A "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" Review That Doesn't Spoil Shit

Straight off the top:  Star Wars does not feel right without the 20th Century Fox fanfare at the top.  I wish Disney could buy them just for the purpose of making Star Wars feel whole again.

Back in 2007, I tore apart Superman Returns, partially for holding the balls of Richard Donner's Superman movies as if it's trying to keep them warm and shielded, like Superman does for Metropolis.  Because of that, and because Bryan Singer didn't think Superman should fight anything, it never really comes together as an original work.  Star Wars: The Force Awakens is a lot like that.  It doesn't hold the original Star Wars' balls quite as tightly, but there's definitely some light ball-tickling going on.

In other words, I hope you like Star Wars, because JJ Abrams is about to show you how much he likes Star Wars.  Yes, I call it "Star Wars."  "A New Hope" is stupid.

Anyway, JJ Abrams is way into that movie.  So much, in fact, that he takes great care to recreate some of the scenes from Star Wars in his movie, but he JJ's them up so you don't notice what he's doing.  It isn't a knock on The Force Awakens, because his story is its own thing.  He just has a clear love for Star Wars that he can't help but let us see.  JJ loves Star Wars so much that I bet he still calls it "Star Wars."

As a result, two-thirds of the movie is really good.  He's really good about allowing us to find out what happened to the characters we really love while letting us get to know these new characters.  In true Star Wars tradition, you don't find out anything about the new characters so much as you get to hang out with them for a while, before realizing later that you don't know much about them at all.  They're just so funny and likable that you never notice.

Like, Finn, for instance.  Finn is what would happen if you took a regular person from here and dropped them into Star Wars.  Unlike every other character in Star Wars lore who grew up in a place where slugs become crime lords and people can be choked from across the street, Finn ain't about this life.  And it shows.  Everybody in the world who dreams about living in the Star Wars universe, thinks that if they went there, they'd suddenly learn the force or enjoy living in space, but Finn is your reality.  Finn is what you'd actually be like.  He's not a coward, but he's terribly confused about what life is like out here, and really doesn't get why we all need to be out here fighting when we can all get ships that go to the Outer Rim.  In a way, he's a twist on Han Solo, who didn't think it was worth sacrificing his life in the service of the Rebellion.

Then, there's Rey, a scavenger girl surviving on a desert planet.  She lives a difficult life, getting ripped off by the local scrap yard guy who pays her in food, and sleeping in the wreckage of an old AT-AT Walker.  When she isn't scavenging or fixing stuff, she sits and watches the ships fly off this barren desert planet.  And even though she lives this hard knock life, she still manages to have a heart for sad sacks that come stumbling across her front door.  She's almost the inverse of Luke Skywalker, because she doesn't dream of leaving this world at all, even though she should probably want to.

Kylo Ren isn't likable, though.  Not at all.  The previous villains were cool or charismatic in different ways, or carried themselves with a presence.  Darth Vader was awe-inspiring and ruthless.  Darth Maul was designed to be cool.  Christopher Lee's voice alone made Count Dooku memorable.  Even General Grievous was completely original, with some old school built in.  But Kylo Ren isn't like that.  He comes off like he's trying to be someone else, and acts very much like a spoiled child at times.  For all I know, that was the point.

As for what happens in the movie, there's a lot of action, it looks really good, and it is imaginative, because after all, this is a JJ Abrams movie.  If nothing else, he's going to take your breath way with his action scenes.  There was never a worry about that, because if he could make the Starship Enterprise exciting, imagine what he could do with the Millennium Falcon.

But then, there's that last third of the movie.  I remember reading a review about Revenge of the Sith when it came out that said that George Lucas was basically forcing the plot to go where he needed it to go, logic be damned (and that review was right).  There was an end point that had already been predetermined, and he needed to get these loose ends tied up before the credits roll, which is why Yoda just up and decided that he needed to go into exile.  There are moments like that, where it felt like they had decided where these characters needed to end up and they were gonna get there, logic be damned.  The last third of this movie kinda felt like JJ remembered that he needed to hit a couple more beats before he wrapped this thing up.

In my mind, it's like he delivers the script, and its brilliant, but someone at the studio was like, "There are no clips from the third act that we can put into the trailer.  Give us some trailer moments."  And he gets mad and hate-writes a new third act for them.  I mean, it's just kinda there, aside from discovering that Princess Leia had an army of Jedi babies without Han or Chewbacca deciding that he's had enough of Han's shit and they finally scrap it out.  The last third of the movie left me with questions, and not the kind where you're like, "I wonder where this is gonna go next?"  No, it's the kind of questions like, "Lemme rewind this and watch it again, because I must have missed something."

But it's a good movie.  Just one that's going to take some time for me to really appreciate.  JJ did a good job of working in the original trilogy's universe organically, and there are so many moments where I was pointing at the screen in excitement, because I suddenly saw something I recognized.  He also wrote this thing as if the prequels never happened, which is good, because I doubt anyone's gonna go into this like, "This thing better address the final fate of Watto, or I want my money back."  No, The Force Awakens dovetails out of Return of the Jedi, but in a way that is both familiar and new at the same time.  It's kind of comforting to spend another couple of hours in a that galaxy again.

Will Smith, Independence Day, and boring ass off-screen deaths

I don't think there's a person out there that likes off-screen deaths in movies.

Not the kind where they're killed off-screen, but then, you learn later on in the movie what happened.  I mean the kind where you spend two or three hours (or more) investing emotionally in these characters, then when the new one comes out, you find out that they died, and no one cares.  That shit sucks.

Some movies handle it better than others, because the Rocky movies killed off Adrian and Paulie that way.  But the Rocky movies dealt with it by making it part of the story.  Adrian's death was part of the reason why Rocky and his son had a wedge between them in Rocky Balboa, and (SPOILERS), it was the reason why Rocky gave up on his own failing health in Creed.

Then, you got those assholes over at Fox who gave you two and a half hours of Ripley trying to save this little girl from acid-bleeding aliens, in the middle of space, only to find out that Newt died anyway in between Aliens and Alien 3.  Alien 3 is almost twenty years old and people still list that as one of the reasons why they never liked that movie.  They just brushed all that joy and goodwill aside so they could tell their story, instead of giving the payoff that the fans wanted.  It's just one in a long list of reasons why Sylvester Stallone is a better filmmaker than you.

No one likes that second method, why is why Roland Emmerich did exactly that with Independence Day: Resurgence.  

Now, let's be clear:  I seriously doubt that anyone was emotionally invested in any of the characters in Independence Day.  I know I'm going out on a limb here, and please correct me if I'm wrong.  Tell me that you felt the emotional depth of the angry teenage boy who just wants to love his family, or the war hero President of the United States.  However, the way they got rid of Will Smith's character in Resurgence is kinda lame.

You didn't know Will Smith wasn't coming back for Resurgence?  My bad. Spoilers.

Because they didn't offer Will Smith enough money he's too big a star for this foolishness now Suicide Squad has a better shot at keeping his name hot they didn't offer Jaden a role as his stepson that looks just like him Will Smith declined to come back to the movie that started July 4th as "Will Smith Weekend," they had to kill off his character.  It only makes sense, because he can't be alive anywhere in the world while this is going on and not come back.  It had to be this, because only the Avengers can get away with not having to explain why Iron Man couldn't come help Captain America take down three flying aircraft carriers, or Thor had to fend off another alien invasion by himself.

