After months of speculation, rumors, and Sony beating around the proverbial bush, Tobey Maguire's replacement as Spider-Man has been announced.
Many names were kicked around. Aaron Johnson ("Kick-Ass"), Jaime Bell ("Billy Elliot") and Josh Hutcherson ("Journey to the Center of the Earth") were the popular choices by Sony, where Logan Lerman ("Percy Jackson and the Olympian: The Lightnigh Thief") was the most popular choice among fans of the series -- though definitely not my first choice...or second for that matter.
And now we have a new confirmed Peter Parker! And it's...Andrew Garfield. And the world all went...who the fuck is Andrew Garfield?!?
I will admit I had to look it up too, though the name seemed vaguely familiar. Upon looking him up (God I love IMDB), I realized that I should have known him already. Why? Because he was in my favorite movie last year, "The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus"! And he was good. Shockingly good. Definitely one of the finer performances that year.
So, do I think Andrew Garfield is the perfect choice? Well, maybe not perfect. I would have loved to see Jaime Bell kick a little ass in the Spidey suit. And he could have brought an angsty side to Peter Parker, seeing that Bell did excellent work in "Dear Wendy" and "The Chumscrubber". However, Garfield has a lot to offer the role of Spider-Man, and so I welcome him. It makes me more curious to see his next film first though -- the Facebook movie "The Social Network", which also stars Jesse Eisenberg and Justin Timberlake.
Does this mean I'm totally going to endorse the new "Spider-Man" reboot? Eh...not entirely. Though they cast a really good actor to fill those red booties and the rumored villain is The LIzard, which would be really cool, the director, Marc Webb, does not have my full endorsement.
Who is Marc Webb? Still not a household name yet, Webb directed last year's indie darling "(500) Days of Summer)". First of all, this movie wasn't that good. It tried to be the perfect blend of "Memento" and "Annie Hall", but failed major at both attempts. Second of all, this is supposed to be a gritty reboot in the vein of "Batman Begins". How gritty can this film be when the reigns of the film are now in the hands of a guy who's real only film credit is a romantic comedy?
But hey, I'm willing to give it a shot. I've been wrong before about directors in the past, so I'm willing to admit I could be wrong here. Only time will tell.
Friday, July 2, 2010
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Soapbox Commentary: July 16th is the "Inception" of Summer
Anyone who hasn't been living under a rock or frozen in a cryogenic chamber to beat death should know about a little movie called "Inception". Let me be frank here. This movie will rock. This movie already DOES rock. Watch the trailers online and the ads on TV and tell me this movie will suck. You can't do it because you know it will rock. Hard.
I decided to be a real geek, and look up the word inception in the dictionary. Here's what I got...
Inception (noun): an act, process, or instance of being; commencement.
How about that. "Commencement". How appropriate that the title of the movie that will more than likely rock the Summer blockbuster season means "to be" and "commencement" at the same time. Because "Inception" is the movie everyone wants to see right now. All the studios knew to get their movies out now before going up against the speeding freight train as "Inception". Box Office Mojo reported on their site the results of a poll conducted recently about what movie goers wanted to see this July. It came as no surprise to me that more than 50% of the poll participants voted for "Inception".
Why do you think that is? Here's why I think it is...
1. It's Christopher Nolan, dammit!
Do you need any other reason? It's Christopher Nolan! He changed the comic book movie and conventional filmmaking with one film for eternity. He could take a cue from Rick James' handbook and go around shouting "I'm Chris Nolan, bitch!" and no one would mind.
Look. He changed the face of the thriller with "Memento". He managed to get Al Pacino, Robin Willians, AND Hilary Swank together on the same film on his first Hollywood outing with "Insomnia". He brought the Caped Crusader back from Critical and Box Office Hell with "Batman Begins". He made audiences do a double take( and buried what seemed to be the copycat movie "The Illusionist") with "The Prestige". And last year, he demolished all that stood in opposition of him with the $500+ million-making "The Dark Knight", giving him many box-office records that have still yet to be broken and the second highest grossing movie of all-time (third highest if you actually consider "Avatar" a movie and not a steaming pile of vomit and melted Smurf).
