…That Made It Into The Final Film:
http://sploid.gizmodo.com/10-more-really-fun-movie-mistakes-that-made-it-into-the-1736092161
If you’re not interested in clicking on the link, here’s the video:
Fun stuff!
Monthly Archives: October 2015
This ‘n that…
Couple of interesting article from io9.com I found.
First up, a review of the first episode of Ash vs Evil Dead, a cable series (it will be presented on Starz starting on Halloween night) continuation of the saga of Ash from the Evil Dead movies…
We Saw The First Episode of Ash vs. Evil Dead And It Blew Us Away
If you haven’t seen any of the Evil Dead films (the original 1981 Evil Dead, Evil Dead II, and Army of Darkness. IMHO, you can skip the not very good -other than a certain cameo appearance at the very end- 2013 remake), you should at the very least give the last two a look (the first film is more of a horror film while the last two hilariously straddle a fine line between horror and comedy and beloved actor Bruce Campbell gives a hilarious performance as an “anti-hero”…a man who, if he didn’t do so much good fighting the forces of the Evil Dead, would be looked upon as nothing more than a total jerk!).
So, after far, far too many years (Army of Darkness came out way back in 1992), the gang behind the original trilogy are back together again and, if the above review is accurate, we’re in for a treat. Certainly looks like it based on the trailer!
Next up…
Furiosa Won’t Be In George Miller’s Mad Max: Fury Road Sequel
Although reading the article it doesn’t sound like the article’s headline is quite as strongly written in stone as presented.
Mr. Miller himself notes that there is a chance she may appear in some kind of (possible) cameo or something of the character. However, taking all the quotes provided by Mr. Miller, what I came away with was that the sequel to MMFR its still a long way away and while there are concepts (and even possibly full scripts to at least two movies) ready, much is in flux.
I enjoyed MMFR quite a bit but, as I noted in my review, the film might have been better had it not included the character of Max within it. Why? Because as a fan of the previous three films 1) Even though I like Tom Hardy a lot as an actor, I missed Mel Gibson and 2) I expected Max to be the central character just as he was in the previous three films yet the movie’s protagonist was Furiosa and, with very little tinkering, MMFR would have worked equally well -maybe even better!- without the Max character in it.
Having said all that, I can see a new Mad Max film being made which, like the others, doesn’t necessarily tie into what we’ve seen before. MMFR presented a “soft” reboot of the world of Max as well as things that nixed continuity with the other films. Chief among them was a certain car Max was driving at the beginning of the film which would have been impossible given what happened in Mad Max 2 aka The Road Warrior.
Having said all that, you know what I’d like to see?
I’d like to see a new Mad Max film that features…Mel Gibson.
I know, I know, he’s older now and Hollywood still has him on a blacklist and, yes, Tom Hardy may be better known to audiences now as the character versus Mr. Gibson…
…but…
If Mr. Miller makes another Mad Max film and it doesn’t necessarily tie in to MMFR just as that film didn’t necessarily tie into the others before, wouldn’t it be cool to have Mr. Gibson return in the role as an older, though just as fearsome, version of Max, a la Batman in Frank Miller’s The Dark Knight Returns?
Why not?
If they were to make another Mad Max film and Mr. Gibson was willing to star in it, you can most certainly count me in!
Daniel Craig and James Bond and other musings…
This past week, just as the publicity blitz for the soon-to-be-released (it comes out November 9th) James Bond film Spectre was ramping up, actor Daniel Craig, the man who plays the world’s most famous super-spy, provided some…uh…interesting thoughts on whether he was up to playing the character in another film:
Daniel Craig is so done with James Bond
and…
Daniel Craig: I’d rather “slash my wrists” than play James Bond again
When I presented the first linked article, found on io9, to someone I knew, their reaction to it was, I suspect, what the vast majority of people may feel. This person opined that Daniel Craig needed to “get over himself” and not bite the hand that feeds him. That working on these James Bond films has surely made him a ton of money while elevating awareness of him as an actor around the entire world.
I completely see this person’s point and yet… and yet…
Being an “artist”, be it a writer, musician, actor, etc. etc. is a very tough gig. You can devote considerable time and effort to your projects only to see them fail to catch on. You can labor for years and years in the shadows only to one day hit it big…on something you don’t have all that much love for at all. You could even spend your entire life slaving over your artistic works and die a poor wo/man…and afterwards these works that were so stubbornly ignored by everyone during your lifetime become popular well after you’re able to enjoy the attention and financial gain from their later success.
