Screen Rant » Jacob Waldman

Unreleased Halloween 2 Trailer Best One Yet

Jacob Waldman — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 16:44:54 +0000

In the interest of full disclosure, I’ll tell you right up front that I am not a fan of the Halloween franchise; never have been, never will be. However, on some carnal, visceral, murderous, sadistic level I appreciate Rob Zombie, even if he is a one-trick pony. I feel like every time I see one of his movies, there’s a haunting scene around a dinner table; a tense scene with someone silhouetted in moonlight/headlights; a startling scene where someone is revealed as the mirror closes; and of course there’s gratuitous everything: violence, nudity, profanity – the Zombie triple-play.

However, just because I know what’s coming doesn’t mean I won’t partake; I mean damn I saw Titanic, and no matter how much you hope and pray, that boat’s going down.

And now we all have to opportunity to see a little more of what’s coming. Bloody-Disgusting recently released a heretofore unused trailer of Zombie’s upcoming sequel, Halloween 2, which is surprisingly superior to the previously released trailer we’ve seen. And the masses seem to concur.

I’m not sure WHY this unreleased trailer was left to gather dust, but I’m sure the powers that be have their reasons. Either way, we have it now:

The trailer doesn’t seem to reveal any more than we already knew, or could be divined from the mere knowledge that another Michael Meyers film was on its way. Allow me to elaborate: we thought he was dead. Turns out he’s not. Now he’s after his sister/cousin/niece/dog walker, and anyone within a 200 foot radius is doomed. Throw in a cast of a bunch relative unknowns, toss in one or two familiar faces, and there you have it. That pretty much sums them all up, give or take a few details, no?

The trailer does reveal a few things that we didn’t know before, like the death of a slew of characters carried over from the first film (e.g. – Danielle Harris’s Annie Brackett, which I’m inferring from the Sheriff’s haunting “NO NO NO!”) – oh, and that Michael Meyers can lift a car without getting a hernia. Check out a better version of the trailer on Bloody-Disgusting.

Like I said, I’m not a fan. I find these films to be predictable, formulaic, contrived, and on the cusp between horror films and a waste of my time and money. But, given the success of this film’s predecessor, I’m sure this one will do just fine. And don’t expect any end in sight; Meyers has yet to battle Aliens, Predator, Freddy Kruegar, Shrek, Jason Voorhees, Jigsaw, Teddy Ruxpin, Hannibal Lecter, and Dracula. Bring it on.

What did you think?

Halloween 2 hits theaters on August 28, 2009.

Source: Bloody-Disgusting

You Might Also Be Interested In:

Legendary Wants to Bring Us The Jimi Hendrix Experience

Jacob Waldman — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 15:45:30 +0000

40 years ago last Saturday, one of the greatest rock ‘n’ rollers of all time both celebrated his country and took a stand against its imposed societal restrictions, its self-proclaimed savior status in the Vietnam war, and the consumptive materialism that was running rampant through our country at the time. His interpretation of The Star Spangled banner was a non-partisan call-to-arms for all those who were looking for a new meaning in life – off the normed path of order, into disorder. Unfortunately, Hendrix never saw the values he espoused come to fruition; along with several other greats (Morrison, Joplin, Cobain), Hendrix died at the age of 27 in 1970.

Now, almost 40 years later, Variety reports that Legendary Pictures is trying to mount a bucking bronco that many before have already been thrown from. Once again, mainstream media is trying to capture the story of Jimi Hndrix on celluloid and plaster it all over the big screen for all to experience (pun intended). Many before have tried and failed to get this film made, thanks to the Cerberus of Experience Hendrix, the rocker’s immortal estate (a.k.a. stepsister Janie Hendrix), who continues to play Duck Hunt with all offers.

Legendary has a newly contrived approach it feels may just woo Janie enough for her to let down her guard. Legendary’s head, Thomas Tull, and Bill Gerber have bankrolled the dough to get this project rolling, and Max Borenstein, who also wrote “What Is Life Worth?,” has the words. Tull recently put together another music movie, It Might Get Loud, introducing legends like Led Zeppelin’s Jimmy Page, U2’s the Edge, and then throwing in Jack White for the tween demographic – a clever but cheap move, IMHO, and perhaps an indicator of his plans for this Jimi Hendrix film.

But apparently Legendary thinks that the Tull/Gerber/Borenstein combination of corporate movers and shakers will unlock the rights issues that have halted so many previous Hendrix projects. And that’s not all. In true Hendrix fashion, Legendary is taking the road less travelled. Rather than pitching the idea to Experience Hendrix first, Legendary is going to put together and develop the project as much as possible before they approach the estate and try to win its concessions. Sneaky, huh?

But let’s address the real issue here: who could do Hendrix justice, even remotely? Lenny Kravitz has been considered in the past, but if you ask me, he’s too into himself to ever break character. Andre (3000) Benjamin was thrown in the mix once before, but I’m not sure he’s had enough experience on screen to tackle an epic role of this nature. So who’s it gonna be? And what will be the qualifying criteria? Does the actor need to have musical talent? Should they be able to sing? How similar in appearance do they need to be to Jimi? Who are our strongest options? Don Cheadle, Terrance Howard, Denzel Washington, Will Smith – the list (of aging actors) goes on. Will the star be chosen for their box office appeal, or for the talent? Let’s hope the latter rather than the former.

So here we are, 40 years after Hendrix snubbed his nose at what his country had become, and we’re trying to turn him into a box office draw, with the potential for a sequel and (naturally) the merchandising to follow. Can’t you picture it: a bunch of 13-year-olds headed to school with t-shirts blazoned with Purple Haze lyrics, wearing and iconic afros and bandanas? Is this what Jimi would have wanted?

Source: Variety

You Might Also Be Interested In:

Trailer For Toy Story 3D Double Feature!

Jacob Waldman — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 16:55:46 +0000

You’ve done it again, Disney (and Pixar). All the years that I’ve spent convincing myself that I am free of the tractor beam that is the Magic of Disney™, and once again, I’m off the wagon.

I had relinquished my love/addiction to Disney. Their magical touch had enchanted me too long with greats like Lion King, or Aladdin, and even The Little Mermaid (if you’re not singing “Part of Your World” in your head right now, you’re soulless). I even went so far as to become a theme part cast member…for six years (true story). But I broke the spell, I cast off the classic demons and villains created over so many years of animation and rid myself of the drug that is Disney Magic.

And then this happened: Toy Story 1&2 in 3D!

Now, I was around when the first Toy Story came out; I was around when the second was a smash; and I’ve even managed to approach the prospect of Toy Story 3 with a healthy cynicism (though some indication that the shell is cracking). But this just pushed me over the edge; just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in.

Hello, my name is Jake, and I’m a Disney-aholic. I NEED ONE MORE HIT.

And one more hit they shall deliver. My biggest concern initially was that Disney was going to re-release these masterpieces (yes, masterpieces), embellished with silly, cheap 3D broomsticks in the eye, or shattering glass, or foreground add-ons. And… Disney has not disappointed. Based on this first trailer we’ll get Jessie’s hands in our face, Buzz’s jet-pack, and we even get to see Rex’s tail up close after he’s joins the third dimension.

