The Following Preview

Paul

2010-10-18T05:59:00.001-07:00

Here's the trailer for Paul, posted here so I can lop out the glitch where it replays the first 5 seconds.

Commenters on at least one of the YouTube versions are quite harsh, but it's less than a minute of footage.

Critical Thinking: Caddyshack (1980)

2010-08-29T13:30:00.000-07:00

Critical Thinking is a column where I review something I've just watched (usually something I like). No other reason. It doesn't really need a name but I gave it one anyway, since it's different from Cheap Thrills, and I hear things on blogs should have names.

In 2008, Harold Ramis directed Year One, an agonizingly unfunny road picture awkwardly set in a mixture of the Stone Age and also the Roman Empire, which features an all-star cast of comedians in small bits but instead gets constantly sidetracked on horribly unfunny detours, like Oliver Platt's disgustingly over-the-top character (I forget who or what the character was, but I don't want to look it up, either). It's a terrible movie with the occasional, brief bit of brightness from one of many great people that are in it, but as a whole it never has any momentum or focus.

In that way, it's just like Caddyshack.

Don't get me wrong. Year One is way, way worse (and nobody eats a piece of shit in Caddyshack, like Jack Black does in Year One). Still, having just watched the brand new Blu-Ray of Caddyshack (my second time seeing the film), I still have a hard time understanding why the film is considered a comedy classic.

The primary problem with Caddyshack is that it gathers four actors who all bring very specific personalities to the table. Chevy Chase is his usual sarcastic self, quietly mocking everyone to their face. Ted Knight goes incredibly over the top, utilizing every muscle in his face to transition between extreme expressions of emotion. Rodney Dangerfield does classic gag schtick with his entire body, like a Looney Tunes cartoon got in a car accident with a nightclub stand-up act.

Then there's Bill Murray, who, as much as I love him -- and I really do -- gives a painfully broad performance as Carl Spackler, a demented, hobo-like groundskeeper with a weird speech impediment. I can't imagine any other comedian in the world could give the performance that Murray gives in this movie and have people think it wasn't awful, but as far as I can tell, Spackler is one of Murray's most enduring and famous roles.

Maybe one of these people could've carried a movie. I might've even liked Carl if Carl was the only person the film was concerned with. Squashing the four of them into a single movie with even more characters is a different story. Ramis, who was directing for the first time on Caddyshack, seems entirely unconcerned that his stars are all dropping in from different planets, and whenever more than one of them is in a room together, the movie loses its comedic footing, which is made all the more disappointing because, man, I want to see a really funny scene with Bill Murray and Chevy Chase acting opposite each other. The moment they're in the same room, my heart took a leap. The men who gave the world Peter Venkman and Irwin Fletcher, on screen at the same time! It's like the comedy version of Heat! (The pair's off-screen rivalry only adds to the tension.) Sadly, the scene is a misfire in my book. I was more enthralled by the big reunion in The Expendables just recently, and I hated that movie.

Adding insult to injury, none of these characters strike me as particularly well-written. Chase has a dearth of great lines, and when Chase does his usual bit and doesn't have good lines, he basically comes off like a smarmy asshole. Every once in awhile, he has a good joke (the "no steering wheel" pantomime is great), but he seems adrift and unengaged, like he's wandering through the movie as opposed to starring in it. Dangerfield is hit and miss, as not all of his routines translate as well as they could to the big screen, and Knight gets one note to play over and over. Murray's lines are probably better than the others, but the lisp or whatever he's doing just ruins them for me. Bill's brother Brian Doyle-Murray gets better lines as caddy management ("Pick up that blood!").

Caddyshack does have two saving graces. Well, maybe two and a half. The first two are Michael O'Keefe and Cindy Morgan, who are both charming and engaging as supposed hero Danny Noonan and the sexy Lacey Underall. Morgan doesn't have to do much but stand around and look beautiful, which she does with ease, but Morgan deepens the impression with a playful, bemused attitude that makes her almost impossibly endearing. O'Keefe makes for an appealing main character, but the movie sidelines him too often to invest much in his story, which is a shame; I think Caddyshack might be more deserving of its acclaim if there were more of O'Keefe and his conflict in the film (co-screenwriters Ramis, Doug Kenney and Doyle-Murray don't introduce any tangible stakes until the last 20 minutes). As for "half", Ramis' direction works wonders in the scenes where the actors aren't the primary focus: the impromptu swimming ballet and subsequent "doody" scene are worth a chuckle, and the golf course exploding at the end of the movie would have been the perfect end to a better movie. Alas, Caddyshack is not that movie: pretty much any other comedy from the 1980's starring any one of these guys is funnier and better constructed than this "shot-in-the-dark" mush.

The Blu-Ray comes with a lengthy episode of "Bio" on Caddyshack, but it's also a disappointment. Since it was produced for television, it has the aggravating habit of recapping for every intro and outro before unspoken commercial breaks, and if you pared this ep down to the real meat and potatoes, it'd easily lose 30 minutes of painfully repetitive narration. What's left is somewhat intriguing but not particularly fresh or in-depth, especially given that Dangerfield and Knight have both passed on, and neither Chase or Murray deemed it worthy to appear for new on-camera interviews. Even Brian Doyle-Murray had better things to do, although yet another Murray brother, John Murray, pops up frequently. The Blu-Ray's only other extra (no commentary?) is the shorter doc produced for the DVD, called "The 19th Hole". The PQ and AQ are both solid, although not quite as impressive as some other '80s films I've seen.

Why 3D Is the Future of Cinema

2010-08-06T13:06:00.000-07:00

Watch it large.

Drew McWeeny's List of Duh

2010-07-29T20:34:00.000-07:00

Last night, I discovered that Drew McWeeny (@DrewAtHitFix) and William Goss (@williambgoss) have apparently been at this thing called The Basics for a few months now (explained in detail by Drew here, in which Goss goes through McWeeny's List of Duh (reprinted below, in chronological > alphabetical order) and watches the ones he hasn't seen.

Most of my paranoia about my work as a film critic being terrible comes from the usual lack of spread past films made during the years I've been alive, made in the country that I live in. Even if I've seen more films than most of the people I know, I'm still at the tip top of the iceberg when it comes to watching these things.

When I read the article yesterday, I thought it was new, which is why I'm starting now (shows how much attention I've been paying to things around me). There are 140 entries on the list. I haven't ever seen 52 of them, and there's probably only around that many films on the list I know well enough I could write about them without watching them again. In any case I figure I might as well review all of them. Who knows how long it will take. I don't think I'm planning to go in any specific order.

The General (1926)
Steamboat Bill Jr. (1928)
Dracula (1931)
Frankenstein (1931)
Freaks (1932)
The Mummy (1932)
Duck Soup (1933)
The Invisible Man (1933)
King Kong (1933)
Triumph of the Will (1935)
The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938)
The Wizard of Oz (1939)
Dumbo (1941)
The Wolf Man (1941)
Bambi (1942)
Casablanca (1942)
The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948)
Cinderella (1950)
Alice in Wonderland (1951)
A Streetcar Named Desire (1951)
Singin' in the Rain (1952)
Peter Pan (1953)
Creature From the Black Lagoon (1954)
Seven Samurai (1954)
Lady and the Tramp (1955)
Rebel Without a Cause (1955)
Forbidden Planet (1956)
The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957)
Touch of Evil (1958)
Sleeping Beauty (1959)
The Magnificent Seven (1960)
Lawrence of Arabia (1962)
Lolita (1962)
To Kill a Mockingbird (1962)
The Great Escape (1963)
The Nutty Professor (1963)
The Pink Panther (1963) films
Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964)
A Hard Day's Night (1964)
Mary Poppins (1964)
The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly (1966)
Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966)
Cool Hand Luke (1967)
The Dirty Dozen (1967)
The Graduate (1967)
Point Blank (1967)
2001: a Space Odyssey (1968)
Easy Rider (1969)
The Planet of the Apes (1968) films
The Wild Bunch (1969)
A Clockwork Orange (1971)
Pink Flamingos (1972)
American Graffiti (1973)
The Exorcist (1973)
Mean Streets (1973)
Blazing Saddles (1974)
Chinatown (1974)
The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974)
Young Frankenstein (1974)
Dog Day Afternoon (1975)
Jaws (1975)
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975)
All the President's Men (1976)
Carrie (1976)
Network (1976)
Taxi Driver (1976)
Annie Hall (1977)
The Star Wars (1977) films
Suspiria (1977)
National Lampoon's Animal House (1978)
George A. Romero's Dawn of the Dead (1978)
The Deer Hunter (1978)
Cheech and Chong's Up in Smoke (1978)
Alien (1979) and Aliens (1986)
Apocalypse Now (1979)
Manhattan (1979)
Airplane! (1980)
The Blues Brothers (1980)
The Friday the 13th (1980) series
Raging Bull (1980)
The Shining (1980)
An American Werewolf in London (1981)
The Evil Dead (1981)
Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) and the Indy films
E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial (1982)
Fast Times at Ridgemont High (1982)
First Blood (1982)
Star Trek II: the Wrath of Khan (1982)
John Carpenter's The Thing (1982)
Tron (1982)
Scarface (1983)
Ghostbusters (1984)
A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984)
Sixteen Candles (1984)
This is Spinal Tap (1984)
Brazil (1985)
The Breakfast Club (1985)
Pee Wee's Big Adventure (1985)
Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985)
Blue Velvet (1986)
Ferris Bueller's Day Off (1986)
The Fly (1986)
Evil Dead 2: Dead By Dawn (1987)
Full Metal Jacket (1987)
Hellraiser (1987)
The Lost Boys (1987)
Predator (1987)
Hairspray (1988)
The Little Mermaid (1989)
GoodFellas (1990)
Beauty and the Beast (1991)
Aladdin (1992)
Glengarry Glen Ross (1992)
Reservoir Dogs (1992)
Unforgiven (1992)
Dazed and Confused (1993)
Jurassic Park (1993)
Clerks. (1994)
Ed Wood (1994)
Leon: The Professional (1994)
The Lion King (1994)
Pulp Fiction (1994)
The Shawshank Redemption (1994)
Friday (1995)
Heat (1995)
Se7en (1995)
Toy Story (1995) and Toy Story 2 (1999)
Fargo (1996)
Trainspotting (1996)
Boogie Nights (1997)
The Big Lebowski (1998)
Rushmore (1998)
Saving Private Ryan (1998)
There's Something about Mary (1998)
Fight Club (1999)
The Lord of the Rings (2001) series
Kill Bill Vol. 1 (2003) and 2 (2004)
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)
Shaun of the Dead (2004)
Grizzly Man (2005)

Ready, set...

Critical Thinking: In Bruges (2008)

2010-06-28T19:15:00.000-07:00

Critical Thinking: Grosse Pointe Blank (1997)

2010-06-27T20:57:00.000-07:00

Critical Thinking is a column where I review something I've just watched (usually something I like). No other reason. It doesn't really need a name but I gave it one anyway, since it's different from Cheap Thrills, and I hear things on blogs should have names.

On June 4th, the Katherine Heigl/Ashton Kutcher film Killers was inflicted upon us. Heigl plays the anti-woman's woman, i.e. a chipper, moronic, blonde beauty who can't do anything remotely masculine and needs men to rescue her from her own incompetence. Her mundane, career-focused, flighty existence is interrupted by the appearance of Ashton Kutcher. I reviewed Marley & Me for DVDTalk, and the first sight of Eric Dane, who looks like this, playing the role of an underpaid newspaper columnist, made me laugh out loud. Kutcher is supposedly a badass spy in Killers, which basically inspires the same reaction except with full-body nausea instead of laughter. Three weeks later, June finished up with the opening of Knight and Day, in which Tom Cruise plays the spy and Cameron Diaz plays the blonde (25% as ditzy, 75% as shrieky). I had high hopes, but it was a misfire in my book (you can read my whole review here).

Most people would point to Mr. & Mrs. Smith and True Lies as obvious recommendations for an alternative to these films, and these two examples are undoubtedly more inspired by those movies than the one I'm reviewing, but Mr. & Mrs. Smith isn't all that good, and True Lies -- easily the best of the four -- still gets terribly sidetracked by Bill Paxton's character, and is only barely more progressive when it comes to Jamie Lee Curtis' character than Killers (at least Curtis' performance appears to be intentional slapstick comedy, like a "Saturday Night Live" caricature).

No, my pick is the popular but still underrated Grosse Pointe Blank. John Cusack plays Martin Blank, a casual hitman who ends up in his hometown to do a job on the same weekend of his 10-year high school reunion. For most of those ten years, he's had a recurring nightmare about his choice to abandon his girlfriend Debi (Minnie Driver), and the weekend offers Martin a once-in-a-lifetime chance to track her down and make amends.

Re-watching the film with friends this weekend, I think the key to Grosse Pointe Blank's success is that, unlike the other films in question, there's more going on here than the central conceit of putting romance and bullets in the same movie. In the relatively simple paragraph above, I've outlined not one, not two, but all three of the movie's storylines: Martin returns home after a decade away for the reunion, Martin reunites with Debi for the first time after his vanishing act, and Martin the hitman starts looking for a way out. Like a well-oiled machine, all three of these stories work in tandem with each other while remaining loose enough to switch in and out of center stage as the movie needs them. I was bored during the first twenty or thirty minutes of Knight and Day because the trailers completely sum up the Cruise character and concept in thirty seconds. There are side notes about Diaz's character fixing her father's GTO and the wedding her sister is having, but the movie doesn't try to flesh these out into parallels or even brief tangents to the story. Comparatively, there's more than enough room in Blank for Martin to go on a drive with his old friend Paul Spericki (Jeremy Piven) or visit his childhood home without these scenes feeling like a distraction from more important things.

Director George Armitage has an odd career. After directing four films in the '70s, he vanished for a decade, reappearing in 1990 as the writer/director of one project and the writer of another. Passion projects, maybe. Then, he took another 6-year hiatus before making Blank. Afterwards, he didn't work until 2004's The Big Bounce, and has since been laying low, other than a "special thanks" on a 2010 movie called Joy Division. Having seen a couple of his '70s efforts recently, he doesn't appear to have much of a personal vision, but he still seems like he's more than an assembly-line guy. Even if he didn't respond to the material in a personal way, one gets the impression he was invested creatively, keeping things basic but not boring, engaging with his fellow cast and crew. There are a couple clever little shots, like a quick pull back to reveal a banner that Paul is leaping for, but Armitage's main contribution is probably the one of the whole film. This is a story about a violent hitman, but it never seems that gruesome, despite going all-out with an R-rating and at least one reasonably bloody death. If Grosse Pointe Blank were made today, it's hard to imagine the romantic and comedic lead of a film being allowed to do anything as intimately violent as stabbing a man with a pen for fear of losing the audience's sympathy, yet there's no sense that Armitage has to work to keep our relationship with Martin alive through the entire incident.

Another aspect of that light tone is the sexy chemistry between Cusack and Driver. Cusack is basically his usual self, but Driver brings plenty of little touches to the equation that make their relationship believable. In many movies like this, Debi would practically be a side character in comparison to Martin, but Driver fleshes her out with enough pathos and neuroses that she feels like his equal, having her own decade of uncertainty after he disappeared without a trace. Martin brings out the playful side of Debi, but this time around she's got her guard up.

The film is filled with a host of side characters, and it's nice how the picture manages to fit all of them in without going all over the map. Aside from Piven's Paul, Joan Cusack is Martin's assistant, who deals with the customers and answers the phones, Hank Azaria and K. Todd Freeman play two government agents looking to blot out Blank if they see him doing any misdeeds, Alan Arkin has several scenes as Martin's stressed-out psychologist, Benny Urquidez is a hitman looking to get revenge on Blank for the death of a prized dog, and Dan Aykroyd plays the movie's villain, a fellow assassin named Grocer who wants Blank to join his union of hired killers. There's also a whole host of characters at the eventual reunion, including Jenna Elfman as a woman who saw the other side, and Michael Cudlitz -- a scene-stealer if there ever was one -- as coke-snorting BMW salesman Bob Destepello. All of these people feel like they're cut from the same comedic cloth as the main characters, which is almost miraculous given how broad some of them are allowed to be. As a lifetime Ghostbusters fan, it hurts me to say that if any of them are a weak link, it might actually be Aykroyd, whose insistently cheery schtick toes the waters of "cartoonish", but I don't quite have a problem with it.

The third act leans on a tiny bit of script convenience, Azaria and Freeman are kind of written off, and the movie stops a touch abruptly, but these are minor nitpicks. The movie has more than enough goodwill to coast by then, and the ending is no cop-out, giving us one of the few "armchair psychology" epiphanies that actually feels organic and believable, allowing for a resolution that is satisfying instead of just relieving. Being a shootout, it lacks the intimacy of the film's high points, but the characters are intact, and it packs a nice punch. Grosse Pointe Blank is a great romance and a solid action movie featuring an entire cast's worth of well-written, well-performed characters, in a setting (the reunion) with some universal comedic appeal, and it accomplishes all it sets out to with enough ease to make you wonder: why exactly is this kind of movie so hard to make?

I was sure that 2007 was the year for Blank. The movie takes place at a 10-year high school reunion, so a 10th Anniversary DVD with an anamorphic transfer is a given, right? The year came and went, and even through to today, the only thing that's changed is that fans can now pick up the same old letterboxed transfer with a useless Digital Copy disc. Until Buena Vista opts to issue the film on Blu-Ray, I suggest people track down the 2-Movie Collectionwith High Fidelity, another great Cusack picture. There's also the film War, Inc., which reunites John, Joan and Dan in a worlds-apart scenario with a very similar tone. A few interviews hint that War, Inc. may have been written as a Grosse Pointe Blank sequel, but Disney wouldn't license the rights. On the other hand, I haven't seen it, so I can't vouch for it.

[Grosse Pointe Blank at IMDb]

Cheap Thrills: Suburban Commando (1991)

2010-05-16T11:04:00.000-07:00

Cheap Thrills is a column on The Following Preview featuring movies that can be had new at certain stores for $5 or less. Today's movie is the action-thriller Suburban Commando (1991), which I found at a Big Lots! store for $3.00.

There were three movie series I grew up on: Ghostbusters, Back to the Future, and Home Alone and that was pretty much it. I was only allowed to see movies that were rated G or PG, and instead of bothering to look for other things to capture my imagination, the seven films that comprised those three franchises at the time were basically my comfort zone.

Eventually, my parents started to resist my desires to just watch the same thing over and over, and I was forced to branch out. I chose to take baby steps, and just followed the actors. This led me to movies like Groundhog Day, Richie Rich, Life With Mikey, and Suburban Commando.

I vividly remember getting the VHS tape from behind the counter at Safeway, and discovering that while the box said the film was rated PG, the tape itself had the PG-13 logo on it. I was excited. Time to see some intense stuff, I thought. When the movie started and the human-looking villain has his hand chopped off, the image burned itself into my brain.

Today, Suburban Commando is fascinatingly disjointed. For about 10 minutes, the movie moves at a normal pace and even appears to have a plot, but then it suddenly and decisively devolves into a Greatest Hits compilation of Hulk Hogan doing impressive feats. He's lifting the kids! He's throwing a skateboard into space! He's bench-pressing workshop machinery! After 20 minutes of this, the movie gets bored and devolves further into random wacky antics. Hulk squishes a melon in an old lady's face! Hulk tries to skateboard! Hulk punches a mime! Whoooooa!

Miraculously, Suburban Commando stays pretty fast-paced and earnest about all of this nonsense (as opposed to insistent and belabored), which actually creates some goodwill towards the movie and Hogan's character. Sure, he's not a very good actor (his range seems to consist of how wide he has his eyes opened), but he seems relatively cheerful regardless of what's going on, even when he's supposed to be annoyed.

I wrote the above paragraphs about two months ago, and I don't want to delete them. However, other than mentioning what appeared to be an attempted rape sequence (which Christopher Lloyd heroically foils), I've already forgotten everything about Suburban Commando, which probably sums up the viewing experience in a nutshell. The movie is so forgettable, it's actually managed to partially delete the hand-capitation that I claimed had "burned itself into my brain". (If anyone finds me and I've become a complete and total amnesiac, blame Suburban Commando.) The DVD comes with widescreen and full-screen presentations, and a set-top game of some sort. Sadly, I can't recommend it. Save your three dollars for something more critical, like a third of a city parking fee, and rent the movie on Netflix instead, if you have to see it again. I guarantee it will be 90 minutes of surprisingly-pleasant-but-also-moronic childhood memories.

The Importance of FilmXTRATOM

2010-05-15T00:36:00.000-07:00

Right up front, I want to admit that there isn't much more that can currently be said about the story of FilmXTRATOM's plagiarism, at least not until YouTube responds to Matthew Turner's copyright claim against him. However, in the wake of Tom posting his newest review (which I won't link, since it gives him paid traffic as a YouTube Partner) I've seen a dispiriting amount of comments saying that Tom's actions don't matter or the posters of said comments don't care about what he did, and I think there is something to be said about that. Yeah, okay, those people probably aren't going to come to this blog. They probably aren't going to see this. But I feel like writing it, because, like the list of Tom's infringements itself, I think it's somewhat important.

There are a few primary reasons why Tom's actions mean something:

Plagiarism is a crime.
The easiest and most obvious statement to make here is that plagiarism is illegal.

From plagiarism.org:

Most cases of plagiarism are considered misdemeanors, punishable by fines of anywhere between $100 and $50,000 -- and up to one year in jail.

Plagiarism can also be considered a felony under certain state and federal laws. For example, if a plagiarist copies and earns more than $2,500 from copyrighted material, he or she may face up to $250,000 in fines and up to ten years in jail.

Most of the people trying to let Tom off the hook don't think plagiarism matters, because a) they just don't care, b) they don't care when it's on the internet, or c) they don't care because the plagiarized work in question is a bunch of movie reviews. Well...

Writers care.
This is pretty obvious too, but there's more to it than "it was my writing, and therefore I am mad about it!"

I have become acquainted with Matthew Turner in the last week, both via Twitter and e-mail, and he's clearly angry about what happened to him. I understand why people who are generally not "creative" about their opinion (i.e., opinions are stated in basic terms and not elaborately written out -- not an assessment of the quality of the opinions themselves, just the amount of effort put into them) have trouble understanding what the big deal is that Tom took the words out of someone's .doc file, especially when it's an opinion. "Two people can have the same opinion, right?"

But good writers try and create a "voice". It's not always perceptible, or, not always as perceptible as the writer in question (like me) would like to think it is, but regardless, that's part of the goal. Personally, I hope that if someone read my movie reviews, they would feel like they're having a conversation with me about the movie (albeit a one-sided one, although I think Matthew Lingo would attest that's what conversing with me is like).

At the very least, this should be easy to convey when it comes to the most extreme, stylized examples. Since this is a film blog, and the plagiarism concerns film, take Quentin Tarantino or Kevin Smith. Just by listening to the way the characters in one of their movies speak, I'd expect any viewer familiar with either of those filmmakers' work would know instantly they were watching a film by that person. That's a big part of what's at stake, and I guarantee that no writer wants their "voice" stolen.

