GREAT action scenes and cat and mouse scenes. The best part of the action, truthfully, is not how bad ass it is (which it truly is), but that all the action serves a purpose and pushes the story along and does not seemed forced into the movie. You know, some movies it seems like, "We haven't had an action scene for 10 minutes... how can we get one to happen now?" No scene feels forced and all the action feels real, since it doesn't all of a sudden happen either. In fact, we get a good 5 or 10 minutes of a complicated "cat and mouse" scene where diferent things happen and people react to eachother until the action hits making it much more hard hitting. I really dug that during most action sequences there was no soundtrack either. It made every punch sound harder and more brutal. Especially the awesome car chase sequence. This isn't like the other slick car chases where Bourne is avoiding crashing into people, this car chase is like watching the demolition derby. It is fast, hard, and extremely brutal.
None of which could have been accomplished without the great direction of Paul Greengrass. Anybody who knows my stance on hand held know that I HATE IT! It takes me out of the scene and seems as if the director has no sence of the visuals he is displaying so he just says "here, take the camera, go crazy with it." Not with Greengrass. He has a distinct vision and knows what he is doing with every little cut and movement with his constantly shifting camera. In fact, if Greengrass and Spielberg (the only other director I feel who knows how to use hand held apporpriately) were the only directors who ever used hand held, I would not just like it, I would say more directors should try and use it because it is INCREDIBLE!
Fast, fun, and a great way to wrap up this series. Of course, there is a possibility of a 4th movie, but I do not wish it happens unless they get this team all together. Damon has stated this is his last Bourne movie and I feel that is good, because I do not want to see it destroyed with countless sequels. I know I said that Ocean's 13 was the safest bet out of the "3" movies this year, but I take that back now. This is, and I believe it is the last 3rd movie. I thought it was very good and is a great way for you to spend 2 hours of your life.
PS If you haven't seen the others, you should, because it is the only way you can full appriecate the movie
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
Hairspray
My favorite musical on stage is "The Producers" based on the comedy classic by the same name. When I heard they were doing a movie with almost entirely the same cast, I was thrilled. It had to be hilarious... wrong. While it was funny, it just didn't live up to the greatness that was when I saw it on stage both times. It was flat and seemed sort of like "here we go through the motions." From what I have heard, that is the problem with the movie of "RENT" (which I hate the music of, and thus will not be seeing that until Kayla forces me to). So I heard about a Hairspray movie, another musical comedy that on stage I enjoyed. Then I heard Travolta was cast as the mother, and I had doubts... then I saw him in make up and I had MORE doubts.
Then I saw the movie and all doubts I had were gone. From the moment this movie starts it is fun and has you smiling from beginning to end, just what it is trying to do. Funny, touching, surprising, and downright entertaining are the words to describe this movie.
Tracy Turnblad is an teenager in Baltimore, and loves living there. She isn't the best student, mainly because she fantasizes every day about being on the Corny Collins Show. Of course, her favorite day of the week is Negro Day on the show. One day, when she is sent to detention she meets Seaweed and decides to do his moves on the open auditions for the Corney Collins Show. She gets on, and it upsets the lead dancing girl and her mother. They must get her off the show. They need to stop her from doing these "negro dances" and they need to outright stop "negro day." Well, Tracy and her family and friends just won't let that stand.