Check it out:

TOY STORY Double Feature
by disneypixar

Even though this trailer promises all the hokey, mawkish tricks that can (and do) send so many 3D films spinning down the toilet, I am, nonetheless, hooked.

Not only can’t I wait to to revisit with my old friends Buzz, Woody, and the rest of the gang – I can’t wait to shriek in pre-adolescent glee as various objects, characters, and body parts come flying off the screen at me. And I will duck, dodge, and dive; I will do everything in my power to avoid an errant rocket-propelled Buzz Lightyear, or a misdirected Lego, or whatever else is thrown my way. What’s more, I will shutter in delight as I get to watch the hijinks of Buzz and Woody again, and I will giggle at even the most childish of jokes.

Because I’m an addict, and when Buzz tells me that I can see into the third dimension, you better believe I’ll be rocking those specs to school the next day. Not to mention, I could watch that little desk lamp hop around to infinity and beyond.

If you or someone you know is addicted to Disney, call 777-FILM for show times and locations, operators are standing by.

Seriously though, the Toy Story 3D Double Feature will be in theaters for two weeks starting October 2nd. Check with your local theater for show times.

Source: MTV Movie Blog

You Might Also Be Interested In:

Brad Pitt (Finally) Speaks About Moneyball

Jacob Waldman — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 14:56:57 +0000

Let’s run the bases real quick and recap the whole Moneyball fiasco(cue the movie-montage):

Oscar winner Steve Zaillian spun a script from Michael Lewis’s book about Oakland A’s general manager Billy Beane’s successful attempt to put together a baseball club on a budget. Sony picked it up, Brad Pitt and Steven Soderbergh hopped on board, Soderbergh retooled the script into something more along the lines of a documentary with “if it didn’t happen in real life, it won’t happen on the big screen” running through its veins. Sony bucked, the head of Sony, Amy Pascal pulled the plug the morning of the first day of shooting. There. Now we’re all on the same page (for more details, go here).

Today we have new details on Moneyball’s current status and a few words from its (almost) star, Brad Pitt.

So Soderbergh turned in this new script that was (allegedly) some kind of bastardization of Sony’s original vision for Moneyball. At the outset, the movie was reported to capture the essence of Billy Beane and his frantic energy that revamped the professional baseball recruiting process. The movie reportedly would’ve resembled something akin to Major League, only based more in reality and without Charlie Sheen (unfortunately). But once Soderbergh got his hands on it, what was once a sure thing became a fakakta mess, so Pascal put the kibosh on the project.

However, rumors are circulating that maybe it wasn’t Soderbergh and Pascal’s difference of opinion after all that caused Moneyball to strike out – maybe it was Pitt’s pits! You see, Brad Pitt is notorious for a few things: having nineteen visible abdominal muscles, liking “dahgs,” buying kids in six packs, being able to rock an outfit that would make the rest of us look like D.J. Qualls… and pulling out at the last minute (of projects, that is).

Let’s look at his track record, shall we? The actor dropped out of The Fountain, State of Play, and The Fighter in various degrees of last-minute scenarios. So it wouldn’t be surprising to find that he once again suffered the morning-of jitters and decided to leave the bride at the alter, so to speak. Now mind you, this is all speculation based on a few whisperings here and there on the Interwebs, but still, it seems like a rumor worth considering.

weird bobble-head Pitt

Now consider this: new reports are surfacing that in fact, Pitt was whole-heartedly behind the project, and still is. Pitt was rocketed questions rapid-fire regarding Moneyball during a walk-by on a red carpet. Granted, this isn’t the best time for an in-depth interview regarding the outlook of future projects, however The Playlist reports that Pitt spoke out about the project for the first time in public since the whole fiasco went down. When asked if he thinks Moneyball can recovered, or if it’s going the way of the dodo, Pitt responded with:

“My gut says yes. It’s a weird climate right now. But we’re still trying to re-mount it. I hope we get to do it soon.”

Wow, Pitt, you couldn’t be more vague if you were running for public office (consider that option, pal). But still, it’s something, right? What’s more, Soderbergh is off the project, but Pitt, Sony, screenwriter Aaron Sorkin (who is writing a new draft of the script) and producers Mike DeLuca are still trying to keep the film alive and bring aboard a new director.

So whaddya think? Will the American public dig a flick about baseball recruiting, starring Brad Pitt (especially if he doesn’t take his shirt off)? Is there a large enough demographic that justifies making a movie about one dude and his strategies for picking players? And, if you could choose, who would you get to direct Moneyball? Does this film have what it takes to – here it comes – hit a home run? ZING!

Source: The Playlist

You Might Also Be Interested In:

After ‘The Hangover’: More R-Rated Comedies on the Way

Jacob Waldman — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 17:13:54 +0000

With the unavoidable success of the raunchy, R-rated comedy The Hangover, Hollywood sees an opportunity that it’s not ashamed to exploit irrespective of the consequences, like John and Kate’s eight coattail riders. Let’s look at this from a purely business perspective: The Hangover cost a touch over $35 million to make, and so far its raked in $380 million. That’s like a million percent return on investment, or something; any lemonade-stand-entrepreneur can see that this is the bandwagon to jump on. And jumped on Hollywood has.

Up to bat after The Hangover comes Lionsgate’s announced project, One Night Stan, which is in the works and penned by Josh Friedlander, who previously wrote the scripts Pictures of You (which clung to the bottom of the 2007 Black List of hottest Hollywood screenplays with the requisite 2 votes), and Suicide Blondes (we’d never heard of it either).

Set to direct One Night Stan are the guys who brought you the brilliant (IMHO) Harold & Kumar films, Jon Hurwitz and Hayden Schlossberg. The film follows (you guessed it) Stan, on the night before his wedding when he learns that his wife’s sexual past is littered with more bodies than his own. In a fantastical turn of events that never happens in real life (take my word), Stan procures his soon-to-be-wife’s permission to play catch up for one night, and hilarity ensues.

Hayden and Schlossberg

The next up in the pipeline is The Best Thing About Pam Rooney, a title that conjures up images of I Love You, Beth Cooper, only starring Andy Rooney (at least in my head). Writers Jay Cohen and Brendan O’Brien sold their manuscript to Universal, and Jonah Hill has jumped on board to produce and star, though a director has not yet been found.

Trying to find any details on this film is like trying to find leftovers at Kirstie Alley’s house. However, the film has continuously been dubbed a “high-concept romantic comedy”, which is ambiguous enough to leave plenty of opportunity for hit or miss antics – though it does bode well (for me) that the producers, who are also the writers, also produced the Judd Apatow comedy, Funny People.

(Non-Apatow) R-rated comedies seem to be the Tickle Me Elmo of cinema right now, which is appropriately prophetic, given what happened to Tickle Me Elmo: It was hot for a while, and once Fisher Price realized what it had on its hands, it practically flooded the market and ruined it for me everyone. And don’t think other toy-makers didn’t jump on the epileptic-plush-doll bandwagon behind Elmo – just like Lionsgate and Hill are doing. Even if they are only the first to make their intentions publicly known, its just a matter of time before philandering-tickle-me-hungover-Pam-Rooney dolls are everywhere. So get while the gettin’s good.

One Night Stan and The Best Thing About Pam Rooney are both currently in development and don’t have release dates.