Of all the reviews I found on Tom's page (and I may have missed some), only the first three reviews (of Hellboy II, Babylon A.D., and The Duchess) did not appear to be plagiarized. The fans that still support Tom don't seem to grasp that, if you watched purely for the reviews and opinions (as opposed to Tom reading the news, which he did link to), there wasn't anything to learn about Tom himself in those videos. He doesn't have "a way of looking at the films" or "a certain style", because almost the entirety of every review (excepting sentence or two at most, and not on the majority or even a significant portion of the videos) was taken word for word from those other reviews. Tom has no "voice". If the viewers thought there was something about Tom they liked when watching his reviews, I'm afraid the most he could be given credit for personally was his hyper-caffeinated enthusiasm.

Plagiarism is stealing from the writer.
Even having said all of that, it's still hard to get across why it matters that someone would steal your "voice", but to a writer, it's probably no different than having your house broken into. The actual mechanics and significance of the crime is different, sure -- it unquestionably takes more balls to break into a stranger's home and go through their belongings than it does to copy, paste, and memorize -- but the emotions are the same. It's invasive (they're coming into your headspace). They're taking something away from you that you worked hard for (either as an achievement or as a material item). They're passing it off as their own when they did nothing to earn it (the same for money, material goods, or the review) and in a way, they've invalidated you and everything that you did in the process.

The amount and mindset of plagiarism matters.
Another common sentiment is that I and other online voices are blowing things out of proportion. Tom's just some anonymous kid in Yorkshire, England. What business do a bunch of older professional film critics have beating up on this guy?

And, if Tom had swiped a one or two lines from a random review, and upon being found out, apologized swiftly, profusely, and genuinely, it probably wouldn't have been a blip on the Twittersphere. But not only was it nearly every single one of his reviews, it totaled nearly 100 counts of plagiarism.

I debated with a reasonably friendly person on Twitter about Tom, and the other person compared it to shoplifting a bottle of Coke from a local corner store. There are lots of reasons to dispute this comparison, but the biggest one is the amount of plagiarism. Okay, so for one review -- and even then, I'm being generous, since a given Tom video was 99% stolen and 1% Tom, if that -- let's say for the sake of argument I agree with this equation. And one Coke is certainly not deserving of the electric chair. But once Tom's stolen 75 Cokes, begun selling them to other people with his own label on them, and even started receiving the kind of Coke-seller cred that it takes legitimate salesmen years to earn, then it becomes a legitimate problem.

On top of that, it wasn't idle theft. Tom clearly put some level of effort into stealing from people, because a number of his reviews weren't copped from a single source. He would take the paragraphs he liked from multiple sources and re-arrange them until they sounded like they could all have come from the same review. I also didn't get the impression that Tom was reading off of cue cards, which hints that he may have memorized these reviews in order to make them sound like his own train of thought. If putting work into a crime doesn't wave a big red flag, then your code of ethics is probably in need of some revisions.

Tom was profiting off his plagiarism.
Okay, so we've got malicious mass plagiarism. Rage-inducing, sure, and worthy of punishment, but not seriously actionable...until you realize that Tom was pocketing cash for his operation. Not only was Tom a YouTube Partner, meaning the traffic his videos received earned him cash, but he also runs a Cafe Press-like T-shirt shop, has Google ads activated on his videos (no idea if that's set apart from being a YouTube Partner), and was being invited to red-carpet premieres in his country, as well as advance screenings. Right now I'm affiliated with three websites, and I don't make even a fifth of enough money doing that to earn any sort of living off of it, nor have I ever been to a red carpet premiere (I only see movies in advance). I don't know if Tom has a real job (he doesn't seem to), but he's the 85th most subscribed UK journalist of all time on YouTube, so I imagine his vids got a fair amount of traffic (although, like the Google Ads, I have no idea how much money this translates into).

This changes the entire scope of Tom's crimes. Another analogy: would you appreciate it if you went into your job, every day, toiling away at work that's hard but rewarding, and when payday came, you went up to collect your check, and found that another guy was getting paid for the work you were doing? Sure, he's not taking any money out of your paycheck, but this other guy gets to sit at home relaxing, and cashes in on the effort you put in. Does that seem fair to you?

Tom is still profiting off his plagiarism, even if he deleted it.
As a second part to this bullet point, Tom is, as of the time I write this, still a YouTube Partner. It takes a certain amount of views and traffic to become a YouTube Partner, and although Tom finally deleted the videos (rather than simply making them "private"), he still has a heightened level of awareness and membership to a club he wouldn't be part of without his plagiarism. Any money he makes off of his continuing status as a YouTube Partner is directly attributable to his crimes. If Tom really wants to soldier on (by which I mean ignore the fallout from this last week), which it seems he does, then the best thing to do is to dump the FilmXTRA name (which, although he didn't steal it, is the same name as a new UK film TV show), and launch a whole new channel without the existing one's benefits (i.e., not only the YouTube Partner status, but also the legions of followers he's retained).

It's just lazy, and if you're going to be lazy, why bother?
Even if none of that means a damn thing to you, it's outright lazy. I mean, how hard is it to formulate an opinion on something and express it to another person? I'm pretty sure that everyone in the world does it on a daily basis, so it can't be that tough.

Beyond that, what I said in my original blog post bears repeating: I just can't understand why you'd want to have a film review show on YouTube if you don't want to do the work when it comes to the primary, central function of the whole enterprise, which is reviewing movies. I've heard complaints from people that we're picking on this guy over his passion, but if Tom really loves film, then Tom would want to express his own views on movies. If he's not good at it, he should just talk about movies with his friends, who probably won't be judgmental of whatever it is that holds him back. If he wants to tell people other than his friends, then he should learn to get better, or not worry about the quality of his output, because the act of expressing himself is all that matters. If he wants to reach a wide audience without improving, then he should be happy with whatever he can create.

The only reason I can think of that Tom would want a film review show on the internet where he wants to express opinions, without self-improving, but still not being satisfied with what he personally creates, with the goal of reaching a wide audience, is that there must be some other benefit to the show, something he believes he won't get without stronger reviews, and the only thing I can think of is money. You must apply or accept an offer to become a YouTube partner, and if Tom was really testing the corruptibility of the website, then he should have declined.

Plus, if Tom's new review is "no different than the old ones" in terms of style (another claim I've heard in Tom's defense), then it means he is capable of expressing his own opinions, without stealing, and therefore his crime actually becomes more indefensible. If you don't have to steal, you shouldn't be doing it. What possible purpose could it serve ("corruptibility" aside) to steal something for no reason?

It's insulting.
Last, but not least, he's insulting you. You, his loyal viewer. Of anything he did, I think I was most personally shocked by the plagiarism in his blogtv video, which he prefaced by saying the movie in question (Collateral) was something he watched because one of his own fans suggested it. He's lying to your face! He's assuming nobody will care enough to figure it out, least of all the people watching. The only reason people care enough to repeat visit any critic's blog, vlog, channel, Twitter, etc., is because they feel like that person has something unique to offer, something that the seeker can't get anywhere else, and Tom is throwing this basic agreement back in your face by faking the things that should make his tiny corner of the internet unique.

Look at his demeanor in his most recent video (or don't). He hasn't learned. He hasn't changed. Not only does he think what he's done is something that can be brushed off with a half-assed apology letter, but he thinks he can ignore the repercussions, and more importantly the people he's walked over in the process, and feed you, the viewer, a whole new slate of enthusiastic BS. Come on. Be honest. Doesn't that make you feel used? And if it doesn't, why not?

UPDATE: I do just want to add, once again, that iZone.sg is also stealing from Matthew Turner, and it's no more or less important that they are than it is that Tom was. Please, if you mention Tom in any blogs or Tweets, mention iZone and Izaruddin as well.

The Tragic Saga of FilmXTRATOM

2010-05-09T17:05:00.000-07:00

A few days ago, JoBlo's Twitter account (@joblo) called out an online blogger known as Tom S Perkins (@FilmXTRATOM) for straight-up stealing 85% of his video review of Iron Man 2 from their write-up by JimmyO (the corresponding FilmXTRA video has been removed).

Using cutting-edge technology known as Google, I identified the rest of his review (which sounded equally professional) as having come from Den of Geek, and others noted that snippets of his Alice in Wonderland review also came from JoBlo.

After a few hours of collective internet hatred heading his way, Perkins finally signed onto his account in order to thoroughly deny that he'd done any wrong (here, here, and here), before finally caving early the next day (here).

It is worth noting at this point that Hey U Guys, which sponsored/ran Tom's videos for some period of time, almost immediately disassociated themselves from him via their Twitter (@heyuguysblog). Since this is something that is essentially developing and spreading, I've seen a lot of people just finding out about this demanding to know their position, but they've already made it clear. You can read their announcement here, here, here, and here.

This is when, suspiciously, the video reviews from 2010 vanished from his YouTube channel (here), along with any comments identifying the plagiarism on his page or on any videos. Perkins' previously-promised apology letter failed to materialize, and people I follow were suspicious that Tom wasn't ready to fess up to all of his crimes after all. In the interest of public service, I thusly have gone through every one of Tom's videos to find the plagiarism in question.

Pineapple Express
Review in FilmXTRA #9 taken from Empire (unidentified writer)

Righteous Kill
Review in FilmXTRA #11 taken from NewsBlaze (Prairie Miller)

Tropic Thunder
Phrase "more explosions than Krakatoa" in FilmXTRA #12 taken from Mansized (Chris Laverty). Can't access the full review to see if more was taken, Mansized is password protected...?

Death Race (2008)
Review in FilmXTRA #13 taken from The Movie Blog (John Campea)

How to Lose Friends & Alienate People
Review in FilmXTRA #15 taken from View London (Matthew Turner)

Mirrors
Review in FilmXTRA #18 taken from View London (Matthew Turner)

Burn After Reading
Review in FilmXTRA #19 taken from Daily Mirror (David Edwards) and View London (Matthew Turner)

Ghost Town
Review in FilmXTRA #22 taken from View London (Matthew Turner)

Eagle Eye
Review in FilmXTRA #22 taken from View London (Matthew Turner)

Quantum of Solace
Review in FilmXTRA #23 taken from View London (Matthew Turner)

Pride and Glory
Review in FilmXTRA #26 taken from View London (Matthew Turner). Plot summary seems to be taken from official press release.

Max Payne
Review in FilmXTRA #27 taken from View Oxford (Matthew Turner)

Note: In FilmXTRA #29 he starts passing off the classic "Invisibles" screen caps as a segment he created. Clever!

Body of Lies
Review in FilmXTRA #30 taken from View Hamilton (Matthew Turner, he's stalking you!)

Changeling
Review in Film XTRA #31 taken from View London (Matthew Turner)

Lakeview Terrace
Review in FilmXTRA #33 taken from View London (Matthew Turner)

The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008)
Review in FilmXTRA #34 taken from View London (Matthew Turner) and Bloody-Disgusting (Brad Miska)

Transporter 3
Review in FilmXTRA #35 taken from View London (Matthew Turner) and Empire Online (Chris Hewitt)

The Spirit
Review in FilmXTRA #38 taken from View London (Matthew Turner)

Twilight
Review in FilmXTRA #39 taken from View Auckland (Matthew Turner)

Role Models
Review in FilmXTRA #40 taken from View London (Matthew Turner)

Seven Pounds
Review in FilmXTRA #41 taken from Mirror.co.uk (Mark Adams)

Frost/Nixon
Review in FilmXTRA #41 taken from View London (Matthew Turner)

Defiance
Review in FilmXTRA #42 taken from View London (Matthew Turner)

Underworld: Rise of the Lycans
Review in FilmXTRA #43 taken from View London (Matthew Turner)

In addition, there is also this review over at Blogger News Network, which has a passage quite similar to the one I Googled.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Review in FilmXTRA #44 taken from View Auckland (Matthew Turner)

Watchmen
Review in FilmXTRA #45 taken from View London (Matthew Turner)

Duplicity
Review in FilmXTRA #47 taken from View Auckland (Matthew Turner)

X-Men Origins: Wolverine
Review in FilmXTRA #49 taken from View Hamilton (Matthew Turner)

Star Trek (2009)
Review in FilmXTRA #50 (Part 2) taken from IGN UK (Orlando Parfitt) and View London (Matthew Turner)

Fast & Furious
Review in FilmXTRA #51 taken from View London (Matthew Turner)

Terminator: Salvation
Review in FilmXTRA #54 taken from View Auckland (Matthew Turner)

The Hangover
Review here taken from View London (Matthew Turner)

Night at the Museum 2: Battle For the Smithsonian
Review in FilmXTRA #56 taken from View London (Matthew Turner)

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
Review in FilmXTRA #57 taken from Collider (Matt Goldberg) and undoubtedly one other source, which, despite repeated Googling, I could not find.

Brüno
Review here taken from View London (Matthew Turner)

Moon
Review here taken from View London (Matthew Turner)

Public Enemies
Review here taken from View London (Matthew Turner) and Daily Mail (Chris Tookey)

The Hurt Locker
Review here taken from View Auckland (Matthew Turner) and STL Today (Calvin Wilson)

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
Review here taken from View London (Matthew Turner) and Total Film (Jonathan Crocker)

I Love You, Man
Review here taken from View London (Matthew Turner)

G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra
Review here taken from View London (Matthew Turner), SFX (Andrew Osmond), and probably at least one more I couldn't identify.

Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs
Review here taken from View London (Matthew Turner)

The International
Review here taken from View London (Matthew Turner)

Inglourious Basterds
Review here taken from JoBlo (Chris Bumbray) and (yes, really, as far as I can tell) IMDb user laurylou-1, plus potentially others I couldn't identify

The Time Traveler's Wife
Review here taken from JoBlo (Chris Bumbray)

Funny People
Review here taken from View London (Matthew Turner)

District 9
Review here taken from View London (Matthew Turner) and JoBlo (Chris Bumbray)

Dorian Gray
Review here taken from Shadows on the Wall (Rich Cline) and View London (Matthew Turner)

Gamer
Review here taken from View London (Matthew Turner), SFX (James White), and Mark Reviews Movies (Mark Dujsik)

Surrogates
Review here taken from View London (Matthew Turner) and JoBlo (Jenna Busch)

The Invention of Lying
Review here taken from JoBlo (Chris Bumbray) and possibly somewhere else

Up
Review here taken from JoBlo (Chris Bumbray) and possibly somewhere else

The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus
Review here taken from JoBlo (Chris Bumbray) and possibly somewhere else

Zombieland
Review here taken from JoBlo (Brian Kelley) and possibly somewhere else

The Fantastic Mr. Fox
Review here taken from View London (Matthew Turner) and IGN UK (Chris Tilly)

9
Review here taken from JoBlo (JimmyO) and possibly somewhere else

The Men Who Stare at Goats
Review here taken from View London (Matthew Turner) and possibly somewhere else

Harry Brown
Review here taken from Little White Lies (Josh Winning)

The Twilight Saga: New Moon
Review here, oddly enough, doesn't appear to be taken from anywhere, or at least, the internet is too flooded with Twilight crap for Google to find it.

Paranormal Activity
Review here taken from View Auckland (Matthew Turner) and JoBlo (JimmyO)

Law Abiding Citizen
Review here taken from JoBlo (Chris Bumbray) and possibly somewhere else

The Box
Review here taken from JoBlo (Chris Bumbray) and possibly somewhere else

Avatar
Review here taken from JoBlo (Jenna Busch) and possibly somewhere else

Sherlock Holmes
Review here taken from JoBlo (Chris Bumbray)

This has already taken more time than I could have possibly imagined, so I'm not going to scrutinize his channel, but previously, I did determine that he was doing the same on his live podcasts, with the most recent podcast making for a perfect example.

EDIT (05/09/10 6:00PM): I got a little heat from the charming Scott Weinberg of Cinematical (@scottEweinberg) for running the list, and I see his point (it is kind of like ganging up on him, and I have to completely admit to having already made two days worth of jokes at his expense on Twitter), but the true purpose of the list is to a) alert people whose work might have been stolen (which some fellow Twitterers indicate that it has), and b) make sure Tom confesses to everything he's done. There have been indications (based on the leisurely pace Tom is dealing with this, and the rate at which he deletes accusations of plagiarism from his YouTube channel and videos) that he had some thoughts about trying to fess up to some but not all of the theft. It also seems pretty clear that the guy had found ways to make money off of his hackism, via a merchandise shop and Google advertising, and he was being invited to premieres in the UK.

The silly thing, I think, is the whole idea of plagiarism itself. I write about movies because I love writing about movies. The point is to express my thoughts on them, which is something I'd do whether I had a blog or not. To skip over that part of the process is unfathomable to me, because what appeal could running a channel about movies possibly have if you don't actually want to put out your own, original thoughts about them? If that part of it is a chore to you, then clearly you should focus your energy elsewhere.

EDIT 2 (05/09/10 7:30PM): Somewhat ironically, it seems I've inadvertently discovered further plagiarism in the form of @iZone, which has ALSO been targeting Matthew Turner's reviews. Matthew had 42 of his reviews stolen by FilmXTRATOM and an unidentified number of reviews stolen by iZone. Make him feel a little better by following him on Twitter, and hopefully assure that all of his content will be heard from him first in the future.

EDIT 3 (05/10/10 4:00 AM): Unsurprisingly, most of the links to the videos have stopped functioning since I posted this about 12 hours ago. However (equally unsurprisingly), the videos have only gone private as opposed to being deleted from YouTube entirely.

According to Turner, Tom has also issued his personal apology. I have only seen the one comment Turner Tweeted, but Tom claims he was "trying to test the corruptibility of YouTube". Gee, sorry, Tom, what a noble thing to do!

When I first started at DVDTalk, there was a forum post about a plagiarist who had just been deleted. His excuse was supposedly that he "liked the passages" he'd ripped from reviews so much, he'd put them into the same document as his reviews in an attempt to write something equally good, and they just happened to stay in.

Readers may also appreciate the story of "comedian" Nick Madson here and here over at Patton Oswalt's MySpace blog, which broke a little over a week ago. The second blog, in particular, is essential.

EDIT 4 (05/10/10 5:20 AM): Thanks to YouTube video by a user named FuryoftheFilmFan (how fitting), I realize I would be remiss if I did not mention FredLozano, the JoBlo poster who first alerted anyone about any of FilmXTRATOM's crimes. He deserves as much credit as anyone, if not more, for without Fred, Tom would still be getting away with everything.

In addition to FuryoftheFilmFan, a user named OrionSyndicate910 has created a very nice video about the situation here.

EDIT 5 (05/10/10 2:24 PM): In case you wanted to read FilmXTRATOM's apology letter, you can do that here at JoBlo. As a Twitter user pointed out, if he was "testing the corruptibility of YouTube", what purpose did it serve plagiarizing for his weekly live videos?

Luckily, Tom is resilient. As per his most recent Tweet, he will continue to do his video reviews. Well, thank goodness.

EDIT 6 (05/10/10 9:51 PM): Well, even though Tom seems to be prepared to put up new videos this week, it's still good to see that he has finally pulled the trigger and deleted the videos from his account (previously, he had only made them private).

I have two videos on YouTube, which are clip montages from films. They were both flagged at one point by movie studios, but I noticed even while the videos were not available, my view counts remained.

My theory about Tom's attempt to leave the videos "private" is that he could continue being a YouTube Partner -- and thusly, keep profiting from his plagiarism -- if the videos still existed, along with the view counts.

That said, I am not certain as to whether Tom is currently a YouTube Partner. I am going on the implied word of OrionSyndicate910, who suggests that Tom is (or was) a Partner, so make of it what you will.

EDIT 6 (05/11/10 11:42 AM): OrionSyndicate910 has posted a new video which explicitly states that Tom has been a YouTube Partner for 2 months.

By way of this story, I also got mentioned on FilmDrunk, my favorite movie blog on the internet. Day: made.

EDIT 7 (05/11/10 3:07 PM): Initial whistleblower Fred Lozano has put up his own two cents on the issue. Fred also Tweets as @BubblegumWay.

EDIT 8 (05/14/10 11:42 PM): Matthew Turner has a blog up about it, and the newest Empire video blog references the whole mess.

Jay Baruchel's Next Move

2010-04-08T02:35:00.001-07:00

Here's a piece I wrote for Boxoffice.com that didn't get used.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The alumni of Judd Apatow and Paul Feig's now cult-classic TV show "Freaks and Geeks" (including Seth Rogen, James Franco and Jason Segel) have risen to the top of Hollywood's A-list in the past few years. Shortly after the cancellation of "Geeks", however, Apatow created a second show, called "Undeclared", which again featured Rogen and Segel, but also gave actor Jay Baruchel his "big" break as the show's lead. Like its predecessor, the show only lasted a single season, but 9 years later, Baruchel is ready to take his swing at Rogen-level fame with a trio of 2010 films. The actor co-stars in Disney's big-budget, live-action Sorcerer's Apprentice alongside Nicolas Cage, took on a starring role in the recent R-rated success She's Out of My League, and voices a CG hero in DreamWorks Animation's How to Train Your Dragon.

Baruchel has seemingly shied away from Apatow's success thus far: his only appearance in one of the director's films (as producer or director) is an intermittent role as one of Rogen's roommates in Knocked Up. In the meantime, he's appeared in one or two indie projects, such as the aptly named real-time dramedy Real Time, and continued to be a supporting actor in big movies like Tropic Thunder and the Night at the Museum sequel. None of these films have trumpeted the actor as a leading man, but perhaps that's part of the actor's plan. A good parallel might be actor DJ Qualls, who made a splash in the 2000 comedy Road Trip and quickly graduated to a starring role in 2002's The New Guy, only to see his movie career immediately stall. Qualls even appeared in I'm Reed Fish, a 2006 movie that happened to star Baruchel.

Regardless of what Baruchel's plans were, 2010 is already looking like it's going to be his breakout year. The producers of League were clearly looking to be in the Apatow business, starting with a romance and raunch formula and ending with a movie poster basically consisting of Baruchel's scrunched-up face, just like the campaigns for The 40-Year-Old Virgin and Knocked Up. Banner ads peppered the internet, trumpeting the film's R-rating, looking to catch the attention of the same demographic that made The Hangover a $300 million hit, the studio, after sitting on the film for around a year (thanks to the Paramount/DreamWorks split), carefully positioned it a safe two weeks away from John Cusack and Steve Pink's Hot Tub Time Machine. The strategy worked: League isn't a box-office smash or even a low-key hit, but the film's solid numbers proved that Baruchel's non-existent star status didn't seem to bother audiences.

Now, Baruchel is looking at what may turn out to be two of the biggest films of his career, regardless of whether he'll be personally responsible for their box-office success. Apprentice, which won't be arriving until August, has plenty of cache behind it, including producer Jerry Bruckheimer, director Jon Turtletaub, and star Nicolas Cage -- three men who turned two National Treasure films into nearly $400 million in domestic box office reciepts (a third is in the cards) -- as well as the basic name value of "The Sorcerer's Apprentice" (the film is an expansion of the original Fantasia short with the buckets and brooms, minus Mickey; you can see Baruchel recreating the scene briefly, near the end of the film's teaser trailer), even though it's not really a remake. Right now, though, How to Train Your Dragon is getting big buzz as DreamWorks' best animated project yet, with additional kudos for the 3D. Even if Baruchel won't get stopped on the street for participation in Dragon if it turns out to be a smash, he'll likely find himself doing more and more voicework (just like his "Geeks" alum Seth Rogen, who laid down tracks for Shrek the Third, Kung Fu Panda and Monsters vs. Aliens).