And you know what, I'm fine with Will Smith's character being dead.  I get it.  It wasn't that kind of movie, where people get attached to the characters.  Really, we just like Will Smith.  But if you gotta kill him off, you gotta do better than this:

"While test piloting the ESD’s first alien hybrid fighter, an unknown malfunction causes the untimely death of Col. Hiller. Hiller’s valor in the War of ‘96 made him a beloved global icon whose selfless assault against the alien mothership lead directly to the enemy’s defeat. He is survived by his wife Jasmine and son Dylan."

You don't have to show any of this shit on screen, so there isn't a single reason why it has to be that boring.  Maybe the producers feel like they needed to show respect to Will Smith's character, but that's really dumb, because he doesn't work there anymore.  Besides, they already disrespected him by killing him off-screen.  We're already past the point of disrespect, so you might as well go all the way.  Because if I was writing the movie, Will Smith's Capt. Steven Hiller would have gone through some shit before he died.

Why the hell not?  It's not like you're limited by your special effects budget.  So why couldn't we find out that Capt. Hiller, despite all his confidence and bravado, had a really hard time dealing with the knowledge that the fate of humanity rested on his shoulders?  Maybe that led to some drinking, some depression, some PTSD.  Maybe he broke down completely, and believed that the aliens were still out there and were trying to control minfd.  No one really knew how to help him, and he believed he was alone in this.  So he tries to fight back against his perceived enemies in the government that he believes have already been compromised.  And his story ends with him driving his car off of a bridge, because he believes that the aliens have finally broken his mind as well.

Now, Vivica A. Fox is back in this movie, and evidently, her son (Hiller's stepson) is supposed to be one of heroes of this movie, because of course he is.  And I'm sure their characters will be sufficiently boring.  But it would be so much better if they came into the movie with something like this over their heads.  Of course they're gonna fight the aliens, but now, it's personal.

And maybe Will Smith sees that synopsis, and it looks interesting to him.  He could work with that material.  And he calls up Roland Emmerich, and asks to make that movie, because that's what Will Smith does now.  He just goes around making movies that seem interesting to him, and it's good to know that someone thought After Earth was interesting.  A movie about the complete mental breakdown of the hero from Independence Day is way more interesting than that same guy fighting the aliens again.  And Fox is dying to make a franchise out of this.  $50-70 million would be in their hands before Will Smith could come to his senses.

That sort of thing should be the template for off-screen deaths.  I'm not naive.  I know that those times can't be avoided sometimes.  But if you're already going to have to do it, you might as well make it count for something, and change the story going forward.

Total Recall and our Bland Future

Someone should tell sci-fi filmmakers that there are more visions of the future than the one in Blade Runner. 

I was flipping back and forth between Total Recall and Total Recall: Recall (*rimshot*) and I started explaining to my girlfriend what was wrong with the remake.  She was barely paying attention, because I can't compete with the riveting action of "Words With Friends."  Eventually, I gave up and decided to just write it down here, where the shame of being ignored doesn't hurt as much.

It's more than just Total Recall, though.  That's just one of the latest examples.  I, Robot, Minority Report, Equilibrium, even the new RoboCop; a lot of directors seem to have the same boring vision of the future.  The same round cars, the same guns, the same tech ideas, the same dried out backgrounds.  Everyone dresses in black and gray.  And if anyone listens to music, it's gonna be some techno offshoot.  It scares me because many of those flicks take place in a year that I'm probably going to live to see.  I like colors, everyone.  And I hate techno. 

It takes away from a movie for everyone to live in a future like that.  I get why Equilibrium looked that way; it was part of the plot of the movie.  But part of the appeal of the original Total Recall was the world where it took place.  It was vibrant and colorful, the people had personality and character, and there was comedy.  The filmmakers of that movie allowed themselves to think up all kinds of crazy shit to put on Mars, and they did.  That's why there was an exploding head bomb.  That's why they had a mutant with gold teeth and a jheri curl, who couldn't remember how many kids he had.  That's why there's a guy walking around with a psychic talking fetus jammed in his stomach. 

The remake took all of that away, presumably, because they believed that the charisma of Kate Beckinsale and Jessica Biel would be enough to compensate.  I mean, it wasn't a bad movie.  Just not anything memorable.  I can't think of anything that really stuck out as far as characters are concerned, and they had some good actors in this.  Hell, I like Colin Farrell.  That's why I gave the flick a chance.  And who doesn't like Bryan Cranston?  But did this movie bring anything memorable to the story at all?  The score, anything?  They didn't even give it a chance to be interesting, because they didn't go to Mars.

Same with I, Robot and Minority Report.  I like those movies just fine, but I'm tired of that antiseptic and bland version of the future.  To put it simply, Will Smith shouldn't stand out because he's wearing Chuck Taylors.  And if he does stand out, it needs to be for more of a reason than the fact that he's wearing Chuck Taylors.  Unless you're trying to make the point that the world is so defeated that all it takes is a pair of sneakers to completely upend everyone's sense of conformity.  Oh, my bad, he also drives a muscle car.  OOOOH, LOOGIT.  WHAT A REBEL.

There are far too many examples of the future in movies that are interesting and exciting for filmmakers to even want to do that.  Back to the Future Part II is 25 years old, and all folks remember about that movie is the 30 minutes that they spent in 2015.  RoboCop is even older, but who doesn't remember that version of "Future-Reagan's America?"  In my mind, I'd think anyone making a movie would want to go all out to express their vision of the future, but if your vision of the future is just different shades of gray, then you're probably about to make a boring movie.

Because let's face it: Pepsi, Nike, and KFC aren't going anywhere.  Might as well put them in the movie.

A Calm, Sensible Reaction to Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor

Jesse Eisenberg is Lex Luthor, because Michael Cera is already booked.

I'm sure that's the kind of reaction that DC was expecting and I'm all too happy to give it to them.  And it's not even because I'm angry about the casting. I actually kinda like it.  I, unlike so many others, have perspective.  The perspective that comes from an reading too many comic books.  I understand that there are many different versions of Lex Luthor, and that Jesse Eisenberg fits into a few of them.  Dare I say, this casting is brave...and bold.  Please, hold your applause, because that joke was awful.

Still, you're gonna have to go through the initial shock of people saying, "The fucking dude that played Mark Zuckerberg is gonna be Lex Luthor?"

I saw a guy on Facebook that said, "Is he going to invent Facebook to defeat Superman?"  Really, that's the level of discourse DC has to face, and it's not like Jesse Eisenberg has given the fans a ton of ammo to throw back at him.  This won't go much past unfunny Facebook jokes and DC will be fine with that, because they already weathered the worst of this storm with Ben Affleck.  That was an epic tantrum, and once we got past that, it's like people couldn't really get that mad anymore.  It was like the world said, "Okay, we all know this flick is gonna suck. They really can't do any worse than this." 

And after that, Gal Gadot just got questions about her physique, mostly because no one knows who she is.  Jesse Eisenberg is just getting bad jokes, like the ones I've written just now.  It's all just been diminishing nerdrage, so we'll probably be done with this story by Monday.  No one even noticed that Jeremy Irons is playing Alfred.

I saw more outrage yesterday that Fox wants Channing Tatum to play Gambit in a future X-Men movie.  It wouldn't be a surprise that Fox was thinking about doing some more bad X-Men casting, but people were legit mad at that, I guess because Channing Tatum is too sexy or can't act or something.  As if Gambit is a character filled with such pathos that only a Shakespearean actor could capture it all.  Anyway, the X-Men flicks are filled with terrible decisions. I still believe that Halle Berry was cast because she was the only black person the producers could name.