Sources: The Hollywood Reporter, First Showing

You Might Also Be Interested In:

Stanley Kubrick’s Unfinished Work May Get Finished

Jacob Waldman — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 16:41:48 +0000

Quick list of people that have continued to produce art, even after they’ve passed on: Elvis, Tupac, Jacko, Kurt Cobain, Bob Marely, Biggie, Heath Ledger. Each of these is famous for kicking the bucket and continuing to be productive, long after their passing. Well, now you can add one more illustrious name to that list… maybe.

Stanley Kubrick’s research documents for his unfinished film The Aryan Papers, were recently displayed at an exhibition. Artists Jane and Louise Wilson spent a great deal of time scouring Kubrick’s research for this film and put together a piece that not only builds on the late auteur’s efforts, but also the story of the main character, and the work of that character’s casted performer. As well, these documents were put on display at the Edinburgh Festival for attendees to see.

It is thought that in his research for The Aryan Papers – which is based on the novel Wartime by Louis Begley, about a woman who flees Nazi-occupied Poland with her nephew – Kubrick become despondent (thought there were other contributing factors) and as a result, abandoned the project. But not before he’d invested months and long hours researching in the obsessive, perfectionist fashion that made films like Spartacus, A Clockwork Orange, and Full Metal Jacket the seminal works they have become. Recently, the family of Kubrick expressed their interest in finishing this long-abandoned project.

The Aryan Papers spent almost twenty years in development, and finally entered pre-production in the early 90s, when Kubrick invested eight months of his life obsessively trying to get the film right. He wrote the screenplay, scouted possible locations in the Czech town of Brno, and even cast the Dutch actress, Johanna ter Steege as the lead character, Aunt Tania. The process went so far as to costume test the actress:

The film was set to be released in the early 90s, but with the release of Schindler’s List Kubrick felt that the public may not be prepared or able to handle another hard-hitting Holocaust movie, and pulled the plug. Kubrick’s brother-in-law and sometimes-producer, Jan Halran, said: “ I regret it never got made but it was a decision made by Kubrick and Warner Bros, probably very wisely.”

However, he feels that now seems to be the appropriate time for another Holocaust film, potentially with Ang Lee at the helm. But is this really the best idea? While there isn’t an overwhelming shadow of Oscar potential to contend with like there was with Schindler’s List, the past year and a half or so has already seen a slew of Holocaust films, including The Boy in the Stripped Pajamas, Defiance, and Quentin Tarantino’s upcoming Inglourious Basterds. However, a postmortem Kubrick piece hasn’t been seen since AI: Artificial Intelligence, which was co-captained by the director who originally sunk the project in the first place, Steven Speilberg. While AI was a Kubrick piece in spirit, it did NOT meet the expectations of so many of his fans.

And it turns out The Aryan Papers isn’t the only Kubrick piece in talks for reanimation. Rumors have circulated that Kubricks Lunatic at Large may be receiving some attention as well. So what do you think? Should Kubrick’s spirit be brought back, or should we leave cinematic history alone before mistakes are made and the memory of one of the art form’s greats is potentially tarnished?

Source: Empire

You Might Also Be Interested In:

Gremlins Falls Victim to Hollywood

Jacob Waldman — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 18:57:16 +0000

The wave of 80s movies remakes continues to claim victims. As you all know, Tron is coming, Robocop is in the works, there’s an A-team flick in there somewhere, and rumors of He-Man are recirculating (not that I think anyone could top Dolph Lundgren). And now you can tack on another classic, Gremlins.

This isn’t just some rumor started by a malicious mogwai – this comes from the director of the first two Gremlins installments, Joe Dante. Apparently, he told Emprie:

“I (Dante) hear they’re going to make another one soon. I can see why – it would be stupid to let that title go to waste.”

Really? How many times can we watch Billy Peltzer screw up and once again loose/feed/soak Gizmo? There doesn’t seem like enough to sustain another sequel. And isn’t everyone in the originals too busy handing over the AARP cards at early bird specials to film another one? This is all assuming anyone remembers where they’ve stashed the Gizmo puppet.

More than likely the original cast (with the exception of some cheeky cameo) won’t be involved. Strike one. Chris Columbus, the creator of the characters that spawned innumerable lunch box graphics, has adamantly squashed any notion that he’ll be involved:

“I haven’t heard about it. If they do the monsters with CGI, I don’t know if it would be the same. They should go back and do it with puppets again, though at this point I wouldn’t be interested in being involved.”

Strike two. And what was that, Columbus? CGI, not puppets? Strike three. You’re out.

Hollywood’s eagerness to reach into the CGI bin and see how they can bastardize movies that defined a generation has the potential to be its downfall. Is Hollywood so short on plots that they have to scour IMDB for films yet to be remastered and digitized? If the powers that be have their way, they could possibly erase an entire generation of film. With remakes popping up like social networking sites, the new films’ progenitors will fade into obscurity until coming generations don’t even realize that the remakes are remakes! Just to solidify my point, take a gander at this list of 80s films set to be revamped in the next few years:

They Live (2011)
Short Circut (2010)
He-Man (no date announced)
Red Dawn (2010)
Robocop (2010)
Weird Science (no date announced)
Karate Kid (retitled The Kung Fu Kid) (2010)

Karate Kid?!?! Really? Didn’t we already try this 15 years ago before Hilary Swank went full-on dude (see: Boys Don’t Cry)?

Seriously though, if Gremlins can fall, I would bank on an ET remake, a Back to the Future remake, and how about a Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure remake for safe measure? Where will the madness end? These guys seem to think that throwing a little CGI into an old story will turn it into something great for the new generation. But is there really enough of a following of Teen Witch (for real-life example) to warrant investing millions into a remake that’s a waste of Ashley Tisdale’s – and everybody else’s – time? There’s no way they can TOP THAT film (click the link for proof)!

So remember these three rules, Gremlins fans: Steer clear of moisture, avoid the buffet after midnight, and let’s leave well enough alone, shall we?

Source: Empire, Zombie Chatter, buzzsugar.com

You Might Also Be Interested In:

The Lorax is Coming!

Jacob Waldman — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 16:26:54 +0000

According to Variety, Universal and Illumination Entertainment recently decided to use Dr. Seuss’ 1971 tale, The Lorax, as source material for an upcoming project. Here’s how I think the board room conversation went:

“Given the sorry state of economic affairs, why not capitalize on ol’ Doc Seuss again? Pick another book, make it an animated movie, and let’s toss in some 3D effects while we’re at it, ‘cuz the kids seem to be really eating that up these days, and we can charge an additional $6.50 for tickets and those silly glasses! Sounds like a recipe for success to me, boys, make it happen!”

Somehow, the suits-that-be at Universal looked at the sweeping success of previous Seuss-based projects, and decided that the public had gone too long without a follow-up. That’s not to say that the production quality has been poor; their digital animation is rapidly gaining on Pixar. However, I’m not sure the public is ready for another Dr. Suess/comedian-du-jour vehicle (first it was Jim Carrey, then Mike Meyers, the Carrey again, who’s next?). Perhaps I’m just not the target demographic.