On one hand, most voice actors aren't exactly celebrities, and, while the practice is increasing, most actors would prefer to do their work in front of the camera rather than behind the microphone. Then again, for Baruchel, maybe that level of celebrity makes perfect sense. By doing a film where he doesn't physically appear, and another where he plays the co-lead, he's probably locked up plenty of steady work, retains his cred as a supporting actor, allowing any profit and credibility League creates to be icing on the cake. Even if "Jay Baruchel" never becomes a household name, it looks as if he's got his future in perfect order.

Remake Watch 2010: Week 15

2010-04-07T17:35:00.000-07:00

A catch-up post, in which Hollywood vomits old movies and television shows into your face with alarming strength and velocity.

Godzilla
Legendary Pictures has the rights and are trying as hard as they can to avoid making anything like Roland Emmerich's 1998 Godzilla. Good plan. [Source: Variety]

House Party
This movie isn't going to make House Party 2 look like House Party 3! It's just going to look like House Party! Because, you know, it's a remake. I guess that House Party 4 Film Favorites DVD is selling like gangbusters. [Source: Pajiba's The Hollywood Cog]

"Laverne & Shirley"
Jamie Foxx is writing a "Laverne & Shirley" movie with Jessicas Biel and Garner in mind to star and Garry Marshall to direct? I told you I wanted an out-of-left-field story, damn it! [Source: TV Guide]

Look Who's Talking
Clearly, someone wants to capitalize on those E*TRADE ads starring babies. Oh, wait, they're making a movie based on those, too. [Source: Pajiba]

Overboard
Sometimes I think Hollywood execs with no ideas on what to greenlight just go to Blockbuster and look at old DVDs. You know, because Hollywood Video is out of business. Maybe this is the one that will get Jennifer Lopez that "dope" Oscar she deserves. [Source: The Hollywood Reporter]

Night of the Living Dead: Origins
Never mind that there is already a Night of the Living Dead 3D, they're making another one, and it's animated, and a prequel. Hmm. [Source: Movie Mikes, via Moviehole]

Private Benjamin
Anna Faris is headlining a Private Benjamin remake. Unlike my joke above, it may really turn out to be an Oscar bid for Faris (the original scored Goldie Hawn an Oscar nomination), which Jennifer Lopez can watch from her couch while lamenting that her comic ability to hold semen inside her vagina in The Back-Up Plan was overlooked. [Source: THR's Risky Business Blog]

Police Academy
Steve Guttenberg's dreams of a Police Academy reunion sequel are crushed by the news of this remake. Steve Guttenberg's dreams are always crushed. [Source: The Hollywood Reporter]

"Popeye"
A remake of the cartoon, not the Robin Williams movie. IN 3D!!! [Source: Variety]

Real Genius
I like the idea that someone is remaking a movie titled Real Genius, in the sense that that same person would probably remake a movie called Truly Original. [Source: the first article from Pajiba again]

The Toxic Avenger
Everyone's favorite hand-frying, arm-tearing, boob-loving, grossly mutilated dweeb is bringing his classic mix of blood and breasts to Hollywood in an all-new PG-13 family movie in the vein of The Mask! Wait, what? [Source: Deadline Hollywood Daily]

Not added to the "Remake Watch" count but still oh-so-very-in-development:

"Baywatch"
Years ago, Eli Roth was attached to "Baywatch", presumably for no other reason than he could be. Unfortunately, as it turns out, that might have been a good idea, and it was quickly scrapped. [Source: THR's Risky Business Blog]

Fantastic Voyage
Alright, alright. There are four movies on this list with genuine potential, and this is one of them. Like Clash of the Titans, there's definite room for improvement here, and it's been long enough since the original film was released to justify revisiting. As long as potential director Paul Greengrass leaves his shaky-cam behind (sometimes it works, but I don't think Fantastic Voyage needs to be gritty) and producer James Cameron lets someone else write it, I'll go see it. [Source: Variety]

Fright Night
Here's another one that I have mild faith in, entirely based on Anton Yelchin. [Source: THR's Heat Vision Blog]

Heavy Metal
The third project worth caring about and the one with the second-most potential: Heavy Metal, via David Fincher. He tried before and failed, but this time, he's brought his buddies Zack Snyder and James Cameron with him. Loud and nasty indeed. [Source: Deadline Hollywood Daily]

Caesar (Planet of the Apes)
Finally, 20th Century Fox is moving forward with a Planet of the Apes prequel called Caesar, which will ignore Tim Burton's much-maligned remake. [Source: Production Weekly, but the best link I have is from Deadline Hollywood Daily]

Red Sonja
Rose McGowan: out. Megan Fox: potentially in. My attention: as far away from Megan Fox as possible. [Source: Pajiba]

"Robotech"
The director of Stomp the Yard is considering directing. There will be no robots, only interpretive dance. [Source: IESB]

"Voltron"
When a movie is a hit (like, say, Transformers), quickly find and buy a property that you can make nearly indistinguishable, and pour money into it. [Source: Corona Coming Attractions

Remake Watch 2010:
15 film remakes in development
4 film remakes released in theaters
0 film remakes released direct-to-DVD
3 film reboots in development
0 film reboots released in theaters
0 TV remakes announced
0 tv remakes released

A "reboot" is defined by Remake Watch as a new attempt at a film series with new actors playing old characters (thus, X-Men Origins: Wolverine and Race to Witch Mountain are excluded). Sequels to remakes (The Pink Panther 2, Halloween II) are ignored.

Thoughts on an Random Movie: Leprechaun (1993)

2010-03-22T00:34:00.000-07:00

I got a job recently, and I haven't been around to update this site very often. I mean, I never do, but I need to do at least one Remake Watch post (Police Academy and Overboard!), so even at that, I'm behind on my work.

Since I spent most of the last 24 hours being unusually productive (I got Boxoffice.com and DVDTalk.com work done today too), I figure I might as well post here just to complete the hat trick, and what better to fill your internets with than a random assortment of thoughts about Leprechaun, which I am watching for the first time. I may or may not be watching all six Leprechaun films in the next week or two (yes, they made six Leprechaun films), so you might also be treated to entries on the sequels as well.

I decided to start blogging a little late in the game, so I'm afraid my thoughts on the first 30 minutes are mostly missing. The rest are time-coded, in case you too are one of the poor souls who owns Leprechaun and you'd like to retroactively read along.

(unspecified): Can this movie not afford the expensive visual effect of a door closing?

25 minutes: As a director, if you're unable to visualize the impossible, such as the end of a rainbow, just hide it behind an old truck.

27 minutes: I hope this annoying kid dies first.

28 minutes: The fat guy just ate a gold coin by accident. This incident was followed by this amazing exchange:

"Can you die from eating gold?"
"You can if I kill you!"

You would think that the second line comes from the Leprechaun, but no, it comes from the annoying kid.

28 minutes: I'm afraid there aren't actually expensive surgeries to make morons into geniuses. Sorry, Poor Man's Louis Anderson.

29 minutes: Nathan the Painter is really impressed that Jennifer Aniston has picked up the challenging "paint-in-a-straight-line" technique in 30 seconds. I guess he's into intellectual women.

31:20: Why on earth would she think Nathan the Painter was hiding under the truck? Is that something country painters do?

32:30: The characters in this movie are very easily convinced that the Leprechaun is a random, benign animal.

34:10: Of course, the town just happens to have a collectible coin store. I mean, what town doesn't?

35:50: Damn it, did I leave my bike bell on upstairs again?

36:18: Better whisper exposition to myself while I lock this safe.

36:37: So it isn't bizarre to this coin shop owner that a kid-size tricycle is rolling through his coin shop?

37:42: DEATH BY POGO STICK

37:50: I guess this guy does have a lot of toys, for some reason. Maybe they're collectibles or something.

41:25: Wait, so, instead of kicking the Leprechaun as hard as possible and running to his car, this cop chose to flee into the woods?

42:45: It's a real shame that Mark Jones' elaborate artistic vision is being steamrolled by this cropped, full-screen DVD.

44:20: This cop is experiencing all the stages of grief, at the base of this tree, in order, inside a minute.

44:58: Nathan the Painter has ordered blob, in mud sauce, with a side of slop.

45:43: Aniston pronounces "mature" like "couture". That's how you know she's serious.

46:10: Off-brand Lucky Charms in the pantry. Nice.

47:33: Wait, is the idea that he sanded the boot until he'd whittled it down into a high heel? Why does that change the boot's color?

48:21: Yes, Nathan. A bear arranged a bunch of shoes on the table.

49:20: She's mastered a broom too? On the same day she mastered painting? Look out, world!

49:22: "Sounds like a bell." THIS IS A GENIUS OBSERVATION

50:56: I really do like the flute-heavy score. It's funny. Good funny.

51:56: LOOK OUT A BEAR TRAP

52:17: This battle is seriously epic.

52:39: LUNGE

52:46: Don't just stand there, Jennifer Aniston, do something!

52:53: Of two adults, you send the nine-year-old to go get the shotgun?

54:15: What is Nathan shooting at?

55:39: Six rounds my ass. You only put one round into him, you liar.

56:57: kill the kid kill the kid kill the kid kill the kid kill the kid

57:25: No power windows.

58:33: It doesn't even look like the Leprechaun's car is tall enough to touch the truck, much less flip it over.

59:24: We're in some serious Evil Dead territory here.

59:33: Serious Evil Dead territory.

59:36: Wait, so, he opens the door and just runs away?

1:01:41: "Where the hell are the police? They should be here by now!" Police in this town have a minute-or-less guarantee.

1:02:47: The flip-frame transitions in this movie are amazing.

1:03:13: YEAH BADASS SHOTGUN WIELDING JENNIFER ANISTON APPARENTLY

1:06:19: "No one takes a leprechaun's gold!" No one except all of the characters in this movie!

1:07:28: Don't see a lot of dick-grabbing as assault in real life, much less in movies.

1:08:21: "We got the sucker!" Yeah, well, you got him before, too.

1:08:49: Just shoot him again, damn it!

1:09:33: Normally, I'd expect producers to hold off on having the villain in a horror movie skateboard until the sixth or seventh chapter, but Leprechaun goes for the gusto.

1:11:07: It rang before, and it was the Leprechaun! You ripped it out of the wall and threw it on the floor, and you're going to answer it again?

1:11:13: Apparently, the answer is yes. Therefore, this Nightmare on Elm Street rip-off moment is only brought to you by your own stupidity!

1:11:44: "That thing is a leprechaun, and we've gotta find a way to stop it!" Aniston's hatred for that line is audible.

1:12:38: Is there a reason they're not all escaping?

1:14:09: The Leprechaun has mastered the skateboard, but not roller skates.

1:14:35: HEY JENNIFER ANISTON THAT IS A HANDICAPPED ZONE YOUNG LADY

1:15:21: Really, I love it in every movie when characters whisper exposition to themselves. I'm not trying to single Leprechaun out.

1:17:17: The Leprechaun is a master of disguise! Awesome.

1:17:19: WHEELCHAIR CHASE

1:18:38: Exposition is not often delivered by a bloody, dying man, hanging from the roof of an elevator. And by "not often", I mean "not often enough".

1:20:18: The Leprechaun's low-to-the-ground point-of-view turns out to be unexpectedly appealing when it comes to foot chases after 1993-era Jennifer Aniston.

1:23:16: Damn it, movie, don't pretend you're going to kill the kid when you really aren't.

1:23:50: Leprechaun becomes a religious movie.

1:24:10: Largest four-leaf clover ever.

1:25:33: This is not a great movie, but that is an amazing one-liner.

1:26:25: This is the opposite of touching. Stop talking, Ozzie.

1:28:03: One hastily-added voice-over line is an ending, right?

Remake Watch 2010: Week 7

2010-02-11T09:54:00.000-08:00

Universal is mounting a remake of The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas. I don't really know anything about The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas. I bet it gets named to Best in Texas or something dumb, though, thus completely defeating the fact that it's a remake of The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas (from a marketing standpoint, anyway). (Source: Cinematical, really, since the original Variety story is behind a paid wall)

There has also been movement on the remakes of the live-action Akira (The Hughes Brothers have been tapped to direct), The Black Hole (director Kosinski suggests it will have more hard science), A Star is Born (Russell Crowe will play the lead), Vacation ("Freaks and Geeks" star John Francis Daley is co-writing with Jonathan Goldstein -- although it may actually be more of a sequel than a reboot), and probably some others I've forgotten about, but they don't add to the 2010 total because they were all announced previously. (Sources: Vulture; MTV; The LA Times; and Variety via ComingSoon)

There was also movement on the Escape From New York remake, but the news was awesome: before they could glean the rights, New Line had to sign a contract with John Carpenter, stipulating that "Plissken must always be called 'Snake'", that the character "must wear an eyepatch", and, best of all, "must always be a bad-ass". John Carpenter is the best person ever. (Source: Vulture)

Remake Watch 2010:
4 film remakes in development
0 film remakes released in theaters
0 film remakes released direct-to-DVD
1 film reboot in development
0 film reboots released in theaters
0 TV remakes announced
0 tv remakes released

A "reboot" is defined by Remake Watch as a new attempt at a film series with new actors playing old characters (thus, X-Men Origins: Wolverine and Race to Witch Mountain are excluded). Sequels to remakes (The Pink Panther 2, Halloween II) are ignored.

Would You Like to Play a Game?

2010-01-26T02:59:00.000-08:00

(No, Katie Featherston has nothing to do with this news. Just keep reading.)

So, about a week ago, Paramount hired Saw VI director Kevin Greutert to direct a sequel to Paranormal Activity, perhaps the biggest success story of 2009 (or at least, Avatar aside, the biggest low-budget success story, anyway). This was funny because Paranormal Activity was the movie that finally knocked the Saw franchise -- Greutert's entry, actually -- from its four-year throne atop the Halloween box office. I guess the old saying, "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" still applies.

Greutert's Paranormal sequel was positioned against Lionsgate's Saw VII 3D, which may or may not, depending on its financial performance, be the last theatrical Saw movie (that is, until they remake or reboot the first one, which, going by Spider-Man, may be as soon as, say, Thursday).

Or at least that was how things were until yesterday, when Lionsgate decided to exercise an option they held on Greutert, forcing him to direct Saw VII instead of Paranormal 2. Saw V director David Hackl, who was previously slated to direct VII, is relegated off to some other, as-of-yet undecided project.

While it makes for great, hilarious, public Hollywood shenanigans, this is a terrible, terrible move. First of all, how does Lionsgate expect to get a good performance out of Greutert when he's got the taste of sour grapes in his mouth the whole time? Greutert edited all five Saw films prior to his directorial debut on the sixth, so there's no doubt he's got the franchise in his blood. But is he going to be able to creatively and emotionally invest in a project he doesn't want to make? As low-rent as it may be, I am still a die-hard Saw fan, and if this is the last hurrah, I want it to be good.

Then there's Hackl. The general consensus is that Saw V is the worst of the series (I agree). Producers being producers, they'd never tell you straight up that a movie they worked on sucked unless they were fired or something, but I'm sure Hackl thought it was a good display of solidarity when he was asked back to direct the seventh, and in 3D as well. Of course, the moment it became "the last", I'm sure the stakes went way up, and all of a sudden, going with the fans' least favorite director starts looking like a bad idea, especially when your last director is running off to the competition. Greutert expressed his frustration via his website, although he chose to delete what he specifically said and left it at "pissed". I imagine Hackl doesn't feel much better (although for him, "used" be more accurate).

Of course, Hackl's involvement raises another question: the movie supposedly starts rolling on February 1st, so the film can make its traditional last-week-of-October date. Since it's January 26th, I imagine the movie's ready to go before cameras, but didn't Hackl do all the pre-production work? Not only does Lionsgate have an unwilling, angry director, but he's also gonna have to adapt using months of another director's pre-production work, on something as complicated as 3D.

In any case, I'm excited to see how this story develops. Personally, I'm hoping Hackl signs on to direct Paranormal Activity 2. I hear they're looking for a director.

Remake Watch 2010: Week 5

2010-01-26T01:48:00.000-08:00

It's hard not to think about Mannequin and not also think about Weekend at Bernie's, because they're both such stupid premises from the 1980's starring Andrew McCarthy (Also, the Mannequin logo is pink, usually with a blue background behind it, and Bernie's shirt is pink and his jacket is blue. Shut up). I guess the people who own the rights to Mannequin and Weekend at Bernie's agree, because now the epic McCarthy-Jonathan Silverman comedy milestone -- a film so good and so ingrained into the cultural landscape that they gave it away with pizzas -- is also headed back to theaters in an all-new, still-stupid incarnation.

It's funny -- I watched both Weekend at Bernie's films back to back a year or two ago, and I can't really remember a thing about them, other than the fact that Terry Kiser plays a damn good dead man, and that I would rather be watching Catherine Mary Stewart in a better movie, like Night of the Comet. Night of the Comet is a classic, and believe me, Hollywood, by the time you try to remake that (because it's inevitable), I'll do more than make pizza jokes. Unless, of course, we get a good special edition DVD of the original. Then I'll just grumble about it a lot, and probably see it when nobody is looking. Anyway, the point I'm making is, Terry Kiser is still alive, so he should play Bernie again. That'd really be better than all the Andrew McCarthy cameos in the world.

Also, apparently they're rebooting some superhero movie. But I can't find any information about it.

In case you're wondering, I used the Weekend at Bernie's II poster because the tagline is phenomenal. It's so lazy. It's one of those things that really is so bad, it's funny. And then it's bad again.

[via Moviehole]

Remake Watch 2010:
3 film remakes in development
0 film remakes released in theaters
0 film remakes released direct-to-DVD
1 film reboot in development
0 film reboots released in theaters
0 TV remakes announced
0 tv remakes released

A "reboot" is defined by Remake Watch as a new attempt at a film series with new actors playing old characters (thus, X-Men Origins: Wolverine and Race to Witch Mountain are excluded). Sequels to remakes (The Pink Panther 2, Halloween II) are ignored.

Top 10 of 2009 (subject to change*)

2010-01-17T10:47:00.000-08:00

*not really

So, I was just telling TFP non-contributor Matt Lingo, following a belated viewing of Up in the Air, how much I hated making top 10 lists, and that I'd probably never even create a top 10 of 2009.

Lucky for you, I'm a big fat liar, because right after that I proceeded to look at the notepad file I had with most of the movies I saw in 2009 written down in it, and I found that arranging them in an order I liked was actually easier than I thought.

Still, I hasten to add that I am notoriously nitpicky (I probably have OCD), and my rankings over the course of the year often change at the drop of a hat. What's important is what I write about the movie, because even if my ranking of the movie changes, the things I like and dislike about the movie itself don't -- I just, as I mentioned, hate making lists. I mean, there are several movies I saw this year that I fleetingly considered number ones at the time I saw them that aren't even on the list anymore. I also don't care about star ratings, which are equally susceptible to my mood, so there's also the possibility that you look at the linked reviews and they don't quite mesh with the placement on the list. But the point of publishing the list in the first place is to try to combat my incessant need to rearrange the movies on it, so rest assured, this is the list that's going in the books; if any movies I missed turn out to be the missing link in the best of 2009 food chain, it'll be too little, too late.

Note: My personal system is that anything that has some sort of wide availability in America in the year in question qualifies for the year-end-list. Sometimes, that means a limited theatrical run, but often, "wide availability" means a DVD release. In any case, this is why there are films from 2008 and 2007 on the list -- it was my first real chance to see them.

10. The Fantastic Mr. Fox (2009)
[Pre-order it on Blu-Ray or DVD]
Pathos and darkness have their place, but fantasy and joy are almost a relief these days, with everything going "dark" in an attempt to be more realistic. Thus, while the year was filled with wonderful animated films like Henry Selick's masterfully creepy Coraline and the underrated and underseen seriocomic wonder Mary and Max, I have to rank them under The Fantastic Mr. Fox, director Wes Anderson's breezy, hilarious adaptation of Roald Dahl's popular book. Anderson's style and company of actors all fit right into the meticulous stop-motion world of the film, and there are well-written characters despite the lack of doom and gloom. Hotbox!

9. The Hurt Locker (2008)
[Buy it on Blu-Ray or DVD]
I've seen The Hurt Locker twice, and I don't feel like I've taken it all in. I probably owe it (and several other movies on this list) one more viewing before I publish, but it's already the middle of January, so I should also just suck it up and post it, because I doubt anyone will live and die by the movies I choose. In any case, while I wasn't quite as taken by it as my fellow OFCSers, who awarded it Best Picture and Best Editing in addition to Best Actor and Best Director in our year-end awards voting, I agree that Jeremy Renner paints a perfect picture of all-consuming, desperate dedication to living on the edge, and director Kathryn Bigelow effortlessly summons up stomach-churning, sweaty, cold-palm tension.

8. Moon (2009)
[Buy it on Blu-Ray or DVD]
I love a good slow, atmospheric film, and I love it even more when it contains weird, slightly creepy science fiction. At the front and center of Moon is a multi-faceted performance by Sam Rockwell, but the picture is really completed by Duncan Jones' gorgeous, desperately lonely lunar visuals, and the sad, slightly haunted score by Clint Mansell. These three elements combine into an experience that alternates between dreamlike head trip and hallucinatory paranoia. The presence of Kevin Spacey as the voice of an awesome computer-slash-robot that uses emoticons to communicate is just icing on the cake.

7. Away We Go (2009)
[Buy it on Blu-Ray or DVD]
When I first saw the trailer for Away We Go, I thought it essentially looked like a sequel to Garden State: a similar blend of comedy and romance, a plot that might have picked up where that film left off, and even including "The Office" star John Krasinski as a parallel to "Scrubs" star Zach Braff. I also wasn't particularly grabbed by the choice of Sam Mendes as director; I liked Jarhead plenty, but his other films have left me cold. In execution, however, Away We Go, is a vibrant adventure that feels like it's about real people in real places, deftly avoiding boring relationship roadblocks and too much "quirky" humor. The film's greatest strength, however, is the palpable chemistry between Krasinski and Maya Rudolph; it's intimate, devoted, funny and sweet, and it easily turns Away We Go into everything I've ever wanted from a modern movie romance, only better.

6. Der Baader-Meinhof Komplex (2008)
[Pre-order it on Blu-Ray or DVD]
On one hand, it's hard for me to rank a movie as cold as Der Baader-Meinhof Komplex above a movie as warm and wonderful as Away We Go, but Uli Edel's direction is so visceral it's impossible not to. The movie couldn't have been going for ten minutes before a group of protesters are sprayed down by police using fire hoses, and it feels so real you want to run for your life. Since the RAF were corrupt, evil people, the movie is hard to relate to, in a way, but the stark violence of their actions is compelling. Every bit the equal of Inglorious Basterds when it comes to depicting the atrocities of war.
(read my DVDTalk theatrical review here)

5. District 9 (2009)
[Buy it on Blu-Ray or DVD]
I saw District 9 the day it opened and didn't quite know what to make of it. I watched it again on DVD and was seriously blown away. The sad truth of the matter is, when I saw it in theaters, I don't think I knew how to process such a startlingly original movie; District 9 is made out of familiar pieces but feels unlike any movie I've ever seen. The potent combination of thrilling, psuedo-documentary action, body horror, romance, and political drama packs more pure cinematic energy than most of the other movies I saw this year put together, and Sharlto Copley's performance as Wikus van de Merwe is genuinely Oscar-worthy. This is definitely one of the films on the list that I'm in danger of ranking higher, as it's a perfect blend of big ideas and popcorn escapism.

