Though I'm reasonably ashamed to admit it, I'm a Sacha Baron Cohen fan. Even as disturbingly over-the-top as "Borat" and "Bruno" were, I can't help laughing thinking about them. Even as I'm writing this, I'm suppressing a wicked grin thinking about them.
Cohen's latest film "The Dictator" displays less of over-the-topic reality antics and focus on more of the story. Cohen (who once again serves as writer) plays General Aladeen, the dictator of fictional country Wadiyah. Aladeen has been planning a nuclear strike on America, but refuses to let the UN search his country for weapons of mass destruction. In an attempt to shut them up, Aladeen visits America where he plans to plan a giant "fuck you" on the UN. However, the plan goes awry when a Secret Service agent (played by John C. Reilly) with his own agenda captures Aladeen, cuts off his "sacred beard", and, after a botched assassination attempt, allows Aladeen to escape to the streets of New York City to fend for himself. Through connections made by a former political aide and a friendship with a vegan store clerk (Anna Faris), Aladeen plots to get back in the public eye before he loses his country to democracy.
Director Larry Charles (co-producer of "Seinfeld") and Cohen tone down the more subversive elements to "Bruno" and "Borat", such as the male frontal nudity and homosexual sex to bring a hilarious story of political mishaps to light. Focusing more on the story rather than pissing off unassuming Americans with reality-based toilet humor is what makes this film Cohen's best yet. Add in performances from Sir Ben Kingsley and Jason Mantzoukas (TV's "The League"), as well as a slew of celebrity cameos, and you get a delirious comedy you should be ashamed of laughing at, but, by the end, you just don't care.
MY TWO CENTS: "The Dictator" may be Sacha Baron Cohen-lite, but that's the ironic beauty of the film. It's about time someone in Hollywood realized less is more.
Monday, May 28, 2012
Movie Review: "Dark Shadows"
Remaking TV shows, old or current, is a game not even the best gamblers would play. Indeed, it's probably better to bet $10 million on 00 on the damn roulette tables in Vegas blind-folded on ten straight shots of Patron before thinking of dropping that kind of money (if not more) on a big-screen TV adaptation.
For every "Mission Impossible", you get one "Bewitched". For every "The A-Team", you get "The Honeymooners". For every "Sex in the City", you get...well, "Sex in the City 2".
With that said, any box office analyst who tries to tell me remaking cult classic vampire soap opera "Dark Shadows" wasn't a horrible risk, that analyst will be cordially invited to kiss my ass. Even with Depp/Burton branding and a hot new writer, not to mention a stellar cast, you still may have better odds playing craps with one dice. Luckily, the gamble is a winner this time around.
"Dark Shadows" has all the greatness of the original, and, because the producers aren't idiots, the same storyline as well ("Bewitched" producers, writers, and such, we're talking to you....assholes). Barnabas Collins (Johnny Depp), the sole heir to the Collins family fortune and canning business in Collinsport (the town his father founded in New England), to make a long story short, spurns the advances of the wrong witch -- namely Angelique Bouchard (Eva Green), the Collins family housekeeper. When Barnabas takes the hand of another woman, Angelique dispatches Barnabas's would-be wife, and turns Barnabas himself into a vampire. Once the townsfolk turns on him (at the hands of Angelique), they lock him in a coffin and bury him alive (or dead...living dead...whatever).
Fast-forward about 200 years later, Barnabas escapes his confines and discovers two shocking things: (1) The year is 1972, and his beloved Collinsport, and family business, is in shambles, and (2) his beloved Collinwood is now inhabited by his apparent relatives -- Elizabeth (Michelle Pfeiffer), Roger (Johnny Lee Miller), Carolyn (Chloe Grace Moritz), and David (Gulliver McGrath), as well as groundskeeper Willie Loomis (Jackie Earl Haley) and family therapist Dr. Julia Hoffman (Helena Bonham Carter). Finding his family estate and business in shambles, Barnabas vows to take the reigns once more and make people proud of the Collins name once more. However, he is faced with three huge distractions: (1) an ever-growing infatuation with the new family nanny Victoria Winters (Bella Heathcote), (2) Angelique, now a successful businesswoman who's been stealing business from the Collins family business, knows of Barnabas's return, and wants revenge...or his affections, and (3) his unquenchable thirst for blood.
Director Tim Burton brings the cult classic to life much in the style of "Sleepy Hollow" and "Sweeney Todd" with conservative light and clever use of (wait for it...) darkness and shadows. The true gem of the film is the amazing script written by Seth Grahame-Smith (author of "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies", as well as the author and subsequent screenwriter of "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter", due out this June). It's obvious Grahame-Smith is a fan of the original series, and proves it with his dark, twisted, often self-referential screenplay that makes even the most hardened fans rejoice.
Though ill-conceived timing is ruining the film's box office revenue (going against "The Avengers" being the biggest factor), "Dark Shadows" offers many laughs, thrills, and chills of a typical Burton film. Granted, I never watched the classic show, but, luckily for me, many of my friends (and my girlfriend) are, so I had a lot to base it on. There hasn't been a Tim Burton sequel since "Batman Returns", but this is one that clearly deserves it.
FINAL VERDICT: Stellar performances and a script and art direction true to the original source material, "Dark Shadows" is a vampire film that doesn't suck. Without the typical glam and glitz of a typical movie of its caliber (not to mention without glittery vampires), "Dark Shadows" gets down to the bloody business without draining your bloody patience.
For every "Mission Impossible", you get one "Bewitched". For every "The A-Team", you get "The Honeymooners". For every "Sex in the City", you get...well, "Sex in the City 2".
With that said, any box office analyst who tries to tell me remaking cult classic vampire soap opera "Dark Shadows" wasn't a horrible risk, that analyst will be cordially invited to kiss my ass. Even with Depp/Burton branding and a hot new writer, not to mention a stellar cast, you still may have better odds playing craps with one dice. Luckily, the gamble is a winner this time around.