Warner Bros. is supposed to be better than that.  Or at least Christopher Nolan is and Zach Snyder are.  And I'm willing to give it a chance, because as I've said trying to talk people off the ledge today, it all depends on what kind of Lex Luthor will be in the movie.  You got your "evil businessman" Lex Luthor (who could stomp ass), and you got your "sociopath scientist" Lex Luthor (who could not).  I think the second one is something Eisenberg can work with.  As long as he's not on there talking about being the "greatest criminal mind of our time," I think we'll be fine.

I Can't Believe I Rented It - The Karate Kid

I don't think it's any secret that I'm not a fan of remakes. I think they're at a point where they're ignoring original scripts just so they can remake something instead. Doesn't matter if it was good or well-known, which means the announcement of the "Ghost Dad" remake should be coming any day now.

I think the thing that bothers me most, though, is that they're remaking movies that were released in my lifetime, that I remember watching as a kid. It used to be that movies were remade because the original was so old that it needed to be made current so modern audiences could appreciate it. I get why they remade "King Kong" and "The Day After Tomorrow." Nothing against the folks who made those, but in a world where "Avatar" exists, those movies looked like shit. Even "Planet of the Apes" was pushing it. It probably needed to happen.

But "The Karate Kid" came out in 1984, not 1948. It wasn't a sci-fi extravaganza or anything; no dinosaur technology that needed to be improved upon. It was about a kid who kept getting his ass kicked by bullies. I didn't think anything needed to be updated in that story because I'm pretty sure America's feelings on bullying hadn't changed, unless Muslims are involved. So when I finally got around to watching "The Black Karate Kid," I was all ready to tear this movie to shreds.

Then, the movie had to go and be all enjoyable and shit. Thanks for ruining my day.

Sure, the villains were faceless sociopaths (these kids are fucking scary) and the soundtrack was crap (I mean, "Bieberific"), but other than that, it was a good movie. I just thought that the bad guys were missing the charm of the Cobra Kai. There was no overacting from the sensei, and no obnoxious henchmen. I don't even think they bothered to give the bad guys individual personalities, which makes sense, because it's not like Americans were smart enough to tell any of them apart.

I was just looking for that "Sweep the leg," moment and it wasn't there. I mean, I'm sure they said it, but it was in Chinese. To my uncivilized American ears, "Sweep the leg" sounds exactly the same as, "We're out of toilet paper." I can't quote their lines, because for all I know, they were actually saying, "Sprinkle some foot powder on it."

But that's okay, because Jaden Smith had enough personality for everybody. It was like watching a little Will Smith, only if Will Smith's acting had never developed past "Independence Day." All of the sarcasm and all of the goofiness of a young Will came out in this movie, and I gotta admit, I kinda dug it. Jaden did a great job.

And one place where this movie exceeds the original is the fight scenes, which is to be expected, because we're living in a post-Matrix world, and Jackie Chan is playing Mr. Miyagi. Or Mr. Han, because he's Chinese. Whatever. But this isn't 1984, where some flying kicks are enough to impress folks. No, they got these kids jumping off walls, doing all kinds of crazy shit; trying to kill each other. And I believe they really were trying to kill each other, because almost everyone in this movie is fucking miserable.

Jackie Chan almost never smiles, which is hard to believe, because it's Jackie Chan. If he could smile in three movies with Chris Tucker, I figure the man could smile through anything. But he's all sad, and Jaden spends half the movie picking his teeth out some some Chinese kid's Nike, so he can't be the ray of sunshine. Even his girlfriend is up and down, but she should be glad she's even alive and not rotting in a landfill somewhere. Everyone knows that the Chinese hate girls.

Taraji P. Henson smiles all through the movie, because she's living in her own little world, staring at all this Chinese shit with wide-eyed wonder. Then again, her character is from Detroit, so at this point, she'd probably be impressed with a trip to Nashville. But because everyone else is terminally depressed, about midway through the flick, I wanted to grab her and ask, "Bitch, do you see what's happening here? These motherfuckers are crazy." Then, I would rub up against her until security took me away, because it's Taraji P. Henson. Damn, she's just ridiculous.

One other good thing about the movie is that they show what China actually looks like, without the Chinese government trying to block our view with umbrellas. They actually humanize China a little bit, which is impressive considering the Chinese characters themselves only seem to be able to express one emotion: Punch.

No, it's not MY "Karate Kid," but it doesn't shit all over it, either. It can actually sit on the same shelf as the original, which is more than I can say for "Karate Kid Part III." I mean, really. It was the "Rocky V" of "Karate Kid" movies. In this case, they made me like a movie I was all prepared not to like, which either means they actually did a good job or I'm getting soft in my old age. My "Transformers" review is only five years old. My anger couldn't have died out that quickly. Either way, I gotta give them credit for "The Karate Kid."

I Can't Believe I Rented It: Michael Jackson's This Is It

Well, actually I went to the theater and saw this.

I had no plans on talking about this movie, but on a whim I decided to hop on the keyboard and see what comes out. I don't even know if I'll complete this.

By now, we all know the story leading up to "This Is It." So what the "movie" actually is, is just what they said it was. It's rehearsal footage, with some short interviews and back-backstage stuff sprinkled in. You get to see when the crew showed him things they had been working on for the show, how in awe the dancers were at the prospect of working with Michael, things like that.

For some, that won't be enough. There is no narrative holding things together. It's more like a barebones concert film, and the only audience was the dancers and crew. Someone's probably already complained that there's no footage of the paramedics trying to revive him.

For me, it was bittersweet, but still fantastic.

Bittersweet, because it's a reminder of what might have been. I don't want to over dramatize this thing, but that's what it was. And it would have been a great show. Michael going at 70% speed (he was saving himself for the shows) was better than any of the headliners out today. He still had all the moves, he could still sing all of the songs. As everyone who was around him at the time of his death has already said, he was in great shape and ready to go.

But while it was great to see him perform (even if it was a dress rehearsal), we also got to see sides to him that we never got to see.

We've all heard him speak in interviews, and most of us probably imagine that he's this soft-spoken dude all the time, who doesn't speak up, but when it comes to his shows, the man is in total control. Of everything. If he doesn't like something, he's cutting you off and that's the end of discussion. And he has no problem repeatedly stopping something until it's to his liking. But he's polite about it, and he ended everything with some kind of loving statement. It's like he's saying, "It's nothing personal and we're still cool...but you're not about to f*** up my show."

And there's also some glimpses into how he interacts with people. Not really on a personal level, because it's not like they're just lounging around. They're putting together the biggest concert of his career. But that doesn't mean that there can't be some jokes and some lighthearted moments.

There were a couple here and there, and it was good to see them, because we forget sometimes that Michael Jackson was a real person, because we only ever see him as this larger-than-life figure on stage, or as this weird guy, hiding behind masks, with post-its all over his face. We don't ever just see him sharing a joke with another human being. Well, we get a couple of those moments here.

But if you're not into Michael Jackson's music, then there's no point in even putting your money down to see it (which is a decision that I'm sure you made long before this was released). Like I said, there's no storyline running through this, because it's not a true documentary. It's just footage that was taken to document the process. And everyone else wasn't waiting for a review before they decided whether or not they should see it. It's Michael Jackson in concert. And for his fans, that's more than enough.

Which means, I really wasted my time watching this.

I Can't Believe I Rented It: King Kong

I was watching "King Kong" and I was wondering how many people didn't like it. Maybe it's the fact that they knew how it was going to end. After all, who doesn't know that Kong is gonna die? And then I thought, "Only idiots think that way. There hasn't been a brand new ending to anything outside of Christopher Nolan purposely telling the story backwards."