4. Where the Wild Things Are (2009)
Movies like the awful (500) Days of Summer (review here) have ruined the word "quirky" for the modern moviegoer, but Where the Wild Things Are is better described with words like "wit" and "whimsy", deftly illustrating the tale of Max (played knowingly by young Max Records) and his desire to escape to a world where he can do what he wants. Director Spike Jonze effortlessly juggles the movie's many tones while roving around a stunning landscape painstakingly crafted by production designer K.K. Barrett and beautifully photographed by Lance Acord. There's also the vocal performance by James Gandolfini, which in a fair and perfect world, would have a legitimate shot at a Best Actor nod.
(read my DVDTalk theatrical review here)

3. Up (2009)
[Buy it in a Blu-Ray/DVD Combo Pack (same price as the DVD by itself)]
There is better direction and heart-wrenching emotion in the first ten minutes of Up than there is in the majority of movies released in a given year, and yet this intro is just a tiny piece of a soaring, colorful adventure that works just as well in carefully crafted Disney Digital 3D as it does in a more standard set of two dimensions. The movie's villain seems slight, but the wise minds at Pixar, never ones to hinge a film on its plot mechanisms, bring it back around to emotion in the end, with just the faintest touch of bittersweetness. As a comedic bonus, Up also contains some of Pixar's best side characters ever in Dug the Dog and Kevin the Bird, which are both masterful observations of real-life animals.
(read my DVDTalk theatrical review here)

2. 12 (2007)
[Buy it on DVD]
Most viewers probably missed 12 in 2009, but this 160 minute, Russian-language remake of Sidney Lumet's classic 12 Angry Men is every bit the equal of its inspiration, using the same story -- 12 jurors determine if a young man is either innocent or guilty of murder -- as the backbone for an original, entirely different story. The only other thing the two movies have in common is a whole table's worth of phenomenal performances, who make those 160 minutes feel like 20.
(read my DVDTalk DVD review here)

1. Inglourious Basterds (2009)
[Buy it on Blu-ray or DVD)
It's hard to summarize all of the things that are great about Inglourious Basterds, but Quentin Tarantino's latest is bursting with pent-up energy, expertly biding its time before rattling the screen with jaw-dropping, bloody intensity. They ought to teach the bar scene in film schools as an entire course on how to create and increase dramatic tension in films. On top of this, Tarantino has several of his best performances to fall back on, from Mélanie Laurent (a delicate, thoughtful wave of righteous fire and brimstone), Brad Pitt (brick-to-the-face comedy) and Christoph Waltz (an embodiment of the word "sinister"). It's ridiculously good, the kind of movie you can't believe someone made while reveling in every detail. In one scene, a terrified Nazi yells at Pitt's Lt. Aldo Raine: "You'll be shot for this!" I think of Tarantino, the rules he's breaking, and the executives he's working for. "Nah, I don't think so," responds Raine. "More like chewed out. I been chewed out before." Sounds about right.
(read my DVDTalk theatrical review here)

Note: Since, once again, I hate making lists, I didn't wait to add it, but I'm pretty sure, having recently seen most of In the Loop, that it would have made this list. Do with this information what you will.

Jurassic Park IV

2010-01-14T02:02:00.000-08:00

Courtesy of Boxoffice.com, currently paying my bills, comes the information that Jurassic Park IV -- last rumored to be dead as a doornail -- is very much alive and kicking, and, in typical 21st century fashion, it brought two sequels along for the ride.

Since I just endured all six American Pie movies, I immediately applied Universal's auto-sequel "system" to the new Jurassic Park movies and became instantly amused. Imagine: DTV-quality CG dinosaurs tormenting a bunch of well-meaning but utterly interchangeable actors, running around spouting the same "don't play God" plotline in each one, all joined by a doom-and-gloom cousin of Sam Neill's character, each individually suckered back in for "one last look" at the park and all the scientific secrets held within. And no direct-to-video Park sequel would be complete without a requisite cameo from Wayne Knight -- even though his character is dead -- in a retconning flashback sequence where he mentions he's stealing embryos for Dodgson and ends up privy to some dark secret about the park's past.

Back in the real world, I'm not sure how I feel about Jurassic Park 4, since there's no doubt it won't be the super-ultra amazingly awesome treatment by John Sayles that was previewed on Ain't It Cool News at least half a decade ago. If I remember correctly, it brought back Sam Neill but he vanished about halfway through, replaced by an all new mysterious character as dinosaurs spread across the planet. There was some other stuff going on, but eventually the movie incorporated Knight's shaving cream can with embryos, and a Transylvanian castle where a madman was training dinosaurs to become military weapons underwater. I mean, I'd pay to see that in a second, and who wouldn't? Unless you hate fun, that is. I would find the page on AICN and link to it, but AICN's search function is still the worst thing ever invented in the history of the internet, and using Google doesn't work much better.

In the meantime, expect a Franchise Legacy post about Jurassic Park either sooner or later, depending on how awful and lazy I am.

(don't hold your breath or anything)

Franchise Legacy: American Pie (Part 2)

2010-01-12T00:09:00.000-08:00

Franchise Legacy is a series where I review all the entries in a given franchise, and try to determine what (if any) impact the series has had on the public at large. I started work on this first entry, for American Pie, sometime during fall 2009, intending to get it done before the first film's 10th anniversary had past, but it fell by the wayside and I wasn't sure I was ever going to run it. Recently, the series' seventh entry, American Pie Presents: The Book of Love, has arrived on DVD, and I thought it would be a good time to resurrect my article.

For Part 1 of this article, click here.

American Pie Presents: Band Camp (2005)
I guess band camp is a reasonably logical place for an American Pie spin-off to go, but the setup in the movie is bizarre: after pulling a pepper spray prank that sends several students away in ambulances, Matt Stifler (Tad Hilgenbrinck) is, uh, sentenced to band camp for the summer (by the Sherminator, now an East Great Falls High guidance counselor in a mildly depressing Chris Owen cameo). Matt's plan to survive such a dreadful torture? Buying what looks like $25,000 worth of video equipment (all with the click of a mouse and the script's disinterest in creating a logical financial situation for the character) to record whatever hijinks occur (especially anything sexual).

Five seconds of Hilgenbrink's Stifler impersonation and you get it -- this is why they made the movie. The guy has Scott's mannerisms and tone down pat, and he's less annoying than Scott's performance in American Wedding to boot. And, even more importantly, just like Eric Christian Olsen's truly remarkable Jim Carrey impersonation in Dumb & Dumberer, it makes not one bit of difference when it comes to the film's comedic aptitude. You can have several Oscar-caliber performances in a movie -- which this absolutely isn't, in any way, shape or form (just spot-on mimicry) -- and it doesn't mean anything unless the script is up to par, which, in Band Camp's case, it is not.

When describing the comic scenarios in Band Camp, the word "labored" springs to mind, over and over again, as Stifler ends up in some sort of embarrassing or disgusting situation, and then either someone walks in on it or something even more disgusting and embarrassing happens. I suppose this might work for a shock laugh or two, but the situations are always painfully telegraphed, with obvious punchlines. On top of all of these problems, the scenarios are just plain...unlikely, to say the least. An example of all of these problems: the events that lead Matt to sexually pleasure by sticking his manhood in the end of an oboe are haphazardly thrown about in two scenes where other things will likely be taking up the audience's attention, and there's no further payoff than the sight gag, both of the character doing it and the aftermath in which the instrument won't come off, neither of which is that funny to begin with. There's also the problem with gross-out for the sake of gross-out, and while a shot of a filled-up toilet is unnecessarily distasteful, there is a scene in Band Camp that goes farther than I could stomach. Maybe it's just me; I've never been nauseated by a movie before, but a scene involving a soda can really turned my stomach, and still does even now (I'm literally retching as I think about it).

This being a direct-to-video Unrated DVD, the nudity and sexual content is really ramped up for this entry, which means a lot of gross-looking post-surgery boobs for little to no reason. In fact, there's more nudity in Band Camp than there is the first three American Pie films put together, a theme that will continue throughout the American Pie Presents series in the most exploitational and useless way. Matt sticks a camera in the girls' shower area, and the results are almost so over-the-top as to be funny; I may be going out on a limb here, but I doubt impromptu dance scenes regularly break out in girls' showers. Of course, the writers of American Pie Presents: Band Camp don't know anything about going over the top, much less poking fun at themselves, so the girls perform "I Like Big Butts" on Stifler's webcam without irony.

Then, of course, there's Eugene Levy. As will become a running motif with these direct-to-video sequels, I'm not sure why Eugene Levy is willing to appear in them; the movies look like they cost under a million dollars, so how much money could they possibly be offering him? Regardless, he's here, dutifully making faces, referencing the originals as frequently as possible, and basically delivering exposition, which leads me to my next question: why pay Eugene Levy a bunch of money to be in your movie and saddle him with all the boring dialogue? The guy is a talented improvisor, if someone gave him the chance, he might come up with some comedy gold. Alas, it is not to be. Aside from Levy, and to a lesser extent, Owen (only in two scenes), the other way the movie tries to feel similar to the originals is by using the same songs (although they had to swap Jimmy Eat World for a cover version).

That said, there is actually one scene in the movie that's really nice; a brief character moment between Matt and Elyse (Arielle Kebbell), the movie's female lead, where they lie and watch the clouds. For approximately three minutes, the movie does fairly low-key dialogue jokes, Hilgenbrink turns off the Stifler impression, and the characters just chat with each other. In fact, having just finished reviewing The Book of Love, I can definitively say this is the one and only genuinely successful "nice"/"sweet" scene in all four spin-offs. Of course, the moment can't last: it's followed by a ridiculous scene where literally everything that could go wrong for the Stifler character does so, and does so consecutively, like a checklist, which is, like the dancing, sort of funny, but again, not in any evidently intentional way. I guess the "nice" scene at the end of the film is fine, but, like the rest of the film, it's predictable and contrived, which robs it of the things that make the other moment work.

American Pie Presents: The Naked Mile (2006)
Just like American Wedding is a step down from American Pie 2 and Band Camp is a step down from American Wedding (annoying Scott performance and all), The Naked Mile is a step down from Band Camp. Although this second sequel has a less irritating lead actor, the connections to the rest of the series are mighty tenuous, and the ability to harp on that nostalgia for the series is really all the gas these spin-offs have in the tank.

There are germs of ideas in the plot of The Naked Mile, none of which go anywhere. Erik Stifler (John White) is the only virgin in the Stifler clan, behind cousins Matt, Steve and Dwight (Steve Talley). His girlfriend Tracy (Jessy Schram) isn't ready, and Erik is getting antsy, worried that his persistent dry spell will reflect poorly on his family or give him an inescapable reputation as a loser virgin (or something). Tracy's awful friends (more on them later) persuade Tracy to give Erik a shot at fourth base, but after a disasterous first attempt, Tracy goes back in her shell, waving a white flag of surrender. Her idea: a guilt-free pass for one weekend, to be used while Erik heads up to college and attends the Naked Mile, a yearly clothes-free run through campus.

I know it's just the beginning of a story, one that would need an actual plot following it to work, but I'm convinced that the "guilt-free pass" idea could have been a Hangover-style hit in the right hands. Instead, the idea is buried in The Naked Mile, which has Tracy regretting the agreement almost immediately, followed by various painful plot devices (like a shot of Erik making out with another girl on the evening news) that create dumb miscommunication and other predictable romantic comedy crap for the couple to fight through and triumph over. I'm almost obsessed with the concept: just the basic idea of a "guilt-free pass" that starts out fun but ultimately results in a weekend to regret sounds like an excellent concept to hang a good R-rated comedy on, and it's mildly infuriating that the idea is basically wasted in a crappy direct-to-video American Pie sequel. There's also the premise of the Naked Mile itself, which as depicted is a believable, sexy event to use as the backbone for a movie, but the event ultimately has no bearing on any part of the plot, other than the miscommunication I already described.

Instead of capitalizing on these good ideas, the movie places two things center stage: the entirely uninteresting noble turn that Erik predictably takes in the final reel, and the character of Dwight Stifler, who is not a suitable replacement for either Scott or even Hilgenbrinck. Talley is not quite annoying, but he does reek of failed comedy at all times; the script has not a single good line, funny mannerism or amusing moment for him to play, and the actor brings nothing to the table to improve upon the writing. At least it's not a rehash of Hilgenbrinck's Stifler impression, which would be both redundant (did Hilgenbrinck's price get too high?) and probably irritating. Both Erik and Dwight also mark the Presents series' pointless, oddball need to introduce new Stiflers. By the time the seventh has drawn to a close, there are a total of nine family members on screen in one of these, plus a bonus tenth in Chris Penn (who played Stifler's Dad in American Pie 2 but wisely wound up on the cutting room floor).

The Dwight part of the story introduces the movie's villain, an entire fraternity of little people that are out to bring Stifler and Beta House down. The problem here is not really that this development is not very funny (which it isn't), but that it's so gimmicky. None of the original American Pie movies relied on such jokey, bizarre setups to be funny (even if there was an extensive misunderstanding or two), and there's no reason The Naked Mile should have to do it either. Any and all scenes of the two houses' rivalry is lazily thrown at the movie like a spitball, in the hopes that it will stick even though it's just timekiller material, filled with scenes that don't contribute anything even to the almost non-existent arcs of the characters. In fact, the most dispiriting thing about The Naked Mile is how disinterested the whole enterprise is in even going through the motions of being part of the franchise. It isn't set in a familiar place, it doesn't bring back any characters (other than stealing the name Stifler and attaching it to an entirely different nuclear family), and (unlike the previous entry) it doesn't even half-heartedly try to cheat by using the same music.

Oh wait, I lied. Eugene Levy makes his customary appearance, which is about as shoddily written in as is humanly possible. Unlike Band Camp, which made Jim's Dad a counselor, there's literally no legitimate reason for the character to be in the same place as any of the characters, and the script doesn't even try to hide it. The second time wee see Jim's Dad in The Naked Mile, it's when Erik sits down on what is literally a random park bench somewhere on the college campus, and the person sitting on the same bench puts down the newspaper and -- surprise -- it's Levy. I'm almost surprised that Levy doesn't stop one of the long-winded explanations about his experiences with Jim and simply ask Erik if he saw the first American Pie, because it'd probably be more subtle than the existing execution. The only interesting tidbits about Levy's glorified cameo is that the movie credits his character with the creation of the Naked Mile (I found that amusing), and that you find out what his first name is. TFP non-contributor Matthew Lingo claims you find out in another movie (it may be written somewhere in American Wedding), but for the record, it's not as good as series creator Adam Herz's suggestion that his name is Bullwinkle.

Finally, I do have to call out writer Erik Lindsay on a couple of points. First of all, really? Your name is Erik and you named your main character Erik? Isn't that a little narcissistic? And, more importantly, why are Tracy's friends (specifically the one played by Jordan Madley) so unrelentingly awful? I'm not exactly offended, per se, but dialogue like "Men are like dogs. They hump everything they see. Now go and get your dog back on its leash," and "We're girls. Boys should know better than to trust us to be rational. It's not in our nature," not only sounds like a male writer trying and failing to write dialogue for women, but it's also shockingly ignorant. I know you're writing the fifth American Pie movie here, but, come on, man, don't be an asshole. Lastly (and this criticism is directed at director Joe Nussbaum as well), please do not even suggest an homage to Ferris Bueller's Day Off ("suggested", in this case, because Universal probably had no interest in securing the rights to the actual song from Bueller; a vague sound-alike takes its place).

American Pie Presents: Beta House (2007)
Not shockingly, American Pie Presents: Beta House is the worst entry in the series. The first (and, perhaps, best) indication of how little Beta House cares about anything arrives at exactly one minute and six seconds into the film, when the following line of dialogue appears: "Son, you spent the entire summer depressed because your girlfriend ran off with that pretty boy, Trent."

That's right, in case you're actually following along, that line of dialogue basically negates the entirety of American Pie Presents: The Naked Mile, which had the main character, Erik rushing back to East Great Falls to save said girlfriend from sleeping with that very character. Now, I hate to spoil the emotional core of The Naked Mile for you, but in an overwhelmingly unsurprising twist, the power of love wins out, with Erik and Tracy ready to live a full and wonderful life together on the strength of their undying passion for one another. Yet Beta House, the only direct sequel among the Presents films -- even written by the same person, Erik Lindsay -- can't even be bothered to give the slightest s--- about its predecessor.

Knowing this, I watched with startling disinterest as the film mounts a plot that could best be described as Revenge of the Nerds in reverse, with the nerds as the villains. There is an even vaguer inkling of an idea here than in the previous two films (I liked that the nerds got all the women because the women knew the nerds would eventually be rich), but...ugh, it's so much effort to try and make a good movie.

All of the same problems with The Naked Mile are essentially present here, because the movie focuses on the same characters. The only notable difference, and indeed, the only bright spot in the entire movie is actress Meghan Heffern as Ashley, Erik's new love interest. The character of Tracy had things to do, and was presented as a separate plotline running through the movie, but Heffern is not so lucky, only showing up sporadically throughout, when the plot has nothing better to do than focus on Erik and his love life rather than Dwight and his boring antics. Heffern makes the best of the situation by being effortlessly, consistently charismatic, even in the face of terrible body fluid jokes. Admittedly, one of these moments provides the movie's only funny moment (only funny shot, actually, of Erik desperately trying to grab a strand of CG semen in slow motion -- so sue me, I laughed), but the entire movie I desperately wished I was watching Heffern in something better (even American Pie Presents: The Book of Love).

The plot clunks around, eventually turning into more of a half-assed Animal House riff that melts uncomfortably into the movie's equally bad Nerds thievery. It's around this time that Eugene Levy makes his scheduled appearance, saying his lines and being...present...with the utmost professionalism. I have already forgotten any developments that happen to Erik or Dwight by the end of the film, and I only watched it three days ago. If you had asked me after Beta House, before The Book of Love was announced, whether I'd like to see another, I'd probably have said no. But Book of Love proves that the series' (and its obviously esteemable legacy) isn't permanently tarnished.

Then again, at this point, what does American Pie even mean? Not only has the series been ransacked for a quick buck, but in an age where comedies about sex are everywhere, we probably don't need another one, especially since the subjects -- teenagers -- have their bases pretty well covered themselves. There have been rumors recently that an eighth American Pie> would go back to theaters, and maybe even reunite some of the original cast. I'm not holding my breath, but it might be nice to see: one last round with characters we may have grown up with, just a little, to send the series out on a reasonably respectable note.

Franchise Legacy: American Pie (Part 1)

2010-01-09T12:30:00.000-08:00

Franchise Legacy is a series where I review all the entries in a given franchise, and try to determine what (if any) impact the series has had on the public at large. I started work on this first entry, for American Pie, sometime during fall 2009, intending to get it done before the first film's 10th anniversary had past, but it fell by the wayside and I wasn't sure I was ever going to run it. Recently, the series' seventh entry, American Pie Presents: The Book of Love, has arrived on DVD, and I thought it would be a good time to resurrect my article.

It's been (more than) ten years since the release of American Pie, and with the release of the seventh American Pie film direct-to-DVD (with talks of the eighth going to theaters), I started to wonder how much the modern R-rated sex comedy has been affected by the series' existence.

For me, the '90s felt like a decade swamped with parental boundaries and implied "good taste", but I was growing up in the '90s, so my opinion is probably biased. It may be shocking given my love of film, but I spent those years sheltered from the "racy" content of R and even PG-13 movies (there's a reason I haven't seen so many classics -- I didn't get into movies until I was 16, when my parents finally gave up). The moviegoing public had their tolerance for violence raised by slasher films of the 1980's and by mainstream R-rated action films like Terminator 2 (not an extreme example of violence, just a fairly bloody movie that was widely accepted as "okay" for younger audiences -- at least, going by how many people my age I know who saw the film in theaters). The barrier for foul language was similarly lowered by "South Park", which started airing on Comedy Central a few years before American Pie, which stirred up a big fuss among parent groups at first (do those even exist anymore?), but was eventually forgotten in the face of its exponentially expanding popularity.

Sex, though, was still taboo. These days, thanks to the internet taking over, the worry that films and television are going to be the source of extreme content has all but vanished; if someone made Showgirls today, I doubt anyone would care, but what vague memories I have of the 1995 release of Showgirls was a fair amount of controversy over the basic inability to mask or cover up Verhoeven's subject matter thanks to the movie's NC-17 rating, and not the film's million-dollar screenplay.

Whether or not a combination of timing and execution is unique to American Pie itself (i.e., if not Pie, would something else would have come along?), the first movie's success still seems to have finally opened that door, tackling even more brazen topics than those covered by There's Something About Mary, a door which Hollywood has subsequently taken advantage of. In the 1980's, teen sex films like Porky's, were not only commonplace, but massively profitable, and there's nothing the industry likes more than a reliable source of cash flow, and American Pie's revival of the formula has had, I think, a noticeable impact on society. I'm not necessarily saying that American Pie is the reason you can print "va-jay-jay" on a magazine cover sold in supermarkets or that they'd be censoring the title of The Vagina Monologues if the film cans had burned on the way to the printing lab, but I do think the first film played a part in helping along the public consensus that sex had become a commonplace topic. Today, it's almost bizarre to think that a film like American Pie was ever controversial, but I don't think a television censor would have allowed a video like "I'm F---ing Matt Damon" to air in 1993, or that The 40-Year-Old Virgin would have been a blockbuster in 1996 (at least not with the same title), and I'm willing to venture that it's because of these movies, if only in some small way. Even the MPAA doesn't seem to care: I always find it interesting that they allow films like Forgetting Sarah Marshall and Date Night to put what are essentially blowjob and masturbation jokes into greenband trailers, especially since they tried to give Clerks. an NC-17 just for language in 1994.

Again, there are (currently) seven American Pie movies. Four of them are direct-to-video releases, and I certainly hope Eugene Levy is enjoying the fruits of the deal he made with the devil to shamelessly embody the half-hearted stab at series legitimacy each "American Pie Presents" offers up (although I guess it could be worse: Chris Owen also returns for the fourth film, and it's extra-embarrassing). Thanks to "The Franchise Collection" and "The Threesome Pack", the first six unrated DVDs can be conveniently nabbed in two nice-looking box sets, which I have procured and proceeded to watch in order and reviewed, because apparently I don't have anything better to work on. As an added bonus, I've also got "American Pie Revealed", a massive 3 hour and 18 minute documentary about the making of the original theatrical trilogy, which I'll (EDIT: maybe) throw in a review of as well.

Here goes nothing...

American Pie (1999)
Despite everything I wrote about American Pie above, it wasn't until I watched it for this article that I finally saw what was special about it. Maybe it's enduring years of perceived fallout from the series, perhaps it's just getting older and identifying more with where the filmmakers' heads were at when they were making it, or maybe it's just that my attention span developed enough to focus on something other than dick jokes (or at least multitask and focus on more than just dick jokes), but this time through, I really enjoyed it.