"Dark Shadows" has all the greatness of the original, and, because the producers aren't idiots, the same storyline as well ("Bewitched" producers, writers, and such, we're talking to you....assholes). Barnabas Collins (Johnny Depp), the sole heir to the Collins family fortune and canning business in Collinsport (the town his father founded in New England), to make a long story short, spurns the advances of the wrong witch -- namely Angelique Bouchard (Eva Green), the Collins family housekeeper. When Barnabas takes the hand of another woman, Angelique dispatches Barnabas's would-be wife, and turns Barnabas himself into a vampire. Once the townsfolk turns on him (at the hands of Angelique), they lock him in a coffin and bury him alive (or dead...living dead...whatever).
Fast-forward about 200 years later, Barnabas escapes his confines and discovers two shocking things: (1) The year is 1972, and his beloved Collinsport, and family business, is in shambles, and (2) his beloved Collinwood is now inhabited by his apparent relatives -- Elizabeth (Michelle Pfeiffer), Roger (Johnny Lee Miller), Carolyn (Chloe Grace Moritz), and David (Gulliver McGrath), as well as groundskeeper Willie Loomis (Jackie Earl Haley) and family therapist Dr. Julia Hoffman (Helena Bonham Carter). Finding his family estate and business in shambles, Barnabas vows to take the reigns once more and make people proud of the Collins name once more. However, he is faced with three huge distractions: (1) an ever-growing infatuation with the new family nanny Victoria Winters (Bella Heathcote), (2) Angelique, now a successful businesswoman who's been stealing business from the Collins family business, knows of Barnabas's return, and wants revenge...or his affections, and (3) his unquenchable thirst for blood.
Director Tim Burton brings the cult classic to life much in the style of "Sleepy Hollow" and "Sweeney Todd" with conservative light and clever use of (wait for it...) darkness and shadows. The true gem of the film is the amazing script written by Seth Grahame-Smith (author of "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies", as well as the author and subsequent screenwriter of "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter", due out this June). It's obvious Grahame-Smith is a fan of the original series, and proves it with his dark, twisted, often self-referential screenplay that makes even the most hardened fans rejoice.
Though ill-conceived timing is ruining the film's box office revenue (going against "The Avengers" being the biggest factor), "Dark Shadows" offers many laughs, thrills, and chills of a typical Burton film. Granted, I never watched the classic show, but, luckily for me, many of my friends (and my girlfriend) are, so I had a lot to base it on. There hasn't been a Tim Burton sequel since "Batman Returns", but this is one that clearly deserves it.
FINAL VERDICT: Stellar performances and a script and art direction true to the original source material, "Dark Shadows" is a vampire film that doesn't suck. Without the typical glam and glitz of a typical movie of its caliber (not to mention without glittery vampires), "Dark Shadows" gets down to the bloody business without draining your bloody patience.
Movie Review: "Marvel's The Avengers"
How does one approach "The Avengers"? As a movie critic, I could break down the movie intellectually and make correlations to the action epics that have come before it. As a cinephile, I could expound on how inevitable this movie was, and break down what you can and should expect. As a comic book fan and all-around geek, I could just simply exclaim two simple words...."HELL YES!!!!"
This movie has been a long-time coming. Starting with 2008's "Iron Man", which not only jump-started Robert Downey Jr's career, but got the ball rolling to illustrate the explicit trail "The Avengers" -- from the references to S.H.I.E.L.D. and the Super Soldier program (and Tony Stark's brief appearance) in 2008's "The Incredible Hulk" to the final piece of the puzzle with last year's "Captain America: The First Avenger". Now that it's finally here, it's hard to say the wait was easy...but it is completely easy to say it was worth it.
Loki (Tom Hiddleston from "Thor") has made a dicey deal with the Chitauri to unleash the end-game war on Earth, using the fabled Tesseract -- a supernatural cube that holds the key to unspeakable energy. With his hands tied, Nick Fury (once again played by Samuel L. Jackson) gives the go on The Avengers Initiative, assembling Thor (Chris Hemsworth), Steve Rogers (aka Captain America, played by Chris Evans), Tony Stark (aka Iron Man, played by Robert Downey Jr), and Bruce Banner (aka The Hulk, now played by Mark Ruffalo) to defend the Earth, along with S.H.I.E.L.D agents Natasha "Black Widow" Romanoff (Scarlett Johansson) and Clint "Hawkeye" Barton (Jeremy Renner, who made a brief uncredited cameo in "Thor") to assist "Earth's greatest heroes" in doing the impossible: save the world.
Joss Whedon (most famous for TV's "Buffy the Vampire Slayer", "Angel", and cult favorite "Firefly", which spawned the movie "Serenity" in 2005), who took the reigns as writer and director, knocks it out of the park. Combining adrenaline-pumping action, razor-sharp wit, dark humor, and beautiful imagery makes this movie bang on all cylinders. Given a budget of $220 million, the biggest budget he has ever worked with as a director, Whedon, who is no stranger to Marvel Comics, having written for many titles, including a critically acclaimed run on "The Astonishing X-Men", was able to follow up the devilishly clever "The Cabin in the Woods" (which he served as producer and screenwriter) earlier this year to 2012's top grossing film of the year. And, for once, the honor means something.