Some people didn't like "Titanic" because they knew how it was going to end. Well, sometimes, that isn't the point. Every movie can't have a twist ending. Sorry that M. Night Shamalyan can't write everything, but Hollywood isn't in the business of purposely offending their customers.

They might not think that the movie's realistic, but that's the point of imagination. Most of the stuff we imagine isn't real, like when you imagine sleeping with your boss's hot wife on his desk, while he's tied up in the corner. We all know that in real life, the only sexual pleasure you're getting out of this scenario is being sodomized by your own leg. If you were so concerned about realism, you wouldn't have turned on a movie about a giant ape getting shot off the Empire State Building.

I mean, come on. When you're dealing with giant apes that are worshiped by a lost civilization of savages, you just gotta let some shit slide. It's not like people have a frame of reference for dealing with 25-foot tall gorillas to make things "just like real life." And the ironic part is, no one ever complains when they see dinosaurs in movies. At least someone on Earth can say, "Hey, I've seen an ape before." You can go to the zoo and see one that's eight feet tall, but where can you go to see a dinosaur? It's been 70 million years since anyone's seen one, but how do we know we're doing those right?

When Jurassic Park came out, everyone was in awe of how real they looked, but how the fuck would we know how real they looked? For all we know, their mating habits included a hip-thrusting sex dance and they always washed their hands before chasing down a tasty brachiosaur.

And maybe they weren't able to buy into the fact that a white lady is sympathizing with a giant ape.

Maybe it's because I read shit, I understand that while it's a stretch, a white lady could try to get people not to shoot the giant monkey. After all, he did save her from the dinosaurs that were so fake, right? Isn't it within reason to think that she'd realize that Kong wasn't a bloodthirsty killer some of the time? The least she could do is try to keep him from getting shot.

Now, if she gave it up to Kong, that might be a bit of a stretch. I'd walk out on a movie like that, too, mainly because bestiality is only acceptable on the internet.

Not only that, some people like to talk about the supposed racial undertones of the movie, and when the original came out, you might have been onto something, seeing as how it came out in 1933. Even though white people had been around black people for 500 years to that point and hadn't seen any of us swing through the trees or communicate with jungle creatures, it was still widely believed that we were just like monkeys. White people back then were just really stupid.

But in 2005, if you sought out racial undertones, you were either J. Anthony Brown or someone else who just isn't funny. Okay, so the monkey caught hell chasing after a white woman, and wound up chains. How can I not see the symbolism, right? Probably because I don't identify with the silverback experience. Sure, I like bananas, but then so do white people. I don't eat them because of my genetic predisposition; I eat them because they taste good.

The irony is that even though people think that the point of the movie is to tell black men to stay away from white women (as evidenced by the beating Kong took all through the movie), the white woman stood still by her man. Since "King Kong," in actuality, is a thinly veiled exposition on the evils of race-mixing, I should still get with a white woman, because I know she'll be loyal, even in the face of machine gun fire from bi-planes. The movie told me so.

So putting all of that aside, in my mind, there's no real reason not to like "King Kong," other than not having the attention span for movies that don't have a joke or an explosion every ten minutes. Anyone who's ever had a dog can relate to this movie, without the dog having to carry them up the side of the building. It's got all kinds of characters who feel like real people, lots of action, and a sad ending that makes sense, because there was no other way that it could go down. Sure, there were no gay comedic foils or potential action figures (but Lord knows, they tried anyway), but it was a remake that actually made sense to make, and actually exceeded the original.

But that's not hard to do, considering that it relied on stop-motion special effects.

A Whedon-free Buffy movie

In 1992, there was a movie called "Buffy the Vampire Slayer," that had all of the cultural impact of Crystal Pepsi or "The New Adventures of He-Man." More people bought a Turbo-Grafx 16 than people went to go see this movie. And despite my friend Steve insisting that I watch it, I refused because it was called "Buffy the Vampire Slayer." I wasn't alone in my assessment.

In 1997, Joss Whedon gave Sarah Michelle Gellar her only taste of career relevance by casting her as Buffy in his TV remake of one of the most widely panned movies ever. The show became a cult hit, lasting seven seasons, and recently publishing a comic book-based eighth season (titled "Buffy: Season 8), also written by series creator Joss Whedon. I have watched a grand total of one episode of this show, but the one I saw drilled it home that this is actually a show that's worth a damn, unlike the recently cancelled "Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles."

Today, it was revealed that Fran Rubel Kuzui, the director of the original film (a fact that I never cared to know until this morning), is working on a new Buffy movie, one that's not connected to either the movie or the show. Kuzui apparently believes that it's her right to fail a second time just because she owns the character. She plans to make the movie "darker" in tone, because that's what all of these types of films plan to do in the wake of "The Dark Knight." They should just give this theme an official name, like "Batman-chic."

Now, that bit of news should be enough to piss off all of the Buffy fans around the world, because Buffy fans love them some Buffy show. They also love them some Spike, some Xander, some Angel, and some Willow. None of them will appear in the new film, much like Joss Whedon won't be involved. According to AICN, they're not saying he can't be involved, but they are saying that he'd have to "audition like everyone else."

The only reason why anyone knows "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" at all, is because Joss Whedon knows how to write shit that's worth a damn. It certainly wasn't the creative abilities of Fran Rubel Kuzui, who was only an executive producer on the series and series spinoff, "Angel." All that means is that she was collecting a check while someone else did the heavy lifting. Hell, Reginald Hudlin was an "executive producer" on "The Boondocks," and not only did he have no involvement with the show after Fox passed on it, but they made two episodes completely disrespecting him. There isn't anyone outside of Kuzui's personal circle of friends and family who can name anything she's ever worked on without consulting IMDB first.

And for the record, she produced "Orgazmo." First "Buffy," then "Orgazmo." If I had a track record like that, I'd be drying trays in the back of Burger King for a living.

Fans are already outraged. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out...

I Can't Believe I Rented It: I Am Legend

Never let it be said that I'm not open minded.

Having seen one too many of my favorite properties get completely mangled in the translation to film, I can completely understand the anger fans directed at Will Smith's I Am Legend "remake."

Imagine that you are a fan of something and it's very near and dear to your heart. In some way, you're constantly referring back to it; it has left an indelible mark on your life. It is an inspiration to you as well as a source of entertainment. You know it inside and out and debate the finer points of it with other fans. It's your favorite or if not your favorite, it's somewhere close to the top of the list.

Then, some Hollywood director says that he wants to make a movie of it, whatever it is. He promises that he'll stay true to the spirit of the original and even says, "I'll have some special nods to the fans in there." A couple of years pass and you go see this movie. And while it passes for a movie, there's nothing about it that could be confused for the original. For the sake of argument, we'll give this movie a name: How about, "I Am Legend?"

For the record, "I Am Legend" is the second butchering of Richard Matheson's book, "I Am Legend." I haven't seen "The Omega Man," the first butchering, but I have read Matheson's book, and I can say this: They would have been better off calling this movie "Will Smith is the Last Negro on Earth." It would have been a way more accurate description.

I envision the brainstorming phase for this movie going a little something like this: 12 movie executives, a director, and two screenwriters are sitting around a conference table discussing how to approach their "I Am Legend" project. One of them says, "Perhaps we should refer to the book. You know, take the movie back to its roots." Everyone agreed, so they each pulled out their copies of the book, read the back cover, and wrote down "Robert Neville," "Last man on Earth," "vampires!" and decide to take a three-hour lunch. The books are thrown in the incinerator by the cleaning crew, never to be referred to again.