This movie is just so damn entertaining, but don't be fooled by the PG rating, this is not a film for little kids. The funniest lines, in my opinion, come from Michelle Pfeiffers character and it is DIRTY and hilarious. In fact, Pfiefer is just as hot as she was back in 1992 when she dawned the Catwoman outfit and she plays the role perfectly. So evil, so nasty, and so funny. Britany Snow plays her daughter, and does a fine job but since she is almost always opposite Pfeiffer, she just doesn't come off as nasty and mean. Which she isn't supposed to, but I still feel it detracted from her performance. Of course, the apple of her and Tracy's eye, Link, is played by Zac Efron. Efron freakin' ROCKED MY SOCKS in this movie. I hated him in High School Musical, but here Efron proves here he is a real actor and a damn good singer, way better than that chump they have dubbing him over in HSM. There are moments he is being a jerk, but underneath everything the look in his eyes always said "I care" and that is very hard to do. Sheesh, I thought I would never say that Efron is good simply from the extremely bad taste he left in my mouth after I saw the movie of High School Musical for the first time, but he has won me over and so much more. I must say that at first I wasn't convinced on Amanda Bynes either. Even when watching the movie it took a while for me to warm up to her, it took until one scene and I was convinced. That scene was when she first met Seaweed, she is at the same time very funny, and to quote my friend Ray "sexy." I don't know how to explain it, but she is. Speaking of Seaweed, he is truly the big find of this film. His singing is great, his dancing is great, and his acting is great. There is nothing that Elijah Kelley can't do and he ROCKS! I'm sure we will see many more things from him in the future. Christopher Walken plays Tracy's father, enough said. Nikki Blonsky plays the overweight bundle of energy in this movie and she is adorable and very lovable. She is so happy and optimistic throughout the entire movie and does what she feels is right, that and she is a very good singer and dancer. She is also attractive enough that it is not unbelievable that Link would go for her. This was her first professional acting gig, and to have the weight of an entire movie with all the big names stars in this must have been a daunting task, but she pulls it off flawlessly. Especially when she is on screen with everybodys favorite scientologist...
John Travolta. Entering the theater, I believed Travolta would be terrible. I didn't think he looked believable and I KNEW he wasn't playing the role as I believed it should have been. But I was wrong, wrong about him all together. Yes, his accent goes EVERY where but he is so good in this role. He brings a loving and maternal quality to the role which has never been there in any interpretation I have seen. I mean, you have always loved the mother, in both versions (movie and original theater production) but here Travolta really gives Edna a soul and just has fun with the character. Especially when he is dancing. It is very clear that Travolta has had a very VERY big urge to get back into serious dancing (none of that Pulp Fiction shit, but that Saturday Night Fever shit) and he shines through with every move. In fact, his number with Walken is the funniest part of the movie, in my opinion but at the same time, it is also an incredibly sweet moment.
Speaking of the singing and dancing, it is all great. The lyrics and music are funny and catchy. I swear Marc Shaiman needs to do all the music for musical comedys that get turned into movies cause he seems to be the only person to get it right in the past years. For the people who don't know, he is the man that helped co-write the funniest movie musical of all time: South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut. He knows how to write dirty, and hilariously satirical songs, such as the song that the kids on the Corney Collins show sing about being the "best kids in town." Great stuff.
In short, if you don't have a smile on your face from the beginning of the movie to the end, you must not have a heart.
Then I saw the movie and all doubts I had were gone. From the moment this movie starts it is fun and has you smiling from beginning to end, just what it is trying to do. Funny, touching, surprising, and downright entertaining are the words to describe this movie.
Tracy Turnblad is an teenager in Baltimore, and loves living there. She isn't the best student, mainly because she fantasizes every day about being on the Corny Collins Show. Of course, her favorite day of the week is Negro Day on the show. One day, when she is sent to detention she meets Seaweed and decides to do his moves on the open auditions for the Corney Collins Show. She gets on, and it upsets the lead dancing girl and her mother. They must get her off the show. They need to stop her from doing these "negro dances" and they need to outright stop "negro day." Well, Tracy and her family and friends just won't let that stand.