Performance-wise, the film couldn't be better. As always, Robert Downey Jr, Chris Hemsworth (who also starred in Whedon's "Cabin in the Woods"), Tom Hiddleston, Samuel L. Jackson and Jeremy Renner shine brightly in their respective roles. However, anyone familiar with the previous Marvel movies (or 2010's "The Town") would know this is no surprise. The biggest surprises are Chris Evans and Mark Ruffalo. Evans, who comes back as Captain America (who, back in 2005 and 2007, played Johnny Storm, The Human Torch, in both "Fantastic Four" movies) has come a long way since lampooning Freddie Prinze Jr in "Not Another Teen Movie", and has become quite the actor, leading vastly more seasoned actors in the ensemble dream movie to end all ensemble movies. And Ruffalo does the unthinkable...surpasses Edward Norton's brilliant turn as Banner. While Norton has exhibited his dark side in previous movies, like "Primal Fear", "American History X" and "Red Dragon", Mark Ruffalo has nearly always played the assuming every-man, like in roles such as "Just Like Heaven" and "You Can Count On Me" (sure, he had a dark turn in "In The Cut", but do you remember that movie? Yeah, neither do I). It's this assuming nature of Ruffalo's demeanor that makes him the perfect Bruce Banner...so when he "Hulks out", you REALLY feel it.
Seeing the movie is a treat all on its own, but seeing it in 3D is the best way to experience this film (if you can find a way to see this in IMAX 3D, DO IT!!!!!!). Unlike "Thor" and "Captain America", where the 3D conversions were fairly bad and nearly unnecessary, this film utilizes the best 3D technology out there, making the film shine like diamonds.
Is there anything left to say here that hasn't been said here? By the time of this posting, the film has made over $524 million in domestic box office, over $1.3 BILLION worldwide, and has won critics and audiences many times over. This isn't just an action film. This is an action masterpiece. Whedon's flair for magnificent storytelling combined with a dream cast and Disney's willingness to do it right the first time, and you have the film that will forever change the comic book movie game forever.
FINAL VERDICT: "The Avengers" is the movie that is every bit worth the hype. Whether you've seen all the Marvel movies or simply just love action movies, it matters not. This movie will satisfy all tastes.
This movie has been a long-time coming. Starting with 2008's "Iron Man", which not only jump-started Robert Downey Jr's career, but got the ball rolling to illustrate the explicit trail "The Avengers" -- from the references to S.H.I.E.L.D. and the Super Soldier program (and Tony Stark's brief appearance) in 2008's "The Incredible Hulk" to the final piece of the puzzle with last year's "Captain America: The First Avenger". Now that it's finally here, it's hard to say the wait was easy...but it is completely easy to say it was worth it.
Loki (Tom Hiddleston from "Thor") has made a dicey deal with the Chitauri to unleash the end-game war on Earth, using the fabled Tesseract -- a supernatural cube that holds the key to unspeakable energy. With his hands tied, Nick Fury (once again played by Samuel L. Jackson) gives the go on The Avengers Initiative, assembling Thor (Chris Hemsworth), Steve Rogers (aka Captain America, played by Chris Evans), Tony Stark (aka Iron Man, played by Robert Downey Jr), and Bruce Banner (aka The Hulk, now played by Mark Ruffalo) to defend the Earth, along with S.H.I.E.L.D agents Natasha "Black Widow" Romanoff (Scarlett Johansson) and Clint "Hawkeye" Barton (Jeremy Renner, who made a brief uncredited cameo in "Thor") to assist "Earth's greatest heroes" in doing the impossible: save the world.
Joss Whedon (most famous for TV's "Buffy the Vampire Slayer", "Angel", and cult favorite "Firefly", which spawned the movie "Serenity" in 2005), who took the reigns as writer and director, knocks it out of the park. Combining adrenaline-pumping action, razor-sharp wit, dark humor, and beautiful imagery makes this movie bang on all cylinders. Given a budget of $220 million, the biggest budget he has ever worked with as a director, Whedon, who is no stranger to Marvel Comics, having written for many titles, including a critically acclaimed run on "The Astonishing X-Men", was able to follow up the devilishly clever "The Cabin in the Woods" (which he served as producer and screenwriter) earlier this year to 2012's top grossing film of the year. And, for once, the honor means something.
Performance-wise, the film couldn't be better. As always, Robert Downey Jr, Chris Hemsworth (who also starred in Whedon's "Cabin in the Woods"), Tom Hiddleston, Samuel L. Jackson and Jeremy Renner shine brightly in their respective roles. However, anyone familiar with the previous Marvel movies (or 2010's "The Town") would know this is no surprise. The biggest surprises are Chris Evans and Mark Ruffalo. Evans, who comes back as Captain America (who, back in 2005 and 2007, played Johnny Storm, The Human Torch, in both "Fantastic Four" movies) has come a long way since lampooning Freddie Prinze Jr in "Not Another Teen Movie", and has become quite the actor, leading vastly more seasoned actors in the ensemble dream movie to end all ensemble movies. And Ruffalo does the unthinkable...surpasses Edward Norton's brilliant turn as Banner. While Norton has exhibited his dark side in previous movies, like "Primal Fear", "American History X" and "Red Dragon", Mark Ruffalo has nearly always played the assuming every-man, like in roles such as "Just Like Heaven" and "You Can Count On Me" (sure, he had a dark turn in "In The Cut", but do you remember that movie? Yeah, neither do I). It's this assuming nature of Ruffalo's demeanor that makes him the perfect Bruce Banner...so when he "Hulks out", you REALLY feel it.
Seeing the movie is a treat all on its own, but seeing it in 3D is the best way to experience this film (if you can find a way to see this in IMAX 3D, DO IT!!!!!!). Unlike "Thor" and "Captain America", where the 3D conversions were fairly bad and nearly unnecessary, this film utilizes the best 3D technology out there, making the film shine like diamonds.
Is there anything left to say here that hasn't been said here? By the time of this posting, the film has made over $524 million in domestic box office, over $1.3 BILLION worldwide, and has won critics and audiences many times over. This isn't just an action film. This is an action masterpiece. Whedon's flair for magnificent storytelling combined with a dream cast and Disney's willingness to do it right the first time, and you have the film that will forever change the comic book movie game forever.
FINAL VERDICT: "The Avengers" is the movie that is every bit worth the hype. Whether you've seen all the Marvel movies or simply just love action movies, it matters not. This movie will satisfy all tastes.