It's not like "Jurassic Park," where they pretty much just changed the ending for their movie so they could make it family-friendly, or like comic book movies, where they change the details, but the major beats stay the same. "I Am Legend" is a completely different beast in every way. It's like if someone made a movie about the crucifixion of Jesus, only Jesus is white, the entire deal happens in Nazi Germany, and he gets crucified by Attila the Hun after a dramatic space battle at the bottom of the sea.

Having said all of that, though, I liked "I Am Legend," even if it was described by many as "just three hours of Will Smith and his dog." Kevin Smith once said that he liked to watch Ben Affleck just run around, doing stuff, and if that's how you feel about Will Smith, then that's pretty much what you're going to get. It's a movie about Will Smith being Will Smith. There are some emotional moments and I thought it did a good job of being entertaining. It's probably how most people would react to being the last man alive...assuming they were also an emotionally stunted, man-child, super-genius.

It's more or less just a different take on the same concept, but it's enough to make true fans of the book want to find the director and smash a series of cinder blocks over his head until he's unable to destroy anymore fond memories. Believe me, "I Am Legend" fans, I can relate. I had to sit through the "X-Men" movies.

I give this movie four out of five jiggling fat kids.

"Yogi Bear," "Partridge Family" return; End of world at hand

Entertainment executives are obviously huge fans of TV Land and Boomerang, because it seems like everything they put into production these days comes from those channels.

"Yogi Bear" has been put into production, and will probably be released in time to ruin the holiday season in 2009. It's being planned as a CGI/live-action nightmare, much in the same vein as "Alvin and the Chipmunks," and "Garfield." I don't plan on ever seeing it, because blah blah blah fuck this movie.

I can't even really get mad at this, because it's not like the cartoons were any good. I know, because I've watched them. We all know Yogi Bear, but it's not like there was any well-ingrained continuity for them to ruin or any classic moments for them the screw up. If I asked anyone I know to name their top three Yogi Bear moments, they probably all involve Yogi stealing a pic-a-nic basket, because that was as far as Hanna-Barbera thought this one out. There weren't any branching storylines or special episodes involving drugs and child molestors, since the show was made in 1961, and back then, it was widely believed that creativity and smart writing was of the Devil.

So, I can't imagine anyone really being too broken up over this one. At first glance, I started to get upset until I realized that this show affected my life in much the same way that Tila Tequila affects my balls: No reaction whatsoever, out of fear of contracting exploding genital warts.

And just when I thought that all I was going to talk about was "Yogi Bear," I stumbled across the stool-loosening news that NBC was bringing back the "Partridge Family." Before you start thinking that supervillains have released a gas that makes you imagine the most ridiculous possible ideas on your computer screen, yes, your dumbfounded brain processed that correctly, although the gas might be real and in the hands of NBC executives for recreational use.

But they're not just bringing it back, they're updating it for the 90s. I understand that it's really a year and some change away from 2010, but the concept is thus: Instead of the kids begging the mom to front the band, the new show involves "a struggling, sort of well-meaning mom pimping her kids in order to create a wholesome-slash-sexy cash cow." Sounds like an unnecessary 90s, update to me. Like "Knight Rider 2000." I'm shocked that they're not calling it "Partridge Family 2010," or "Partridge Family X." I wonder if they'll show the part where the obsessed, half-drunk mom tells all of the kids that she should have swallowed instead when they can't get their songs right.

Again, I don't care, because the name always made me think that I wouldn't like this show and in all the years that I've been aware of this shows existence, I've never cared to find out if I was wrong. A show called "The Partridge Family" sounds like some punk shit, and the "Brady Bunch" and "Gilligan's Island" taught me valuable lessons when it came to avoiding the bad television minefield. I will not be fooled again. Basically, if they couldn't put enough thought into the show to give it name that can be put on a t-shirt that won't get the wearer stuffed into their own bookbag at school, then I'm not going to watch it. It's why I never told anyone that I watched "Will & Grace."

I don't know what's worse about these two remakes, though: The fact that they're remaking "Yogi Bear" and "The Partridge Family," or the fact that they're so devoid of ideas that they're literally scraping the bottom of the television barrel to do it. Last I checked, there was no large "Yogi Bear" following, and I'm pretty sure VH-1 killed any "Partridge Family" following by continuing to show Danny Bonaduce in any form or fashion. If anyone reading this decides to watch either of these remakes, you probably don't have any taste in anything and may God have mercy on your soul. If I remember correctly, there's a Bible verse condemning remaking Hanna-Barbera cartoons.

Next up: Will Jonathan Taylor Thomas return for the "Home Improvement" movie? After reading this, you have no idea if I'm kidding or not.

It's Official: Dragon Ball Will Suck

The Spider-Man teaser poster back in 2001 was a picture of Spider-Man climbing up the side of a skyscraper. The X-Men teaser poster was a picture of the X-Men logo. Every time Superman has had a teaser poster, it's simply the "S" shield. You'd think that it would be a pretty hard to screw that up, right? All you have to do is show something iconic that's related to the upcoming movie. Fans of whatever it is will take one look at it and instantly have to change pants. Generally, the it should be the cheapest poster you have to produce, because you usually only need a symbol of some sort. It's purpose is to excite the fan base, kinda of like having unknown minor-league politicians trash Barack Obama at the Republican National Convention. You're only speaking a language that the die-hards understand.

This is the "Dragon Ball" teaser poster and any fan of "Dragon Ball" can tell you that it evokes more memories of "The Avengers" remake than "Dragon Ball." Allegedly, that's supposed to be Bulma. I guess her trademark blue hair didn't test well with the focus groups.

Believe it or not, I don't go into these things with an instantly negative attitude, but when the first details I get don't even come close to what the original was, it's hard to stay positive. When my first peek at Optimus Prime in "Transformers" only made me believe that a robot could have an eating disorder, I knew then that it wasn't going to end well. When the first word I heard about the script for "Alien vs. Predator" was that it would take place on present day Earth and focus on a bunch of humans, I knew that a disaster was about to take place. The only time I was ever fooled with when "The Hulk" came out. I should have known something was wrong when the producers talked about the movie being a psychological examination of the character, when all they needed to say was how much federal funding the movie's world would need to recover when they finally get the Hulk to change back into Bruce.

And now, with "Dragon Ball," the first look at the movie is a generic photo of a woman who I wouldn't have been able to identify if she hadn't already been labeled by the website i stole the photo from. I swear, it's like the first photos I saw of "Street Fighter" in that issue of GamePro back in 1994. It's like Jean-Claude Van Damme calling himself "Commander Guile" all over again, so I expect this movie to make Vegeta a wisdom dispensing, traveling photographer from the Australia. I'd rather they didn't make a "Dragon Ball" movie at all and they're not exactly striking while the iron's hot. They stopped showing new Dragon Ball Z episodes in, what? 2002? Really, Fox, you don't have to do this for our benefit. We're not looking forward to this at all.

I can only hope that the movie still manages to closely replicate the so-called storytelling method of having a character pose for an entire episode and have everyone stand around him and talk. Maybe I'm just not savvy enough to understand that this show blazed a new method of building tension or maybe it was a great sociological experiment that allowed the producers to see how little animation could be put into a cartoon and still have people continue to watch, much like "Cartoon Planet's" test pattern episode back in 1996. I've got so little faith in the movie now, that I expect them to keep this aspect of the show and discard the brutal fights that made the show famous to begin with.

