Category: Uncategorized

Alice in Thunderdome

11 Comments

Sometimes, it’s helpful to remember that all the GOOD points of the Hollywood “blockbuster machine” having been taken over by the general mindset of a 13 year-old boy (see: Marvel Films’ “Avengers” master-plan) come with their price – namely that 13 year-old boys can be pretty daft a lot of the time.

For example, around that age, it’s customary to arrive at the assumption that EVERYTHING can be improved by turning it into some kind of Epic Battle – especially if the Epic Battle is also Grim n’ Gritty – up to and including otherwise-good-natured superheroes and whimsical fairytales. It’s this kind of thinking among 13 year-olds during my time as such that was largely responsible for Image Comics, and right now it seems to be responsible for re-imagining every movie property in the context of a Boris Vallejo/Julie Bell tableau (or, in studio-speak, “we’re goin’ for a “Pirates of the Carribean” angle.”

To that end, here’s the new-er trailer for Tim Burton’s “Alice in Wonderland” dealie, which despite what you’re brain may be telling you he HASN’T already made seven or eight times…
http://wdmp-wdsmp.rd.llnw.net/wdsmp/AIW/Trailer5/AIW_Trailer5_480.mov

Gotta give `em credit, at least, for seemingly hitting every damn mark of this type of “reimagining:” Pseudo-sequelism? Check. Hero-as-vaugely-chosen? Check. Most-prominent baddie as world-conquest supervillain? Check. Massing armies of storm-troopers? Check. And dig what appears to be Alice striding out into the midst of a Braveheart-fight in full battle armor, or Depp’s Mad Hatter wielding a broadsword. Or maybe it’s kidding, and this is all out of context…

Kingdom of Gladiator Hood

5 Comments

COMING SOON has the first actual trailer (an “international” sizzle-reel type thing) for Ridley Scott’s “Robin Hood” movie:

http://cdn.springboard.gorillanation.com/storage/xplayer/yo033.swf

…yeah. This is another one of those teasers, like the early ones for “Sherlock Holmes.” that’re so concerned with reminding you of other recent movies the target-demo may have liked (in this case: 300, Gladiator, King Arthur, LOTR and so on) that there’s really no way to tell what the hell it is until the title comes up – before that, this might as well be the trailer for “Untitled Medieval Russel Crowe Actioner #5.” That it doesn’t look especially different “aesthetically” from “Prince of Thieves” over a decade ago is… not a good sign. Still, one must remember that this is Ridley Scott, who’s movies are usually better than their trailers (or, in some cases, the version that actually opened – if you’ve not seen the director’s cut of “Kingdom of Heaven,” DO SO: It’s one of the best films of his career.)

The history of this production has been ridiculous – assuming that ANY of it has been true: Depending on who you ask, this may or may not have started as a project called “Nottingham,” which would’ve been a revisionist version of the story with Robin as an illegitimately-lionized thug with a flair for self-promotion and the Sherriff as the put-upon good guy trying to bring him down even with “the people” against him. Sounds cool, right? Well, whether or not that was ever the case, it wasn’t for long: The next anyone heard of it, no one could confirm which of the two roles Crowe would be playing, and a NEW rumor surfaced that he’d actually be BOTH – either as some kind of “meta” casting or another “revisionist” take in which “Robin” is actually Nottingham’s secret-identity, which he creates in order to subvert The Crown himself. Also a nifty take, also apparently not-happening.

There’s also been some unsubstantiated talk that the people paying for the production more-or-less “demanded” that Scott/Crowe deliver a straight-ahead “unofficial-sequel-to-Gladiator” style take; resulting in this film which Universal is describing as another “real history behind the legend” go-round of the familair outline – i.e. Robin as disillusioned Crusades veteran who forms a woodland guerilla posse to fight unfair taxation.

Damn The Gods

6 Comments

CHUD points the way to a new, longer trailer for the “Clash of the Titans” remake. It’s basically a longer, smoother version of the first teaser so most of it you’ve already seen, and it’s also still cutting to that heavy metal track everybody but me pissed and moaned about (drumming scorpion = win) but definately worth checking out for our first official glimpses/confirmations of Pegasus, Mount Olympus and The Kraken – which looks like a fairly elegant solution between the traditional giant-octopus and Harryhausen’s four-armed mer-whatsit.

http://www.viddler.com/player/c14eafa9/
http://chud.com/articles/articles/21854/1/THE-KRAKEN-RELEASED/Page1.html

More importantly, the much-maligned “Titans Will Clash” tagline has been replaced by the newer, inifitely more awesome “Damn The Gods”… which now solidifies my earlier inkling that this remake is taking it’s cues from “Jason & The Argonauts” in addition to it’s official progenitor.
“Damn The Gods.” I love that. I LOVE that.

The moment?

6 Comments

The critics are starting to see “Avatar,” (no, I haven’t yet) and the early world is damn-near through the roof… EXACTLY the kind of feedback this particular movie needed to hopefully turn around all the “Dances With Smurfs” negativity that’s been building around it since people first got a look at the plot. So… is this when it happens? Is this “Titanic” all over again, where everyone was sure it was a disaster in the making and then everything comes together when it finally shows?