Horrified by the sight of reknowned uber-nerd Sherman (Chris Owen) walking a hot girl out the front door the morning after a party thrown by their friend Steve Stifler (Seann William Scott), high school seniors Jim (Jason Biggs), Kevin (Thomas Ian Nicholas), Finch (Eddie Kaye Thomas), and Oz (Chris Klein) make a pact to lose their virginity before prom. Character motivation like this falls somewhere between contrived and ridiculous, although to the film's credit, nobody inside the film's story or out seems to take the "challenge" aspect of it very seriously. It's more of an agreement than a pact, and there's never any literal or perpetual clock ticking down in the background because there are no real consequences suggested for failure (other than loserdom).

A point sorely missed by the MPAA amidst their insistence on tagging American Pie with the NC-17 rating four times is the picture's consistently light-hearted tone. The scene where Nadia (Shannon Elizabeth) takes off her top is easily the most famous scene in the movie, but viewed within the intended context, the focus is always on the characters. Lest one also forget, it's also a well-written, well-acted, well-edited, well-directed setpiece that holds up ten years later as very funny, thanks to primarily to Jason Biggs, who throws himself around, covered in flop sweat, with and without clothes on, without a hint of shame. Biggs gets a bad rap these days (a really bad rap), and admittedly, in a movie like American Pie, it's hard to quantify how much of the film -- if any -- requires actual acting (i.e. inhabiting another character, emoting, etc.). Regardless, I have always thought of him as a reasonably talented physical comedian, and his performances in the American Pie movies are good examples. Most people remember the webcam sequence for Shannon Elizabeth, but as memorable as she is, I always think of the somersault Biggs manages to land while diving over his hedge after running frantically back to his house at the prodding of his friends, and his ridiculous, hilarious dancing.

I also feel sorry for Mena Suvari. For one, they chose to use the world's worst photograph of her on the front of The Franchise Collection, which is a shame (here's four much better ones), and two, aside from American Beauty, other hits have eluded her. Like Biggs, she doesn't have to plumb any emotional depths to play the role of Heather, but I find her almost endlessly charming. Heather gets paired with Chris Klein's Oz, and Klein walks a fine line between good and bad (future roles have revealed a great deal of bad). During Oz's first attempts to connect with Heather, he fakes his sensitive side, and it's enough strain on Klein to be called upon to act, much less called upon to "act" while acting. How any girl would fail to see through his over-the-top, soft-spoken routine in a second is an unresolved mystery. But Suvari almost effortlessly guides this plotline along, making it one of the more endearing stories in the movie.

Within the film itself, though, it's Thomas Ian Nicholas who gets the short end of the stick. His character is forced to contemplate all the "bigger" issues, and the lame relationship stuff he goes through with Tara Reid's character Vicki (do couples really have a huge, yet cutesy problem with saying that they love one another? If someone I knew said "She said the 'L' word to me today!", I think I might be speechless) doesn't ring true to me. I do think the character provides a touch of realism that the other characters often don't; with Kevin around, the movie's broad comedy contracts a litle (in a good way), but the effectively-created friendship between Kevin, Finch, Oz and Jim is the only effective part of Nicholas' otherwise bland character. Casey Affleck, on the other hand, is pretty awesome, so it's nice to see him pop up briefly as Kevin's wiser older brother.

For a film closing in on its eleventh anniversary, it's aged pretty well; I watched the movie Spring Break for DVDTalk, and despite its charms it felt phenomenally antiquated. American Pie's webcam stuff is going to become a bit old-fashioned thanks to the march of technology alone, but that bond, the friendship between the four lead characters, is really at the heart of the movie, and the mechanics of friendship haven't changed much in the 24 years I've been alive. Even the other teen comedies I've liked in recent years (such as 10 Things I Hate About You or Orange County) have rarely been focused on friendship as opposed to romance, and it's sort of clever how Chris and Paul Weitz and screenwriter Adam Herz have buried a movie about best friends inside a typical teen romantic comedy shell.

American Pie 2 (2001)
In the sequel, the gang returns comes back to East Great Falls in the summer after their first year in college, and they find that the comforts of home are a little dull. Inspired once again by Kevin's brother, the five guys opt for a change of scenery, driving down to the coast and shacking up in a spacious beach house where they can party to their heart's content. While Jim was probably the most prominent role in the original, the sequel specifically and obviously focuses on him as a main character, and with Nadia's return looming, Jim enlists the help of Michelle (Alyson Hannigan), his band-geek prom date from the first movie, to improve his technique in bed.

Call me a big sucker for caring about the characters from American Pie, but I do, and the development of Jim and Michelle's romance is really what puts the sequel up against its predecessor for me. I admit, this is a dopey R-rated comedy sequel with Superglue and ass-trumpet gags and whatnot, but Jim's actions at the climax of the film actually warm my heart a little (even, against all odds, despite the 3 Doors Down song that chimes in). My investment in the moment can be easily chalked up to Biggs and Hannigan, who have enormous chemistry together. I like this sequel, so I'd probably rank most of the characters as faring the same, but I'd have to say that Hannigan's material as Michelle actually gets a little better, no doubt because her character was sort of a throwaway joke in the first movie.

I also like American Pie 2 as a pure comedy. The original might be a slightly better movie with all the relationship material in it, but American Pie 2 doesn't bend over backwards to match it, focusing on solid, B+ teen comedy instead. There are still a few missteps when it comes to the script (the movie forcefully involves all of the players from the original, and when it comes to story beats, there are several strong whiffs of sequelitis), but director J.B. Rogers just lays the movie on the shoulders of his able cast, and the comedy plays just fine. The movie's famous CB radio scene and Jim's adventures as "Petey" at band camp, for instance, are not forced through writing but scenarios in which the characters' reactions are the joke, and it works.

Just beneath the surface of these gags, that distinct bond between the characters is still intact, and it's enjoyable just watching this group of guys and gals hang out with each other again. I could pass on the movie's rehashing of Kevin's wistful sadness (even less effective than in the original, although the original pass at this beat, as seen in the deleted scenes, is even worse), I think the Rule of 3 is a pretty dumb theory, and the return of Matt Stifler (Eli Marienthal) has little bearing on anything, but then a sequence like the aforementioned Superglue scene starts (which Biggs, again, performs with no shame, even sticking a doorknob in his mouth, which looks and sounds bad for the teeth), and I'm willing to forgive these flaws. American Pie 2 isn't a home run, but it's a solid double, and to that end, it fares far better than any of the sequels to follow.

American Wedding (2003)
Disappointingly, the third film in the franchise can't live up to the modest bar set by the first two movies for one reason and one reason only: the exhausting return of Steve Stifler. Even in American Pie 2, Stifler functioned like a supporting character, but this time, the infamous nature of the character apparently proved irresistable to everyone involved, and he unfortunately takes center stage.

First off, Seann William Scott's performance is remarkably bad. Stifler's schtick in American Wedding reeks of sad, lonely desperation in a way that might've been uncomfortably funny and even fitting for the character if anyone within the film ever acknowledged it. Nobody does, of course, and Scott prances around, letting out a forced cackle every time someone (mainly himself) mentions sex or says something awful. The experience is worsened by the strain it puts on the viewer to see something so resoundingly unfunny being treated as if it were comedy gold. Even well-concieved, less-grating scenes like Stifler getting into a dance-off at a big-city gay bar aren't enough to justify enduring the rest of the character's flop-sweat-covered moments. He's like a robot that got damaged in the middle of a bad Jim Carrey impression, with his moronic toothless grin contorting itself on and off of his face at random (watch him react when Biggs tells him to leave at the beginning of the third act: what the hell could be going through Scott's head?).

The element that almost saves the Stifler character is the "reasonably-clever-if-only-in-a-comedy-movie" plot where Stifler tries to act like a wholesome young man in front of Michelle's sister Cadence (January Jones), while Finch conversely takes on the persona of a foul-mouthed jackass. If Scott was bringing his American Pie 2 game to the table, this thread alone might have made the movie funnier than its predecessors. As it is, it's just an amusing idea that the movie manages to lose before the 90 minutes are up without escalating or building to some sort of grand finale the way it should. The scene where Stifler is forced to eat dog shit is also a big, big miss (although, I've since seen a less funny, more disgusting shit-eating scene in the mega-bomb Year One, so take that as you will).

The short end of the stick I said Thomas Ian Nicholas was holding before manages to get even shorter. The actor looks unsure of what he's meant to be doing the entire movie, which is a completely justified reaction, since Kevin is barely there, like a loose wheel the verge of being edited out of the frame. Nicholas mostly appears to be waiting; maybe he's expecting the other shoe to drop, convinced that at any moment someone will walk up and tell him to go home. I hate to say it, but watching American Wedding, I miss the element that Chris Klein brought to these movies. I can see how cutting Mena Suvari, as much as I love her, might have made sense; she's not really Michelle or Jim's close friend, she's only acquainted with them because she's with Oz. It's a shame, though, that the producers decided Oz was equally useless, because he's no more or less useless than Kevin, without Kevin's insistent need to go introspective near the end of each movie. Not that the script needs to dump Kevin in favor of Oz, either: the more characters there are, the less time there is for Scott's agonizing performance.

Another curious mistake is the fact that American Wedding looks like something. Nothing wrong with comedy directors bringing visual flair to an otherwise drab experience, and I'm certainly not saying that the movie should look ugly, but the 2.35:1 widescreen presentation and refined cinematography are both too unlike the previous movies. It's distracting to see implied dog sex antics and the frantic covering-up of a strip bachelor party in richly-lit scope. American Wedding basically feels classier than anything occuring within it, and the viewer spends more time looking at the shot than catching the sight gags.

For Part 2 of this article -- the dreaded direct-to-video sequels -- click here.

Remake Watch 2010: Week 2

2010-01-08T03:41:00.000-08:00

Alright, so last year, I started trying to do Remake Watch and ultimately failed, because I wrote Boxoffice.com news updates for a few months and really lost the time that I would have been spending on the blog. Now, I'm back, and not only do I have more free time to do it in, I have a better system: weekly updates.

In the second week of 2010, Moviehole ran two exclusives, concerning new versions of Mannequin and F/X. As usual, I wonder why the studios even bother. First of all, I don't know how anyone can live with the shame of having greenlit Mannequin once, but doing it again is even dumber, since we have concrete evidence -- the films themselves -- that neither Mannequin or its sequel were a good idea. Secondly, the name-brand recognition factor of the movies, which I thought was the reason studios churned out remakes in the first place, keeps getting lower and lower as Hollywood literally runs out of 1980's movies to rehash. I mean, how many people have even heard of F/X, much less seen it? It's true, some guys have all the luck.

Moviehole also mentions that MGM and Darren Aronofsky are having a conflict over whether the RoboCop remake should be in 3D. I like 3D, but it seems totally unnecessary for RoboCop, and MGM really needs to shut up and listen. Hey, guys, there's a reason you're going out of business. Stop arguing with the guy who could make the next Batman Begins-slash-Casino Royale-style reboot.

Remake Watch 2010:
2 film remakes in development
0 film remakes released in theaters
0 film remakes released direct-to-DVD
0 reboots announced
0 reboots released in theaters
0 TV remakes announced
0 tv remakes released

A "reboot" is defined by Remake Watch as a new attempt at a film series with new actors playing old characters (thus, X-Men Origins: Wolverine and Race to Witch Mountain are excluded). Sequels to remakes (The Pink Panther 2, Halloween II) are ignored.

As Wichita Falls, So Falls Tom Cruise's Stardom

2009-12-22T23:38:00.000-08:00

Yeah, another trailer post. Whatever, I write about what's available to me.

Anyway, above is the trailer for Knight & Day, which stars Tom Cruise and Cameron Diaz as a secret agent and a civilian, respectively, who meet boarding a flight and end up in several action-y hijinks involving CG and Peter Sarsgaard. The film used to be called Wichita, but 20th Century Fox loves puns like "Squeakquel" and "All About Steve", so now it's got the current title, which, if I were guessing (since there are no knights in the trailer) probably refers respectively to the last names of Cruise and Diaz's characters.

It's weird to consider that Tom Cruise's status as a movie star is probably permanently unrecoverable. It feels like he was the last generation of movie star, when we really had movie stars and not celebrities. Yet, take Mel Gibson, who's making a similar comeback to movie theaters in January with Edge of Darkness without the sense that his ship has sailed.

Which is not to say that Knight & Day looks too terrible. Some of the jokes are a bit lame, but even if Cruise isn't going to be the Tom Cruise he once was, at least it looks like he's having a blast. All in all, I'd say it has the potential to be better than Mr & Mrs. Smith but short of True Lies. Still, I can't help but watch the trailer and wonder, would Tom Cruise have ever done this movie had he not had a meltdown? Then again, that's pretty much what's interesting about it; perhaps he can stop being a celebrity and start being kind of cool (although it's really hard to tell if he's aware that Knight & Day is playing on his glibness).

As for Cameron Diaz, I wish it was still 1994. I don't think she'll ever top The Mask.

The Sorcerer's Apprentice

2009-12-19T20:50:00.001-08:00

Above is the trailer for The Sorcerer's Apprentice, the new live-action Disney production starring Nicolas Cage and Jay Baruchel, directed by National Treasure's Jon Turtletaub.

The only reason I posted it is because I find it very interesting and different from Disney's other live-action productions in that the trailer doesn't really have any big comedy moments in it. I think I'd like it if the final product was simply a straight-up Disney action movie without an undercurrent of (potentially awful) comic relief for the movie to lean on. Of course, I'm not sure I trust that the final product will be the same as the trailer (especially given Baruchel's inclusion, since he is traditionally a comic actor).

The other part worth mentioning is the scene where Baruchel is clearly in the middle of the events of the classic Fantasia short of the same name. It's a little weird. Hmmm...

I'd also like to make a plea for the internet, collectively, to learn how to spell Nicolas Cage's name properly. There is no H in it. It's not that hard to remember. Please take note. (Further courses on mistakes like "Seth Rogan" and "Tom Hank's" will be conducted at my irritation/discretion.)

"And that's how you came up with the idea for the flux capacitor..."

2009-11-23T16:39:00.000-08:00

"...which is what makes time travel possible."

In six years it will be 2015, and while the world's geniuses are (obviously) hard at work on the flying car, the hoverboard, self-lacing Nikes, self-fitting auto-dry jackets, video waiters, Gray's Sports Almanac, thumbprint credit and identification, Jaws 5-18, timed weather, a faster justice system without any lawyers and inundating the general public with an extreme 80's fetish combined with a total lack of aesthetic taste, someone has invented an amazing Back to the Future mod for Crysis and Crysis Wars.

Also, I was monitoring that scan you just interfaced, you are terminated. In the meantime, here's a bunch of other Back to the Future-related video to make you feel better.

See more funny videos and funny pictures at CollegeHumor.

But, really. The hoverboard. First in line.

The Fourth Kind

2009-11-08T20:38:00.000-08:00

I wrote this for Boxoffice.com but due to a bit of confusion, there were two Fourth Kind pieces, and the other one was already up before they figured it out. Since it's still a perfectly good piece, I figure I'll run it here instead.
---------------------------------------
In late September, the long-delayed independent horror film Paranormal Activity opened in 12 theaters with a low level of buzz among genre fans. Now, in the final days before Halloween weekend, the film is riding a massive wave of fan-generated hype that's earned the $15,000 film $65.1 million in the US so far and helped it shut out the long-standing Saw series at the box office last weekend. This week, Paramount announced that international releases are currently on the horizon, and extremely tentative plans for a sequel are being kicked around the studio.

However, at Universal, it's not the film's demonic possession plot that's sending chills down people's spines, it's the striking similarities between Activity and their upcoming thriller The Fourth Kind, which opens on November 5th. Both films play with the implication that the events depicted in the movies are either real or based on real events, both dabble in the characters' disbelief before building to some seriously scary phenomena (although Fourth Kind's creeps are aliens rather than demons), and it's possible that both even contain at least a little low-quality digital-camera tripod footage (a few chunks show up in The Fourth Kind's trailer, but it's unclear if it's actually in the movie).

It's also probably déjà vu for writer/director Olatunde Osunsanmi, whose 2005 feature directorial debut WIthIN (aka The Cavern) bears more than a few passing similarities to Neil Marshall's The Descent, which was making a stir in UK theaters just over a month before Osunsanmi's cave horror premiered in Los Angeles. In both cases, his competition was a similarly untested director, leaving Universal with very few marketing hooks to hang their hat on that Paranormal Activity hasn't already laid claim to. "I think The Fourth Kind marketing is top notch and they're selling the movie quite well, [but] now the audience will see right through their gimmick," says Bloody-Disgusting's Brad Miska (aka Mr. Disgusting). "[And] The Box also opens that weekend, which I expect to take a small piece of the cake."

Then again, despite movie star Milla Jovovich in the lead role, The Fourth Kind doesn't look like the kind of epic undertaking that would break Universal or producer Gold Circle's bank; even a flop could probably be counted on to earn $5 million on opening weekend and make the rest back in home video sales and rentals. However, Universal has struggled since the beginning of summer, releasing a string of box-office disappointments that, on paper, probably read like surefire blockbusters, including the Adam Sandler/Judd Apatow collaboration Funny People and the Borat follow-up Bruno. Given that Universal had a pretty good spring (bolstered by the hit reboot Fast & Furious) and started off fall on the right foot (thanks to their stake in Tarantino's Inglourious Basterds), the studio is no doubt hoping for at least an even theatrical return on The Fourth Kind to make their overall 2009 performance sound merely disappointing rather than lackluster.

What that actual magic number is remains a mystery. On IMDb, The Fourth Kind's production budget isn't listed -- perhaps a PR move on Universal's part -- but the film is being heavily advertised on The Discovery Channel between various ghost hunting and alien abduction programs, so it's clear that the studio has already sunk some money into the film. Had they not already pulled the trigger, it might not be a stretch to think Universal would have considered moving the film to January, where the extremely similar White Noise (based on the real-life phenomenon of E.V.P.) did very well back in 2005, racking up $55.8 million against a $10 million budget, and where the studio successfully released the $16 million PG-13 horror The Unborn earlier this year, to tune of $42.6 million.

Meanwhile, the Paranormal Activity hype train rolls on. Ain't It Cool News founder Harry Knowles Twitters a rumor that a 17-year-old girl had a heart attack at an Activity screening in Lowell, Massachussets, while Universal remains trapped between a rock and a hard place, unable to make a move. Even if Paranormal's box office peters out after Halloween, Universal can only hope that audiences are still looking to be scared. Miska is optimistic. "Fans of Paranormal will probably hate Fourth Kind, while Paranormal haters will find what they're looking for in Fourth Kind," he says. "Our readers are even sick of hearing about it. All of the people who have already seen Paranormal are excited for Fourth Kind. I almost think it's helped them. I'm sure Universal is pissed, but I think they should be thanking the Gods of movies."

Back from the dead

2009-11-07T02:49:00.000-08:00

It's late, and I'm bored, so I'm making this post just for the hell of it, since I've been bad about updating the blog (although Matt Lingo will be posting some AFI coverage soon). For some reason, the recent DirecTV commercial featuring footage from Tommy Boy and some new material with David Spade has been getting flak for trampling on Chris Farley's legacy. I think the ads are kinda clever; they may be crassly commercial (which is probably what turns people off more than anything), but that's because they are f---ing commercials. Had the spot digitized Farley into shilling the service, then perhaps the complainers would have a case, but personally, I find it more startling to see David Spade's chin looking a shade bloated. Regardless, Spade has said he thought of it as a tribute and it was apparently Farley's family's idea in the first place, so if you hate it, I'm letting you know you're wrong.

For reference, here's all the DirecTV commercials of the same ilk that I could find on YouTube. I bet they could get Danny DeVito to do one of these. And Dan Aykroyd in Ghostbusters. Maybe Carrie Anne-Moss in The Matrix. Sam Jackson in Pulp Fiction. See? It's fun selling out your favorite films.

Aliens (1986)

American Pie (1999)

Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me (1999)

Back to the Future (1985)

"Baywatch"

"Scooby-Doo, Where Are You?"

The Dukes of Hazzard (2005)

King Kong (2005)

Misery (1990)

National Lampoon's Vacation (1983)

Poltergeist (1982)

Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986)

Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991)

Tommy Boy (1996)

I mean, really, when all of this was said and done, it made me want to watch Tommy Boy (and Misery, for that matter), even if it didn't make me want DirecTV. In other words, quit whining, because I guess it sort of works.

Note to YouTube users: Apparently something being "banned" makes it more interesting, but 99% of commercials are not "banned". In fact, 99% of most things in the world aren't "banned". Stop making s--t up. I hope you guys get "banned" from YouTube.

In Defense of Saw

2009-10-24T20:18:00.000-07:00

Yeah, yeah, my last post was about Saw as well, but hey, if it's Halloween, it must be Saw. Here's a lightly extended version of an already lengthy comment I wrote on Nikki Finke's Deadline Hollywood Daily post here about the series.

---------------------------------

Man, people really take the term “torture porn” literally. I don’t like it, but the term is simply implying that is as exploitative of horror movie torture/bloodletting as regular porn is of sex. It doesn’t mean that it necessarily has any actual sex or nudity in it, just that people go to get their “torture”-loving rocks off at the sight of some violent death sequences.

That said, like any Saw fan would tell you, the real reason I go each year is to see how the plot develops. It’s like a crappy cop show, just with splatter. People are always derisive of this kind of statement, as if I have to have some sort of high-minded attitude to claim the Saw films have a plot to follow, but usually those are the people who didn’t bother to see the film and don’t like that kind of movie anyway. It’s okay not to like the Saw franchise, but you don’t need to go and decry it as some sort of bane on humanity just because your cinematic sensibilities are different from mine, especially since you haven’t gotten into it and never would, even under the best, most unbiased circumstances. I'll probably never watch The English Patient, but you don't see me hanging around generalizing to the world that it and other Oscar-bait pictures are repulsive.

I also think it’s ridiculous to imply that it’s good that horror is moving in a PG-13 direction. Not everything needs to be a Saw or a Hostel, nor does everything need push the gore envelope farther than the last, but bloodletting is part of the territory. The original A Nightmare on Elm Street is pretty bloody, but it’s a pretty classic genre picture, and the idea that PG-13 is better would stomp all over several of its greatest, creepiest scenes (like Amanda Wyss getting lifted out of the bed and dragged up the wall or Johnny Depp getting sucked into his bed). To say that horror should be less violent as a blanket statement is like saying action movies should have less guns and explosions, or that romances should scale back on the intimacy. Some of these movies that have come out in the last few years probably are torture porn, but you can’t just ball everything up into a category because you don’t like it without examining it. Again, I don't want to sound like I'm overanalyzing this into artsy-fartsy territory, but films like Hostel were made by auteurs trying to create something compelling and interesting to like-minded people, which is the right idea, even if some people can’t stomach it, and series like Saw are too over-the-top, really, to worry about (I mean, come on, someone gets melted in the latest one!). It’s PG-13 films like the Prom Night and Stepfather remakes (which always end up Unrated on DVD, to try to entice in the very same Saw crowds), which are artistically empty, financially motivated and poorly made that deserve to get canned.