"Dragon Ball" will be released in 2009, so they've got a little time left to try to make it stop looking like a sequel to "Double Dragon."

Dead Men Don't Sell Movie Tickets

Warner Bros. "The Dark Knight" has brought more money than was wasted making "Waterworld" and "Last Action Hero." It's critically acclaimed and popular, and didn't even need Oscar buzz and a Celine Dion song to get it over the top. But the common line of thinking seems to be that Heath Ledger's overdose is what made everyone go check out "The Dark Knight," which means that basically, for us to see a good movie in droves, we have to be prompted by the same instinct that made people watch "Jackass." And since I now have internet access again, let me shut that down right now. Let me list the REAL reasons why "The Dark Knight" brung in all this cash.

1. Ticket price inflation.
I paid $10 to go see the damn movie. Back in 1989 when I went to go see "Batman," I paid $1.25. I never was good at percentages, but that's like, a 1000% increase, which means the first Batman would have had to sell five times as many tickets just to reach the same level. I think I paid about $5 or $6 to go see "Titanic," the reigning box-office champ, back in 1997. In 11 years, ticket prices have doubled, so it's just a matter of time that a movie blows by that record, because unlike the music industry, they don't count tickets sold. They count the box office. That's why "The Dark Knight" only leads the original "Star Wars" by about $18 million, despite the fact that "Star Wars" came out 31 years ago. Back then, five bucks could get a seven-person family into the movies with change left over for snacks. So when we get to the inevitable point of paying $20 a ticket, probably sometime in 2010, judging by the current rate of inflation, even "Ghost Dad" will be able to top $600 million.

2. It was shown more times, on more screens, than any movie, ever.
It was shown on 4,366 screens, which means that they were counting art house theaters and the really big TVs at celebrities' houses. So even at reasonable ticket prices, if a movie is showing at least four times every three hours in almost 4,400 locations, I'd say it stands a good chance of breaking records. It's like Michael Phelps winning eight gold medals last week. Sure, he won all eight races, but he had eight chances to get eight gold medals. Everyone else only gets a shot at one gold, unless they're in synchronized diving, in which case, they stood no chance against the underage, Chinese man-machines.

3. There wasn't anything else playing.
"Iron Man" and "Indiana Jones" went on first, because they were smart. There wasn't another movie after "The Dark Knight" that stood a chance. I know there were a lot of people who thought that Brendan Fraser was up to the challenge, but there's a reason why no one listens to those people, and it's probably the Down's Syndrome they were afflicted with at birth. As a result, "The Dark Knight" stayed at the top of the charts for four weeks.

4. It wasn't his death, it was his well-received final performance that made people watch. There's a difference.
Because let's face it, I don't remember there being a media blitz for "The Crow" when Brandon Lee died. Or how many of you went to see the Aaliyah's tour de force, "Queen of the Damned?" Now that the three of you have put your hands down, it begins to come clear that it wasn't Heath Ledger's death that made everyone go to the theater. The hype around his performance was already starting before he died. There was a curiosity factor involved, because people wanted to see Heath Ledger completely disappear into this character, not because they thought, "Hey, maybe they'll accidentally leave some death footage in." To further prove my point, how many of you really believe that Bernie Mac and Isaac Hayes' deaths are going to up the gross on "Soul Men?" Hey, two of them died...the gross should go up twice as much!

5. It was a good damn movie.
But that couldn't have been a factor, right? Not when the co-star of the movie died. Because a well timed death makes all the difference. It was only a comic book movie so good that calling it a "comic book movie" is really selling it short. It was a good movie, period.

At least the execs at Warner Bros. know that it wasn't Heath Ledger's death that caused the movie's success. Unfortunately for all of us, they believe it was the dark tone of the movie that made it so popular. And with these people being the copycats that they are, they want to apply this dark tone to all of their other comic book properties. Because nothing screams popular like a realistic, dark and brooding Superman. Only this time, when he's stalking Lois in the elevator, he'll have to do it with binoculars from behind the bushes like a real stalker. Here's hoping he gets arrested like a real stalker, too.

I Can't Believe I Rented It - The Punisher

I Can’t Believe I Rented It – The Punisher

Lethal Weapon. Desperado. The Terminator. What do these three movies have in common? They all did “The Punisher” better than “The Punisher” did.

How hard is it to make a movie called “The Punisher?” All he has to do for about an hour and a half is run around and shoot people. It should be a gun lover’s dream. If you like murderous psychopaths running around a metropolitan area with powerful firearms, then you should like “The Punisher.” But director Jonathan Hensleigh thought that instead of a kill-spree, we would prefer a half-assed soap opera between the bad guys and his version of “The Real World: Liberty City,” featuring Fat Neck and The Kid With Too Many Piercings. Watch the hilarity ensue when their homicidal neighbor almost kills a guy right in front of them.

The movie didn’t start off that bad, because almost everything I would have changed was nit-picking, but things took a turn for the stupid when the Punisher, a trained military killing machine, gave up his tactical advantage of being dead by confronting his cop friends in broad daylight, in front of the courthouse, while they were surrounded by hundreds of reporters. As soon as he did that, I turned to my girlfriend and said, “I see why people didn’t like this movie.”

Things were pretty tolerable until he did that, and it was then that I began to wonder, “Didn’t he watch Lethal Weapon?” I stayed in that mode for the rest of the movie, because Martin Riggs was a better Punisher than Frank Castle. This Punisher had buddies and was almost like the wacky fix-it man down the hall. There was no secret about who he was and it didn’t seem to bother anyone that he was a trained killer who was out for revenge. This was Happy Sunshine Punisher, with a lovely day-glo playset because almost everything he did took place during the day. On a positive note, he was completely wasted for most of it.

I started pondering about what a person would really like to see in a Punisher movie. I’d imagine that there would be some creative gunfights, some torture, and I don’t know, an execution of revenge. If someone knocked off my whole family, I’d probably try to get some getback, too. I just hope the narrator to my life wouldn’t think that anything less than bloody massacres and full-scale warfare would be the right way to go.

Eventually, this movie gets to the part where The Punisher screws his balls back on and gets to killing folk, but before you get there, you have to wade through some half-ass friendship with some people whose names I can’t be bothered to remember and some chick who wants to get down, but he can’t because he’s, you know…grieving. This broad is so selfish that she’s trying to get in his pants even though he just watched 40 members of his family die violent deaths just five months ago, and he’s busy trying to drink his way into Heaven to be with them. Personally, I’m glad he turned down the poon, because I’m so tired of people forcing love interests into comic book movies. He’s a one-man revenge squad, but he’s got time to blow this chick’s back out?

I swear, if he had kissed her, I would have turned the movie off right then and there.

Luckily, he didn’t, because I would have missed Big Daddy Cool Diesel coming on screen and beating the crap out of Thomas Jane. The movie had long since lost my attention by this point, because the soap opera had started with Frank tricking the main bad guy into thinking that his best friend was sleeping with his wife, and the bad guys know that Frank is alive, but can’t find him, but suddenly they do, and start sending assassins from around the world to Frank’s house. See, it’s stupid because Frank is supposed to be the assassin shooting up the bad guy’s house. I know he spends most of the movie drunk, but what the fuck’s he waiting on, for the bad guy to get his costume out of the cleaners? He’s supposed to be getting revenge, but he’s at the fucking lunch counter eating soup, watching the assassin come in and sing him a song?