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Movie Review: "The Hunger Games"
I know it's been forever since I've updated this thing, but, after seeing a movie this outstanding, I couldn't remain silent.
It was over a year ago I read the entire Hunger Games series, and since then, I had been dying to see the movies.
Looming questions plagued my every thought about the budding movie franchise. Were they going to ruin it? How would Lionsgate pull it off? Why the hell did they cast Lenny Kravitz?
After seeing the film, I can tell this: it's worth the hype.
For those uninitiated with the series, here's what's going on...
It's the future. Picture a post-apocalyptic North America, where the continent has been split into 13 Districts (which is now called Panem), run by The Capital. District 13 rebels and the nation is in a state of civil unrest. The insurgence is crushed by the Capital, and District 13 is laid to waste for its impudence. Since then, every year they hold The Hunger Games, a televised fight to the death where each District (1-12) sends a boy and girl aged between 12-18 to honor the sacrifices made by the Capital. (NOTE: This is all explained in the books, but not exactly told explicitly in the movie...you're welcome.)
We come in 74 years later. Panem is still run by the Capital -- specifically by President Snow (played eerily and brilliantly by Donald Sutherland). Katniss Everdeen (played by Jennifer Lawrence), who clearly has a constant problem with authority, illegally poaches in the outskirts of District 12 (the mining district) with her life-long friend Cale (played by Liam Hemsworth, younger brother of Thor's Chris Hemsworth) Today is the Reaping Day, where we find out who is picked for this year's Hunger Games.
Much to Katniss' surprise, her 12-year-old sister Primrose (played by Willow Shields, who, if they keep her on and stay true to the books, will have a much larger role later) is chosen as a tribute. To ensure her younger sister's life, Katniss does the unthinkable: she volunteers as a tribute. Peeta Mellark (played by Josh Hutcherson) is chosen as the male tribute.
Katniss and Peeta are then whisked off to the Capital to prepare them for the games. Effie Trinket (played brilliantly by Elizabeth Banks) aiding with etiquette and style and Haymitch Abernathy (played by Woody Harrelson) coaching on skills for the games themselves, Katniss and Peeta begin to realize they may be out of their league even before the games begin.
The film has garnered a bad reputation of being the next Twilight. This couldn't be further from the truth. Yes, it centers around a female and a love triangle emerges later in the books (look for Team Peeta and Team Gale shirts and posters soon), but that's it! No more similarities, folks!
Katniss, unlike Bella, is more concerned with her life's purpose and survival, not with whom she wants to have intimate relations with. Katniss is strong and has a personality. Gale doesn't bitch and turn into a giant poochie. And Peeta sure as hell doesn't sparkle.
While the likes of Lawrence, Hutcherson, Sutherland, and Harrelson put in excellent performances, it's hard to ignore the supporting cast. Stanley Tucci puts in a stellar, scene-stealing performance as Caesar Flickerman, the color commentator for the Hunger Games. Wes Bentley is dragged out of obscurity again to play gamesmaster Seneca Crane (who has a MUCH larger role in the movie than he did in the book). And Lenny Kravitz makes his acting debut as Cinna, Katniss' stylist who helps her garner the nickname "The Girl who Was On Fire".
Director/co-writer Gary Ross (Seabiscuit, Pleansantville) obviously wanted to make a reverent adaptation. He brought on series creator Suzanne Collins as a co-writer and producer, and ran every new scene by her to ensure it earned her stamp of approval. This series, unlike the aforementioned popular teen series, took its sweet time coming to the big screen, and the results are electric.
Beautiful cinematography, spot-on acting, and characters you actually care about are all featured in this epic-in-the-making. The action sequences are breath-taking, but it holds back when it needs to be more emotional. It's almost a compact version of everything we loved about The Lord of the Rings without being ostentatious.
I'm usually very guarded when they make my favorite books into movies. But The Hunger Games failed to disappoint. The purists will see subtle differences between the book and the movie, but the differences are so minuscule it's difficult to raise a fuss about with a straight face. The only disappointing thing about this is the knowledge that book 2 Catching Fire does not have a production or release date as of yet.
FINAL VERDICT: Whether you're a fan of the books or simply a fan of good movies, The Hunger Games will leave you thirsting for more.
It was over a year ago I read the entire Hunger Games series, and since then, I had been dying to see the movies.
Looming questions plagued my every thought about the budding movie franchise. Were they going to ruin it? How would Lionsgate pull it off? Why the hell did they cast Lenny Kravitz?
After seeing the film, I can tell this: it's worth the hype.
For those uninitiated with the series, here's what's going on...
It's the future. Picture a post-apocalyptic North America, where the continent has been split into 13 Districts (which is now called Panem), run by The Capital. District 13 rebels and the nation is in a state of civil unrest. The insurgence is crushed by the Capital, and District 13 is laid to waste for its impudence. Since then, every year they hold The Hunger Games, a televised fight to the death where each District (1-12) sends a boy and girl aged between 12-18 to honor the sacrifices made by the Capital. (NOTE: This is all explained in the books, but not exactly told explicitly in the movie...you're welcome.)
We come in 74 years later. Panem is still run by the Capital -- specifically by President Snow (played eerily and brilliantly by Donald Sutherland). Katniss Everdeen (played by Jennifer Lawrence), who clearly has a constant problem with authority, illegally poaches in the outskirts of District 12 (the mining district) with her life-long friend Cale (played by Liam Hemsworth, younger brother of Thor's Chris Hemsworth) Today is the Reaping Day, where we find out who is picked for this year's Hunger Games.
Much to Katniss' surprise, her 12-year-old sister Primrose (played by Willow Shields, who, if they keep her on and stay true to the books, will have a much larger role later) is chosen as a tribute. To ensure her younger sister's life, Katniss does the unthinkable: she volunteers as a tribute. Peeta Mellark (played by Josh Hutcherson) is chosen as the male tribute.