For those of you that don’t recall the story, allow me to jog your memory:

The Lorax is a story of (try and stay with me here) the Lorax, who speaks for the trees. The trees and the land they live off of are being ravaged by the Once-ler for the production of a “Thneed,” a garment the Once-ler insists everyone needs. The Once-ler continues to decimate the land, polluting the waters and killing the Truffula Trees, all the while ignoring the Lorax. Eventually, the Lorax becomes fed up with the destruction, hoists himself by the seat of his own pants, and exits through the smog. The Once-ler is left with his own decrepit factories and the Lorax’s last message: UNLESS. There is a ray of hope at the end of the story, though: one remaining Truffula seed.

Universal and Illumination have set the date for release at March 2, 2012, a seemingly arbitrary date until you realize it’s Dr. Seuss’ (Theodor Geisel) birthday. Chris Renaud, Cinco Paul and Ken Daurio are splitting the directorial duties, with Paul and Daurio whipping up the script. The money will come from the head of Illumination, Chris Meledandri, as well as Suess’ widow, Audrey Geisel. If they all play their cards right, they could give Pixar’s Wall-E and its thinly-veiled social commentary a run for its environmental money.

Dr. Seuss

The Lorax is a sad story, to say the least, and given the current state of the environmental debate, entirely relevant. So Universal and Illumination Entertainment can’t be ENTIRELY blamed for trying to captialize on the Save-The-Planet movement of the moment. But maybe they should’ve done their homework before they decided to push this project forward based purely on the hopes that time-worn hippies will be willing to spend $13.50 on a movie ticket just to teach their kids – Stardust and Moonbeam – the effects that capitalism and the pillaging of land are having on Mother Earth.

Had they done their homework, the filmmakers would’ve realized that The Lorax has previously courted controversy: first, there was uproar over a line in the book (that has since been removed from further publications) regarding the sad state of affairs over at Lake Eerie. Second, in the late 80s, the story was seen as a jibe at the California logging industry. In response, the logging industry released a pro-logging rebuttal called The Truax. (Maybe a good idea for a sequel…I’m talking to you, Universal.) Also, this isn’t the first time The Lorax has been animated: in 1972, it was done the old fashioned way for a musical television special on CBS. And look at the (non) impact THAT had…

I’m sure that the story will be updated and modernized, and of course new animation techniques will make it appealing to multiple age ranges. So this begs the question:

Will you see it in 3D?
Will you pay $13.50?
Will you drag your kids along?
Will there be a catchy song?
Will this movie be a flop?
Or will it be the next big drop?
Will kids see the metaphor?
Or will the movie be a bore?
This film could really be a mess,
UNLESS…

Source: Variety

You Might Also Be Interested In:

SDCC ‘09: Wanted 2 Update

Jacob Waldman — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 18:27:14 +0000

Ok, so if you’ve been keeping abreast of our coverage of the 2009 San Diego Comic-Con, which I’m sure you have, then you know that our boys have been out there running themselves ragged, attending quorums and panels, asking the hard hitting questions.

Well during the SDCC the subject of Wanted 2 came up. It seems that Mark Millar, the mind behind Wanted, is getting a bit ahead of himself; he told Coming Soon during a conversation about Kick-Ass that production for the sequel, set to star James MacAvoy again, will begin in eight weeks?

That sounded fishy to the guys over at Coming Soon, so they went over Millar’s head to Timur Bekmambetov, the director of the Wanted and its sequel, who told them that Millar, rather than presenting the facts, may just have been playing the provocateur. Bekmambetov adjusted Millar’s comment, saying that pre-production on Wanted 2 will most likely begin in eight weeks, a process that could take several months.

Mark Millar

Timur Bekmambetov

Chalk this up to Millar’s excitement over the sequel. If you’ve read his comic miniseries, the source material for the movies, then you know that the first film departed rather broadly from the original text. So is the coming sequel going to be an adaptation of the comic, an extension of the movie’s version of the comic, or some amalgamation of the two? And, can they really resurrect Angelina Jolie’s character?

Either way, if the sequel can repeat the success of the first ($75 million, earned $341.4 million worldwide in theaters), it shouldn’t be too much of an issue. And regardless of how much we question its potential, Millar’s comments on his website demonstrate his confidence in the project: “We’ll see…but everyone knows this is going to make a LOT of dough.” A little healthy self confidence never hurt anyone right? Maybe that’s why Millar’s IMDB page already indicates a Wanted 3 in the works.

Source: Coming Soon, Movie Moron

You Might Also Be Interested In:

G.I. Joe Keeps Sommers Around For The Sequel

Jacob Waldman — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 15:46:34 +0000

At a junket in Australia hosted by the native press outlet, Jabba, when asked about the word going around the water cooler (read: the internet), Steven Sommers quickly smothered the flaming rumor that he had been canned from G.I. Joe and that the film was being re-edited due to poor testing and flaccid online response.

“I have final cut, it was actually a surprise because I was in the editing room and I got a phone call from a friend checking if I had been fired and replaced, so I just kept editing. That’s what’s crazy about the internet because I have final cut and they couldn’t throw me off if they wanted and clearly when you see the movie you’ll realize how silly that was. Someone said ‘It was the worst testing movie in Paramount’s history’ that’s crap! When you see the movie you’ll know it’s false. It is discouraging though. If you took two seconds to look into it not only do I have final cut but as a director if I didn’t have final cut, you’d have to really screw up a movie to get fired because once a director gets fired from a project the stigma attached to that movie… you’re just dead.”

Allow me to translate: “No f-ing way. As if. Whatever.” Sommers seems to have his head screwed on squarely enough to realize that while it doesn’t take much to start a rumor, it takes a lot of work to overcome one, even a false one. Reinforcing his confidence in the movie, and thereby the public’s, Sommers goes on to reveal that not only will this movie prevail over canard, so will its sequel: Sommers revealed at the junket that the movie get a sequel, and that all the players are locked in to reprise their roles for next summer.

What does this tell us? Cobra Commander will not be defeated? Perhaps Storm Shadow will flip flop and cause enough commotion to warrant a sequel. Maybe the sequel will flesh out Destro’s love for the Baroness and be a romantic comedy starring Matthew McConaughey? Or maybe we could go old skool and really mix it up: G.I. Joe vs. The Transformers vs. Predator (or the Terminator, or Aliens, whatever). I’d be up for all of those, especially the last. Regardless, any plot pieces left dangling shouldn’t leave the audience with any unresolved tension; rest assured, they will be answered eventually.

So one person says something that’s deliciously incendiary, and it takes off, out of control, like a North Korean missile. Before you know it, someone hates someone, or slept with someone’s dog, or is fighting with the Pope; rumors know no bounds. That’s why its important to deep-six any sparks before they turn into wildfires. Thanks to Sommers for posting this little clip on his website, actively dispelling any rumors that the movie will suck, and giving us a taste of what looks to be a fly-by-the-seat-of-your-Delta-6 Accelerator-Suits flick with plenty to offer the original G.I. Joe fans, and enough to keep the attention of the new ones.

I don’t know about you guys, but I like to keep an open mind. People will say whatever they want, but it’s up to the audience to listen or not. I choose not, at this juncture, and will see the movie regardless of what will or will not be said. In fact, not only will I see the movie, I’ve already begun planning my costume:

Like this only less bad ass; I could never be Storm Shadow, perhaps I’ll be Light Drizzle Shadow.