This movie is just so damn entertaining, but don't be fooled by the PG rating, this is not a film for little kids. The funniest lines, in my opinion, come from Michelle Pfeiffers character and it is DIRTY and hilarious. In fact, Pfiefer is just as hot as she was back in 1992 when she dawned the Catwoman outfit and she plays the role perfectly. So evil, so nasty, and so funny. Britany Snow plays her daughter, and does a fine job but since she is almost always opposite Pfeiffer, she just doesn't come off as nasty and mean. Which she isn't supposed to, but I still feel it detracted from her performance. Of course, the apple of her and Tracy's eye, Link, is played by Zac Efron. Efron freakin' ROCKED MY SOCKS in this movie. I hated him in High School Musical, but here Efron proves here he is a real actor and a damn good singer, way better than that chump they have dubbing him over in HSM. There are moments he is being a jerk, but underneath everything the look in his eyes always said "I care" and that is very hard to do. Sheesh, I thought I would never say that Efron is good simply from the extremely bad taste he left in my mouth after I saw the movie of High School Musical for the first time, but he has won me over and so much more. I must say that at first I wasn't convinced on Amanda Bynes either. Even when watching the movie it took a while for me to warm up to her, it took until one scene and I was convinced. That scene was when she first met Seaweed, she is at the same time very funny, and to quote my friend Ray "sexy." I don't know how to explain it, but she is. Speaking of Seaweed, he is truly the big find of this film. His singing is great, his dancing is great, and his acting is great. There is nothing that Elijah Kelley can't do and he ROCKS! I'm sure we will see many more things from him in the future. Christopher Walken plays Tracy's father, enough said. Nikki Blonsky plays the overweight bundle of energy in this movie and she is adorable and very lovable. She is so happy and optimistic throughout the entire movie and does what she feels is right, that and she is a very good singer and dancer. She is also attractive enough that it is not unbelievable that Link would go for her. This was her first professional acting gig, and to have the weight of an entire movie with all the big names stars in this must have been a daunting task, but she pulls it off flawlessly. Especially when she is on screen with everybodys favorite scientologist...
John Travolta. Entering the theater, I believed Travolta would be terrible. I didn't think he looked believable and I KNEW he wasn't playing the role as I believed it should have been. But I was wrong, wrong about him all together. Yes, his accent goes EVERY where but he is so good in this role. He brings a loving and maternal quality to the role which has never been there in any interpretation I have seen. I mean, you have always loved the mother, in both versions (movie and original theater production) but here Travolta really gives Edna a soul and just has fun with the character. Especially when he is dancing. It is very clear that Travolta has had a very VERY big urge to get back into serious dancing (none of that Pulp Fiction shit, but that Saturday Night Fever shit) and he shines through with every move. In fact, his number with Walken is the funniest part of the movie, in my opinion but at the same time, it is also an incredibly sweet moment.
Speaking of the singing and dancing, it is all great. The lyrics and music are funny and catchy. I swear Marc Shaiman needs to do all the music for musical comedys that get turned into movies cause he seems to be the only person to get it right in the past years. For the people who don't know, he is the man that helped co-write the funniest movie musical of all time: South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut. He knows how to write dirty, and hilariously satirical songs, such as the song that the kids on the Corney Collins show sing about being the "best kids in town." Great stuff.
In short, if you don't have a smile on your face from the beginning of the movie to the end, you must not have a heart.
Monday, August 6, 2007
The Simpson's Movie (Mild Spoilers)
When I was younger there was one TV show that was off-limits: The Simpsons. The catch was this: my dad loved the show. So any time my mother wasn't home he would try to get his Simpsons fix, and so did my sister and I. Eventually my mom found out about this and gave in. This was during the time when The Simpsons was great, when it would have been the perfect time to do a Simpsons movie... but even though the actors had it in their contract for 3 movies, it never happened. The show all of a suddenly got pretty shitty (but not as shitty as new Family Guy) around season 11, just as South Park hit big. Now, while the show is in its 17th season and frankly is not that good, they decide to release a movie. When I heard this I thought "CASH IN! CRAP! It is just going to be as bad as the new episodes." I then found out that they brought back all the classic writers, and my faith was restored. Then reviews started coming out about it from test screenings, and I got excited. So how did it stand up to my expectations?
Extremely well. This movie is packed from beginning to end with laughs. In fact, I would bet that the longest break I took from laughing was about 5 minutes, and those scenes weren't supposed to be funny.
This movie unfolds in typical Simpsons fashion, beginning as one story and by the end, becoming another. This story begins like all great stories should: Greenday drowning to death in a lake. The lake is extremely polluted, you see, and thus the floating stage they were playing on melts. At the funeral for Greenday, Grandpa Simpson has a prediction. Everybody shrugs it off, except Marge who believes it is a sign of things to come. Mean while, Homer and Bart are having lunch while Krusty is filming a commercial for his new Pork Burger and Homer falls in love with the pig cause it wears a hat. After Lisa gets everyone to clean up the lake, Homer dumps all the pig feces into the lake causing Springfield to come under scrutiny from the government. That is all I'm going to say, because there are a lot of twists and turns in here that I don't feel like unveiling.