Katniss and Peeta are then whisked off to the Capital to prepare them for the games. Effie Trinket (played brilliantly by Elizabeth Banks) aiding with etiquette and style and Haymitch Abernathy (played by Woody Harrelson) coaching on skills for the games themselves, Katniss and Peeta begin to realize they may be out of their league even before the games begin.
The film has garnered a bad reputation of being the next Twilight. This couldn't be further from the truth. Yes, it centers around a female and a love triangle emerges later in the books (look for Team Peeta and Team Gale shirts and posters soon), but that's it! No more similarities, folks!
Katniss, unlike Bella, is more concerned with her life's purpose and survival, not with whom she wants to have intimate relations with. Katniss is strong and has a personality. Gale doesn't bitch and turn into a giant poochie. And Peeta sure as hell doesn't sparkle.
While the likes of Lawrence, Hutcherson, Sutherland, and Harrelson put in excellent performances, it's hard to ignore the supporting cast. Stanley Tucci puts in a stellar, scene-stealing performance as Caesar Flickerman, the color commentator for the Hunger Games. Wes Bentley is dragged out of obscurity again to play gamesmaster Seneca Crane (who has a MUCH larger role in the movie than he did in the book). And Lenny Kravitz makes his acting debut as Cinna, Katniss' stylist who helps her garner the nickname "The Girl who Was On Fire".
Director/co-writer Gary Ross (Seabiscuit, Pleansantville) obviously wanted to make a reverent adaptation. He brought on series creator Suzanne Collins as a co-writer and producer, and ran every new scene by her to ensure it earned her stamp of approval. This series, unlike the aforementioned popular teen series, took its sweet time coming to the big screen, and the results are electric.
Beautiful cinematography, spot-on acting, and characters you actually care about are all featured in this epic-in-the-making. The action sequences are breath-taking, but it holds back when it needs to be more emotional. It's almost a compact version of everything we loved about The Lord of the Rings without being ostentatious.
I'm usually very guarded when they make my favorite books into movies. But The Hunger Games failed to disappoint. The purists will see subtle differences between the book and the movie, but the differences are so minuscule it's difficult to raise a fuss about with a straight face. The only disappointing thing about this is the knowledge that book 2 Catching Fire does not have a production or release date as of yet.
FINAL VERDICT: Whether you're a fan of the books or simply a fan of good movies, The Hunger Games will leave you thirsting for more.
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
Soapbox Commentary: "Paranormal Activity" Franchise Goes 4th
In a press release issued earlier today, movie studio Paramount, who topped the studios list in 2011 with an impressive 5.17 billion dollars in revenue, announced, after months of speculation, there will be a "Paranormal Activity 4", and it is slated for an October 2012 release.
Fanboys across the board have already voiced their disdain for this, claiming the original three installments weren't scary at all, and this is an ill-deserved sequel. This is hard for me to swallow.
I still recall seeing the first "Paranormal Activity" back in October of 2009 when no one had heard of the movie and it was released in very limited theaters. Since the film was made (and takes place) in San Diego, it made sense it would screen there, and me, living in El Cajon and the time, was able to see it. This film blew me away. On a budget of less than one million and a reputation built solely by its audience members, "Paranormal Activity" scared up an astonishing 107.9 million for Paramount domestically alone. Perfecting the hand-held camera grittiness and "what the hell is/was that?" feelings of "The Blair Witch Project", "Paranormal Activity" created more scares and outstanding press than any major horror film that year (or in recent memory, for that matter). Writer/director Oren Peli, who has continued to produce the other installments, showed the power of imagination by creating a simple, yet effective, method to scare the hell out of people.
Sure, "Paranormal Activity 2" disappointed a bit at the box office with lower 84.8 million domestic gross, with a budget of 3 million dollars, it's hard to argue the enormous profit margin there.
When "Paranormal Activity 3" came out, box office analysts were expecting a similar decline from the second. Instead, the threequel dominated with 103.8 million domestic gross on a 5 million dollar budget. If looking at worldwide grosses, "Paranormal Activity 3" took in over 202 million dollars, even out-grossing the original "Paranormal Activity" worldwide gross of 193 million dollars.
In the movie industry, it's just simple math. "Paranormal Activity 3" makes over 202 million dollars worldwide on a paltry 5 million dollar budget...that's a profit of 197 million dollars. Granted, advertising and print costs must be considered, but considering there are movies being made that are barely turning a profit, it should come as no surprise why a fourth movie would be in store.
However, there is still one looming question: where can they possibly go with it?
"Paranormal Activity" takes place during a two- to three-week span in September of 2008 with Katie and Micah. The second one, for the most part, is a prequel rather than a sequel, taking place between a similar time span months before the events of the first with Kristi (Katie's sister) and her family in the focus (including appearances of Katie and Micah here and there), until, in the final moments of the film, where it picks up a couple days after the events of the first. (I'm sorry if that was confusing, but I'm trying not to give spoilers here.) With the third installment, we go back to analog with a true prequel, showing Katie and Kristi as little girls in the 80s, where it all began, and we finally get to see what Katie had been talking about in the previous two installments.
Seeing that the last installment took us all the way back to the 80s, when consumer video cameras were available (though barely affordable), where the hell else can they go? Given the knowledge (from "Paranormal Activity 2") the haunting may be caused by a pact with a demon by Katie and Kristi's ancestors back in the early 20th Century, it could be fun to see that. However, this kind of film wouldn't be exactly viable unless it would be a silent film in the vein of "Nosferatu"...and even then, it would be too campy for audiences to truly enjoy.
If this made by a lesser studio by a lesser production team, I would say all bets are off and who knows what the hell will come of this franchise. However, this is Paramount Pictures and the franchise is still in the hands of creator Oren Peli, so I know, wherever this series goes, will more than likely be scary, incredible, and, most importantly for the studio, profitable. We'll just have to wait until October to see if I'm wrong.