So what do you think? Are there enough die-hard Joe fans out there to overcome this speculation, or will Sommers’ G.I. Joe be felled by the Rumor Monster (not to be confused with Rumor Willis)? I say GO JOE! And now you know…

Source: LatinoReview

You Might Also Be Interested In:

Iron Man 2: It’s a Wrap!

Jacob Waldman — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 16:26:52 +0000

Those of you waiting with bated breath for the return of Ol’ Shellhead (a.k.a. Iron Man) your hours of white-knuckled anticipation will soon be coming to an end. After 72 days of intensive shooting, Marvel Studios producer Kevin Feige announced the wrap of principle photography on Iron Man 2 with a statement to Marvel.com:

Shooting ‘Iron Man 2′ was a fantastic experience and we couldn’t be happier. Although there were many challenges in making this film, having Jon Favreau, Robert Downey, Gwyneth Paltrow and almost the entire crew from the first film back on board, allowed us to hit the ground running as everyone was instantly familiar with each other from day one. This dynamic allowed us to get done what we needed on a day to day basis and was a big factor in why we finished slightly ahead of schedule. Scarlett Johansson, Mickey Rourke, Sam Rockwell and especially Don Cheadle all stepped right in and meshed well with our returning cast.”

Feige doesn’t touch on anything we don’t already know or can’t intuit, and he reassuringly alludes to the chemistry within the cast that made Iron Man numero uno flow so well. His mention of the ease with which the new cast members assimilated into the film inspires confidence that this highly-anticipated sequel can repeat the knock-down, drag-out awesomeness that the first one delivered – especially since there are a few additions to the cast who need to demonstrate to a VERY critical fan-base that they can hold their own in the on-screen superhero genre.

Don Cheadle makes his comic book debut as the new Col. James ‘Rhodey’ Rhodes, replacing Terrence Howard, a move that upset Howard, but hopefully won’t upset the continuity between films. Not much concern here, as Cheadle has repeatedly demonstrated that he is a diverse and dynamic performer with a wide range of ability. As an actor, I’m sure it’s difficult to step into a role previously established (and well received) by a peer and still attempt to retain the spirit of the character, bring your own twist, and please the audience all at the same time.

The cinematic resumes of new villains Mickey Rourke (Whiplash) and Sam Rockwell (Justin Hammer) both inspire confidence that these actors can handle their parts in the upcoming sequel (Rockwell was reportedly on the short list of actors to play Stark originally). So there’s little concern that their parts will be fumbled for lack of experience or skill.

However, the casting of Scarlett Johansson as Black Widow/Natasha Romanoff could be cause for some hesitation. While some questioned whether she was fit for the role, follow-up reports by SR regarding her fitness routine quickly put the kibosh on that rumor. But is Johansson really “fit” for this role? Her last foray into the genre as Silken Floss in The Spirit met with some criticisms (to say the least), and her big-screen history doesn’t speak well to her action/adventure prowess (anyone else see Michael Bay’s The Island? Yeah, I try to forget that I did too…). There’s no question that her killer curves (pun intended) will make her one sexy leather-clad assassin, but will this be enough to distract the audience from what could be another canned Johansson performance?

The only thing Feige neglected to mention was the retention of a vital supporting character, Leslie Bibb’s reporter, Christine Everhart, who famously harassed (and bedded) Robert Downey Jr.’s Tony Stark in the first installment. I can’t help but wonder whether Rockwell’s casting had anything to do with Bibb, as they’ve been reportedly dating for some time now. Regardless, I’m sure Rockwell is happy to work with his woman, and I know I’m happy to see her on the big screen again…and again…and again…

Feige wrapped up his statement with some words about his and the fans’ expectations for Iron Man 2, and the pressures due to those:

“What’s more difficult in shooting a sequel is that expectations are much higher for this film and we really want to top what we did on the first film. Every day involved working extremely hard in order to improve upon what we did on the first film.”

Let’s hope that in producing this new film, the team behind it didn’t commit the cardinal sin of “sequeling,” which is basically just increasing the amount of what tested so well with audiences previously, usually at the expense of character development and plot (Transformers 2, anyone?). A better film is not necessarily a film with more explosions, or more flying Robert Downey, Jr., but one that continues to chronicle Tony Stark’s adventure as Iron Man in a fresh, exciting way.

The only thing left now is post-production on Iron Man 2, which should be quite an undertaking. I’m sure the team behind the magic will have something appetizing ready for the 2009 San Diego Comic-Con next week, just as they did at Comic-Con ’07 prior to first. I can’t wait.

Iron Man 2 hits theaters on May 7, 2010.

Source: Marvel & The New York Post

You Might Also Be Interested In:

See Toy Story 1 & 2 In 3D!

Jacob Waldman — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 15:50:09 +0000

In a not-so-shocking breaking story, Disney has announced that it is going to continue to do what it does best: rework old classics, re-release them, and re-make a boat-load of money. Only this go-round, Disney/Pixar will be taking Toy Story and Toy Story 2 and re-releasing both films in THREE DIMENSIONS!

Come October 2nd, Disney/Pixar has scheduled a short-run release of the Toy Story films as a double feature. For two weeks only (and then surely on Blu-Ray as a quintuple disk package with life-sized plush toys included) the films will play in theaters to teams of screaming ten-year-olds, and those who were ten when the originals were released but are now… Twenty-five… Whoa.

As stated, the Toy Story 3D double feature is set for release in the U.S. on October 2nd. However, the films will premiere September 2-23, 2009, at the 66th Venice Film Festival, according to Variety.

This may look like another attempt at global domination by Disney, but in actuality, the films’ release appear to be merely harbingers of things to come; a move to drum up some chatter about the upcoming release of the third installment in the Toy Story series, the aptly and creatively named Toy Story 3. Scheduled to debut in the summer of 2010, the third installment will be directed by Lee Unkrich, who has worked on the previous two films first as an editor, then as a co-director – Toy Story 3 will also retain the voice talents of Tom Hanks and Tim Allen as leads Woody and Buzz Lightyear, respectively.

Its difficult to justify paying what could be over $25 a ticket for films that you can purchase used and still simulate the 3D experience by sitting too close to your TV. But with Pixar behind the wheel, it’s safe to say this re-release will probably have a few tricks up its sleeve that will prove to make this four-and-a-half-hour moviegoing experience worth it. However, at this point, little is known about any special features of the event.

It does seem kinda silly to go see a movie that’s only 15-years-old for a few gimicky additions like 3D broomsticks in the eye, or toys flying offscreen into the theater. But between you and me: I’m actually the guy already standing in line, waiting for opening night tickets. See you there.

I'm such a big Toy Story fan, Pixar gave me my own promo poster.

Sources:Variety & Collider

You Might Also Be Interested In:

Depp to Play Martin…or is it Sinatra?

Jacob Waldman — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 17:59:52 +0000

Daughter of famed crooner Dean Martin, Deana Martin, recently publicly revealed that she LIKE likes Johnny Depp as a candidate to play the role of her father in a Dean Martin biopic (just ignore the whole Electra Complex thing):

“[Depp] is a tremendous actor, he has that charm, that swagger, and the resemblance of my father is there” Martin said. “I’m sure he would do the role justice!”