Truthfully, this movie is for Simpsons fans only. I don't understand people who don't like The Simpsons seeing the movie and then coming out and saying it was bad. Of course you aren't going to like the movie if you didn't like the TV show! But for anybody who is a fan of the good ol' days of The Simpsons, this will be a very fun movie for you. All the character humor is there. Even though most of the side characters are designated to about one scene each, they are all in true form and when they are on are very funny. The satirical humor that was GREAT back in the day is finally back, poking fun at the audience, the government, and movie stars all alike. Some of the best jokes stem from them blatantly insulting you for watching something you "can see on TV for free."
One great thing about The Simpsons is that they have never been afraid to get emotional at times, unlike South Park and Family Guy. They do it again in this movie as Marge and Homer face their greatest martial dispute yet and Bart starts questioning Homer's parenting skills. The great thing about Marge is that, before the TV show only made jokes about her hair, she always seemed extremely genuine and it is the same thing here. At one point, the movie decides to slow it down to give Marge her time to shine and it is a very lovely moment for The Simpsons movie.
The one problem with this movie is that it doesn't go beyond what they could do on television. The complaints about it being a long episode, is somewhat true but that is why I saw this movie. South Park took full advantage of the movie medium, but South Park had always been dirtier and had worse language than The Simpsons. Frankly, I wouldn't have wanted to see it get more crass and have The Simpsons start swearing all the time, because that is not what The Simpsons is, South Park is, but The Simpsons aren't.
In all, it was a very entertaining movie that had me laughing from beginning to end. If you don't catch it on the big screen, don't worry though, it will be just as entertaining on the small screen.
Extremely well. This movie is packed from beginning to end with laughs. In fact, I would bet that the longest break I took from laughing was about 5 minutes, and those scenes weren't supposed to be funny.
This movie unfolds in typical Simpsons fashion, beginning as one story and by the end, becoming another. This story begins like all great stories should: Greenday drowning to death in a lake. The lake is extremely polluted, you see, and thus the floating stage they were playing on melts. At the funeral for Greenday, Grandpa Simpson has a prediction. Everybody shrugs it off, except Marge who believes it is a sign of things to come. Mean while, Homer and Bart are having lunch while Krusty is filming a commercial for his new Pork Burger and Homer falls in love with the pig cause it wears a hat. After Lisa gets everyone to clean up the lake, Homer dumps all the pig feces into the lake causing Springfield to come under scrutiny from the government. That is all I'm going to say, because there are a lot of twists and turns in here that I don't feel like unveiling.
Truthfully, this movie is for Simpsons fans only. I don't understand people who don't like The Simpsons seeing the movie and then coming out and saying it was bad. Of course you aren't going to like the movie if you didn't like the TV show! But for anybody who is a fan of the good ol' days of The Simpsons, this will be a very fun movie for you. All the character humor is there. Even though most of the side characters are designated to about one scene each, they are all in true form and when they are on are very funny. The satirical humor that was GREAT back in the day is finally back, poking fun at the audience, the government, and movie stars all alike. Some of the best jokes stem from them blatantly insulting you for watching something you "can see on TV for free."
One great thing about The Simpsons is that they have never been afraid to get emotional at times, unlike South Park and Family Guy. They do it again in this movie as Marge and Homer face their greatest martial dispute yet and Bart starts questioning Homer's parenting skills. The great thing about Marge is that, before the TV show only made jokes about her hair, she always seemed extremely genuine and it is the same thing here. At one point, the movie decides to slow it down to give Marge her time to shine and it is a very lovely moment for The Simpsons movie.
The one problem with this movie is that it doesn't go beyond what they could do on television. The complaints about it being a long episode, is somewhat true but that is why I saw this movie. South Park took full advantage of the movie medium, but South Park had always been dirtier and had worse language than The Simpsons. Frankly, I wouldn't have wanted to see it get more crass and have The Simpsons start swearing all the time, because that is not what The Simpsons is, South Park is, but The Simpsons aren't.
In all, it was a very entertaining movie that had me laughing from beginning to end. If you don't catch it on the big screen, don't worry though, it will be just as entertaining on the small screen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