Fanboys across the board have already voiced their disdain for this, claiming the original three installments weren't scary at all, and this is an ill-deserved sequel. This is hard for me to swallow.
I still recall seeing the first "Paranormal Activity" back in October of 2009 when no one had heard of the movie and it was released in very limited theaters. Since the film was made (and takes place) in San Diego, it made sense it would screen there, and me, living in El Cajon and the time, was able to see it. This film blew me away. On a budget of less than one million and a reputation built solely by its audience members, "Paranormal Activity" scared up an astonishing 107.9 million for Paramount domestically alone. Perfecting the hand-held camera grittiness and "what the hell is/was that?" feelings of "The Blair Witch Project", "Paranormal Activity" created more scares and outstanding press than any major horror film that year (or in recent memory, for that matter). Writer/director Oren Peli, who has continued to produce the other installments, showed the power of imagination by creating a simple, yet effective, method to scare the hell out of people.
Sure, "Paranormal Activity 2" disappointed a bit at the box office with lower 84.8 million domestic gross, with a budget of 3 million dollars, it's hard to argue the enormous profit margin there.
When "Paranormal Activity 3" came out, box office analysts were expecting a similar decline from the second. Instead, the threequel dominated with 103.8 million domestic gross on a 5 million dollar budget. If looking at worldwide grosses, "Paranormal Activity 3" took in over 202 million dollars, even out-grossing the original "Paranormal Activity" worldwide gross of 193 million dollars.
In the movie industry, it's just simple math. "Paranormal Activity 3" makes over 202 million dollars worldwide on a paltry 5 million dollar budget...that's a profit of 197 million dollars. Granted, advertising and print costs must be considered, but considering there are movies being made that are barely turning a profit, it should come as no surprise why a fourth movie would be in store.
However, there is still one looming question: where can they possibly go with it?
"Paranormal Activity" takes place during a two- to three-week span in September of 2008 with Katie and Micah. The second one, for the most part, is a prequel rather than a sequel, taking place between a similar time span months before the events of the first with Kristi (Katie's sister) and her family in the focus (including appearances of Katie and Micah here and there), until, in the final moments of the film, where it picks up a couple days after the events of the first. (I'm sorry if that was confusing, but I'm trying not to give spoilers here.) With the third installment, we go back to analog with a true prequel, showing Katie and Kristi as little girls in the 80s, where it all began, and we finally get to see what Katie had been talking about in the previous two installments.
Seeing that the last installment took us all the way back to the 80s, when consumer video cameras were available (though barely affordable), where the hell else can they go? Given the knowledge (from "Paranormal Activity 2") the haunting may be caused by a pact with a demon by Katie and Kristi's ancestors back in the early 20th Century, it could be fun to see that. However, this kind of film wouldn't be exactly viable unless it would be a silent film in the vein of "Nosferatu"...and even then, it would be too campy for audiences to truly enjoy.
If this made by a lesser studio by a lesser production team, I would say all bets are off and who knows what the hell will come of this franchise. However, this is Paramount Pictures and the franchise is still in the hands of creator Oren Peli, so I know, wherever this series goes, will more than likely be scary, incredible, and, most importantly for the studio, profitable. We'll just have to wait until October to see if I'm wrong.
Saturday, October 8, 2011
Soapbox Commentary: What Moves and Inspires Me
I know it's been a long time since I've posted on here, and I apologize for that. I'll be posting more frequently now, I assure you. A fellow film buff asked me to write about the movies that have moved and inspired me not only as a film buff, but as a writer as well. I thought this was an interesting assignment, so I took her up on it and this is the end result.
"AMERICAN BEAUTY" (1999)
Even after over 12 years, this movie still moves me. Among many of the films on this list, it's impossible to label this movie. A comedy that moves you. A drama that makes you laugh. A movie that makes you "Look Closer" at your own lives to examine the inner-comedy, the inner-tragedy, and the utter beauty in all of our lives we often miss because we're too distracted by the surface. This movie changed my life forever.
"THE USUAL SUSPECTS" (1996)
1996 was a great year for movies to begin with, like "Fargo" that put a great spotlight on the Coen Brothers. At this time, I was already starting to study film. But it was "The Usual Suspects" that really grabbed my attention. The brilliant dialogue and engaging storyline made me thrilled and surprised. It was this movie that inspired me to become a writer. This movie made me want to make a script that would eventually inspire a future writer in the generations to come.
"INCEPTION" (2010)
Christopher Nolan is an amazing filmmaker. Period. Even from his debut film "Following", Nolan manages to thrill with a minimal effort. "Inception" is a different beast all together. On the surface, it's a beautifully crafted action film that rivals all CGI-laden blockbusters as a dominant beast. Under the action, you have a bizarre and unique exploration of the human mind and what happens when you can no longer tell the difference between dreams and reality. Even after the movie is over, you can't help but ponder over your own existence.
"SUCKER PUNCH" (2011)
This is a prime example critics don't always know what they're talking about. Saying this movie is only about big-breasted girls in tight clothing fighting monsters is like saying "Citizen Kane" is about a guy and a sled. Zack Snyder's period opus combines Tim Burton's "Alice In Wonderland" with "Kill Bill" and delivers not only eye-popping visuals and pulse-pounding action sequences, but heart-wrenching emotion while telling you, the viewer, the tools you need to survive are within you. The message, on most auidences, was lost. What a tragedy.
"10 THINGS I HATE ABOUT YOU" (1999)
Perhaps a strange choice for this list, "10 Things I Hate About You" manages to be relevant even 12 years after its debut. Perhaps it's the performances from Heath Ledger, Joseph Gordan-Leavitt and Julia Stiles. Perhaps it's the brilliant writing. Or perhaps it's Shakespeare's timeless "Taming of the Shrew" that made this movie a masterpiece that spans generations like "The Breakfast Club". More than a decade later, we still have no equal to this film, and we probably never will.