Its difficult to discern from her comment whether she’s expressing her desire to marry Depp and have lots and lots of babies, or whether she’s actually involved in casting. As of right now, Martin has no confirmed role in production; she’s merely expressing her number one pick for the role. However, though her involvement is in question, The Examiner reveals that this latest attempt at a Dean Martin biopic has already been penned by Bonnie Hunt and is currently under the control of Joe Mantegna.

This is not the first time Martin’s life has been slated to celluloid. Previous attempts include one by Martin Scorsese, dubbed Dino (the singer, not the pet dinosaur), which was written by Nicholas Pileggi (Casino, Ocean’s Eleven). The film, which has since lost steam, was set to star Tom Hanks as Martin (really? I mean seriously, really?). However, Scorsese has not given up hopes of producing a Rat Pack-related film; he’s recently been tied to a Frank Sinatra biopic that is rumored to be starring, you guessed it, Johnny Depp. Does Depp have the chops to play the entire Rat Pack? How about all in the same film? Peter Lawford, Sinatra, and Martin shouldn’t be too much of a stretch – but Sammy Davis, Jr.? Should make for some interesting press.

Seriously though, how will Depp portray Martin? Perhaps it’ll be something of a cleaner, more placid Jack Sparrow? Their swaggers are about equal; just take that Keith Richards thing from Pirates of the Caribbean and tune it down a bit. Toss in a healthy serving of Dillinger from Public Enemies, and I think we’ve got Dean Martin. And this isn’t Depp’s first foray into crooning, either. You’ll all surely remember (I know my wife does) Depp’s classic portrayal of Cry Baby Walker, the eponymous lead in the 1990 musical Cry Baby, in which he played a brooding and troubled greaser with a sensitive side known for shedding a single tear. Whaddya think? If this Martin project doesn’t cut the mustard, perhaps it can be repackaged as “Cry Baby 2: The Electric Boogaloo?” Either way, ladies, prepare to swoon.

Source: The Examiner via The Playlist

You Might Also Be Interested In:

Monty Python Reunion: The Bright Side of Life

Jacob Waldman — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 21:38:48 +0000

Well before the advent of the blog, there was Monty Python. Before the Internet, before video games, before the Walkman, before me, there was Monty Python.

In 1969, Monty Python debuted on BBC with six members: Graham Chapman, John Cleese, Terry Gilliam, Eric Idle, Terry Jones, and Michael Palin. In the 40 years since, they have released several films, including The Life of Brian, and The Quest for the Holy Grail, to name a few, not to mention albums, stage productions, and solo endeavors.

This year marks the 40th anniversary of the dawn of that new age of comedy. To commemorate this (slightly holy) event, The Independent reports the remaining members of the troupe, sans Cleese, will reunite at the Royal Albert Hall in in the Knightsbridge area of the City of Westminster, London, on October 23rd. Cleese will be unable to attend due to previous engagements, and Graham Chapman passed away in 1989 of spinal cancer.

The four members are set to star in a musical adaptation of their 1979 hit The Life of Brian, now dubbed Not the Messiah (He’s a Very Naughty Boy). Slated for cameos in the show alongside the performing members are a regulars of the original TV series, Monty Python’s Flying Circus, Carol Cleveland, and a former musical collaborator, Neil Innes. This is the second theatrical spinoff for Python; the first spinoff was the Broadway hit Spamalot, which was derived from Holy Grail and written by Eric Idle, who co-wrote Not the Messiah with composer John Du Prez. Idle describes Not the Messiah:

It ranges in reference from Handel, through a naughty Mozart duet, to the Festival of Nine Carols, Bob Dylan, and the classic finale Always Look On The Bright Side of Life.

This is the first appearance for the performing members of the troupe since 2002 (once again, sans Cleese) when they performed at the George Harrison memorial concert.

Set to be released in the U.S. (as a consolation commemoration for missing the live show) a six-part documentary called Monty Python: Almost the Truth (The Lawyer’s Cut) is on its way to being screened, with a DVD release to follow afterward.

For those those of you who can’t make it to London, or can’t afford a ticket (which can cost as much as £140.00 before they hit ebay), take some solace from the last phrase of Python’s famous song, “Always Look on the Bright Side of Life”:

Life’s a piece of s@#t
When you look at it
Life’s a laugh and death’s a joke, it’s true.
You’ll see it’s all a show
Keep ‘em laughing as you go
Just remember that the last laugh is on you.

Truer words…

Source: Cinematical

You Might Also Be Interested In:

Jack Ryan, Meet the New You: George Clooney

Jacob Waldman — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 18:18:03 +0000

[UPDATE: It now appears that Jack Ryan will get the reboot treatment see the end of the article for details.]

Let’s throw another pancake on the Jack Ryan flapjack stack, shall we? First we had a Baldwin (The Hunt for Red October), then we had Indiana Jones (Patriot Games, Clear And Present Danger), then we had Ben Affleck (The Sum of All Fears), and after that one, the trail ended, and rightfully so.

But recently, the Jack Ryan Rumor Mill has been stirring again, producing some interesting pulp about a certain man-hunk taking over the role for the rumored next Jack Ryan film.

Last year, Screen Rant reported that Ryan Gosling was being considered for the role of Jack Ryan, a rumor confirmed by the director of two Jack Ryan films, Philip Noyce. What’s more, Noyce pointed out that not only will he not be involved with the next Jack Ryan film, the character’s creator, Tom Clancy, won’t be either.

It seems Paramount owns the rights to the character now – and while no official Jack Ryan plot, script, or anything resembling a movie has come about, Noyce did hint at the possibility that a project formerly under his control that has since been handed over to Antoine Fuqua (Training Day), By Any Means Necessary, could be retooled as a Jack Ryan vehicle.

Paramount eventually sent the Gosling idea packing and considered their options. For awhile James Franco and Sam Raimi were allegedly being considered as lead and director, respectively. Raimi has since signed on to Spider-Man 4, so that seems unlikely, and Franco’s involvement was never confirmed and hasn’t been rumored since. So Paramount has moved on to bigger and better…and handsomer! The Daily Beast’s Kim Masters reported recently that Paramount is considering George Clooney for the next Jack Ryan film, whenever and whatever that may be. According to Masters: “A source says [Clooney] expressed interest in playing Jack Ryan…”

I also would like to express my interest in the role, though I suspect it will not receive an equal amount of press. I wonder why?

Will Clooney join the League of Jack Ryans?

But is Clooney the right man? If you’re familiar with the Jack Ryan novels, you know that the character is an injured-Navy-man-turned-brainiac/family man, who has a rather keen knack for being pulled into political pickles. Now recall the George Clooney of O Brother Where Art Thou? or Leatherheads – or think back to Michael Clayton. And somewhere in the middle there’s the Ocean’s 12 debacle. None of the characters in Clooney’s repertoire seem suited for the role of brainiac-cum-hero; IMO, Clooney lacks that reluctant-hero innocence that makes Ryan a character the masses can identify with.

Now, that’s not to say that Clooney’s performances haven’t surprised before – I’m just saying that Clooney can be on the list, but maybe he shouldn’t BE the list of potential Jack Ryans. Moreover, I appreciate Clooney’s seeming recognition that it might be time to dive into a project with a bit more box office potential, so good idea, Mr. Clooney, but perhaps poor execution. Although, what do I know? Clooney could do for Ryan what Daniel Craig has done for Bond (I don’t mean make a convoluted sequel with no plot, rather I mean revive the series).