Warner Brothers doesn't fuck around with amateurs, so, when you do a film for them, you take your orders and don't back talk. When dealing with Christopher Nolan, however, Warner Brothers has given him everything he has asked for, knowing full well he will make them a hit. Looking at the over-the-top elaborate sets used in "Inception" should be an indication that Warner Brothers knows to let Nolan do his thing.
2. A cast that could only be dreamed of...
Anyone who has seen a Nolan film since 2002's "Insomnia" knows he can draw in the best cast possible. But for "Inception"? This is the ensemble to end all ensembles!
The cast list is, as follows (but not limited to)...
Leonardo DiCaprio, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Ellen Page, Tom Hardy, Ken Watanabe, Cillian Murphey, Tom Berenger, Marion Cotillard, Pete Postlethwaite, Michael Caine, and Lukas Haas.
6 Academy Award nominated performers, including 2 winners. Look at this cast, my friends. Anyone who wants to get an early edge on this year's office betting pools should start here and put down some cash on "Inception" winning the Screen Actors Guild Award for Best Ensemble in a Motion Picture. The cast alone has the aroma of Oscar gold, so who knows?
3. Everyone knows about this movie!
Making it's teaser trailer debut back in the Summer of 2009 in front of "Inglorious Basterds" and its full-length trailer debut on Christmas Day 2009 in front of "Sherlock Holmes" (at least that's what my trailer journal says), "Inception" is possibly the most advertised movie this Summer, and the most anticipated movie that's not part of a franchise. In fact, "Inception" marks the first time since his debut movie "Following" in 1998 where Christopher Nolan has written and directed a movie not based on any previous source material, and the first movie since 2002's "Insomnia" that Nolan didn't co-write with his brother Jonathan Nolan or .
Warner Brothers has not skimped out on getting the word out on this movie, mainly because it's their biggest movie lined up until the first part of "Harry Potter and the Deatly Hallows" comes out in November. Until then, there will be consistent advertising on TV, on the pre-screen show in front of movies in certain theaters, and now in NYC, giant surreal posters on buildings.
Check them out at:
http://woodlandcreature.tumblr.com/post/751242864/cool-movie-ad-for-inception-at-23rd-and-park-i
http://a.yfrog.com/img683/3563/s4hq.jpg
What can I say? "Inception" just looks cool. Intriguing, action-packed, visually stunning, and, if anything like Nolan's past work, very emotional. But those are all the things that made "The Dark Knight" a success, so be expecting some great things.
Of course, I am only one man, and this is my opinion.
I decided to be a real geek, and look up the word inception in the dictionary. Here's what I got...
Inception (noun): an act, process, or instance of being; commencement.
How about that. "Commencement". How appropriate that the title of the movie that will more than likely rock the Summer blockbuster season means "to be" and "commencement" at the same time. Because "Inception" is the movie everyone wants to see right now. All the studios knew to get their movies out now before going up against the speeding freight train as "Inception". Box Office Mojo reported on their site the results of a poll conducted recently about what movie goers wanted to see this July. It came as no surprise to me that more than 50% of the poll participants voted for "Inception".
Why do you think that is? Here's why I think it is...
1. It's Christopher Nolan, dammit!
Do you need any other reason? It's Christopher Nolan! He changed the comic book movie and conventional filmmaking with one film for eternity. He could take a cue from Rick James' handbook and go around shouting "I'm Chris Nolan, bitch!" and no one would mind.
Look. He changed the face of the thriller with "Memento". He managed to get Al Pacino, Robin Willians, AND Hilary Swank together on the same film on his first Hollywood outing with "Insomnia". He brought the Caped Crusader back from Critical and Box Office Hell with "Batman Begins". He made audiences do a double take( and buried what seemed to be the copycat movie "The Illusionist") with "The Prestige". And last year, he demolished all that stood in opposition of him with the $500+ million-making "The Dark Knight", giving him many box-office records that have still yet to be broken and the second highest grossing movie of all-time (third highest if you actually consider "Avatar" a movie and not a steaming pile of vomit and melted Smurf).