I’m not making that part up. An assassin comes in, pulls out a guitar and serenades The Punisher. He doesn’t even shoot the guy. This sort of thing never happens to El Mariachi.

The movie just kind of goes on like that. It tries to add things like romance and humor and bullshit to a movie and a character that’s naturally dark and violent. The Punisher is not a deep character. It’s a wonder that a character this simple has lasted so long, but he has. And since he has, when a movie is made about him, it should just involve those simple aspects: Guns and killing stuff with those guns. At night. I guess all of it was an effort to try to make the Punisher interesting, but no one wants the Punisher to be interesting. People want the Punisher to kill people.

Obviously, the right people aren’t getting reamed for these movies, because Jonathan Hensleigh should have never been allowed to make this one. Did producer Avi Arad actually have his eyes open when he read the script? Because at some point during the creative process, someone should have read that script and said, “Wait, what? How does a fake love triangle with the bad guy, his wife, and the gay best friend keep people from not walking out on our movie?” From start to finish, there should have been people dying, starting with the Punisher’s family and ending with the person responsible. Having said all of that, I’d like to go ahead and fill out an application for director of the next comic book movie. At least I know my movie wouldn’t piss me off.

Look, no one looks to the Punisher for emotional depth or because they can relate, they’re reading him because this guy is fucked up and he’s going see to it that he isn’t fucked up alone. The movie should be along those same lines. This isn’t Spider-Man. Frank should have been out stapling men’s nuts to their foreheads, not having an awkward Thanksgiving dinner with the rejects that live in his building.

For God's Sake, They're Bringing Back "Knight Rider"

As if you didn't need further evidence that Hollywood has run out of ideas ("The Bionic Woman," The Bratz movie, the Hot Wheels movie, so on and so forth), here comes the latest remake of an old TV show: "Knight Rider." Finally, an excuse to try to make that "whoosh" sound with your mouths again.

For those who weren't self-aware in the 80's, "Knight Rider" was a show about David Hasselhoff and his talking car. The show wasn't about much more than that. It was simply an excuse to show a black Trans Am driving really fast and jumping over stuff, with the help of a "Turbo Boost" button. Allegedly, they were supposed to be solving crimes on the show, but I never once saw David Hasselhoff fight anybody or do anything on the show that didn't involve showing his hairy chest and sleeping with women. He didn't even drive the car most of the time, because KITT was smarter than he was.

I personally believe that it was created solely to capitalize on the popularity of "The Dukes of Hazzard," which was a show about TWO guys in a Dodge Charger drove real fast and jumped over stuff. Whatever their intent was, it worked, because I was glued to my TV every week when Knight Rider came on. I enjoyed this show so much that I even watched "Turbo Teen" to get my "Knight Rider" fix, a cartoon about a kid who turned into a talking car when he got wet.

Because the show was so deep and layered, and because there was such a demand for more Knight Rider after the failed "Knight Rider 2000," "Knight Rider 2010," and "Team Knight Rider" pilots, they've decided to bring it back. Hurrah for us. The lead role (the unnamed son of Michael Knight) is being filled by "All My Children" actor Justin Breuning. The abundance of testosterone in my body won't allow me to know who this person is. David Hasselhoff will be making appearances, because after all, nothing is as good as it could be if David Hasselhoff isn't in it, and this casting alone will make sure that the show has Germany's ever-crucial support.

Thanks to Hollywood's willingness to literally scrape the bottom of the barrel for ideas, we should go ahead and look forward to the following shows to be brought back: "The A-Team," "Airwolf," and "Nightboat, the Crime Solving Boat."

The Reboot Movie

A recent trend has begun to take over the recent trend of making comic book movies: The reboot movie. The reboot movie is what happens when you let your comic book movie get out into the public eye without having kept an eye on your maverick director, who wouldn't sign the contract unless he could create his "vision."

What the director fails to realize is that no one gives a crap about his "vision." What the fans want is someone to slap their comic books on the big screen. Losing sight of this is what led to the celluloid afterbirth known as "Batman and Robin," quite possibly the worst comic book movie ever, and the movie that put the fatal shots in the head of the Batman movie franchise. It took eight years before Warner Bros. put out "Batman Begins," mainly because they wanted to make sure America forgot about the Bat-nipples and Arnold Schwarzenegger's dialogue.

While it worked to let Christopher Nolan go in his room, play with his toys, and bang out a movie without studio executives saying things to him like, "his costume looks too faggy (an actual Jon Peters quote, albeit for Superman)," or "can you add some elves and monsters like in 'Lord of the Rings,' (an actual Jon Peters sentiment)" it completely failed when they let Bryan Singer retreat to his "Fortress of Man Worship," secretly ogle Brandon Routh through a telephoto lens and call it a movie. As a result, the franchise reboot was dead on arrival, after they worked so hard to bring it back to life, having seen it die on that fateful day in 1987 when Mark Pillow walked out of the dressing room dressed as the Nuclear Man.

Now, Superman is one of those evergreen franchises that can always make money for DC, and they know that a good Superman movie can easily bring in $300 million domestic. Why should they have to wait another 20 years to make another Superman movie just because Bryan Singer couldn't resist making Superman a creepy, deadbeat dad? Why not just pretend that the last movie never even happened?

Just because Singer was so distracted by Routh's package that he forgot that Superman was capable of throwing punches in between knocking up Lois and staring at her in the shower doesn't mean that some other, more talented director won't get it right. And apparently, that's the mentality that Warner Bros. is going with...except Singer is still the director. They just won't let him live betwixt Richard Donner's asscheeks in this outing.

It's a trend that's taking place over at Marvel, as well, where they're trying to repair TWO botched franchises. Hopefully, they won't stop with just these two, because Daredevil doesn't have to have Ben Affleck in the costume to make it work.

In 2008, "Punisher: War Zone" will be released, starring Ray Stevenson as Frank Castle. Ray Stevenson replaces Thomas Jane in the title role and Lee Alexander replaces Jonathan Heinsleigh as a director who's actually familiar with The Punisher. This isn't the first time that a Punisher movie has been made, but if "Punisher: War Zone" turns out to be good it'll be the first time they didn't screw it up. I still fail to see what's so hard about making a movie where the hero is a deranged killer with a van full of guns who drives around town shooting criminals. I used to believe that not even Dolph Lundgren could screw that up, but I was wrong.

Also, in 2008, "The Incredible Hulk" will be released, starring, and apparently, written by, Ed Norton. That might have been too many commas, but what really matters is that this movie needed to be made because the first one was so bad that people at Marvel have felt the need to reassure the public that this one won't suck. Kevin Feige, Marvel Studios' President of Production, said and I quote, "The Hulk movie will be different from this one because this one will be good." The sound you just heard was Feige slapping Ang Lee across the face.

Even the last James Bond movie, "Casino Royale," is considered a reboot. "Star Trek" has a reboot coming sometime down the road. Rumor has it that "Street Fighter" is getting a do-over. Sometimes, this is the best thing you can do for a franchise. You know, just make a movie and hope that no one remembers how badly you screwed up the last one. Maybe the producers of "Resident Evil" or "The Mummy" will read this and take notes. It's never too late to correct your horrible, rage-inducing mistakes.

"Superman Returns" writers shown the door

The world is going to be shocked to discover that Michael Dougherty and Dan Harris, the writers who tanked the Superman franchise before it even got off the ground by forgetting to write action and excitement into "Superman Returns," have opted not to write the sequel to 2006's historically bad celluloid turd, according to Variety. They also reported dancing in the streets, or at least in comic book stores, before ambulances were called to provide oxygen for the out-of-shape shut-ins who frequent these establishments.