It seems like a convenient coincidence that as Clooney is being considered for a role in a series with proven box office pull owned by Paramount, that Clooney’s production company, Smokehouse Productions, is leaving Warner Bros and working out an exclusive two-year deal with Sony Pictures. But then: I don’t believe in coincidences. This all falls (on the movie business timeline) around the same hash mark as rumors of a merger between Paramount and Sony are beginning to surface on the internet (See Latino Review or Deadline Hollywood). Perhaps Clooney knows something we don’t?

UPDATE: Slash Film has reminded us that writer Hossein Aimini (The Four Feathers) was asked in December to pen a reboot of the Jack Ryan franchise for Paramount – a script independent of Tom Clancy’s novels. That reboot appears to be the direction Paramount is going with the property, throwing into question whether Clooney will in fact be the candidate for the role of a much-younger Ryan (not likely). We’ll keep you updated as we hear more.

Tell you what: if my last venture had done as well as the most recent Jack Ryan incarnation (The Sum of All Fears), I’d be spooked enough to question whether or not I want to revisit the lineage, so Paramount can’t be blamed for its hesitation. Good for them for slaving over the important decision of who should be the next Jack Ryan. And while their perseverance can’t be faulted, perhaps their casting decisions need a little work. What do you think?

Source: Slash Film

Update Source: Slash Film

You Might Also Be Interested In:

300 Sequel…A Zombie Flick?

Jacob Waldman — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 15:56:54 +0000

Marc Canton, the producer of 300, had a conversation with MTV Splash Page’s Larry Carroll recently, where he confirmed speculation that a sequel to 300 is gaining momentum. Reiterating comments previously made by 300 director Zack Snyder, Canton confirmed that Frank Miller, the author behind the graphic novel upon which the movie was based, is currently working on a sequel graphic novel that will later be transposed into a screenplay.

Commenting on what must surely be a complicated process (bringing to fruition a film that has few remaining leading characters), Canton says that Snyder and Miller have already agreed upon the story’s setting. However, in previous public statements, Snyder has said that he will have no hand in the creation of the new story in novel form; that will be left entirely up to Miller.

One would think the situation is pretty straightforward: if most or all of the original leading characters from 300 were killed off, the likelihood of a sequel seems slim. Apparently no one gave Canton that memo. Carroll asked how the minds behind the masterpiece plan on overcoming this rather large roadblock to the sequel. Here what Canton had to say:

Things are always looking good with ‘300,’ it’s a blessing and a gift…There’s a new Blu-Ray coming out all over again shortly, so that’s great. It’s like the gift that never stops giving.

Canton seems to see the pragmatic side of the argument: the potential for a 300 sequel to be another financial wellspring like the original. But what of the character shortage that seems to be standing between the film in theory and the film in reality? Carroll revealed to Splash Page that Gerard Butler’s character, King Leonidas, COULD be brought back from the dead, even though the first film ends with the recounting of his death by David Wenham’s Dilios. Said Canton: “Never assume anything; never assume anything…”

Producer Marc Canton

A text book answer from the Hollywood Producer School of Vagueness. What is it we are NOT to assume, exactly? That dead characters are going to stay dead? Because that would be presumptuous…

Let’s hope that Canton’s “gift that never stops giving” can deliver a second time. Thankfully, with minds behind the project like Snyder and Miller, focused more on the creative aspect, the film has the potential to repeat the success of the original and continue to give Canton what he really want$.

How do you think they should approach the 300 sequel? Should they try an bring back King Leonidas?

Source: MTV Splash Page

You Might Also Be Interested In:

First Look: Kevin Smith’s ‘A Couple of Dicks’

Jacob Waldman — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 20:12:52 +0000

Mallrats, Clerks, Chasing Amy, Dogma, blah, blah, blah. Yet there’s a dark little place in my heart that secretly loves Jersey Girl. There, I said it. So it shouldn’t come as a surprise that I am intrigued (and a little tickled) by the prospect of the new Kevin Smith film, A Couple of Dicks.

I hesitate to prematurely pass judgment on the film based merely on its pedigree, but given Smith’s track record, and the cast of Dicks, February of 2010 has more to look forward to than Martin Luther King, groundhogs, and chocolate hearts.

ComingSoon has revealed the latest photos from A Couple of Dicks, which currently filming in Brooklyn. These new production pictures feature the film’s stars, Bruce Willis and Tracy Morgan, as well as one of the newest additions to the cast, Michelle Trachtenberg (Harriet the Spy, Eurotrip). Also featured in the movie are Jason Lee, Kevin Pollack, Sean William Scott, Adam Brody and comedian Jim Norton. Smith has been slated to direct the film, though unlike previous projects he is not the writer; that credit goes to Heist creators (and brothers) Mark and Robb Cullen.

This movie really takes Willis outside his comfort zone as an actor and gives him a real challenge (sarcasm alert!). He’ll be playing a cop forced to battle with gangsters and money launderers, while searching for a Mexican beauty and a stolen baseball card. Testing his acting chops right along side Willis, Morgan plays his partner in crime-fighting, and reprises a role he is familiar with – the comic relief:

Click on either image for a hi res version

Head to Coming Soon for a full gallery of pics.

Kevin Smith is no stranger to actors portraying similar characters across multiple films. Those of us that made it through the 90s unscathed remember a few great things that came out of an otherwise mundane decade: Monica Lewinsky, Dolly the sheep, Dolly the sheep, the death of Princess Diana, and the slow, welcome, demise of the mullet. But the Hyper-Color decade wasn’t all bad. We got introduced to Jay, Silent Bob, Jason Lee, and various characters that all got reprised movie after movie.

Not only that, but Smith gave us Ben Affleck, Matt Damon, and Alanis Morissette as God! So he should have no problem with Willis being cast as his usual brooding and cynical cop/terrorist/ghost/hero character, or Tracy Morgan as, well, Tracy Morgan. This is also yet another shot at the comedy target for Willis – a bull’s eye he’s been failing trying to hit for some time now. But watching Bruce Willis in comedies has always been a bit like being screwed in a very uncomfortable place (like the back seat of a Volkswagen?): you’re not happy it’s happening, and when it’s over, you’re left with bad taste in your mouth…or so I’ve heard.

Given its cast of characters and its director, it shouldn’t be too difficult for A Couple of Dicks to hit its mark. However, come February 2010, don’t be surprised if you don’t see the actual words “A Couple of Dicks” up on the marquee; if Warner Bros. has its way, the film’s title might be overhauled with prudish sensibilities to something closer to “A Couple of Cops”. When asked about the title change, Filmdrunk reports Smith told friends “It’s like there’s a hole in my heart where some dicks used to be.”

A Couple of (Dicks? Cops?) is set for release on February 26, 2010.

Sources: Slash Film, Coming Soon & Film Drunk

You Might Also Be Interested In:

Revenge of the Fallen May Have Its Revenge…

Jacob Waldman — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 20:45:17 +0000

Say what they may (and they will) about the recently released Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, but I suspect they’d be singing a different tune if they were the ones laughing their way to the bank right now. In its first five days in IMAX theaters, Transformers 2 set a five-day record of $14.4 million – and that’s only 3.5% of the film’s total grosses as of June 28th: $390,240,609.