Lastly, it’s ridiculous that anyone not interested would be so burdened by the Saw movies anyway. It’s like the inverse of having your cake and eating it too: you don’t like it, so nobody should have it. Just make an effort to stay out of the discussion. Did anyone see the movie’s most recent theatrical trailer? It was only 50 seconds long! The films are playing to the faithful, and the faithful alone, so in the age of TiVo, can’t you just ignore it?

The Dr. Gordon Factor

2009-10-23T02:35:00.000-07:00

I'm betting (but don't want to know for sure -- don't tell me, a friend and I are gonna play it) that the recently-released Saw: The Video Game, at long last, ties off the plot of Dr. Lawrence Gordon, originally played by Cary Elwes in the original Saw.

In 2004, Elwesm supposedly at the prodding of his lawyer, sued Twisted Pictures for some unpaid back end, which caused bad blood between the actor and the films' producers. He eventually retracted the lawsuit, citing the lawyer's insistence and publicly stating he regretted it, but the damage was already done. Despite references to Dr. Gordon in almost all of the subsequent sequels, the actor is never seen or heard from again -- in Saw III brief vocal snippets are voiced by someone else and the character's face is covered when we see his unconscious body in the infamous bathroom, and in all of the other sequels, the character is neither seen or heard, only mentioned by others in passing.

Having just returned from Saw VI, I wonder how different the films would be if Dr. Gordon had made some sort of return appearance. Would they dispatched him in just a few minutes, or taken the time to weave Dr. Gordon into the plotline of each new film? Admittedly, he looks pretty boned at the end of Saw, but the franchise has begun to make a point of overturning every rock the camera even glanced at in order to add more strands to an ever-growing web of connections and plot twists.

In the event that the book, shockingly, is not closed by the video game, I wonder if the producers will ever let bygones be bygones and allow Dr. Gordon to make a reappearance. Historically, he seemed to be at the front of fans' minds when it came to the series, and the producers are kicking over the last few rocks. If there's only one more Saw movie (something I wouldn't bet on), I'd like it to go out with a bang -- or perhaps, more fittingly, put its best foot forward.

I feel the $10 leaving my wallet already.

2009-10-02T04:05:00.000-07:00

2012 has a really stupid premise. It's head-punchingly stupid. Before I saw the trailer, I only had a vague peripheral awareness of the "2012 Mayan calendar conspiracy", so I asked a friend of mine who is far more knowledgeable than me more about it, and he made a point so simple that it really f---ing blows my mind that anything less than everybody in the entire world doesn't realize this right off the bat: The Mayan calendar has to end somewhere. It cannot go on forever.

Now that this incredibly obvious statement has been made to me, every trailer and line of dialogue referencing the fact that the "Mayan calendar proclaims" the world will end in 2012 makes me want to stab myself in the head with a sharpened pencil.

I also know that this movie, by the director of The Day After Tomorrow and the 1998 American Godzilla, cannot possibly be good. It just can't.

All that said, this is 5 solid minutes of the most destructive money-shot images ever put on film, and it is amazing. I saw what was essentially this clip in a slightly more trailerized version before Zombieland (which is a blast, by the way) and I was in helpless, slightly ashamed awe. F--- you, Sony. F--- you, Roland Emmerich. You win. You win.

Also, John Cusack yells "Donut!".

Park Chan Wook's Vengeance Trilogy: 11/24/09

2009-09-28T17:51:00.000-07:00

Press release from Palisades Tartan popped up in my mail today. I had originally thought that this release was just going to be the three 1-discs with a box set sleeve over it, but I guess not.

The Ultimate Park Chan-Wook Vengeance Trilogy Box-Set
Palisades Tartan’s 8-Disc VENGEANCE TRILOGY box-set available in stores November 24th

LOS ANGELES — September 28, 2009 — For Immediate Release — You’ve been asking, we’ve been planning and this November Palisades Tartan will release the most exciting, impressive and comprehensive VENGEANCE TRILOGY box-set the world has ever seen! Featuring 8-discs and more special features then any other set on the planet (including the Korean version), celebrity essays as well as a few surprises, Palisades Tartan will release Park Chan-Wook’s VENGEANCE TRILOGY November 24th in DVD stores across the country.

SYMPATHY FOR MR. VENGEANCE is the first film in Park Chan-Wook’s acclaimed Vengeance trilogy. The sister of a simple and deaf factory worker, Ryu, falls ill and needs a kidney transplant, however he is not a match so he looks to the black market which he can’t afford. After being fired from his job, his rebel girlfriend suggests that he kidnap the child of his former boss, Park. When the girl accidentally dies, her father seeks vengeance for her death.

OLDBOY is Park Chan-Wook’s classic genre-defining revenge tale of a man who’s wrongly been imprisoned for 15 years and is then suddenly released. Given money and a cell phone, he’s challenged to discover who incarcerated him in the first place, but he only has five days to uncover the truth. Even with a mysterious young girl to help him, his tortures have just begun. Cannes-winner championed by Tarantino, OLDBOY regularly appeared in top ten best movie polls across the country and is listed as one of the all-time best films as rated by IMDB users.

LADY VENGEANCE, the final film in the trilogy was created by Chan-Wook for his daughter. After being wrongfully convicted of kidnapping and murdering a young child, a beautiful young woman (Lee Young-ae) is imprisoned for 13 years. While in prison she gains the respect and loyalty of her fellow cellmates, all the while plotting her vendetta on the man responsible (OLDBOY’s Choi Min-Sik). Upon her release she sets in motion an elaborate plan of retribution, but what she discovers is a truth so horrifying, even revenge doesn’t seem punishment enough.

Director Park Chan-Wook’s most recent film THIRST won the Jury Prize at Cannes (2009) and was released in the US earlier this year by Focus Features. All three films in his celebrated Vengeance trilogy collection have garnered an impressive 28 Film Festival wins at prestigious venues including Cannes, Venice, Chicago, Fantasia, Stockholm, Hong Kong and the Sitges International Film Festival to name a few.

Each film is recorded in their original language (Korean) and offer English and Spanish subtitles. Each title is presented in anamorphic widescreen, Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround Sound and DTS Surround Sound 5.1. Special features include an essay on each film by celebrated filmmakers, actors and writers, including Eli Roth. Additional features include but are not limited to: audio commentary by Park Chan-Wook and actor Ryoo Seung-wan, behind the scenes, “The Process of Mr. Vengeance”, “My Boksu Story”, storyboards, photo gallery, filmographies, film notes and crew interviews (SYMPATHY FOR MR. VENGEANCE); three audio commentaries, five behind-the-scenes featurettes, “Le Grand Prix at Cannes” and deleted scenes with commentary (OLDBOY); regular and “Fade-To-White” versions, character interviews (Lee Geum Ja, Prof. Baek), “Prisoners”, “Families”, “Lady Vengeance at the 62nd Venice Film Festival”, trailer, film notes, making-of and deleted scenes (LADY VENGEANCE).

Tartan Films was originally founded in 1984 in the UK and is credited with bringing Asian Extreme film to the West as well as some of the most compelling art house films of the last quarter century. In May 2008, Palisades Pictures acquired Tartan Films US library assets and two months later, acquired a majority of Tartan Films UK’s 400+ film library assets. The new company Palisades Tartan has operations both nationally and internationally. Palisades Tartan will continue to expand an already distinctive and provocative slate of films by focusing on quality film acquisitions, thus significantly increasing the size of their overall library in both territories. Palisades Pictures and its parent company Palisades Media Corp is a prestigious financier of print & advertising for the independent film market. Together with its affiliate, Palisades Media Asset Fund, Palisades has securitized and financed more than 550 films.

www.palisadestartan.com

VENGEANCE TRILOGY Box Set - (SYMPATHY FOR MR. VENGEANCE/ OLDBOY / LADY VENGEANCE)
Palisades Tartan Video
Genre: Thriller/Foreign
Rating: Not Rated (Special Features Not Rated/Subject to Change)
Language: Korean (English Subtitles)
Format: DVD Only / 8-disc (Box-set)
Running Time: Approximately 361 minutes (not including special features)

SYMPATHY FOR MR. VENGEANCE – 129 min (not including special features)
OLDBOY – 120 min (not including special features)
LADY VENGEANCE – 112 min (not including special features)

Suggested Retail Price: $49.99
Pre-Order Date: October 27th 2009
Street Date: November 24th 2009
Catalog #: TVD8307
UPC Code: # 842498000076

$50 for eight discs? That's a steal.

Remake Watch 2009: OLD NEWS and, yep, The Fly.

2009-09-23T20:41:00.001-07:00

I know I open almost every post like this, but since I've started writing for Boxoffice.com I've become greatly distracted. Rest assured, content is coming. In the meantime, I have wheel-spinning link-lists to fall back on, like Remake Watch 2009. Here's a bunch of old news you've already heard about projects that are, except for one, not new to the Remake Watch 2009 count.

First up is 20th Century Fox's wonderfully moronic decision to reboot the Fantastic Four franchise, which they started in 2005. Yes, it's been FOUR WHOLE YEARS since the franchise started, and TWO WHOLE YEARS since the last entry, 2007's Rise of the Silver Surfer. Oh, the times, they are a-changin'. Via Variety.

Last time I reported on the live-action Akira remake, it was dying. I guess it's not so dead after all. Via Collider.

In actual good news, Joel and Ethan Coen have reunited with Big Lebowski star Jeff Bridges for their True Grit remake. They should actually make it a double remake and a sequel to Lebowski by retitling it The Dude Goes West. Via Variety.

The Highlander remake is runnin' on NOS! There can only be one Drift King when Fast & Furious director and would-be Oldboy remaker Justin Lin takes control of the project. ComingSoon.

Also, I read on my Twitter feed that David Cronenberg is rebooting The Fly. No confirmation yet, but I'll be sure to run back and edit this post if anything develops.

EDIT: The Hollywood Reporter's Risky Biz Blog is corroborating the Cronenberg remake story. I haven't yet figured out how to add this to the tally. Is this another remake of the original, or is Cronenberg remaking his 1986 version? I have no idea. It's kind of baffling, actually. THR mentions that Cronenberg can do new things with the visual effects, but the makeup work on the original, by Chris Walas (who directed The Fly II) and Stephan Dupuis, won an Oscar. I guess I'd like to think that Cronenberg has some crazy new idea for this one, and it won't actually be much like his Jeff Goldblum version other than the basic concept.

More importantly, where are they going to find someone as awesome and stunning as 1980's Geena Davis?

Remake Watch 2009:
28 film remakes announced
5 film remakes released
2 tv remakes released
2 reboots announced
2 reboots released
1 remakes announced/released direct-to-DVD
3 TV remakes announced

A "reboot" is defined by Remake Watch as a new attempt at a film series with new actors playing old characters (thus, X-Men Origins: Wolverine and Race to Witch Mountain are excluded). Sequels to remakes (The Pink Panther 2, Halloween II) are ignored.

Ow. Ow. Ow.

2009-09-23T20:29:00.000-07:00

That's the sound of me punching myself in the skull, because Universal is making a live-action Barbie movie.

Ow.

Ow.

Ow.

[via The Hollywood Reporter]

An Interview with Comedian Patton Oswalt

2009-09-22T19:46:00.001-07:00

This interview took place via email on September 22nd, 2009, to promote Big Fan. I also added in a couple of questions that were asked at a Q+A at the Landmark Egyptian in Seattle, WA on September 18th.

Tyler Foster: As both a celebrity and a self-proclaimed nerd, it seems like you have the unique standpoint of seeing both Paul and Quantrell's side of the conflict. While Quantrell Bishop is clearly in the wrong for physically assaulting Paul, don't you think there's something weird about these guys following him around?

Patton Oswalt: Of course there’s something weird. That’s another reason I liked the script — everyone feels justified in their viewpoints and actions.

Tyler Foster: Do you get fans hassling you? Do you have some sort of personal line that they'd have to cross before you'd stop talking to them or wouldn't want to talk to them?

Patton Oswalt: Most of the time, when my fans meet me, they’re polite and smart. The few that are rude, I just sort of tune out, right in front of them, and they tend to walk away. I think the rude ones get a lot of that from everyone they meet, so I don’t come off as arrogant or mean.

Tyler Foster: Do you follow sports?

Patton Oswalt: No. I...view sports the way an autistic child looks at love. I watch it, and I understand that other people are happy, and I like that they're happy, but I just don't get it. To me, it's like watching a bunch of superheroes with no powers.

Tyler Foster: Did you attempt to do any research for the movie, perhaps in vain?

Patton Oswalt: Nope!

Tyler Foster: At the Q&A in Seattle, someone brought up that you had said previously that you do movies so that you can do the stand-up. This is a similar question, but that makes me wonder, how much personal investment do you have in or how much joy do you get out of acting?

Patton Oswalt: I get a lot of joy out of acting and writing. Anything I do creatively I try to put my heart and soul into. But why not have an overall goal in life?

Tyler Foster: Along those lines, most of your movie and TV roles are either by someone I might guess you'd consider a friend in the comedy community, like Observe and Report with Seth Rogen and Jody Hill, or someone with obvious prestige, like Pixar, or Steven Soderbergh (and Big Fan is both, since Siegel edited The Onion and wrote The Wrestler), so if it weren't for these people, would you just not really seek out any acting work?

Patton Oswalt: No, I’ve done plenty of acting work with and for people I didn’t know personally, and ended up getting along with famously. That’s how most acting works. But I definitely get movie roles because people come looking for me. It's not like I call up Pixar and go "today's your lucky day!"

Tyler Foster: Did you know Kevin Corrigan, Michael Rapaport or Siegel before signing onto this?

Patton Oswalt: I knew of Siegel, but I didn’t meet him until he gave me the script. I met the other guys on the film.

Tyler Foster: If Martin Scorsese calls up and says "I'd love for you to be in my movie in a small part, and we shoot it on Sunday" and you have a show on Sunday, do you reschedule the show or do you have to pass?

Patton Oswalt: I’d totally re-schedule the show. I’ve done that before — they always understand. I’d help them find someone to replace me, as well.

Tyler Foster: On your CDs, you always talk about doing all of these scripts you wrote, and I was just wondering if any of them were inching closer to being produced?

Patton Oswalt: Writing a movie and getting a movie made are two totally different things. I just found out that a screenplay that I wrote was rewritten by two different guys, and now two other guys are rewriting that version to make it more like the version I did originally. But I still do punch-up, I did some material for Funny People, and I'm still...'the guy' at DreamWorks, they'll call me up and I'll say, "wait, so this is the story of a donut that wants to be a bagel...?"

Tyler Foster: Can you tell us about any of the movies you did drafts on?

Patton Oswalt: No.

Tyler Foster: Since doing punch-up is, presumably, uncredited work, do you ever feel like you're just giving away material? Do you ever wish you had credit for some of these things when they come out the other end?

Patton Oswalt: I’m not giving it away if they pay me the profane sums they pay me, am I?

Tyler Foster: The IMDb trivia page for Big Fan has an awesome piece of trivia: "Director Robert D. Siegel has said that between takes in the strip club, while other members of cast and crew were enjoying the company of dancers, actor Patton Oswalt was watching episodes of "John Adams" (2008) on his iPod in a private room." Do you have any comment on this?

Patton Oswalt: I was actually re-watching Season 4 of "The Wire".

Follow @bigfan_movie on Twitter, befriend Patton Oswalt on facebook and MySpace, and go see Big Fan, in theaters now.

Special thanks to Gary Rubin of First Independent Pictures for making this happen.

Thirst Contest

2009-09-14T17:06:00.000-07:00

Updates to the blog have been intermittent since I started writing news for Boxoffice, and this isn't a particularly newsly news item, but it is pretty awesome. Palisades/Tartan is having a contest to win two tickets to fly to London and meet Oldboy/Thirst director Park Chan-wook! Two runners-up will also get a copy of The Vengeance Trilogy box set being released on November 24th, 2009.

You can enter the contest here and you are required to take me if you win. Yep.

Remake Watch 2009: Swamp Thing, The Blob

2009-09-05T15:48:00.000-07:00

This stuff is all a few days old, but this isn't really a news site, and my new post at Boxoffice.com is eating up a considerable amount of my free time. Matt Lingo and Nathan Kerce should have Top 20s coming though, if you're actually checking this site for updates.

Collider reports that Joel Silver is developing a Swamp Thing remake. I feel like all of my knowledge of Swamp Thing is pretty peripheral. My friend had an elaborate action figure playset of Swamp Thing when we were younger, and I know the original DVD of Wes Craven's version was recalled because someone had used a version with a bunch of extra nudity in it, even though the film is rated PG. Other than that, my awareness is pretty low.

On the eve of Halloween II's release, Variety posted the news that Rob Zombie will be directing a remake of The Blob. I don't have much to say about that either. Frank Darabont and Chuck Russell's 1988 remake gets a lot of praise, but I have to say I only thought it was okay. The gore effects were amazing, though.

I'm updating the tally of released films in advance, because I'm not making a devoted post to the release of Sorority Row. Also, there's been a lot of chatter on The Crazies remake, but it was announced in 2008.

Remake Watch 2009:
28 film remakes announced
5 film remakes released
2 tv remakes released
1 reboot announced
2 reboots released
1 remakes announced/released direct-to-DVD
3 TV remakes announced

A "reboot" is defined by Remake Watch as a new attempt at a film series with new actors playing old characters (thus, X-Men Origins: Wolverine and Race to Witch Mountain are excluded). Sequels to remakes (The Pink Panther 2, Halloween II) are ignored.

"Fix You"

2009-08-28T22:47:00.000-07:00

Remake Watch 2009: "Heathers"

2009-08-27T12:39:00.000-07:00

Variety reports from the Bad Idea department at 20th Century Fox (i.e. all of 20th Century Fox) that they're developing a series based on the 1989 comedy Heathers and someone who worked on "Sex and the City" is writing for it.

Of all the remakes I've reported on this year, this easily ranks among the top 3 worst, just because the ideas and plot of Heathers absolutely do not lend themselves to weekly adventures. In fact, to have them do anything other than what happens in the movie would reduce them all to their most superficial elements. On one hand, Heathers is a movie that goes to dark, dark extremes in search of bleak comedy, and on the other hand, it's a show about a bunch of manipulative girls in a clique and the one outsider they've let in. Which of these angles do you think 20th Century Fox and a writer from "Sex and the City" are going to feel lends itself to an ongoing series?

Remake Watch 2009:
26 film remakes announced
4 film remakes released
2 tv remakes released
1 reboot announced
2 reboots released
1 remakes announced/released direct-to-DVD
3 TV remakes announced

A "reboot" is defined by Remake Watch as a new attempt at a film series with new actors playing old characters (thus, X-Men Origins: Wolverine and Race to Witch Mountain are excluded). Sequels to remakes (The Pink Panther 2, Halloween 2) are ignored.

20 Favorite Films (since 1992): Part 1b

2009-08-26T23:00:00.001-07:00

I almost forgot: I also thought I'd throw in a ranking of Quentin's movies, since it only seems logical.

1. Pulp Fiction (1994)/Jackie Brown (1997)
[ 2-Disc DVD| 2-Disc DVD]
I go back and forth on which one of these two films is better, but either way, Jackie Brown is criminally underrated. It's Tarantino's most mature work, and it expertly blends both his trademark style and a set of more genuine characters. Unlike Marsellus Wallace or Bill, I believe that there are Ordell Robbies in the world. As Max Cherry, Robert Forster gives a great understated performance that is both believable and pure Tarantino. Also, even though their parts are limited, it represents some of the last respectable work Robert De Niro and Michael Keaton have done (and, curiously, some of the last work Bridget Fonda has done at all -- where have you gone, Bridget?).

As for Pulp Fiction, it's easy to forget the movie's brilliance, given how well-known and ingrained in the culture it has become. Yet, the opening diner conversation, the needle bit (starting when the phone rings in Eric Stoltz's house), Butch returning to his apartment, Phil LaMarr's short screen time and the character of Winston Wolf all remain some of the finest work Tarantino has ever done, directed, written, edited and performed to perfection.

2. Quentin Tarantino's Death Proof (2007) [Extended and Unrated]
[ 2-Disc DVD| Blu-Ray]
Like Jackie Brown, Death Proof remains criminally underrated by those with no patience. Maybe people just find the characters unlikable, but I happen to enjoy listening to them talk, because it's all clever, sharply-observed exposition or tension-building chatter, and like he does with most of his actors, he draws out one of Kurt Russell's best performances. Unlike Jackie Brown, though, I have little hope that I can convert people. Oh well. When Quentin is dead and people are studying his movies in 40 years, I think this is a wrong that will be at least modestly righted.

3. Inglourious Basterds (2009)
Just as good at the tension-building and exposition, but the dialogue rarely has the full flair of Tarantino's usual lines, Eli Roth is terrible, and the film overall does feel a tad sparse. The third act is gangbusters though. I say as much, using a whole bunch of bonus words, in my full review.

4. Kill Bill Vol. 1 (2003)/Kill Bill Vol. 2 (2004)
[ DVD 1and 2| Blu-Ray 1and 2]
I like Kill Bill Vol. 1. One of the things holding me back from loving it might be that I'm not the biggest Uma Thurman fan. I'm not saying she's bad in the film; just that, as an actress, she's never really blown me away. Aside from her, the movie is a visually stunning, lightning-fast ride all the way through (at the very least, this is one of Quentin's most dazzling-looking movies).

I also like Kill Bill Vol. 2, but not as much as Vol. 1. Not because of the slower pace, mind you (I did just rank Inglourious Basterds, Death Proof and Jackie Brown above it, didn't I?), but because the Budd material isn't that interesting to me (although the grave punishment and his scene with Elle are good). I could also do without Michael Parks as Esteban, an extended speed bump on the home stretch of The Bride's revenge. These two things have gotta be at least 45 or more minutes of the movie. If the movie was just Pai Mei, Elle vs. The Bride, and David Carradine talking for two hours, it might have been my favorite of his films.

5. Reservoir Dogs (1992)
[ 2-Disc DVD| Blu-Ray]
Finally, I've never been that impressed by Tarantino's debut feature. I like it, but I've always felt like it was only running on 6 cylinders instead of 8. Frankly, if Tim Roth and Harvey Keitel weren't in it -- sorry, Steve -- I don't know if I'd have liked it at all.

Tarantino's Four Rooms segment is pretty good, although I'd consider it fairly non-essential, especially given that you would presumably have to sit through the first two segments of the movie to get to it and Rodriguez's. I also really enjoy both True Romance and From Dusk Till Dawn (which we need on Blu-Ray, stat).

20 Favorite Films (since 1992): Part 1

2009-08-24T23:02:00.000-07:00

This video has already been widely posted across the internet, but here is Quentin Tarantino naming his 20 favorite movies since his first film Reservoir Dogs was released in 1992.

In response, I and the other Following Preview writers Matt Lingo and Nathan Kerce have created top 20 lists. Who knows when the others are coming; I tell them to write things and usually nothing happens. Here's my list, encapsulated in an unaltered post I made on the DVDTalk boards *which itself was taken from the CHUD boards), with short explanations about each title. Remember, this is a list of my twenty favorite movies, not the 20 best movies. There's a whole world of difference between those two words, and the latter is, of course, endlessly subjective. I made one change, which I posted at the bottom of the list.