If one looks at Daniel Craig’s IMDB page (you can read it here), you may be surprised to find that while Mr. Craig hit the big time with his first appearance as James Bond in 2006’s Casino Royale, he nonetheless has a wide variety of credits in various roles for both movies and TV shows dating all the way back to 1992.
Clearly this is an actor who has taken on many roles and while the success of his James Bond made him better known and most likely better paid, after spending nearly ten years of your life working on the same character in four movies it is obvious, based on the interviews he’s given, that he’s grown very tired of the role.
Daniel Craig’s laments, though, are not a particularly new development.
Who many consider the “best” James Bond, Sean Connery, also felt the drag of the role. He left the series he made a world-wide success with his fifth James Bond film, 1967’s You Only Live Twice, and was so done with playing the character that they brought in George Lazenby to replace him in 1969’s On Her Majesty’s Secret Service. The replacement actor in that case didn’t work all that well, especially for the producers of the franchise, and they lured Mr. Connery back, apparently thanks to a very big paycheck, for the 1971 Bond film Diamonds Are Forever.
But even with the better pay Sean Connery again left the series, famously stating “never again” in interviews and Roger Moore would take over the role starting with 1973’s Live and Let Die. Interestingly, Sean Connery returned one last time to play James Bond in 1983’s “non-canonical” Never Say Never Again (yes, the title was a pun which referenced Mr. Connery’s “never again” statement). The movie was a thinly veiled remake of Thunderball and is “non-canonical” because the producers of the other James Bond films were not involved in this movie’s production, which may be part of the reason why Mr. Connery agreed to come back to the role. Regardless, it would mark the last time -canonical or not (some, including myself, feel that the 1996 movie The Rock had Sean Connery essentially playing James Bond again)- he would play the James Bond character.
So Daniel Craig is in good company regarding his current negative feelings toward the James Bond character and his work to create him.
And it is work.
Yes, the pay is far better than what most will ever make in our jobs but it is an investment in one’s time and, as someone who is currently engaged in a project that has taken nearly a decade to complete (and still requires at the very least 2-3 years), I can tell you from experience doing something for this long can be exhausting.
So despite everything, I do feel sympathy for Mr. Craig. Yes, I envy the money he no doubt makes and I also wonder if its smart to make these comments at this particular time. On the other hand, I can appreciate his candor, even if it might lead to negative feelings in others.
I also hope Spectre winds up being a great Bond film. I always welcome them.
Now this story is rather…weird…
From Ben Mathis-Lilley for Salon.com comes this intriguing -though tragic- story involving…
The Weird Case of Three Florida Teens Who Died After Being Hypnotized
Briefly, this story involves a High School Principle in Florida who had a deep interest in hypnosis and allegedly used it on many of his students. Three of them, as stated above, died…at least two of which were suicides while a third drove off a highway. All this happened in the span of two months.
The article notes that a settlement was reached between the school and the parents of the deceased children. The Principle, who no longer works in any school system, was ultimately…
..convicted of two misdemeanors for practicing therapeutic hypnosis without a license, for which he was sentenced to probation and community service
What bothers me the most about this article is that clearly a boundary that should have existed between this man and his students (and staff!) was crossed. There is no indication the Principle was engaged in anything malicious…but as the saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
While the article notes one basketball player claimed the hypnosis offered to him was relatively innocent and intended to help with his “concentration”, the fact is that the Principle was engaging in a form of therapy and as such, not all issues dealt with might be as innocent as this one.
Again, I have no reason to believe the Principle was acting maliciously and somehow tried to hurt those three students, but it is clear the conviction he ultimately faced was appropriate.
Leave therapy to the professionals.
The Hero’s Journey
Fascinating little article by Robby Berman for Slate.com which features an even more fascinating small video illustrating author Joseph Campbell’s Hero’s Journey…and how it applies to a broad range of movie heroes:
Too lazy to click the link (shame on you!)? Here’s the video:
911 Call-in madness…
I’m amused whenever I read about what prompts some people to may very inappropriately calls to 911. Often, the reason they’re calling is far outside the boundaries of a real life emergency.
For example:
Man Calls 911 Saying Girlfriend Won’t Have Sex With Him
After reading that story you should check out the other “outrageous” 911 calls mentioned. The first one presented is equally amusing: A 35 year old woman arrested for calling 911 because she’d been “shorted” on a $75 bag of marijuana.
Oh dear.
Zoolander (2001) a (very) belated review
It’s interesting when certain movies or books or TV shows display life after a lackluster initial release.
I recall many, many years ago, 1982 to be exact, when the Wes Craven directed Swamp Thing landed in theaters. I was attending high school at a boarding facility and distinctly recall seeing a commercial for the film for the first time with a group of friends. Everyone, and I mean everyone around me hooted and scoffed at the commercial. They were certain the film was a total POS.
These same people were even more astonished when I told them I knew about the character and actually liked the Len Wein/Berni Wrightson comic book it was based on (at that point Alan Moore’s take on the character was still to come, though the movie did result in a new Swamp Thing series which, eventually, led to Alan Moore’s arrival on the U.S. comic book scene).
In fact, I loved (still love!) those original 10 issues of the Wein/Wrightson Swamp Thing so much that, risking considerable teenage ridicule, I went to see the film when it was released a week or so later.
Other than me, there was absolutely no one in the theater.
To say the least, Swamp Thing, the movie, was a complete bust. But something curious happened on the way to its irrelevancy. The movie was released to cable and, lo and behold, people saw it and realized it wasn’t the total crap-fest they thought it was. I’d be the last person to vigorously defend the merits of the film, but it did carry enough of the old Wein/Wrightson comic book ideas to make it at the very least an enjoyable time killer.
The eventual unlikely success of that film led to a second Swamp Thing film, a TV series, a cartoon series, and, of course, the emergence of author Alan Moore. And this isn’t counting offshoots like John Constantine (an Alan Moore creation who first appeared in Swamp Thing and subsequently has appeared in movies and a TV show, among others).
Which brings us to the 2001 Ben Stiller film Zoolander. According to Box Office Mojo, the film was made for approximately $28 million and grossed $45 million, which makes it profitable but not anywhere near approaching blockbuster status (the amount the movie was made for doesn’t include advertising costs).
If memory serves, the film left theaters fairly quickly, though perhaps the movie did suffer from the fact that it was released on September 28 of 2001, very shortly after the tragic events of 9/11, and people maybe weren’t in much of a mood for humorous movies.
Yet not unlike Swamp Thing, the film had a rebirth of sorts over time. After its initial release more and more people got to see the film and they apparently liked what they saw. In 2016, a full fifteen years after its release, Zoolander 2 will arrive to theaters.
In all this time, I’ve caught bits and pieces of Zoolander on TV but never sat through the entire film. Until now.
What I found was an amusing -if light- comedy that takes an interesting almost science fictional plot as its storyline: What if we lived in a world where males were supermodels? And what if someone like Ben Stiller and Owen Wilson -two people we would hardly classify as top models in any reality- were the two hottest models out there?
Further, what if both of them are crushingly stupid and become involved in a Manchurian Candidate-style plot to kill off a Malaysian ruler, a man who wants to create child labor laws in his country which will inevitably hurt the fashion industry that thrives on creating their clothing using very, very cheap labor of this kind?
Zoolander isn’t the best comedy I’ve ever seen, not by a long shot, but it is very funny -hilariously so at times- and breezes by. Within the film you get some fascinating cameos (including amusing ones featuring Billy Zane and David Bowie), along with equally amusing appearances by Will Ferrell, Milla Jovovich, and David Duchovny.
What I found most incredible about Zoolander is that the writers, including Ben Stiller, managed to create an almost James Bondian-type plot that logically revolves around issues of fashion and the creation thereof. Sure the film features plenty of “stupid” humor (which if done right I absolutely love…check out the whole pouring gas scene early in the film), but to have a plot that actually touches on something as real as child labor laws and the fact that top fashion industries rely on cheap labor to get their products out there?
Rather stunning.
As I said before, Zoolander isn’t the very best comedy I’ve ever seen but it is quite humorous and -dare I say it?- clever in its own way. I can certainly understand why this film found life after a so-so first release. Recommended.
Superman’s new secret identity
Don’t quite know why, but of late DC Comics has been trying to modernize/revitalize/re-work many of their superhero concepts.
Perhaps the editors/writers/artists felt that some of these older concepts had become stale with the passage of years and felt it was time to upset the cart a little and see what happens. It may also be that the for the most part successful re-working of various characters on the many DC TV shows have also inspired a desire to do the same in print.
Which leads us to the above. In case you haven’t been following Superman comics of late, one of the big things that was recently
…SPOILERS FOLLOW!…
YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!!!
…was have Superman’s secret identity of Clark Kent be revealed to the world at large (by Lois Lane, no less!) and the fallout of this revelation.
Now, it appears that Superman will take on a new secret identity…
Superman’s Getting A Brand New Secret Identity
How long will these changes last? Who knows. In the past when DC or Marvel made “big” changes to their well established characters they would inevitably return them to a semblance of what they were before (for example, they “killed” Superman and kept him dead for a while before bringing him back. They turned Hal Jordan/Green Lantern evil and he did some truly ghastly things, including mass murder, before he too was apparently killed off. He returned and the villainous stuff was explained away. Over at Marvel, they killed off Steve Rogers/Captain America and he returned as well. Etc. Etc.)
I can’t help but wonder if today’s changes, however, might be longer term. There is no doubt that comic book fiction is far different today than what I remember from my own childhood and the writers/editors of today may be in a more experimental mood than before.
Doesn’t mean they won’t eventually bring things back to the status quo, though!
Shaun of the Dead (2004) a (very) belated review
Shaun of the Dead, the first part of The Three Flavours Cornetto trilogy, went a very long way in helping the careers of actor/writer Simon Pegg, Nick Frost, and director/writer Edgar Wright. And for good reason!
After transferring many of my movies to the cloud, the family and I were sitting around, wondering what to see over the weekend and everyone wanted a comedy. I suggested they give this film a try, though to be honest outside of the film’s central plot (working shlub loses girlfriend and tries to win her back during the zombie apocalypse… something it takes this dimwitted -though kindly- soul a good while to figure out is happening) I didn’t recall all that much about it.
This is usually not a good sign and I feared the film might not be all that good…at least for them.
My memory of the other two films in the Cornetto trilogy, 2007’s Hot Fuzz and 2013’s The World’s End were fresher. I could even recall more regarding the non-Cornetto film Paul, which also featured Pegg and Frost, than SotD.
So, naturally, the film turned out to be not all that great, right?
Wrong.
My lack of memory might be related to the fact that this was my first exposure to the works of Pegg/Frost/Wright and I might have been more focused on the zombie and apocalypse stuff rather than what actually “made” the film: the characters and their interactions. Either that or I was distracted during that showing and wasn’t paying all that much attention.
Regardless, shame on me because SotD is an absolute delight and as much as I enjoyed both Hot Fuzz and The World’s End (Hot Fuzz a lot more than The World’s End), SotD is to my eyes clearly the best of the Cornetto trilogy.
Then again, it is the movie that features the most interesting subject matter for this particular brand of parody. Bear in mind, too, that the whole zombie apocalypse concept, so common now, wasn’t quite that common back in 2004. In that year we had the release of the Dawn of the Dead remake and it would be six years before Walking Dead showed up on TV.
So the film was an early example of the popular zombie genre and the subject of its parody/humor was mostly a nod to the much smaller base of zombie fanatics who loved the George Romero “Dead” trilogy.
In the character of Shaun, Simon Pegg is a riot. He’s presented as a kindly bloke who likes the simple things in life: Frequenting his favorite pub, hanging out with his slacker flatmate Ed (Nick Frost), staying as far away from his stepfather as he can, working a dead-end electronics job, and trying his best to keep the flame going with his increasingly turned off girlfriend Liz (Kate Ashfield).
But life proves too complicated for Shaun and when he screws up a dinner date with Liz and, to make matters worse, tries to patch things up in a very awkward and obvious way with flowers meant for someone else, Liz ditches Shaun and his life comes crashing down…both literally and figuratively.
So focused is Shaun on his personal problems that he doesn’t notice all the strange things -both small and large- going on around him, hints that the zombie apocalypse is well underway. It isn’t until he’s quite literally face to face with a zombie that he realizes the danger everyone is in and then decides to go into action. Oh, and win his girlfriend’s heart back.
SotD is at its best in the early going when that zombie apocalypse is happening and Shaun just misses realizing this is the case. The jokes during this section of the film are both in your face and subtle, ranging from Shaun impatiently changing the channels of his TV just as they’re about to talk of the apocalypse to -my favorite- what happens just after he grabs that drink the second time he goes to the convenience store while not noticing the bloody handprints on the refrigeration unit.