So if I were Michael Bay, it wouldn’t take too much for me to ignore the harsh criticism that Transformers 2 has garnered – but that hasn’t stopped anyone from trying to get his attention.

THE HIGH SALE OF LOW QUALITY

It didn’t take critics long to start slamming the movie for being juvenile, and what CNN called “…a grotesque exercise in hyperinflation”. Most nay-sayers were reading from the same script, touting the film as a non-stop, action packed, plotless, 147-minute Hasboro commercial that appeals only to 14 year-old boys and their fathers who once owned the toys.

And they’re right, in my opinion. Transformers 2 is everything the critics say it is, and more. It is a Shia La Beouf/Megan Fox vehicle; an opportunity to watch Fox run through the sand in slow motion while La Beouf stammers like some next generation Hugh Grant; and of course, it is a chance to see the toys of our youth have the life-giving breath of CGI breathed into them so they can bang around like junkyard porn.

This is why I was willing to be gouged at the box office for IMAX tickets. Watching this movie made my childhood playthings come to life. And watching Megan Fox bounce through sandy explosions in super slow-mo made another childhood plaything come to life…

Can't be mad about that...

I, like so many others (and unlike so many critics), were not surprised to find that this movie wasn’t likely to be awarded an Oscar, nor was it going to warrant attention from any elite festival. So I didn’t leave the theater yammering about how the last 45 minutes of the film were vapid and mind-numbing, or groaning about how Skids and Mudflap were such offensive stereotypes of African Americans that I’m henceforth boycotting Michael Bay and everything Chevrolet. Instead, I left grinning from ear to ear, having gotten exactly what I expected. In fact, had I sat through two hours of insightful dialogue and profound, globally relevant social commentary, I would have left rather peeved.

But the people have spoken. Currently trailing closely behind The Dark Knight’s record grosses, the new Transformers will have its Revenge on the critics as it thunders down the road toward some serious box-office records of its own. And with numbers like these, it’s amazing that those involved with the production are still unsure about a third installment.

You Might Also Be Interested In:

300 Sequel…301 or 300 Part 2?

Jacob Waldman — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 20:53:34 +0000

The perfect sequel contains new and old tricks that blend to make a new movie with characters and stories that genuinely deserved closure or extension. Zack Snyer, the man with the vision behind Watchmen and 300 understands this, and has the foresight to see when a sequel could strike gold, or when it will just strike bottom.

At a screening prior to the release of Watchmen: The Director’s Cut Blu-ray, Coming Soon reports, Snyder knew of no plans to make a sequel to Watchmen, and if a sequel were to manifest, he would not be a part of it. However, in regards to whether his previous film, 300, would be given a second installment, Snyder had good news to share with fans.

When released in 2007, 300 was the third biggest opening for an R-rated film ever. In the hopes of reproducing that success, Snyder is currently in talks with 300 creator Frank Miller about stepping up to the plate to take another swing for the fences in what’s going to be not quite a sequel, and not quite a prequel.

Few details are available this early in the process, but what is known is that the new movie would take place in the year between the epic death of Leonidas and leading up to Dilios’ (David Wenham) dramatic speech to the troops at the end of 300:

“And so my king died, and my brothers died, barely a year ago. Long I pondered my king’s cryptic talk of victory. Time has proven him wise, for from free Greek to free Greek, the word was spread that bold Leonidas and his three hundred, so far from home, laid down their lives. Not just for Sparta, but for all Greece and the promise this country holds. Now, here on this ragged patch of earth called Plataea, Xerxes’s hordes face obliteration!”

Snyder hopes to preserve the aesthetic of the first movie, but says that the second will be bigger, with more epic landscapes of Greece, including Athens and the Aegean. Commenting on the technology used in the production of 300, Snyder said “The tech we used…was not a revolution. It’s basically what the weatherman has.” This same technology, he added, will once again be used during the making of the new installment, and that little will change when it comes to effects.

The 300 ‘follow-up’ is currently untitled, probably due to the fact that Miller is still penning the next installment of the graphic novel. Snyder has said that he will have no hand in the new graphic novel, that it will be solely a creation of Miller’s, and only when it is complete will a script be derived from it.

As for casting, Wenham’s one-eyed Dilios deserves a larger part in the second go-round, though there is no mention of the role on his IMDB page (though it is on Snyder’s). Additionally, I wouldn’t mind seeing more of Lena Heady’s character, Queen Gorgo, but those are just the musings of the horny adolescent within. With all the slow-motion shots in that movie, it’s a shame we didn’t get more of her walking through the pillared halls of Sparta.

The risk in sequels is teetering on that fine line between producing and reproducing. A successful sequel takes all the old ingredients that made the first installment great and adds new additions that can hold the-incredible-shrinking-attention-span of modern audiences. Too much of the old runs the risk of over-doing it and poorly reproducing the precursor using the same old tricks (any of The Matrix follow-ups); or under doing it, and all you’ve got is a new movie with old characters – a potentially poor fit. So, to Hollywood: please, unless a sequel is justified by an unfinished story, or a surviving villain, get out while you’re on top.

Only time will tell for certain whether we see another 300. But if we do, Snyder assures us, “It’s going to be the same way, but on crazier steroids.”

Source: Coming Soon via Ain’t It Cool News

You Might Also Be Interested In:

SR Picks: Futuristic Movie Timeline

Jacob Waldman — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 22:03:05 +0000

Everyone knows the best way to sell the audience on the veracity of your own nonsense is to accompany it with a graph. A graph demonstrates your authority, your intelligence, your organization, your analytical skills, and your mad Excel skillz; and most of the time, it need not pertain to the what’s going on.

Case in point: Dan Meth, the creative visionary behind Toy Video, demonstrates his the authority and mad skillz with the latest installment in his Pop Culture Charts series, Futuristic Movie Timeline – an analysis of the year in which classic sci-fi movies take place and their year of release, all in chronological plot order. Meth plots these films like some modern-day Nostradamus who sees the fate of humanity at 24 frames-per-second through a magic camera lens.

Take a look at the chart:

Click for larger version

If fortune be told correctly, right about now we should be capable of a few things: time travel, body snatching, mind transfer, and taking Mick Jagger seriously as some time traveling techno-genius pirate. And the future has much to offer! In the next decade we can expect to see the advent of time travel, the increased popularity of full-contact rollerskating, the mechanization of our police forces, and the reanimation of Sylvester Stallone.

However, what Meth chooses not to include are remakes of the originals, and we thank him for sparing us the embarrassment modern cinema has inflicted upon the past classics. You’ll only find Planet of the Apes on there once, sans Marky Mark, and we’ll never find out if Snake Plissken escapes from L.A., cuz that ain’t on there either. As well, the remake of Soylent Green in the works for 2012 hasn’t made it on yet but we’ll wait on that to pass judgment.

Regardless of how far or how quickly technology advances in the next decade, you’ll have a hard time convincing me of Mick Jagger’s technical prowess or sneaking human flesh into my diet. But one thing I’m sure of is Dan Meth’s ability to paint a picture with a palette of irony and wit. Bravo.

Source: Dan Meth

You Might Also Be Interested In: