Before becoming a Leo DiCaprio for a new generation by starring in The Notebook, and before garnering critical acclaim for his performances in such indie dramas as Half Nelson and Blue Valentine, Ryan Gosling had a plum role as part of a Leopold and Loeb-like pair of killers in the thriller Murder By Numbers. A film that I, for one, quite enjoyed. Fuck off.
Cut to: Several years later. Blah blah "Blow Up Doll", yadda yadda "Crack Addict". . . Ok, here's something interesting! Gosling's next, actually potentially interesting movie to come out is titled Drive, in which he plays a wheelman (Not the nautical kind. An assistant bank robber.) who's marked for death after screwing up a job. Albert Brooks plays the big bad, and you've got a supporting cast that includes Carey Mulligan, Bryan Cranston, Christina Hendricks, and Ron Perlman. It's directed by Nicolas Winding Refn, who you likely DON'T know from such films as the trippy viking film Valhalla Rising (Read my review here), and real-life prison/bio/cult film Bronson. To top off the awesome, you've got Bryan Singer's go-to cinematographer Newton Thomas Sigel shooting this bitch, so Christina is going to look better then you ever thought possible.
But that's old news; on to the new news! Bryan Singer's a good segue person here; For years, he's been trying to make a new adaptation/remake of Logan's Run, the 60's William F. Nolan novel turned 70's Michael York vehicle. In the book, future society has one unbreakable rule; Thou Shall Not Age. Kids run the world until their twenty-first birthday, at which time they're expected to willfully kill themselves in group, ritual suicide. The story follows one boy who's job is to chase, and kill, the kids who run away from their "civic duty"; until he decides to go on the run himself.
In the seventies film adaptation, which took several liberties, the age of enforced death was raised to 30. Looks like they're following suit in the remake; Ryan Gosling has just signed on to play the lead, from a script by 28 Days Later writer Alex Garland. Singer has made himself unavailable, being deep into production on his version of Jack The Giant Killer, so it's looking like the director is going to be; Nicolas Winding Refn!
You may not have seen any of Refn's films yet, but trust me; this is great news. The Dane has got a great eye, and a wide range of styles. I can't wait to see what happens when he's unleashed upon a sci-fi world, with a budget.
Jaume Collet-Serra, director of the surprisingly entertaining Orphan, and the upcoming Liam Neeson thriller Unknown, will next be directing Harker. It's the story of Jonathan Harker, the haunted narrator of the first half of the novel Dracula, but portrayed in an entirely new light. Here, Harker is a Scotland Yard detective, and Dracula is his quarry.
The description kind of bores me, but I'm willing to hold out hope. I enjoyed Orphan quite a bit, and I'm by no means a Dracula purist; The novel is a bit of a bore, and there hasn't been an accurate adaptation made yet. Bring on the revisionist goofiness!
But who should play Harker, a character previously portrayed, infamously, by Keanu Reeves? Or Dracula?
Darren Aronofsy. Paul Greengrass. Loius Leterrier. Timur Bekmambetov. Jonathan Mostow. All directors bandied about as potential helmers of the 3D, James Cameron produced remake/readaptation of Fantastic Voyage. Who did they finally decide on?
Shawn Levy. You may know him from such films as: Cheaper By The Dozen (remake). The Pink Panther (remake). And Night At The Museum. . . One AND two!!!
I have faith in Cameron as a director, but his last producing effort, Sanctum, just got it's ass handed to it by The Roommate. Here's hoping that Levy's upcoming film, the ludicrous looking Real Steel, has given a Cameron a greater degree of confidence in his abilities than I have.
Sorry for the tease; No, there isn't a Rowlf spinoff movie in development. But Academy Award winning screenwriter, and previous Danny Boyle collaborator, Simon Beaufoy is adapting Toby Barlow's acclaimed novel Sharp Teeth, for a possible future collaboration with said director.
The book is about the romance between a dogcatcher and a werewolf, set in Los Angeles. It's also a detective story, and a violent gangland tale (Or "tail"; the gangs are all werewolves), done in a poetic style.