Warner Brothers doesn't fuck around with amateurs, so, when you do a film for them, you take your orders and don't back talk. When dealing with Christopher Nolan, however, Warner Brothers has given him everything he has asked for, knowing full well he will make them a hit. Looking at the over-the-top elaborate sets used in "Inception" should be an indication that Warner Brothers knows to let Nolan do his thing.
2. A cast that could only be dreamed of...
Anyone who has seen a Nolan film since 2002's "Insomnia" knows he can draw in the best cast possible. But for "Inception"? This is the ensemble to end all ensembles!
The cast list is, as follows (but not limited to)...
Leonardo DiCaprio, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Ellen Page, Tom Hardy, Ken Watanabe, Cillian Murphey, Tom Berenger, Marion Cotillard, Pete Postlethwaite, Michael Caine, and Lukas Haas.
6 Academy Award nominated performers, including 2 winners. Look at this cast, my friends. Anyone who wants to get an early edge on this year's office betting pools should start here and put down some cash on "Inception" winning the Screen Actors Guild Award for Best Ensemble in a Motion Picture. The cast alone has the aroma of Oscar gold, so who knows?
3. Everyone knows about this movie!
Making it's teaser trailer debut back in the Summer of 2009 in front of "Inglorious Basterds" and its full-length trailer debut on Christmas Day 2009 in front of "Sherlock Holmes" (at least that's what my trailer journal says), "Inception" is possibly the most advertised movie this Summer, and the most anticipated movie that's not part of a franchise. In fact, "Inception" marks the first time since his debut movie "Following" in 1998 where Christopher Nolan has written and directed a movie not based on any previous source material, and the first movie since 2002's "Insomnia" that Nolan didn't co-write with his brother Jonathan Nolan or .
Warner Brothers has not skimped out on getting the word out on this movie, mainly because it's their biggest movie lined up until the first part of "Harry Potter and the Deatly Hallows" comes out in November. Until then, there will be consistent advertising on TV, on the pre-screen show in front of movies in certain theaters, and now in NYC, giant surreal posters on buildings.
Check them out at:
http://woodlandcreature.tumblr.com/post/751242864/cool-movie-ad-for-inception-at-23rd-and-park-i
http://a.yfrog.com/img683/3563/s4hq.jpg
What can I say? "Inception" just looks cool. Intriguing, action-packed, visually stunning, and, if anything like Nolan's past work, very emotional. But those are all the things that made "The Dark Knight" a success, so be expecting some great things.
Of course, I am only one man, and this is my opinion.
Movie Review: "The A-Team"
Let's forget about the fact that this is another remake of a show or movie made back in the 80's in attempts to capitalize on the branding. Everyone bitched about. I've bitched about it plenty in conversations and my last blog. It's going to keep happening whether we want it to or not. Let's get over it.
There had to be something to bringing back "The A-Team" now. Shortly after the press release stating that this movie would be made, two other films were green-lit right after, bearing odd similarities and themes -- last April's "The Losers", which was a comic book adaptation, and this August's "The Expendable", Sylvester Stallone's new film which boasts an action all-star team like no other. While "The Losers" was quite entertaining, you have to give it up for the original, though, after hearing many disparaging remarks, my expectations were quite low. Perhaps that's what made this film so great.
The film opens up to Iraq War veterans Col. Hannibal Smith (Liam Neeson), Cpl Bosco "B.A." Baracus (former UFC fighter Quinton "Rampage" Jackson), Lt Templeton "Faceman" Peck (Bradley Cooper), and Captain "Howling Mad" Murdock ("District 9"'s Sharlto Copley) meeting in Mexico during a mission gone horribly wrong. 8 years and 80 missions later, they take the fall after a botched job to take back stolen mint printing plates goes awry, leaving their general dead, the man responsible for the botched mission (Brian Bloom, who co-wrote the script) at large.
In comes a man simply known as Lynch (Patrick Wilson), with a plan to break all four of them out of prison to clear their names once and for all. And who's going to stop them? Why, it's Peck's old flame from the CIA, Captain Charisa Sosa (Jessica Biel)! But finding out the truth about who's really pulling the strings is only leading to more questions as our A-Team plans for the impossible.
Director Joe Carnahan ("Smokin' Aces", "Narc"), who co-wrote the movie with Bloom (screenwriting debut) and writer Skip Woods ("X-Men Origins: Wolverine") swung for the fences with this one. Carnahan clearly has a knack for the ridiculous, and pulls it off with a flair of genius in the vain of "Die Hard 4". But where most films skip out on dialogue, Carnahan, Bloom, and Woods come equipped with snappy, comedic dialgoue to pace with the dark tone of the script.
However, aside from the incredible stunt work and special effects, the real gem of the movie is the cast. Neeson, Jackson, Cooper, and Copley work together so well, often playing off each other naturally, making the dialogue smooth, and never leaving a feeling of anything being ungenuine at all. Though Neeson and Cooper hold their own extremely well, Jackson and Copley steal the show entirely. Jackson gives a stellar debut here, and Copley, fresh off the heals of last year's "District 9", displays a surprising aptitude for comedy.
I'm sure if you dig hard enough, you can find plenty of plot holes in the script, and there really isn't much time spent on character development here. But if you're going to see this movie thinking about things like that, you're missing out on one kick-ass movie. I can't think of too many action films grounded completely in reality, but part of the reason why we go to movies is to escape from reality, isn't it? Sure, it's impossible to fly a tank by firing the cannon in certain directions. But isn't it cool to know someone thought "How cool would it be to try and fly a tank?" and then filmed it? Awesome.
FINAL VERDICT: Perhaps not a candidate for next year's Oscar race, "The A-Team" is still one wild ride that should not be missed. With laughs and thrills aplenty, this is definitely one plan that came together well.
There had to be something to bringing back "The A-Team" now. Shortly after the press release stating that this movie would be made, two other films were green-lit right after, bearing odd similarities and themes -- last April's "The Losers", which was a comic book adaptation, and this August's "The Expendable", Sylvester Stallone's new film which boasts an action all-star team like no other. While "The Losers" was quite entertaining, you have to give it up for the original, though, after hearing many disparaging remarks, my expectations were quite low. Perhaps that's what made this film so great.
The film opens up to Iraq War veterans Col. Hannibal Smith (Liam Neeson), Cpl Bosco "B.A." Baracus (former UFC fighter Quinton "Rampage" Jackson), Lt Templeton "Faceman" Peck (Bradley Cooper), and Captain "Howling Mad" Murdock ("District 9"'s Sharlto Copley) meeting in Mexico during a mission gone horribly wrong. 8 years and 80 missions later, they take the fall after a botched job to take back stolen mint printing plates goes awry, leaving their general dead, the man responsible for the botched mission (Brian Bloom, who co-wrote the script) at large.
In comes a man simply known as Lynch (Patrick Wilson), with a plan to break all four of them out of prison to clear their names once and for all. And who's going to stop them? Why, it's Peck's old flame from the CIA, Captain Charisa Sosa (Jessica Biel)! But finding out the truth about who's really pulling the strings is only leading to more questions as our A-Team plans for the impossible.
Director Joe Carnahan ("Smokin' Aces", "Narc"), who co-wrote the movie with Bloom (screenwriting debut) and writer Skip Woods ("X-Men Origins: Wolverine") swung for the fences with this one. Carnahan clearly has a knack for the ridiculous, and pulls it off with a flair of genius in the vain of "Die Hard 4". But where most films skip out on dialogue, Carnahan, Bloom, and Woods come equipped with snappy, comedic dialgoue to pace with the dark tone of the script.
However, aside from the incredible stunt work and special effects, the real gem of the movie is the cast. Neeson, Jackson, Cooper, and Copley work together so well, often playing off each other naturally, making the dialogue smooth, and never leaving a feeling of anything being ungenuine at all. Though Neeson and Cooper hold their own extremely well, Jackson and Copley steal the show entirely. Jackson gives a stellar debut here, and Copley, fresh off the heals of last year's "District 9", displays a surprising aptitude for comedy.
I'm sure if you dig hard enough, you can find plenty of plot holes in the script, and there really isn't much time spent on character development here. But if you're going to see this movie thinking about things like that, you're missing out on one kick-ass movie. I can't think of too many action films grounded completely in reality, but part of the reason why we go to movies is to escape from reality, isn't it? Sure, it's impossible to fly a tank by firing the cannon in certain directions. But isn't it cool to know someone thought "How cool would it be to try and fly a tank?" and then filmed it? Awesome.
FINAL VERDICT: Perhaps not a candidate for next year's Oscar race, "The A-Team" is still one wild ride that should not be missed. With laughs and thrills aplenty, this is definitely one plan that came together well.
Movie Review: "The Twilight Saga: Eclipse"
Perhaps it was a bit of a sellout to go see a movie I've been verbally bashing the hell out of since last December on its opening weekend. Or perhaps it was good foresight seeing that I'm the proud owner of a movie blog again, and some of my followers might be dying to know my opinion of such a film which has been garnering such press and faithful followers.
Whatever you decided to call it, I saw the movie, and the following is my opinion of it.
It's no secret that I've despised everything "Twilight" related since the first movie bowed in 2008. I have refused to read the books, and refused to take these movies too seriously. Yes, I will give them credit for being as successful as they are, breaking records, and raking in more dough than other (dare I say, better) franchises.
So there I found myself in the ticket-holders' line for "The Twilight Saga: Eclipse", one of 4 males among a sea of bubbly 18-twentysomething girls waiting to drool over Edward or Jacob (or both for all I know). Even before the title screen for Summit Entertainment was off the screen, the barrage of screaming girls coming through in louder stereo than the theater's THX began, and I began to regret my decision not to wait.
The film picks up pretty much where "New Moon" left off. Bella (Kristen Stewart) and Edward (Robert Pattinson) are in love, Jacob (Taylor Lautner) is pissed and brooding (which, ironically, I thought was a vampire's job), and all seems right with the world. That is, until, Victoria (Bryce Dallas Howard, taking over for Rachelle Lefevre due to "scheduling conflicts") decides to build and army to go after Bella and the Cullens once and for all. Add in Jacob's over-obsessive crushing on Bella and Edward's cryptic (pun is not intended) hesitancy to give Bella what she wants, it seems like death is the least of Bella's problems. [insert inevitable Muse song here]
All of this is all leading up to the big battle between good and evil, the big melee seen in the trailers that I can only imagine would look bad-ass on an IMAX screen. The road getting there, however, is a slow, arduous trek into screenwriting hell.
Taking the helm from "New Moon" director Chris Weitz ("The Golden Compass") and "Twilight" director Catherine Hardwicke ("Lords of Dogtown") is David Slade. Though he may be new blood to "The Twilight Saga", he is no stranger to vampire films, having done excellent work on 2007's "30 Days of Night". And Slade continues to do great work here as well, offering a grittier Forks than we had seen in the previous two films. However, no matter how great the cinematography is, it's still Melissa Rosenberg's pitiful excuse for a script that continues to plague this franchise's chances of being great rather than mediocre.
Now don't get me completely wrong here. The hype is true that this is the best movie in the "Twilight" series. But the big problem here is that it's not saying a whole hell of a lot. In terms of quality, the first two movies have set the bar alarmingly low. It's hard to blame Rosenberg's script entirely though. Stewart and Pattinson still fail to prove that (a) they can act their way out of a paper bag and (b) that they have any chemistry together at all. This is a story about eternal love. How am I supposed to be feeling that when neither of them seem to be in love at all? And Taylor Lautner seems to be losing acting talent every time he takes his shirt off. Where was the range he had in the original? Where is sweet likable Jacob? And why couldn't wardrobe give him at least one fucking shirt? And let's face it. If you can make Dakota Fanning look wooden, you know there's a problem.
Did I hate the film? No. At least this film had some merit. The final battle scene was a delight to watch. It was well-paced and choreographed like a masterpiece ballet of death and destruction. And, let's face it, even Joss Whedon woudln't be able to deny many of the female characters can kick a little undead ass. But one scene cannot make up for the hackneyed acting and rushed-through writing. If the series ended here, I would not be as disappointed. But the problem is that there's not only one but two more movies in the franchise, and David Slade will not be returning to direct either part of "Breaking Dawn". So what is there really to look forward to other than no more "Twilight"?
