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...
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
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.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
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."
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."
Friday, August 22, 2008
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.
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.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
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.
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.
Friday, November 2, 2007
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."
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."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)