Anybody out there read it? It sounds ridiculous, but I love Danny Boyle's choice of bizarre and dangerous material so far. Here's hoping he does it, and it turns out as well as 28 Days Later.
Back in the day, Super Bowl trailers were like a late Christmas for movie fans. Often, it was our very first look at footage from films that we barely knew anything about. Then the internet happened.
Since the advent of web sites like Ain't It Cool News and Dark Horizons, I no longer have to watch Entertainment Tonight for my daily news fix (Thank the pantheon!), nor are Super Bowl commercials much of a surprise anymore. Since the beginning of the new millenium, it seems like studios are barely trying to wow us, as is evidenced by some of the teasers on display here. Some, however, carry on the time honored tradition, giving us just a taste of excitement.
Here's all the biggies, from Worst to Best. As teasers, that is. But I'll throw my guesses in as to the quality of the respective film, as well.
DRIVE ANGRY
MOVIE - The movie actually sounds like a blast: Nicholas Cage escapes from Hell, looking to rescue his granddaughter from a group of Satanists, with the assistance of a Saint Of Killers-style handgun and a rad car. Amber Heard shows up in Daisy Dukes.
TEASER - Now; Exactly how much of that is gleaned from the trailer? It looks like just another stupid Cage film, and the announcer, and quotes, are completely unnecessary. Do you think the target audience for this cares whether it's critically acclaimed or not?
THE EAGLE
MOVIE - Yawn.
TEASER - This film is an obvious dump, coming out at this time of year, and being the type of movie that it is. It's funny that the studios spend as much, or more, advertising their obvious failures as they do their successes.
RIO
MOVIE - Looks like it could go either way. I've seen the opening musical number, which is nice. It is from the director of the last Ice Age movie, which made me pretty damn sleepy.
TEASER - Too fast (too furious?). Comedy highlight is birds bouncing off a butt?! Meh.
TEASER - Well; they do know their audience. I don't know a damn thing about this movie from the trailer, except that there's a pair of gigantic, jiggly breasts at some point.
RANGO
MOVIE - Um. . . Dunno. Can't really get much of a sense of the thing. Verbinski's directed good shit (Pirates Of The Caribbean) and bad shit (The Mexican) in the past.
TEASER - Probably a little TOO much of a teaser. You gotta sell us on this with more than "Johnny Depp voices a lizard. In a western (?!). In a Hunter S. Thompson shirt". It annoys more than intrigues.
COWBOYS AND ALIENS
MOVIE - This one could be fun. Love the premise, love the cast. . . Jon Favreau does good work when inspired (Don't blame him for Iron Man 2; It got rushed into production), and this sounds like a passion project for him. Could suck, but I'm hoping it's fun.
TEASER - It's tough for non-nerds to get past the title. They did a good job of laying out the basics here. Serious. Badass. Neckedness.
THOR
MOVIE - Looks a little too small-scale for the story of an Asgardian warrior. He basically just beats up a robot, thereby saving a small town in New Mexico? Prove me wrong Kenneth Branagh.
TEASER - Ladies: A shirtless Australian beefcake. Fellas: Shit blowing up, and people being kicked.
PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: ON STRANGER TIDES
MOVIE - I have faith in every element of this film, except the director. Rob Marshall potentially sinking this franchise aside, it looks to be just as much fun as the previous installments, minus the excessive exposition of At World's End.
TEASER - Not much we haven't seen in previous trailers. There's no "OOH!" shot, like skeleton pirates walking underwater. Again; fuck Rob Marshall.
FAST FIVE
MOVIE - Probably dumb/fun, like the rest of the series. Didn't see the last one, but Tokyo Drift was a marked improvement in the level of car stunts, and this looks like it ups the ante.
TEASER - Solid. Good use of adrenaline-pumping music and visuals, and the promise that "Yes, this is a Versus film: Diesel v Rock".
BATTLE: LOS ANGELES
MOVIE - The director, Jon Liebesman, has a pretty piss-poor resume so far, so I'm not holding out much hope for this one. Looks like 2012: Plotless and full of destruction.
TEASER - But the destruction looks so good. They've been doing a good job of pulling the wool over people's eyes with this one.