SotD is also a very (pardon the pun) “meaty” comedy. Stuff is constantly happening and it is clear a great deal of effort was put into making this screenplay.
Do I recommend the film?
If you can’t tell by now, you weren’t paying attention.
By the way, the movie is much better than this pretty lame trailer makes it seem.
Justice League: Gods and Monsters (2015) a (mildly) belated review
When word came that Bruce Timm had a new project for DC’s animated universe, there was much rejoicing. This project, released this past year, was Justice League: Gods and Monsters and featured a decidedly darker take on DC Comic’s “big three” superheroes, Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman.
In this alternate universe, Superman’s father is General Zod rather than Jor-El. Rather than millionaire Bruce Wayne, Batman is Kirk Langstrom (aka Man-Bat in the regular DC Universe). Wonder Woman is Bekka, a child of this universe’s High Father from the New Gods rather than an Amazon. She, along with her lineage, have a much darker backstory than that which is presented in the regular DC Universe.
Interesting stuff for certain, but while I was eager to see the film, I feared that it might prove a little too “dark” to really enjoy.
And the movie most certainly starts that way!
In the opening scenes, those which give us this universe’s origin of Superman, we see what can only be described as a Kryptonian “rape” being the way that General Zod becomes Superman/Hernan Guerra’s father. Now, PLEASE UNDERSTAND THAT WHAT IS PRESENTED IN THE FILM ISN’T AS GRAPHIC AS I MAKE IT SOUND IN THE ABOVE DESCRIPTION, but if you consider what you are presented with, that is effectively what happens.
We fast forward to present time in this world and the three superheroes are shown on a mission. They are arrogant and more than willing to use their powers in gruesome ways. They dispatch a group of terrorists, including some alternate world versions of supervillains, with maximum casualties.
These early scenes are meant to show us that while this version of the Justice League does deal with villainy, their methods are very grim and, naturally, make people very uncomfortable. So uncomfortable, in fact, that many protest these “heroes” and wish they would disappear. The U.S. Government, meanwhile, uses them while looking at them with a very weary eye.
With the opening over, we then move into the movie’s main plot: Someone is targeting well known -and incredibly brilliant- scientists (It helps to have an awareness of who many of these characters are) and making it look like the “Big Three” were responsible for their assassinations.
In investigating the deaths, the Big Three realize they are being framed. Given the unease I already mentioned regarding their status in this world, it won’t take all that much to turn humanity completely against them.
As I said, going into this movie I feared it might be a little too dark to enjoy, and in the early going the movie more than earned its PG-13 rating. Along with the already mentioned Kryptonian “rape”, there is a bit of sexual innuendo presented via the various characters and for this reason I’d recommend anyone thinking of showing this movie to their kids to see it themselves first and then decide if it is appropriate.
Having said all that, JL: G&M wound up being a blast.
Yes, it is grim and yes, it does have some faults (I’ll get into them in a second), but damn if it doesn’t deliver an interesting story that, while it may start a little slow, grips you by the end.
The faults? To begin, as this is a “new” take on the three principle characters, valuable screen time has to be devoted to their backstory and, with the exception of Superman’s at the very beginning, this backstory (for Batman and Wonder Woman) drops on the viewer in rather clumsy ways, IMHO. Why? Because these backstories are presented just as the movie’s central mystery is developing steam and kinda stops things in their tracks. However, because this backstory is necessary to understand the characters as well as this mystery, these scenes prove necessary, though they do stop the movie’s momentum.
The sexual innuendo mentioned above, also, turned me off. Mind you, I’m far from a prude as my novels surely attest, but we are talking about a Superman/Batman/Wonder Woman story…did we need as much sexual banter as was presented in the early going?
Finally, and I have to tread very softly here for fear of getting into SPOILERS, but the return of a central character at the movie’s climax…why did it take this person so long to show up? Had this person appeared a little earlier, it might have avoided quite a mess.
I’ll leave it at that!
Regardless of these flaws, I repeat: JL: G&M was a blast. I enjoyed the hell out of it even as I was engaged into and trying to solve the mystery. When all is said and done the mystery is classic Agatha Christie and I absolutely loved the resolution.
Good job. I most definitely look forward to more!