As a bonus, there's a short bit of thought on what has been Tarantino's most controversial choice right before the notes about the change.

---------------------------------

I think when you boil it down, a film can do two basic things: it can speak to you on a personal level, and it can be entertaining. Off the top of my head, here's 20 films made since 1992 that I feel I could sit down and watch at pretty much any minute because they fulfill both of those goals to some degree. The list might have been drastically different if I spent more time on it, but whatever. Everything on the list is a favorite, not a "best".

The main thing that may differentiate my list from others' is that, as per my second criteria, I tend to favor lighter movies over darker ones. Several dark movies, like Requiem For a Dream fell just short of my list because I didn't consider it a film that I could sit down and watch at the drop of a hat.

Almost Famous (2000)
[ DVD| 2-Disc DVD]
A potent reminder of the thrills and disappointments of meeting those you idolize. It's a movie that captures a lot of feelings, but I think that particular feeling is the one it captures the best.

Amélie (2001)
[ 2-Disc DVD]
Poetically written, performed with charm, directed with flair.

Battle Royale [Director's Cut] (2000)
Like Tarantino, I'm putting this one on my list. Even if the film is slowly being digested by its own hype machine (it is not banned in America and never was), I do think the violence hits home. Some of the movie (especially the scene in the lighthouse) is stomach-churningly brutal.

Casino (1995)
[ DVD| Blu-Ray]
A host of great performances in a visually dazzling setting.

Chasing Amy (1997)
[ DVD| Blu-Ray]
As someone else said, I don't really give a f--- what anyone thinks about Kevin Smith, and I think all four of his first films are pretty excellent. Since then, he's had highs and lows that are worth debating, but in the 90's, he made excellent movies.

Children of Men (2006)
[ DVD| Blu-Ray]
The most potent thing about the film is how firmly set in reality it is. It's hard to believe almost every part of the movie won't come true in some way or another, more than any other sci-fi movie I can think of at the moment.

The Hudsucker Proxy (1994)
[ DVD]
Admittedly, Jennifer Jason Leigh's character gets tiring to listen to, but I have always thought this was one of the Coen brothers' best movies. It's also perhaps the only one with dazzling production design and visuals. Not that I don't like The Big Lebowski or Fargo, and I almost put The Man Who Wasn't There instead, but I think this gets left by the wayside.

I ♥ Huckabees (2004)
[ DVD| 2-Disc DVD]
I don't want to make it out like this movie is excessively deep or meaningful, because it's not like I live my life by the principles of a very silly comedy movie, but I think people don't take what's being said seriously enough. You have to give the ideas in the movie enough weight so that you're seeing the events and thoughts the way the characters see them, but that doesn't mean it has to actually mean the same thing to you as it does to them. When it comes to an issue or topic like faith, I don't think people have the ability to see it both ways, as a lark, but a good-natured lark that one can give a little credence to. Which is ironic, because seeing something both ways is exactly what the movie is about.

J.S.A.: Joint Security Area (2000)
[ DVD]
Another one where I agree with Tarantino. J.S.A. is the Jackie Brown of Park Chan-Wook's films: underappreciated and amazing.

Jackie Brown (1997)
[ 2-Disc DVD]
I like a leisurely film, and the first two-thirds of Jackie Brown really take their time. Robert Forster is excellent.

Léon: The Professional [International/Director’s Cut] (1994)
[ 2-Disc DVD]
A great protagonist and a great antagonist, performed with panache.

magnolia (1999)
[ 2-Disc DVD]
I wish other films this long were paced this well. Starting with Aimee Mann's cover of "One", the film moves like a singular force across the screen, and it has the hypnotic narration of Ricky Jay to boot.

The Mist [Black and White Version] (2007)
[ 2-Disc DVD| Blu-Ray]
Scoff if you want, but I think this movie is excellent. To me it felt like a spiritual cousin to Night of the Living Dead, and the black and white version only adds to that.

Office Space (1999)
[ DVD| Blu-Ray]
The epitome of an easy-to-watch movie. The actual plot sucks, but the movie breezes by and remains funny regardless of how often Comedy Central plays it.

Primer (2004)
[ DVD]
One of the rarest kinds of movies: a movie that almost reflexively insists you watch it again right after it's over.

The Science of Sleep (2006)
[ DVD]
A purely personal favorite. Unlike most of the other movies I listed, I don't expect others to share the sentiment, at least not on the same level (I bet most people will find it impenetrably quirky) or see in it what I see in it, and I don't care.

Shaun of the Dead (2004)
[ DVD| Blu-Ray]
I considered picking Hot Fuzz because of how excellent Edgar Wright's direction is, but Shaun just barely edged it out because it feels a little more fine-tuned.

The Signal (2007)
[ DVD| Blu-Ray]
Another completely personal favorite. It seems like few people saw this one and those who did didn't think it was that great, but I really, really liked it.

Toy Story 2 (1999)
[ 3-Disc DVD]
Woody as a collectible is one of, if not the best idea that Pixar has ever had, as far as I'm concerned. It really is genius.

The Truman Show (1998)
[ DVD| Blu-Ray]
Jim Carrey's best performance. I feel like he's a little too aware of the potential accolades in Man on the Moon, but here he really gives it his all, earnestly and honestly, elevating an already-good movie.

I saw Anything Else several years ago, and I didn't think it deserved the kind of flak it took. When I saw the trailer, though, I had the same reaction to Jason Biggs as Devin from CHUD did. I don't know what changed between the time I saw the trailer and the time I saw the movie. I haven't watched it since, but I thought Scoop and Hollywood Ending were worse than Anything Else (the former because it was basically just depressing to watch how long Woody would fumble to come up with a joke).

The one change I made to this list was swapping The Life Aquatic With Steve Zissou for I ♥ Huckabees. Here's the short blurb I wrote about Zissou:

The Life Aquatic With Steve Zissou (2004)
I see Rushmore and The Royal Tenenbaums on other lists, and I think they're great movies, but I have always felt like the pacing of the former stutters and that Zissou is funnier than Tenenbaums while retaining most of the emotional punch.

Note: Seemingly in response to the internet's reaction to Anything Else on Tarantino's list, Roger Ebert made it his "Overlooked DVD of the Week" the same week Inglourious Basterds opened.

Remake Watch 2009: "Skins"

2009-08-24T10:39:00.000-07:00

ComingSoon reports via MTV that the network is developing a remake of the BBC show "Skins" for American television, with the original's co-creator Bryan Elsley tagging along for the ride.

The most interesting thing I learned from the article was that the original was written entirely by teens. When I reviewed the first two seasons, I only picked up on one of the episodes being written by a teenager, because the teenager was also an actor (Daniel Kaluuya). Elsley claims that he'll be making sure the same thing happens on the American version, but don't be offended if you catch me not holding my breath.

One of the comments on ComingSoon says that the sex and drugs are the best part and hopes that they're kept in. I don't know how true this is on the surface, but I agree in the sense that I don't need these to be clean-cut kids and for everything to be extensive and pat in its moralizing of the subjects. There is plenty of sex and drugs in "Skins" Series 1 and 2. Sometimes it has consequences, sometimes it doesn't. It's just there, and I hope the American version remains the same in that regard. The series was also bittersweet, which was one of the things I liked best about it, and I again wonder if MTV will be able to let it stand.

Remake Watch 2009:
26 film remakes announced
4 film remakes released
2 tv remakes released
1 reboot announced
2 reboots released
1 remakes announced/released direct-to-DVD
2 TV remakes announced

A "reboot" is defined by Remake Watch as a new attempt at a film series with new actors playing old characters (thus, X-Men Origins: Wolverine and Race to Witch Mountain are excluded). Sequels to remakes (The Pink Panther 2, Halloween 2) are ignored.

Shutter Island, dearly departed.

2009-08-22T23:41:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, the news broke via Nikki Finke's Deadline Hollywood Daily that Martin Scorsese's Shutter Island has been pushed back to February 2010. Paramount's Brad Grey released a statement blaming the economy (pretty much the same reason Warner moved Potter in 2008 -- they've made all the money they need to and want 2010 to have a little more financial security), but it doesn't matter. From where I'm standing, it sends a clear message to audiences everywhere: that the movie can officially be ignored.
Now, of course, I might be overreacting, and I haven't seen Shutter Island, so it could certainly suck and then I wouldn't have anything to say about it, but the way most of the people I've talked to about the movie have reacted is depressing to me. I understand that the majority of horror movies made these days aren't that good, but when did the whole genre become useless to people? Why is Martin Scorsese directing a horror film any less interesting than directing another crime film? In fact, shouldn't it be more interesting, because Scorsese has less horror films on his resume (not to mention plenty of crime films)?

When I posted the trailer a couple of months ago, the fact that Scorsese had made a horror movie was, personally, the most exciting thing about it. What I wrote then still holds true: there's nothing like seeing a really creepy, skin-crawlingly, lights-on-all-night, disturbing horror movie, and that pleasure these days is rare. Even Drag Me to Hell (also totally, unfairly ignored by genre fans and one of my five favorite movies of 2009) is more of a funhouse horror movie, the kind where things pop out and you laugh at yourself for being frightened. Ephemeral TFP writer Matt Lingo (mentioned in more articles than he's actually bothered to write at this point) and I agree, some of the dialogue in the trailer just chills the bones. "The nurses, the orderlies, they couldn't possibly know!"

The trailer is also gorgeous. Every single shot is visually stunning: the glow of Michelle Williams in some sort of picturesque-but-twisted Norman Rockwell perfection, the flickering lightbulbs over the guards in slow motion, the subtle, seemingly reverse photography of DiCaprio alone in a library or study, where the smoke pulls backward into the cigarette. Some of it isn't even that subtle: the way the fire engulfs a building while two survivors stand in front of it with dead eyes or how Williams vanishes as DiCaprio embraces her.

There's also the great appeal of the cast, including DiCaprio and Williams, Patricia Clarkson, Ben Kingsley, John Carroll Lynch and the authoritatively imposing Max Von Sydow.

There are remarkably uninspiring posters for the movie (which suprisingly fail to play up the seemingly obvious "Who is 67?" hook built right into the movie), and obviously nothing can be done now to try and lure Shutter Island back to 2009. But I'm afraid of something more than who the 67th patient is on Shutter Island, and that's that despite plenty of starpower and one of the greatest living directors, nobody will care when the movie finally arrives in February 2010.

Here's the trailer again, just for edification.

Youth in Revolt

2009-08-22T23:27:00.000-07:00

I think the world is pretty tired of Michael Cera's delicately disaffected comic style, and that includes myself (normally a defender of things that I feel are unnecessarily hated, which on the internet is everything). Yet, this trailer for the upcoming film Youth in Revolt serves as a perfect antidote to Cera's usual work. For about 50 seconds, it might as well be one in a million Juno clones, but immediately afterward it begins to escalate in ridiculous, awesome and hilarious ways.

The movie also features an all-star cast, including Ray Liotta, Steve Buscemi, Justin Long, Fred Willard, Jean Smart, the dependably slimy M. Emmet Walsh, my new favorite movie star Zach Galifianakis and the debut of Portia Doubleday, who looks lovely as Sheeni Saunders. I haven't read it, but it's based on a book by C.D. Payne, and the film was directed by The Good Girl's Miguel Arteta.

Youth in Revolt opens October 30th, 2009.

As a side note, the short version of the movie's summary on IMDb is terrible at summing up what the movie is like. I can't believe someone wrote that summary for the movie advertised in the above trailer. ComingSoon used a similar summary, which means this disinformation is spreading. It makes me tired inside.

Remake Watch 2009: EVERYTHING EVER WTF

2009-08-21T21:15:00.000-07:00

I hate to do so many Remake Watch posts, but I'm working on a fairly extensive article, and there should be some other stuff up soon. Still, even if that stuff was almost ready to go, I'd still have to make this post because Hollywood just went remake crazy. Like last time, I've attached a picture of Chloe Sevigny that has no bearing on anything. Here's the rundown:

- Darren Lynn Bousman started work on a remake of Roger Corman's Mother's Day at some point, and I forgot about it until Briana Evigan and Alexa Vega joined the cast. Via ShockTillYouDrop.

- Shoot 'Em Up's writer/director Michael Davis is heading to Outland. Matthew Lingo approves this message. Via Variety.

- Nobody puts Baby in a corner twice! Will women be drawn in by a Dirty Dancing remake when the sequel (which even had Swayze!) seems to have been largely ignored? Via Production Weekly.

- Japanese film Yomigaeri is being remade into Rainbow Bridge by DreamWorks, with the screenwriter of The Time Traveler's Wife hard at work on a second draft. Variety.

- Sadly, that Disney motion-capture animation movie Robert Zemeckis has been chatting about looks like it's probably his remake of The Beatles' Yellow Submarine, and not Who Framed Roger Rabbit II. Via The Hollywood Reporter.

- Bryan Singer is looking to direct an Excalibur remake, and he also has a big-screen Battlestar Galactica reboot in the pipeline (that won't follow the Sci-Fi TV show, for some reason). Via The Hollywood Reporter.

- There is also an inkling that Fox, a studio that only understands things like fart jokes and talking animals and is unaware of the R rating's existence, might be considering rebooting The X-Files film series with new actors and whatnot, which will just piss everyone off. The report is at Moviehole, but it seems to have come from X-Files News. I couldn't find a link on XFN to put here, so Moviehole it is.

Lastly, even though it won't be out until 2010, you can watch the trailer for The Wolfman right here. I like it.

A jump of 6 remakes!

ETA: I guess there's also a Highlander remake with a recent script review. The Hollywood Reporter reported it in 2008, so it doesn't belong on RW 2009, but I figured I'd add it in.

Remake Watch 2009:
26 film remakes announced
4 film remakes released
2 tv remakes released
1 reboot announced
2 reboots released
1 remakes announced/released direct-to-DVD
1 TV remake

A "reboot" is defined by Remake Watch as a new attempt at a film series with new actors playing old characters (thus, X-Men Origins: Wolverine and Race to Witch Mountain are excluded). Sequels to remakes (The Pink Panther 2, Halloween 2) are ignored.

Remake Watch 2009: Poltergeist, Paprika

2009-08-12T19:26:00.000-07:00

Shock Till You Drop exclusively revealed that the remake of Tobe Hooper's Poltergeist will be arriving in theaters on November 24th, 2010. I haven't watched Poltergeist in a long time, which I really feel like I should do before I bother having much of an opinion on it, although at one time writer Nick Prescott said it was one of his favorite films of the 1980s.

Moviehole also informs the world about Wolfgang Petersen's apparent interest in regurgitating Satoshi Kon's Paprika. Since I haven't seen that at all, I don't have much to say about it either, but it seems like it could go either way. The movie is supposed to be weird and trippy, and I imagine it would only be more weird and trippy when realized in live action (at least, I assume it would be, since Petersen is a live-action filmmaker -- the article is unclear). Of course, on the other hand, it might just prompt the studio to demand the trippiness (i.e. visual effects) be toned back to save on budget.

Remake Watch 2009:
20 film remakes announced
4 film remakes released
2 tv remakes released
1 reboot announced
2 reboots released
1 remakes announced/released direct-to-DVD
1 TV remake

A "reboot" is defined by Remake Watch as a new attempt at a film series with new actors playing old characters (thus, X-Men Origins: Wolverine and Race to Witch Mountain are excluded). Sequels to remakes (The Pink Panther 2, Halloween 2) are ignored.

Remake Watch 2009: Harvey, The Orphanage, Gunsmoke, Enter the Dragon

2009-08-05T22:40:00.000-07:00

This news is several days old, but I'm lazy: Steven Spielberg will be directing a remake of Harvey for DreamWorks and 20th Century Fox. I haven't seen Harvey since I was in the 8th grade, but I remember enjoying it. In my opinion, the original is held in a weird sort of light esteem that would seem to counteract the possibility that Spielberg will make any sort of impact with a repeat telling, but then again, he's Steven Spielberg, so you never know. I didn't like Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull in theaters and I kind of hated it on DVD, but I'm hoping that the first Tintin movie will be an awesome return to form.

Meanwhile, The Hollywood Reporter has an update about Larry Fessenden's remake of The Orphanage, which I've been meaning to watch. Spanish auteur Guillermo Del Toro seems to be as involved with the remake as he was with the original (i.e. lots), so hopefully it won't suck.

Lastly, Ain't It Cool News is reporting that John Wayne's Gunsmoke is about to get a redo. Say what you will about me, being a film writer and all, but I've yet to see a John Wayne picture. Westerns were never my favorite. Yeah, yeah, yeah, quit whining, I'll get to them sooner rather than later.

As a side note, Latino Review has revived talk of the Enter the Dragon remake. Oh well. Color me uninterested. The original is about Bruce Lee, not the plot or anything else in it, and without Lee, there's really nothing worth talking about.

I briefly considered posting a picture of PJ Harvey with this article, but then I didn't.

Remake Watch 2009:
18 film remakes announced
4 film remakes released
2 tv remakes released
1 reboot announced
2 reboots released
1 remakes announced/released direct-to-DVD
1 TV remake

A "reboot" is defined by Remake Watch as a new attempt at a film series with new actors playing old characters (thus, X-Men Origins: Wolverine and Race to Witch Mountain are excluded). Sequels to remakes (The Pink Panther 2, Halloween 2) are ignored.

Can't the internet read?

2009-08-03T22:26:00.000-07:00

Okay, folks: test of your reading comprehension. The New York Times printed the following yesterday:

Still, the future project Mr. Arnold said he's most excited about is a movie with a still-to-be-determined plot and script. "All I know is Jim Cameron's making it and Arnold" — Mr. Schwarzenegger — "and I are going to be in it, and it starts shooting in 14 months, the day after Arnold stops being governor of California," he said. "It's not going to be called True Lies II, but it might as well be. I can live with that."

So, what movie is Tom Arnold talking about? If you read it correctly, a task at which half the movie internet seems to have failed at, you would say that Tom Arnold is talking about an untitled original project to be directed by James Cameron and star Arnold Schwarzenegger and Tom Arnold. Unfortunately, he said the words True Lies II in there, and even though he is clearly saying "it won't be called True Lies II", people seemed to think he was talking about a sequel. Wrong.

James Cameron debunked the non-existent True Lies II rumor on AICN. I wouldn't want to sound sensationalist, but if (and I'm not saying I think this is true, because I don't, just that it's possible) Cameron, Schwarzenegger and Arnold were working on some secret movie together, it's sort of funny that AICN asked about TLII, because Cameron would be able to honestly debunk it.

May God Have Mercy on Your Summer

2009-08-03T15:33:00.000-07:00

What the f---, moviegoing public? Where were we? Universal Pictures, which has always seemed to be an inadvertent favorite of mine based on the number of their DVDs I find myself owning, had a blockbuster summer: Drag Me to Hell, Land of the Lost, Public Enemies, Brüno and Funny People, only without the blockbuster. Only one of those movies (Public Enemies) is going to cross the $100m mark domestically, and it's depressing. I'm chastising myself too; even I only saw three of the five movies I listed (I have yet to catch Public Enemies or Brüno -- but I will).

Last summer, Universal put out crap like The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor and raked in $401.1 million dollars in worldwide grosses (before the movie probably racked up another $150m on DVD), and even earlier this year, people stuffed the studio's coffers with $342.9m for the fourth Fast and the Furious movie (although I admit, I did give it a mostly-positive review). So I'm baffled why people didn't show up for seemingly sure things like Brüno and Funny People. Sure, I guess Land of the Lost had mediocre trailers and genre fans and Raimi devotees are likely to get the most out of Drag Me to Hell, but I have a harder time understanding that no Borat fans wanted to check out Brüno and that Judd Apatow's name wasn't enough to lure audiences in to watch an Adam Sandler movie.

Regardless of the reason, the truth is depressing. The studio offered up one of the best summer lineups I can remember (usually there's at least one absolute dud, although perhaps that slot is reserved for Couples Retreat, which I bet is going to die a similar sad death at the box office), with the kind of material designed to appeal to both mainstream and specific audiences, and nobody saw it. I also expect Inglourious Basterds to underperform, which will not only screw Universal, but it will actually kill the Weinstein Company. If only the disgusting box office of Transformers: Rise of the Fallen could be chopped up and mailed to Universal, the world would be a better place. It can't, and I suppose I'll live, but the next person who complains that studios don't make any good movies is going to get smacked. Shame on you.

Just for the hell of it, here are the trailers for Universal's five summer releases and two upcoming releases. You can probably catch Land of the Lost and Drag Me to Hell at dollar theaters, while the other three are, as of this writing, ostensibly still playing at a theater near you. Awesomely, embedding is disabled on all of the trailers for the movies I could find. I guess disabling embedding is the new way of ruining YouTube. You know, studios, the solution is, get your own f---ing YouTube channel and allow only your own uploads of the trailer to exist, with embedding. That's how you win. This just makes me frustrated while I'm trying to promote your damn movies.

Drag Me to Hell | Land of the Lost | Public Enemies | Brüno | Funny People | Couples Retreat | Inglourious Basterds

Remake Watch 2009: Jesus Christ Superstar

2009-07-31T15:44:00.000-07:00

THR's Risky Biz Blog is reporting that Jesus Christ Superstar is potentially next on the remake chopping block. I don't know anything about the original or the musical, but Marc Webb, director of (500) Days of Summer is potentially helming. I hope it's just like that movie, with Jesus and Mary bonding over Smiths songs and anal sex jokes, with cute animations come to life.

Also, it turns out Ridley Scott is directing the Alien prequel, as per Variety. I think I'm gonna take it off the "reboot" list. Funny, how it went from a remake, to a reboot, to just seeming like another entry in the franchise.

Remake Watch 2009:
16 film remakes announced
4 film remakes released
2 tv remakes released
1 reboot announced
2 reboots released
1 remakes announced/released direct-to-DVD
1 TV remake

A "reboot" is defined by Remake Watch as a new attempt at a film series with new actors playing old characters (thus, X-Men Origins: Wolverine and Race to Witch Mountain are excluded). Sequels to remakes (The Pink Panther 2, Halloween 2) are ignored.

Wolf Man's Lament

2009-07-29T02:30:00.000-07:00

I remember when The Wolf Man was announced as a vehicle for Benicio Del Toro, with One Hour Photo director Mark Romanek at the helm, I was excited. It had the potential to be a stylishly creepy movie. If you've seen One Hour Photo, just picture the clean, stark look of the Sav-Mart (a look also present in many of hus music videos), and then picture it being corrupted by something as uncontrollable as turning into a werewolf. In 2007, Romanek already had at least two collapsed film follow ups to Photo behind him (the Tom Hanks thriller Cold Case and the ill-fated adaptation of James Frey's A Million Little Pieces), so I was anxious to see him make a movie, especially something I could see working so well.

Predictably, creative differences led to Romanek leaving the project, and Universal, in their infinite wisdom, replaced him with Joe Johnston, director of Jurassic Park III. It's not that I think Johnston sucks as a director, it's just that he has no discernable style, he's a workman, not an artist. Clearly the studio had no idea how much of a buzz-builder Romanek really was (or how much of a buzz-killer Johnston would prove to be), but The Wolf Man pretty much dropped like a rock off of everyone's radars at that point. Even a disreputable director like Brett Ratner would have been a better choice as far as promoting the movie goes; imagine how much more you would have heard about the movie in the last year if Ratner was directing it. They premiered a teaser at Comic-Con 2008 that, as far as I know, was never officially posted online, and didn't even bother showing up at Comic-Con 2009.