CAPTAIN AMERICA
MOVIE - Looks kinda fun. Too early to tell, for sure. It's cool to see Chris Evans, who's been doing some great character work, finally blow up like this.
TEASER - Plays like a sped-up and cut down version of a theatrical trailer (Which, I'm guessing, it is). I'd rank this lower if the footage didn't look so great. And PLEASE; Lose the "The First Avenger" tagline, ok?
MOVIE - I absolutely HATED the first film; but I kinda liked the second one. It's so ridiculously over-the-top, it's essentially the Mecha version of Bad Boys II. It's Michael Bay. Will it be stupid? Yes. Will the fx and photography look good? Indeed.
TEASER - Perfect, very classic style Super Bowl spot. This is how you do "epic", people!
SUPER 8
MOVIE - I'm sure it'll be like JJ Abram's other directorial efforts; Entertaining and forgettable. His predilection to the saccharine will not be helped by the presence of children.
TEASER - Like Transformers, this is a Steven Spielberg production, and it shows. Everything in the trailer has a "Amblin in the 80's" vibe. Good use of mystery and atmosphere to sell the flick and start the hype machine.
Well, unless I missed any, that's about that. Let me know which ones you liked!
You may have noticed that I haven't published a review of Michel Gondry's Green Hornet film (Or much of anything in the last week. Sorry! Life catches up with you sometimes, etc). The reason for this is simple; I haven't seen it, and have no intention to. Not this year, at least. For this year, Two-Thousand and Eleven Anno Domini, I declare my one resolution as to never intentionally absorb any form of entertainment that looks. . . "Meh". Even if, as in the case of Green Hornet, it looks like it could be a slightly positive "Meh".
Since everyone loves lists, conflict, and art, you can find any number of "The Top 100 Greatest _____ " via Google. Books, albums, movies, tv shows. . . You name it, somebody's made a list about it. Go ahead, take a look; I'll wait.
You're back? Ok. Taste is arbitrary, but you'll notice certain works popping up over and over again. Citizen Kane, Anna Karenina, Mass in B minor. . . How many of these types of things have you personally experienced? And, whether you ultimately find them to be enjoyable or not, aren't they at least worth a look or listen?
Why do we avoid the greatest artistic creations of our own, or all time? Perhaps it's a rejection of perceived snobbery; As Americans, we buy into the dream of doing whatever we want, whenever we want to, and being above reproach. No one's going to tell us what to do, or more importantly what to like. Perhaps we're daunted by the prospect of putting effort into our entertainment time. When we come home from a long, hard day at work, perhaps the massively-populated Russian historical drama of the early 19th Century,War & Peace, isn't the first thing that comes to mind as a good way to "wind down" with a six-pack.
Both of those have a ring of truth to them, but I think the greatest culprit in our embrace of the mundane is the convenience of the mediocre. It isn't just you and War & Peace sitting on a desert island, with your only other form of entertainment being the garbing of crabs. You've got a weeks worth of various forms of Law & Order on TiVo! Time to catch up on all the "ripped from the headlines" action that you've been missing (Doubly important for having not read the headlines in the first place).
I'm less susceptible than some; I haven't owned Cable for several years, and have no internal urge to devour whatever's in the popular consciousness at the moment (Hello, Oprah's Book Club). But I have my vices, to be sure. What's the draw of something like Green Hornet? Well, based on the trailer, the plot seems to involve people being kicked, and things blowing up. Those are two things that I find enjoyable in my zoetropic lightshows. I also, correctly, think that all films are meant to be seen in the theater (All rude behavior of the modern audience to the contrary). And despite my general avoidance of popular culture, I do like to stay abreast of Nerd Culture; seeing something like Green Hornet on it's opening weekend allows me to join in the internet version of watercooler conversation, and absorb the latest winner/loser in the overarching category of Genre.