The word is that Warner Bros. wants to start fresh with the next movie anyway, expressing complete surprise that fans didn't accept Superman being a baby daddy, not throwing a single punch, not doing anything "super," being portrayed as a stalker, and Lex Luthor not being a threat to anyone. Bryan Singer was reportedly pleased with how the movie turned out because Brandon Routh was "delicious."

Here's hoping this leads to a cleaning of house, starting with Bryan Singer, and followed by Kate Bosworth and Kevin Spacey, having their roles as Lois Lane and Lex Luthor being filled by actors who actually possess the qualities to perform those roles.

Jackie Chan and Jet Li. Nuff said.

Jackie Chan and Jet Li are going to be in a movie together. If you have any follow up comments to that, I couldn't hear them over the sound of my own pleasure moans.

Apparently, this is old news, but since I was killing myself with work back in April (when IGN first reported the name of this project, it must have slipped by me. Working 18 hours days can do that to a guy.

At any rate, the movie is called "The Forbidden Kingdom," but it doesn't matter what it's called, because I'm gonna see it regardless. They could call this movie "The World's Most Funniest Prison Rape Scenes" and I would still go see it. I'd walk right up to the box-office window and in my loudest voice, say "One ticket for the bloody asshole movie."

And if that wasn't enough, the movie's fight scenes are being choreographed by Yuen Wo-Ping, the guy who made Keanu Reeves a man in "The Matrix," and the guy who contributed to my ongoing love affair with Ziyi Zhang. He also made Donnie Yen slightly more famous than Rongguang Yu, but much less famous than Chow Yun-Fat.

The only problem I can foresee is this "family film" label, which can be the kiss of death for something like this. I'm already actively boycotting the "PG-13 comedy," but can being family friendly hurt this movie that much? I can't imagine anyone even wanting to see a movie with Jackie Chan and Jet Li if they weren't going to throw down and I'm sure the studio knows this.

No one goes to see their movies to see their layered performances. Jet Li almost thought they did, but word must have gotten back to him that his movie career was going to end right after "Fearless" if he didn't go back to kicking guys through walls. The word will travel fast if these two guys don't deliver what we want to see: Both of them, beating the pure crap out of each other.

"The Forbidden Kingdom" will be released in September 2008.

The Thievery of Bryan Singer

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Shazam, Wonder Woman casting news

Just when I though that the ruination of G.I. Joe or the completely unecessary Barbie and Hot Wheels movies weren't enough, Satan himself reached up from Hell to hand deliver the latest news on the Wonder Woman movie. Okay, it wasn't Satan, but IGN.com did post it earlier today.

Jessica Biel is apparently the front-runner to play Wonder Woman. That's right, Mary Camden is most likely going to be cast as Wonder Woman. I'm not pissed by it, so that says that either I'm maturing or I'm jaded by Hollywood's process of making movies. I don't think I was going to be pleased with anyone that they cast in this role.

I guess there were worse choices, like Oprah or Drew Barrymore. I just hope Jessica Biel can pull off "aloof," or "threatening." She might have done it in "Blade: Trinity," but that movie looked like it was going to suck in advance. I do know that she's mastered being "afraid," but I've seen porn stars in horror flicks get that one down.

But on the positive news front, The Rock is in the running for two roles in the upcoming "Shazam!" movie. He's the lead choice for both Captain Marvel and Black Adam.

He says that it's "up to the fans" to decide which role he plays. If that's the case, let me start the campaign to get The Rock cast as Black Adam. It's clearly a no-brainer to anyone familiar with The Rock and Black Adam, but this being Hollywood, they'll probably screw it up and cast him as Polly Pureheart, visiting from the "Underdog" movie. If this comes to pass, it would be one of the greatest castings ever, and make me feel a little better about the fact that they're turning one of the premier heroes of the DC Universe into an "action-comedy" movie.

Here's hoping that I get to see The Rock plant Captain Marvel into a wall. Keep your fingers crossed.

The G.I Joe Movie: Here They Go Again

Just when the pain in my soul hadn't recovered from "Transformers," the Hollywood executives at Paramount have decided to reach inside my chest again, pull out my lungs and piss on them in front of me.

G.I. Joe is to be released sometime next year, because Hollywood hasn't kicked me in the balls enough. Keep trying, Hollywood. I think I can still produce kids out of the left nut. A perfect target for when that He-Man movie is finally released.

Here is the synopsis for the movie, as reported by Variety: "G.I. Joe is now a Brussels-based outfit that stands for Global Integrated Joint Operating Entity, an international co-ed force of operatives who use hi-tech equipment to battle Cobra, an evil organization headed by a double-crossing Scottish arms dealer. The property is closer in tone to X-Men and James Bond than a war film."

What the hell does that even mean? G.I. Joe is supposed to be a reference to our Army, and the term "G.I." doesn't even have any significance outside of our borders. I can't imagine an international organization pandering to us like that. Also, the fact that it's based in Brussels and is an international squad kinda goes against that "Real American Hero" part. I mean, G.I. Joe being American is right there in the name.

And Cobra isn't led by a double-crossing Scottish arms dealer. It's a ruthless terrorist organization led by Cobra Commander (and later on, Serpentor, when things started getting really ridiculous).

The changes are being made because Paramount is concerned about whether or not they can successfully market a movie about the U.S. Military at a time when our military is viewed in such a negative light around the world. They openly admit that it will be a "tough sell" and so they're changing things up to assure that "as many people as possible around the world will want to see it. " My solution to this would be not making the movie, but I'm not a movie executive. I don't think that there's a huge demand for a movie about G.I. Joe, so I'm sure no one would miss it if it wasn't there. Or, you could just not make the changes, because after all, it's G.I. Joe, not U.N. Squadron.

There was also talk of including G.I. Joe's overseas counterpart, Action Man. Thankfully, they didn't do it, as it would have just become two versions of every character. By the time I got overseas, Action Man was just the G.I. Joe line with a new logo on it. Plus, Action Man was always a stupid name. Was that really the best they could do? It could be worse, though; they could have called it "Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles."

Wait, what? You're kidding, right? No, for real. "Hero Turtles?" I thought I just made that up.

Of course, what it all should come down to in the end is the characters and giving the fans what they want. I don't have much faith that they will, because after all, you saw what I thought about "Transformers." G.I. Joe was a show based in Reaganomics, Cold War America. There's was an emphasis on big guns, cool planes, and hardcore patriotic action stars. The kind of guys that chewed glass and liked the salty taste of their own blood. Like an entire group of Rambos that couldn't shoot, but things would blow up anyway.

This movie most likely won't be that way, but at least I won't have to worry about this movie focusing too much on humans and the government, because that's what this one is about. But no quote screams "failure" like the one from Paramount producer Lorenzo di Bonaventura: "My experience with beloved properties is that characters, attitude and tone are even more important than plot." Just the perfect attitude to dash the hopes of fans of a long-dead property. Reading between the lines, it says that they'll get all the catchphrases in the movie, which will be nothing more than a series of explosions. The hero will have a love interest. Roll credits.

With thinking like that at the helm, (it's directed by Stephen Sommers, director of "The Mummy," a series so bland, even The Rock couldn't make me like it) I can't wait for He-Man now. They'll probably make He-Man more slender, because they don't want to upset anyone thinking that he could be on steroids. Man-At-Arms will be his gay sidekick to promote acceptance.