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.
Friday, January 31, 2014
Thursday, March 31, 2011
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."
Thursday, November 12, 2009
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 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.
Friday, June 5, 2009
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.
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.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
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...
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...
Thursday, November 6, 2008
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.
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.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
"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.
"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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)