Let me dissect that last paragraph. Yes, I do like people being kicked, and things blowing up. I also like story and characters. And in a completely shallow way (I claim no other level of depth), things blowing up are much more satisfying when framed properly. That's why I can't really get into the excesses of a lot of modern-day Japanese genre cinema. The aficionados love the extremes to which films like Tokyo Gore Police go, but I implore the director: Don't use a woman with an alligator-mouthed vagina dentata simply as a gag --- Make me FEEL her character (?!?!!).
Yes, all films are meant to be seen in the theater. Films that are worth seeing in the first place. But Green Hornet (Sorry to keep picking on you, innocent movie. You just happen to be the right example at the right time.)?! It might be passably entertaining; I might even watch it on video next year. But would I regret never seeing it? I think not. I also think that behind the scenes special features on DVD's and Blu Rays are great, but I'm never going to watch "The Making Of Underworld: Rise Of The Lycans".
And "staying in the conversation"? Let's change the conversation. I know that studios have to sell their films, and movie sites need to stay afloat; Hence, the never ending debate over a film like Green Hornet, as if it were worth discussing on the same level as something like Lars van Trier's Dogville. And there's the great irony; Dogville, a fantastic, narratively rich film, will be seen by less than a fraction of the audience that Hornet has.
Life is short, kids. Why settle for second, third, fourth, or fifth best? This year, let's go for platinum.
Return Of The King had a lot of ground to cover; In addition to the (near) entirety of the novel, they're also forced, due to a decision to play everything out chronologically, to include several scenes from the previous novel, The Two Towers. Because of the cramped narrative, the forward momentum of the story, and the larger-than-life battle scenes, it ends up shedding a lot of the fat that The Two Towers had. Despite it's length, and now infamous multiple endings, it really does run like a well-oiled machine. Trust me; With some of the shit that's in that book, they could've made it a LOT longer.
The cheesiness and pretentiousness that should've been exclusively saved for the climax actually works quite well in the climax. And despite that, and in good contrast, this is the most "Peter Jackson-ey" installment of the trilogy: You've got ghost warriors, "hero" monsters, giant spiders; it's a fun, goofy good time.
Pirates, after their extremely solid first two entries, takes a sharp dive with this second part of the Davy Jones story. After two films of light-hearted, swashbuckling banter and antics starring a cast of backstabbers and cutthroats, we begin this film with the hanging of a child (?!), and the doom and gloom never lets up. Where did this come from, exactly? Am I now supposed to take the mythology of the series with dead seriousness? Am I supposed to feel bad that the government is cracking down on pirates? I mean, I get it; they represent "freedom", and the parallels to Wild Bunch style westerns are readily apparent, buuutttt. . . I mean they're thieves, murderers and rapists, right? These are the "good guys" that I'm supposed to shed a tear for? The previous films were a perfect balance of romance, horror, action and comedy, and this film tilts the balance heavily towards drama, in the process sucking a great deal of the fun out of the thing.
In response to criticisms that Pirates 2 & 3 don't make sense; they do, but you have to be paying attention to understand them. That said; What's the point of the whole Calypso/Davy Jones romance arc? If you removed it from the film, it wouldn't effect the story at all, really. By adding more and more mythology onto the pile, it fills valuable time with exposition that could be used for some sorely missed comedy. The shift in Jones' character from Ultimate Badass to Lacky Of Ultimate Badass really deflates the conflict that was built up to a fever pitch by the end of Dead Man's Chest. I get the shift of Beckett being the Final Boss, but Davy Jones needs to be bigger, scarier and in a greater degree of control than they portray him here.
Biggest problem with At World's End? This is Keira Knightley's movie, in essence, and a real chance for her character to shine. But, she pretty much drops the ball. She was used well in the first film (as background eye-candy), but I don't buy her transition from society girl to pirate king. She's more whiny than angry.
FREDERICK OPINES
THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING - MASTERPIECE
PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: AT WORLD'S END - GOOD
So, if I tally these scores up. . . We actually have a tie! I honesty didn't think that LOTR had a chance, but POTC pooched it up enough in the final round, and Rings brought it's A-game, so that they both ended on even turf.
The battle is over, but the war continues. The fourth Pirates film is released this year, and an adaptation of The Hobbit, again directed by Peter Jackson, just went into production.