FINAL VERDICT: "The Twilight Saga: Eclipse" did not suck. Though calling it the best in the series is like saying someone is the sexiest person with leprosy. This film is guaranteed to satiate the tweens and the Twi-hards, as well as make an unfathomable amount of money. However, if you're looking for a movie with decent actors and a decent script, this is more than likely not your cup of O Positive.
Whatever you decided to call it, I saw the movie, and the following is my opinion of it.
It's no secret that I've despised everything "Twilight" related since the first movie bowed in 2008. I have refused to read the books, and refused to take these movies too seriously. Yes, I will give them credit for being as successful as they are, breaking records, and raking in more dough than other (dare I say, better) franchises.
So there I found myself in the ticket-holders' line for "The Twilight Saga: Eclipse", one of 4 males among a sea of bubbly 18-twentysomething girls waiting to drool over Edward or Jacob (or both for all I know). Even before the title screen for Summit Entertainment was off the screen, the barrage of screaming girls coming through in louder stereo than the theater's THX began, and I began to regret my decision not to wait.
The film picks up pretty much where "New Moon" left off. Bella (Kristen Stewart) and Edward (Robert Pattinson) are in love, Jacob (Taylor Lautner) is pissed and brooding (which, ironically, I thought was a vampire's job), and all seems right with the world. That is, until, Victoria (Bryce Dallas Howard, taking over for Rachelle Lefevre due to "scheduling conflicts") decides to build and army to go after Bella and the Cullens once and for all. Add in Jacob's over-obsessive crushing on Bella and Edward's cryptic (pun is not intended) hesitancy to give Bella what she wants, it seems like death is the least of Bella's problems. [insert inevitable Muse song here]
All of this is all leading up to the big battle between good and evil, the big melee seen in the trailers that I can only imagine would look bad-ass on an IMAX screen. The road getting there, however, is a slow, arduous trek into screenwriting hell.
Taking the helm from "New Moon" director Chris Weitz ("The Golden Compass") and "Twilight" director Catherine Hardwicke ("Lords of Dogtown") is David Slade. Though he may be new blood to "The Twilight Saga", he is no stranger to vampire films, having done excellent work on 2007's "30 Days of Night". And Slade continues to do great work here as well, offering a grittier Forks than we had seen in the previous two films. However, no matter how great the cinematography is, it's still Melissa Rosenberg's pitiful excuse for a script that continues to plague this franchise's chances of being great rather than mediocre.
Now don't get me completely wrong here. The hype is true that this is the best movie in the "Twilight" series. But the big problem here is that it's not saying a whole hell of a lot. In terms of quality, the first two movies have set the bar alarmingly low. It's hard to blame Rosenberg's script entirely though. Stewart and Pattinson still fail to prove that (a) they can act their way out of a paper bag and (b) that they have any chemistry together at all. This is a story about eternal love. How am I supposed to be feeling that when neither of them seem to be in love at all? And Taylor Lautner seems to be losing acting talent every time he takes his shirt off. Where was the range he had in the original? Where is sweet likable Jacob? And why couldn't wardrobe give him at least one fucking shirt? And let's face it. If you can make Dakota Fanning look wooden, you know there's a problem.
Did I hate the film? No. At least this film had some merit. The final battle scene was a delight to watch. It was well-paced and choreographed like a masterpiece ballet of death and destruction. And, let's face it, even Joss Whedon woudln't be able to deny many of the female characters can kick a little undead ass. But one scene cannot make up for the hackneyed acting and rushed-through writing. If the series ended here, I would not be as disappointed. But the problem is that there's not only one but two more movies in the franchise, and David Slade will not be returning to direct either part of "Breaking Dawn". So what is there really to look forward to other than no more "Twilight"?
FINAL VERDICT: "The Twilight Saga: Eclipse" did not suck. Though calling it the best in the series is like saying someone is the sexiest person with leprosy. This film is guaranteed to satiate the tweens and the Twi-hards, as well as make an unfathomable amount of money. However, if you're looking for a movie with decent actors and a decent script, this is more than likely not your cup of O Positive.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)