"GET HIM TO THE GREEK" (2010)
Now I can imagine this enrty seems silly, perhaps awkward, to be on this list. All together now! "One of these things is not like the other! One of these things just doesn't belong!" That was fun. First off, I love musicals. Fucked up musicals. And this one fits that bill to a tee. However, like its predecessor "Forgetting Sarah Marhall", "Greek" has a bizarre poignance that it almost had no right to have. While on the surface, it's a tale of sex, drugs, and (most importantly) rock and roll, "Greek", deep down, is about the love of the music dedication to your passion, and being loyal to yourself and those who love you.
"FORGETTING SARAH MARSHALL" (2008)
You can't have a sequel on this list without the original. And "Forgetting Sarah Marshall" definitely deserves to be on this list. Yes, the several cock shots were disconcerting. But the brutal honesty of this film more than makes up for it. When we're with the wrong person, we lose sight of who we are and our passions in life and for life, and sometimes a broken heart is the best remedy for that. Makes this film unforgettable.
"L.A. CONFIDENTIAL" (1997)
It's hard to mention "The Usual Suspects" without mentioning "L.A. Confidential". At least for me. Not only was it a gorgeous neo-noir exposing the gritty underbelly of 1930s Los Angeles, but the intense storyline and nail-biting drama are enough to marvel over. Add in the wonderful combination of Guy Pearce, Kevin Spacey and Russell Crowe, along with Brian Helgaland's wonderfully crafted script and you have a film that is glitz, glamour, and substance. Another film that inspired me to be a writer.
"VANILLA SKY" (2001)
The final movie on this list is no other than the critical and audience flop "Vanilla Sky". Why is this on the list? Because sometimes neither critics nor audience know what is good. Surreal and beautiful, revealing and bleak, this movie explored the fragility of dreams long before "Inception", proved Tom Cruise still has it after all these years, and made Cameron Diaz into a legitimate actress. Also it was the film that led me to write my first screenplay (second if you count my collaborative effort four months prior, so it's my first solo effort), so I still hold this film in high regards. "Open your eyes."
"AMERICAN BEAUTY" (1999)
Even after over 12 years, this movie still moves me. Among many of the films on this list, it's impossible to label this movie. A comedy that moves you. A drama that makes you laugh. A movie that makes you "Look Closer" at your own lives to examine the inner-comedy, the inner-tragedy, and the utter beauty in all of our lives we often miss because we're too distracted by the surface. This movie changed my life forever.
"THE USUAL SUSPECTS" (1996)
1996 was a great year for movies to begin with, like "Fargo" that put a great spotlight on the Coen Brothers. At this time, I was already starting to study film. But it was "The Usual Suspects" that really grabbed my attention. The brilliant dialogue and engaging storyline made me thrilled and surprised. It was this movie that inspired me to become a writer. This movie made me want to make a script that would eventually inspire a future writer in the generations to come.
"INCEPTION" (2010)
Christopher Nolan is an amazing filmmaker. Period. Even from his debut film "Following", Nolan manages to thrill with a minimal effort. "Inception" is a different beast all together. On the surface, it's a beautifully crafted action film that rivals all CGI-laden blockbusters as a dominant beast. Under the action, you have a bizarre and unique exploration of the human mind and what happens when you can no longer tell the difference between dreams and reality. Even after the movie is over, you can't help but ponder over your own existence.
"SUCKER PUNCH" (2011)
This is a prime example critics don't always know what they're talking about. Saying this movie is only about big-breasted girls in tight clothing fighting monsters is like saying "Citizen Kane" is about a guy and a sled. Zack Snyder's period opus combines Tim Burton's "Alice In Wonderland" with "Kill Bill" and delivers not only eye-popping visuals and pulse-pounding action sequences, but heart-wrenching emotion while telling you, the viewer, the tools you need to survive are within you. The message, on most auidences, was lost. What a tragedy.
"10 THINGS I HATE ABOUT YOU" (1999)
Perhaps a strange choice for this list, "10 Things I Hate About You" manages to be relevant even 12 years after its debut. Perhaps it's the performances from Heath Ledger, Joseph Gordan-Leavitt and Julia Stiles. Perhaps it's the brilliant writing. Or perhaps it's Shakespeare's timeless "Taming of the Shrew" that made this movie a masterpiece that spans generations like "The Breakfast Club". More than a decade later, we still have no equal to this film, and we probably never will.
"GET HIM TO THE GREEK" (2010)
Now I can imagine this enrty seems silly, perhaps awkward, to be on this list. All together now! "One of these things is not like the other! One of these things just doesn't belong!" That was fun. First off, I love musicals. Fucked up musicals. And this one fits that bill to a tee. However, like its predecessor "Forgetting Sarah Marhall", "Greek" has a bizarre poignance that it almost had no right to have. While on the surface, it's a tale of sex, drugs, and (most importantly) rock and roll, "Greek", deep down, is about the love of the music dedication to your passion, and being loyal to yourself and those who love you.
"FORGETTING SARAH MARSHALL" (2008)
You can't have a sequel on this list without the original. And "Forgetting Sarah Marshall" definitely deserves to be on this list. Yes, the several cock shots were disconcerting. But the brutal honesty of this film more than makes up for it. When we're with the wrong person, we lose sight of who we are and our passions in life and for life, and sometimes a broken heart is the best remedy for that. Makes this film unforgettable.
"L.A. CONFIDENTIAL" (1997)
It's hard to mention "The Usual Suspects" without mentioning "L.A. Confidential". At least for me. Not only was it a gorgeous neo-noir exposing the gritty underbelly of 1930s Los Angeles, but the intense storyline and nail-biting drama are enough to marvel over. Add in the wonderful combination of Guy Pearce, Kevin Spacey and Russell Crowe, along with Brian Helgaland's wonderfully crafted script and you have a film that is glitz, glamour, and substance. Another film that inspired me to be a writer.