CHUD is reporting that Universal has just bumped The Wolf Man to February 12th, 2010. Ho, hum. Who knows, maybe Joe Johnston will have directed a surprisingly good movie. But by that point, will anyone care?

"Where are my wife and daughter?"

2009-07-17T00:45:00.000-07:00

Bloody-Disgusting is reporting a rumor that Robert De Niro has a role in Machete, the feature-length expansion of Robert Rodriguez's Grindhouse trailer. I think that'd be awesome. One of Robert De Niro's last great roles was in Tarantino's Jackie Brown, and I think the atmosphere of a movie like Machete would be perfect for De Niro.

Then again, I don't know how he'd feel about taking on the same character Jeff Fahey once played, though. Thems be big shoes to fill.

Assuming all goes according to plan (and I think the internet is not holding its breath), Machete starts shooting in a few weeks with Ethan Maniquis taking main directorial duties (Rodriguez is co-directing in some capacity).

Whip It good?

2009-07-17T00:33:00.000-07:00

I don't believe in Fox Searchlight. They've put out some good movies, but they're also becoming as bad as 20th Century Fox with their insistence on turning quirk into a commodity.

I don't believe in Diablo Cody. You're probably thinking, 'but Diablo Cody didn't write this movie!' Yeah, she did. Prove to me that Shauna Cross and Lorene Scafaria aren't Diablo Cody. I bet you can't do it, can you? Didn't think so. Time's up.

And I really don't believe in Ellen Page. Her biting cynicism is just the right kind of cyanide to kill the earnestness and joy in a film. I'd love to see her come out of her shell and really put something up on the screen, because it'd probably be really raw and intense, but she just seems guarded all the time.

On the other hand, I do believe in Drew Barrymore. It's clear that her enthusiasm and spunk are genuine, and I get plenty of that in the above trailer. Is it enough to make me want to see the movie? I don't know. I'd guess probably not in theaters. But the trailer didn't repulse me the way I was expecting it to.

Also, it's got Future Man in it!

Whip It! opens October 9th, 2009.

Stephen Chow makes July 9th, 2010 look less interesting

2009-07-17T00:24:00.000-07:00

ComingSoon.net confirms the news I knew in my heart was coming for months and months now: Stephen Chow is dropping out of Michel Gondry's Green Hornet, starring Seth Rogen.

This is a shame. It still sounds cool, and I still love Gondry, but it doesn't sound as weird without Stephen Chow. But then, what do I know. Maybe they'll cast Fabio or Jason Statham or Samuel L. Jackson as Kato.

The Green Hornet will hopefully open on July 9th, 2010.

Remake Watch 2009: Nothing!

2009-07-16T23:52:00.000-07:00

That's right, nothing! After a slew of remake announcements, it's been all quiet on the new remake front for a few days. In order to satisfy your remake-news needs, however, I have dug up quite a bit of information on already-announced remakes, and attached an awesome, hot picture of Chloe Sevigny, just because I f--ing want to, and I totally f---ing can.

- The Karate Kid is now called The Kung-Fu Kid. Also, they changed the name of the mentor character to Mr. Han and made him a janitor, among other things. Whether or not it actually qualifies as a remake anymore is debatable. Source: The Associated Press.

- Speaking of not-remakes, some site called Mania has a blurb about how Stephen Norrington's Crow film is about an entirely new character and changes the story. Hmmm...

- Kate Bosworth signed on to the Straw Dogs remake, along with Alexander Skarsgård. Via Variety.

- Nicolas Cage tells MTV that the second Ghost Rider should be a whole new take on the character. Soon they'll be rebooting movies before they start!

Remake Watch 2009:
15 film remakes announced
4 film remakes released
2 tv remakes released
2 reboots announced
2 reboots released
1 remakes announced/released direct-to-DVD
1 TV remake

A "reboot" is defined by Remake Watch as a new attempt at a film series with new actors playing old characters (thus, X-Men Origins: Wolverine and Race to Witch Mountain are excluded). Sequels to remakes (The Pink Panther 2, Halloween 2) are ignored.

Earth Needs Stuntwomen

2009-07-16T23:25:00.000-07:00

Hey, look, the movie trailer for Raging Phoenix!

The girl is Jeeja Yanin, who starred in Chocolate. I like women, and I also like seeing people getting their ass kicked. Seeing a woman kick a bunch of ass is just like a sexy, entertaining bonus. Also, there is a scene with sawblade legs or something tucked away in the middle of the trailer, as if it isn't the coolest part.

That said, I've seen three martial arts films from Baa Ram Ewe: Ong-Bak, Tom Yum Goong aka The Protector, and Chocolate. They all had two things in common. They contained the best martial arts I'd seen the year they came out -- hell, some of the best ever -- and they were all among the worst films I'd seen that year (not to mention they've been getting worse as they go on...not good). Whoever writes movies for this stable of stuntpeople really needs to step up their A-game. Take District B13 as an example: it's got lots of martial arts, a paper-thin plot, and clever jokes (especially from Taha, the villain). That's really all you need.

Raging Phoenix opens at some point in the future. Normally clicking on the title would lead to the IMDb page and I'd list a date, but there isn't an IMDb page yet.

Source: FilmDrunk.

Cheap Thrills: Fair Game (1995)

2009-07-14T09:01:00.000-07:00

Cheap Thrills is a column on The Following Preview featuring movies that can be had new at certain stores for $5 or less. Today's movie is the action-thriller Fair Game (1995), which I found at a Big Lots! store for $3.00.

Note: Normally I write spoiler-free reviews, but this one talks about the ending. Obviously, Fair Game is full of shocking twists you'll never see coming, so consider yourself warned.

My memory of the early 1990s is pretty vague and as the years pass, it gets all blurred together, but for whatever reason, 1994 sticks out in my head as the year when I first heard of Cindy Crawford. I also remember the buzz about Fair Game being her first starring role in a major motion picture, but this was long before I cared about movies, so it isn't until now that I've had the pleasure of viewing her first big foray into big-screen work. The verdict? Cindy Crawford is a knockout with limited acting talent, and the movie is hilarious.

Lots of movies have clothesline plots, but Fair Game is almost deliberately uninterested in the details of why Ilya Kazak (Steven Berkoff) would want to kill Kate McQuean (Crawford), other than the broad strokes: she's a lawyer, and somehow her lawyering is going to interrupt his attempt to steal $900 million dollars. Kate is out jogging when Kazak's silly Russian henchmen try, and fail, to kill her for the first time (as far as I can tell, the bullet is deflected by her armband Walkman). She ends up making a statement at the police office where Max Kirkpatrick (William Baldwin) works, he forgets to have her sign it, and is conveniently there for the first in a string of situations where he manages to save Kate's life.

Mediocre action movies only have one card to play for the audience's approval, and that's the action. At first I was worried the movie was going to bore me to death, slogging through character development for Kate (plot-relevant lawyering with an uncredited Dan Hedaya) and Max (not-relevant ex-girlfriend wackiness with Salma Hayek), but when Kate's huge mansion of a house gets seriously explosion-y, the movie becomes entertaining in a hurry. It's a cliche that men like to see stuff blown up real good, but the pyrotechnics experts working on Fair Game knew what they were doing: while the non-action operates on an indeterminate level of sincerity, the explosions are firmly over-the-top, setting the tone for the rest of the movie. For whatever reason, it's mostly cars: cars that get shot in the gas tank, cars in parking garages, cars being swung into other cars, and even an old yellow beater that Max crashes into a railroad crossing sign while boarding a train in the most complicated, stupid and wasteful way possible.

Speaking of which, the other tone-defining element is William Baldwin. Will falls in the middle of the three Baldwins whose film performances I can recall from memory (I've seen Nothing But Trouble, but I'll be damned if I remember Daniel). Occasionally, he's got Alec's charisma, and he delivers his lines with a little nuance, but his facial expressions are extremely goofy. From the moment he springs into action, guns ablaze, flying through the air, it's like a 1980s-era Nicolas Cage has time-traveled into the film, only with more intense, deliberate mugging. IMDb says Fair Game had more than a handful of reshoots. I don't know what's new and what isn't, but a positive side effect I'd credit to this process is that Baldwin's chances to emote alone appear to be cut down significantly. More than a handful of scenes seem like they were meant to go on longer, but don't, giving the audience a mere hint of William's upset-face instead of a full dose.

Meanwhile, Kazak does amusingly stupid things like fire a gun while standing in the bottom of a boat and explain his plan to Kate for pretty much no reason at all. He's eternally optimistic and memorably slimy; while most of his screen time is spent in the front seat of an SUV looking angry at Max's ability to escape death and/or yelling at more henchmen to go try some more, he elevates himself out of forgettability with extra-exaggerated snarling. His crew is intense too: perpetually Eeyore-faced Olek Krupka, a totally underutilized Jenette Goldstein, and Marc Macaulay at his most Michael Ironside-ish. They drive around in the aforementioned SUV with a hacker named Stefan (Gustav Vintas), tracking credit card numbers and using heat scanning to try to spot Kate and Max, but Max fools them by accident when one of his cop friends flushes the toilet and the cold water takes him off their grid. Awesome!

As for Crawford, she stumbles over more than a handful of lines, and the emotional state of her character varies wildly from scene to scene at the beginning of the film (potentially not her fault; might be the editing again), but she has enough personal charisma to coast through the film. Her scene with Hedaya is solid, and a later scene where she puts some moves on a computer nerd is fun. She also gets to participate in the action from time to time, taking the wheel during a great chase sequence involving a tow truck, and guns down at least one villain (while topless, of course). Clearly, she wasn't destined to be a movie star, but for the purposes of a film like Fair Game, what she pulls off here is more than adequate.

At the end, all of the elements come together at once: a magical bomb that looks like a tape recorder goes off, sequentially blowing up every part of the ship except the part that Kazak is in (which is strange, since I think the bomb is two feet away from him). Max and Kate jump off (Crawford gets wet, Baldwin makes a hilarious face) and Kazak manages to drown (still trying to pull his money out despite the boat sinking and exploding) on one of the most explosive boats of the 90's. The DVD is full-frame, but the original version was 1.85:1 (and the picture here may be open matte, although I'm guessing it's cropped), so it could have been worse. There aren't any features. Was Fair Game worth the $3 I spent on it? Certainly.

Here's the trailer for Fair Game, which isn't on the DVD. It's about as amusing as the film, with the painfully cliched voice-over (Kate and Max don't hate each other that much in the movie) and lots of dialogue that didn't make the final cut.

Spaceballs III: The Search for Spaceballs II

2009-07-06T02:08:00.000-07:00

ComingSoon notes they're making a "TJ Hooker" movie. Some will remember that a fictional "TJ Hooker" movie was a joke at the beginning of the first Charlie's Angels movie. If they're making joke movies from movies into movies now, then they should really start with Spaceballs II: The Search for More Money and See You Next Wednesday.

Just sayin'.

DVD: The Motion Picture! Coming Soon to a Theater Near You!

2009-07-06T01:52:00.000-07:00

This is old news by now, but ComingSoon.net reported that Universal has won a four-studio bidding war to turn the arcade game Asteroids into a movie, and Hollywood couldn't even wait 24 hours to top itself with a View-Master motion picture.

Something the world at large seems to have forgotten but I never will is that they once announced a Slinky movie. Here's the report, from ComingSoon.net, years ago, reproduced because the site itself no longer hosts the article.

CGI-Animated Slinky Movie in the Works
Source: USA Today
Friday, January 2, 2004

According to USA Today, two studios are said to be interested in doing an animated movie about Slinkys, the popular toy that bounces up and down. Former Venezuelan child star Henrique Vera-Villanueva, the president and CEO of H2V Entertainment, is directing a CGI-animated feature tentatively titled Slinky: The Magic Quilt.

"We are creating a completely imaginary, full world all based on the Slinky," says Vera-Villanueva, who adds that two studios are interested in distributing his film, to be finished in 2005 for the 60th anniversary of Slinky's introduction. "It's a bunch of characters, some of them new, such as the Slinky scarecrow and the Slinky robot, some based on the property known as the Slinky Pets.

"The main character is a big Indiana Jones-type Slinky," says Vera-Villanueva, whose idol is director Tim Burton. "This character is on an adventurous quest, but it's a character-driven film, like Ice Age."

Obviously, Slinky: The Magic Quilt never came to fruition, so let's hope someone with more than two brain cells realizes that Asteroids and View-Master make no f---ing sense either.

I do want to see Ridley Scott's Monopoly, though. Please, make that.

Dear Amanda Seyfried, you deserve better. Much better. Sincerely, Tyler Foster.

2009-07-06T01:25:00.000-07:00

Over at Shock Till You Drop, you can watch the trailer for Jennifer's Body, which brings together three of my least favorite things in the whole world: 20th Century Fox, Megan Fox, and Diablo Cody. It looks pretty much as bad as I expected (the movie's visual style looks aggressively boring, the Rocky Horror Picture Show homage is strained, the CG is awful, etc.), but Amanda Seyfried seems unexpectedly interesting, like a beam of light shining in one of the world's deepest, darkest caves.

Additionally, the trailer suggests some of the problems this movie raises aren't going to be contained within the film itself. The trailer prominently features the R rating at the end (after it tries to sell the film on the fact that it's got Panic at the Disco songs in it). We've just come off The Hangover, and I wouldn't want a terrible movie like Jennifer's Body f---ing up the return of the R rating (also worth noting: the last two films where Fox promoted the R were Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem and The Happening). I'm also all for gender equality, so I'd love to see both women embracing horror films and horror films embracing women, but writers like Diablo Cody think the only way to appeal to women is to make fun of or prey on men. The result is the kind of idiotic, catty garbage that would likely appeal mainly to either terrible, vindictive people, or those who don't like R with their horror movies.

un-believ-able!

2009-07-01T12:14:00.000-07:00

Watch the trailer for Steven Soderbergh's The Informant! right away.

This just shot up my list of most-anticipated movies of 2009, not to mention it's yet another movie opening in October, along with Shutter Island, The Box, Couples Retreat, bad Amber Heard movies...it's strange, given its historical status as a dump month, that it's starting to look like the best month of 2009.

It's been suggested on message boards and things that Damon could get an Oscar nom for this movie, and from the trailer, I'd believe it.

The poster is also hilarious.

I want that poster on my wall.

The Informant! opens on October 9th, 2009.

Cheap Thrills: Leonard Part 6 (1987)

2009-07-01T01:29:00.000-07:00

Cheap Thrills is a column on The Following Preview featuring movies that can be had new at certain stores for $5 or less. Today's movie is Leonard Part 6 (1987), which I found at a Big Lots! store for $3.00.

I'd heard many things about Leonard Part 6 long before I finally got the chance to see it. When I was younger, I was a fan of the movie Ghost Dad, and later the movie Meteor Man, which also had Bill Cosby in it, and if I can find it, will be the subject of a later Cheap Thrills. During those Ghost Dad years, I considered renting Leonard, but ended up choosing not to for some reason. Now, almost a decade later, I find myself wishing I could buy Ghost Dad on DVD, but apparently I saw a TV version with several scenes I feel I'd miss too much, so I have to settle for Leonard Part 6.

This movie has a long-standing reputation as being one of the worst movies ever made -- so bad, in fact, that Cosby went from talk show to talk show telling people not to see it. He won three Golden Raspberries for it, which he requested be made of 24k solid gold and Italian marble. Is it as bad as they say? Actually, no. I've seen plenty of movies that were more painful to sit through, and most of Leonard Part 6 is just dull, but that poses another question: how can a film with the extremely likable Cosby playing an ex-secret agent called back into duty to stop a mad vegetarian from using mind-controlled animals to kill all the humans be this boring?

The problem is mostly the direction by Paul Weiland, who is apparently still directing films (like last year's crowning Patrick Dempsey achievement Made of Honor). Half the jokes are painfully telegraphed (mainly anything involving the awful narration), and the other half fall disappointingly flat. Most of them seem to have been thought up on a whim, such as a late-breaking joke where Cosby tries to say something mildly romantic to his estranged wife, but water falling from above is dropping right onto his face, and he splutters through the sentence. Did someone really think this would be funny? During a fight, Leonard forces his opponent to eat a hot dog, and the guy's head explodes. Was he allergic? Was it an explosive hot dog? Why am I asking these questions?

Occasionally, however, a joke or two will shine through. Cosby sells a handful of gags pretty well, despite looking extremely bored at all times, and even Weiland executes a couple of gags with directorial finesse (frogs hopping a car holding a CIA agent into a pond is visually amusing, and a finale involving Alka-Seltzer and dishwasher fluid looks pretty spectacular). Fans of The Matrix will note that the first Oracle, Gloria Foster, plays the vegetarian villain.

Leonard Part 6 is not worth your three dollars. If it had a little more verve, it might have been a demented little cult classic, but for all the random jokes in the movie that have psychotic yet clever payoffs (a fortune-telling woman, speaking a gibberish language not even Leonard understands, gives him butter, and when the punchline arrives, the reasoning makes some sort of drug-induced logical sense), the movie just can't pick up enough energy or enthusiasm to be more than a flop. Foster's character sums it up best, cackling as she watches Leonard using ballerina shoes to out-dance her flock of gymnastic, man-sized chickens: "Clever...but dumb."

Leonard Part 6 on IMDB.

Couples Retreat

2009-07-01T00:02:00.000-07:00

Here's the trailer for Couples Retreat. Give it a gander.

The amazing thing is, aside from Ken Jeong as the therapist, how unApatow the movie seems. Not that I'm dissing on Apatow, but here's a movie that seems to have a distinctly traditional style of joke-delivery, and it's got an idea for a movie that seems to go beyond the "formula" version of the idea and pokes a little into the characters' personal lives. This same premise could have easily been about ONE WACKY VACATION, with the title Looking to Get Away? and the tagline "Wish You Weren't Here.".

That said, it only looks amusing rather than laugh-out-loud hilarious, but perhaps it's rated R and this trailer can't showcase the movie's funniest jokes. The main appeal on my end is seeing Vince Vaughn in something that isn't Christmas-related, doesn't look atrocious, or both, since I've felt he's one of the more underutilized actors in the current generation of movie comedy stars.

In addition, Kristen Bell.

Couples Retreat opens on October 9th, 2009.

Remake Watch 2009: An American Werewolf in London, Don't Be Afraid of the Dark

2009-07-01T00:00:00.000-07:00

Bloody-Disgusting has the exclusive on John Landis' An American Werewolf in London being remade by The Weinstein Co., while The Hollywood Reporter has the information on Don't Be Afraid of the Dark.

Aside from the fact that John Landis' original film is a classic, werewolves are inherently boring. They're kind of like the lame cousin of zombies that nobody talks about, and even in that sense, Hollywood totally ran the zombie train into the ground (with the 10-ton vampire caboose bringing up the rear), so a werewolf movie just sounds like the s---ty version of a boring idea. It's too bad, the exception was The Wolf Man, but then Mark Romanek quit and they replaced him with Joe Johnston, and my interest was permanently dead. Matt counters by saying they're "a good metaphor", but I don't think Hollywood has any interesting ideas for werewolves (as evidenced by their ideas for the aforementioned zombies and vampires) that would involve metaphors and s---.

As for Don't, produced by Guillermo Del Toro and probably starring Guy Pearce, I just think of the Nickelodeon show "Are You Afraid of the Dark?" and how much more I'd rather see that.

I remember recently I was in a bookstore, and someone was talking about the Three Stooges movie, and he was telling a customer he heard on the radio that Jim Carrey, Sean Penn, and Guillermo Del Toro were in it. Except he said Gallardo Del Toro, or Guerrero St. Toro, or something really stupid. Thanks, bookstore guy. Now whenever I hear Guillermo Del Toro's name, I'll always think of that. He even knew it was wrong on a subconscious level, because he was surprised the filmmakers had cast the director of Pan's Labyrinth. Of course, he meant Benicio Del Toro, who is starring in The Wolf Man, so I tied that story back around. Kinda.

It was also announced that the It's Alive remake is going direct-to-DVD via First Look Studios after WB dumped it.

Remake Watch 2009:
15 film remakes announced
4 film remakes released
2 tv remakes released
2 reboots announced
2 reboots released
1 remakes announced/released direct-to-DVD
1 TV remake

A "reboot" is defined by Remake Watch as a new attempt at a film series with new actors playing old characters (thus, X-Men Origins: Wolverine and Race to Witch Mountain are excluded). Sequels to remakes (The Pink Panther 2, Halloween 2) are ignored.

The Box trailer FTW, Saw theme FTL

2009-06-25T00:16:00.000-07:00

I love the Saw movies; they're this generation's Friday the 13th, a series of slasher flicks that please on a goofy, splatter-movie level. I also like the music, by Nine Inch Nails member Charlie Clouser. That said, they keep using the "big reveal" music from the end of every Saw picture in movie trailers, like the final Valkyrie trailer, Deja Vu, and now The Box, the third film from Donnie Darko and Southland Tales writer/director Richard Kelly.

Aside from that musical misstep, the trailer looks awesome.

The Box opens on October 30th, 2009. Here is the IMDb page for the movie, because there are 33 other movies with the title The Box.

Remake Watch: Blood Simple, RoboCop

2009-06-24T11:59:00.000-07:00

Holy s---, do I get to make an entirely awesome Remake Watch post? I think I do. First, the Associated Press says director Zhang Yimou (Hero and House of Flying Daggers) is about to start shooting a remake of The Coen Brothers' debut picture Blood Simple. I love Blood Simple, but unlike some films I love, the idea of a remake is crazy and interesting, a feeling that's only increased because the remake is foreign and by a notable filmmaker. Of course, Blood Simple's film-noir plot, with its lost lighters, unscrupulous detectives and bodies that don't stay dead, is so f---ing awesome I have a hard time imagining anyone screwing it up either, so that's probably part of it.

Also, after CHUD questioned Aronofsky's commitment to the RoboCop remake, they've confirmed that it's still on like Donkey Kong. I left a comment to Devin Faraci about how Aronofsky had the same non-committal answer that made Devin suspicious in the first piece months and months ago when I saw The Wrestler in Seattle with the director in attendance (I was the one who asked about it), but either way, it's good that he's still on board. RoboCop is probably the most potentially awesome remake on the books at the moment; I feel pretty strongly that, as great as the original is, this is one of those rare chances the remake could actually be better. I hate to cite everyone's favorite "reboot" example, but there's some really great Nolan-plus-Batman potential here (by which really I mean I think Aronofsky-plus-RoboCop could totally eclipse the success of Nolan-plus-Batman and become the new "reboot" success story. I hope).

Also, Moviehole reports they're remaking some Australian movie I've never heard of. Must be good, if the remake process doesn't involve the profile of the original picture.

Remake Watch 2009:
13 film remakes announced
4 film remakes released
2 tv remakes released
2 reboots announced
2 reboots released

A "reboot" is defined by Remake Watch as a new attempt at a film series with new actors playing old characters (thus, X-Men Origins: Wolverine and Race to Witch Mountain are excluded). Sequels to remakes (The Pink Panther 2, Halloween 2) are ignored.