I dunno… but thus far the most important report I’ve been waiting for was from Jeff Wells, who’s probably the most stridently anti-fanboy, anti-genre-blockbuster guy doing movie-blogging right now – the epitome of someone who’s just NOT looking to show kindness to a $300 Million mostly-CGI tentpole about blue aliens and marines in mecha-suits. Well, as of this morning… he’s calling it a masterpiece:
http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/2009/12/a_fine_madness.php

In fact, I don’t think I’ve ever seen Wells react this way to this sort of movie. Overnight, he’s gone from one it’s cheif nay-sayers to proclaiming that it will get (and deserves to get) a Best Picture nomination:
http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/2009/12/avatar_in_the_r.php

What does this mean? I dunno, but it’s unexpected and definately gives me a good feeling.

Sorceror’s Apprentice

9 Comments

So, folks… what do we make of this trailer for Disney/Bruckheimer’s new fantasy-actioner “The Sorceror’s Apprentice,” another of the growingly-common subset of genre films attaching a ‘name title’ to what appears to be an original story in order to look more like a franchise blockbuster?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-h_fMAV7jXc

The basic idea seems to be a bare-outline “Harry Potter” reworked from a classical British “special boy” structure to an American one – i.e. instead of admittance to a prestigious elite academy being the seemingly-ordinary “Chosen One’s” passage to skill-honing and higher destiny (the Dickensian/British model) he’ll be schooled in badass-lonerhood by an older badass-loner, “Karate Kid”/”Rocky”-style. All told, doesn’t look half-bad – gotta love the dragon and the animated Empire State eagle. Though, yes, the presence of Nicolas Cage means at least a 50/50 chance of otherworldly brilliance or out-of-place awkwardness.

Finally, GOOD NEWS about "The Wolf Man."

9 Comments

Universal’s remake of “The Wolf Man,” with Benicio Del Toro as the title monster, has had easily the most (publically) problematic production of any film in recent memory: The first director was fired/quit just as it was gearing up, there were public spats about practical-vs-CGI FX between creature-maker Rick Baker and the production, and recently new editors were hired to “punch up” the finished footage. All signs pointed to the usual trouble: A potentially-cool genre film getting watered-down by a studio afraid to make something awesome and maybe even a little dangerous. It also, even from it’s trailers, looked A LOT “bigger” and thus more expensive than many might have been expecting, which could only ADD to the concern if you follow these things: Even if your movie is about a monster who’s only real ability is tearing people limb-from-limb, a studio spending big money usually wants a “safe” PG13 rating to garauntee maximum profit.

So, then, it comes as not just good news but potentially SPECTACULAR news that “The Wolf Man” has been rated R for “bloody horror, violence and gore.” Now, that DOESN’T necessarily mean all the problems haven’t resulted in a less-than-great film, but it IS a strong indicator that things might be going in the right direction. An R-rating, at it’s fundamental level, usually means that the film was made “uncompromised” to a certain degree; it also possibly tells us that Universal might think they have something pretty good on their hands, since a “bad” genre film would absolutely get saddled with a PG13 in order to increase it’s earning capacity.

If it’s “that” good, I’m interested to see what it’s reception does for journeyman director Joe Johnston, who’s been making solid films without becoming much of a “name” for DECADES now. If this works out, it could end up a big secondary buzz-point for the “Captain America” movie he’s set to make for Marvel (if that’s still happening, there hasn’t been WORD ONE about it since they announced they were making it.)

Spider-Man 4 to get it half right?

4 Comments

File this under “probably strange enough to be semi-true,” but Movieline says they know who the new people are in “Spider-Man 4”: http://www.movieline.com/2009/12/exclusive-spider-man-4-circling-john-malkovich-anne-hathaway.php?page=1

Sez them, Sony Pictures vetoed “The Lizard” for being too strange; so the main enemy will be “The Vulture” – possibly to be played by John Malkovich. Sez them also: The story about Felicia Hardy (“The Black Cat”) turning up is also true, as is rumored casting of Anne Hathaway, except instead of Cat she’ll become a female counterpart to Vulture. (Vulture has wings, for the record. That’s pretty much the whole idea.)

Some of this sounds like bullshit, some of it doesn’t. Vulture is 100% plausible. He’s part of the “main cast” of 60s Spider-Man enemies that Raimi prefers to draw from (Rhino, Mysterio, Shocker, Electro and Beetle are most of the others) and he fits in nicely with the general theme of main bad guys from the better-recieved (than #3) first films – i.e. an inventor using his technology to go on a crime/revenge spree. It’s also true that Raimi has been trying like hell to get him into the series for a long time – he was supposed to be “co-baddie” in Part 3 before Marvel/Sony insisted on Venom. If you’re wondering why Lizard is apparently too strange for the screen but alien-goo-monster Venom wasn’t, simple: Money. Venom is one of Marvel’s most consistently-marketable properties on the toy/shirt side (he’s never been able to carry a book, though.)

The “made-up” part, if there is one, is probably Hathaway-as-Hardy-as-“Vulteress;” but not enough to be dissmissed outright. A recurring theme (THE recurring theme?) in Vulture stories is that he’s an old man, and his flying-suit technology is always getting stolen by younger, more ambitious wannabes. If so, it’s likely that this was in the script from the beginning and someone had the idea to borrow the name of an existing supporting-player for her civilian identity. Unfortunately for them, as always happens with these things, a casting sheet got to the fans before the announcement did, and now instead of going “heh, thats a reference” they’ll be all bent out of shape at the character not being in it’s original form (doubly true here, since let’s face it – LOT’S of people wanted to see a flesh-and-blood actress in that outfit.)

Movieline isn’t a “fanboy” site, so if this is either close to or very far away from truth, there’ll be word from Sony soon enough.