"VANILLA SKY" (2001)
The final movie on this list is no other than the critical and audience flop "Vanilla Sky". Why is this on the list? Because sometimes neither critics nor audience know what is good. Surreal and beautiful, revealing and bleak, this movie explored the fragility of dreams long before "Inception", proved Tom Cruise still has it after all these years, and made Cameron Diaz into a legitimate actress. Also it was the film that led me to write my first screenplay (second if you count my collaborative effort four months prior, so it's my first solo effort), so I still hold this film in high regards. "Open your eyes."
Saturday, August 7, 2010
Soapbox Commentary: "Avatar": The Vast Hype Bender
I know it's been a while since I've posted anything at all (mainly due to constant relocations and never having time to write), but, after the news I just received, I can remain silent no longer.
I was just informed on MovieWeb that James Cameron plans on shooting "Avatar 2" and "Avatar 3" back-to-back.
I need to repeat that.
"Avatar 2"...and "Avatar 3"...
I am now depressed.
How can this have happened my friends? I am deeply saddened that someone somewhere decided that Cameron needed to make not only one but TWO sequels to "Avatar"...and that people are actually "looking forward to them" (quoted by a commenter on the MovieWeb article who will remain nameless).
Look, I know it's no mystery that I hated the movie. I have made it a case to call the movie "Avatard" every time it is brought up in civilized conversation because it's an apt re-titling. No plot. No acting. No coherent storyline. Just awesome special effects. I would rather sit through all 6 "Star Wars" films back-to-back from 1 through 6 twice in a row before seeing this piece of shit again. I would rather sit through "The Last Airbender" AND "Step It Up 3D" in the same sitting that watch this big blue abomination once more.
What the hell is going on folks? How can this happen? I know this is sounding funny at this point, but it's the fucking truth. Future generations will look at these movies and wonder how the hell they made so much money. That "Avatar" and "Titanic" can monetarily trump the likes of "The Dark Knight" and "Inception". There's nothing to these movies other than special effects. We all have to see that, right?
It's not just that "Avatar" was a piece of shit. It's that it was a piece of shit that I consistently get into arguments about because people not only tell me it's good, but that it was the best movie that came out of 2009.
WHAT?!?
You heard me! People tell me that, in 2009, the year that saw movies like "Up in the Air", "9", "Coraline", "Inglorious Bastards", and "Sherlock Holmes", the best movie to come out of it was "Avatar".
Is this what has become of our discerning theater-goers? Has George Lucas and James Cameron done what I have predicted for decades? Have all the intelligent film aficionados been so blinded by state-of-the-art CGI and special effects that they can't tell when the script is hackneyed and the performances are phoned in?
I would say something like "if there was a just and loving God in the heavens, He/She would not allow this to happen", but I think it's best to leave God out of this. In fact, I think that's why it's been raining so much everywhere. God is crying, folks. See, God hates "Avatar" too. He hates it so much, he influenced the Academy to give the Oscar for Best Picture not only to something other than "Avatar", but to the film made by Cameron's ex-wife. You know that had to hurt Cameron a bit.
Let's all take an example from God and hurt James Cameron. Stop seeing "Avatar". Stop your friends from seeing "Avatar". Start calling it "Avatard". And START SEEING GOOD MOVIES!
I was just informed on MovieWeb that James Cameron plans on shooting "Avatar 2" and "Avatar 3" back-to-back.
I need to repeat that.
"Avatar 2"...and "Avatar 3"...
I am now depressed.
How can this have happened my friends? I am deeply saddened that someone somewhere decided that Cameron needed to make not only one but TWO sequels to "Avatar"...and that people are actually "looking forward to them" (quoted by a commenter on the MovieWeb article who will remain nameless).
Look, I know it's no mystery that I hated the movie. I have made it a case to call the movie "Avatard" every time it is brought up in civilized conversation because it's an apt re-titling. No plot. No acting. No coherent storyline. Just awesome special effects. I would rather sit through all 6 "Star Wars" films back-to-back from 1 through 6 twice in a row before seeing this piece of shit again. I would rather sit through "The Last Airbender" AND "Step It Up 3D" in the same sitting that watch this big blue abomination once more.
What the hell is going on folks? How can this happen? I know this is sounding funny at this point, but it's the fucking truth. Future generations will look at these movies and wonder how the hell they made so much money. That "Avatar" and "Titanic" can monetarily trump the likes of "The Dark Knight" and "Inception". There's nothing to these movies other than special effects. We all have to see that, right?
It's not just that "Avatar" was a piece of shit. It's that it was a piece of shit that I consistently get into arguments about because people not only tell me it's good, but that it was the best movie that came out of 2009.
WHAT?!?
You heard me! People tell me that, in 2009, the year that saw movies like "Up in the Air", "9", "Coraline", "Inglorious Bastards", and "Sherlock Holmes", the best movie to come out of it was "Avatar".
Is this what has become of our discerning theater-goers? Has George Lucas and James Cameron done what I have predicted for decades? Have all the intelligent film aficionados been so blinded by state-of-the-art CGI and special effects that they can't tell when the script is hackneyed and the performances are phoned in?
I would say something like "if there was a just and loving God in the heavens, He/She would not allow this to happen", but I think it's best to leave God out of this. In fact, I think that's why it's been raining so much everywhere. God is crying, folks. See, God hates "Avatar" too. He hates it so much, he influenced the Academy to give the Oscar for Best Picture not only to something other than "Avatar", but to the film made by Cameron's ex-wife. You know that had to hurt Cameron a bit.
Let's all take an example from God and hurt James Cameron. Stop seeing "Avatar". Stop your friends from seeing "Avatar". Start calling it "Avatard". And START SEEING GOOD MOVIES!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)