Finally, GOOD NEWS about "The Wolf Man."

Universal's remake of "The Wolf Man," with Benicio Del Toro as the title monster, has had easily the most (publically) problematic production of any film in recent memory: The first director was fired/quit just as it was gearing up, there were public spats about practical-vs-CGI FX between creature-maker Rick Baker and the production, and recently new editors were hired to "punch up" the finished footage. All signs pointed to the usual trouble: A potentially-cool genre film getting watered-down by a studio afraid to make something awesome and maybe even a little dangerous. It also, even from it's trailers, looked A LOT "bigger" and thus more expensive than many might have been expecting, which could only ADD to the concern if you follow these things: Even if your movie is about a monster who's only real ability is tearing people limb-from-limb, a studio spending big money usually wants a "safe" PG13 rating to garauntee maximum profit.



So, then, it comes as not just good news but potentially SPECTACULAR news that "The Wolf Man" has been rated R for "bloody horror, violence and gore." Now, that DOESN'T necessarily mean all the problems haven't resulted in a less-than-great film, but it IS a strong indicator that things might be going in the right direction. An R-rating, at it's fundamental level, usually means that the film was made "uncompromised" to a certain degree; it also possibly tells us that Universal might think they have something pretty good on their hands, since a "bad" genre film would absolutely get saddled with a PG13 in order to increase it's earning capacity.

If it's "that" good, I'm interested to see what it's reception does for journeyman director Joe Johnston, who's been making solid films without becoming much of a "name" for DECADES now. If this works out, it could end up a big secondary buzz-point for the "Captain America" movie he's set to make for Marvel (if that's still happening, there hasn't been WORD ONE about it since they announced they were making it.)

Read more »

Spider-Man 4 to get it half right?

File this under "probably strange enough to be semi-true," but Movieline says they know who the new people are in "Spider-Man 4": http://www.movieline.com/2009/12/exclusive-spider-man-4-circling-john-malkovich-anne-hathaway.php?page=1

Sez them, Sony Pictures vetoed "The Lizard" for being too strange; so the main enemy will be "The Vulture" - possibly to be played by John Malkovich. Sez them also: The story about Felicia Hardy ("The Black Cat") turning up is also true, as is rumored casting of Anne Hathaway, except instead of Cat she'll become a female counterpart to Vulture. (Vulture has wings, for the record. That's pretty much the whole idea.)

Some of this sounds like bullshit, some of it doesn't. Vulture is 100% plausible. He's part of the "main cast" of 60s Spider-Man enemies that Raimi prefers to draw from (Rhino, Mysterio, Shocker, Electro and Beetle are most of the others) and he fits in nicely with the general theme of main bad guys from the better-recieved (than #3) first films - i.e. an inventor using his technology to go on a crime/revenge spree. It's also true that Raimi has been trying like hell to get him into the series for a long time - he was supposed to be "co-baddie" in Part 3 before Marvel/Sony insisted on Venom. If you're wondering why Lizard is apparently too strange for the screen but alien-goo-monster Venom wasn't, simple: Money. Venom is one of Marvel's most consistently-marketable properties on the toy/shirt side (he's never been able to carry a book, though.)

The "made-up" part, if there is one, is probably Hathaway-as-Hardy-as-"Vulteress;" but not enough to be dissmissed outright. A recurring theme (THE recurring theme?) in Vulture stories is that he's an old man, and his flying-suit technology is always getting stolen by younger, more ambitious wannabes. If so, it's likely that this was in the script from the beginning and someone had the idea to borrow the name of an existing supporting-player for her civilian identity. Unfortunately for them, as always happens with these things, a casting sheet got to the fans before the announcement did, and now instead of going "heh, thats a reference" they'll be all bent out of shape at the character not being in it's original form (doubly true here, since let's face it - LOT'S of people wanted to see a flesh-and-blood actress in that outfit.)

Movieline isn't a "fanboy" site, so if this is either close to or very far away from truth, there'll be word from Sony soon enough.

Read more »

Escape to the Movies: "Ninja Assassin"

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/escape-to-the-movies/1155-Ninja-Assassin

And here's this week's "Intermission," which is about "Blind Side." Because why not?
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/moviebob/6858-The-Bland-Side

Read more »

The Blind Side

Alright, enough is enough.

I didn't write anything at first after seeing "The Blind Side" because it left my largely unaffected save for the same general annoyance given off by it's trailer, which I'd already covered. But seeing it blossom into some kind of real success, and now people are talking an OSCAR for Sandra Bullock (Sandra Bullock!!??) I'm compelled to get into this.

"The Blind Side" is fucking horrible. At first seemingly forgettable, but it HANGS there like a sore... I find myself coming back to it in my head, realizing just how awful certain aspects of it are. It's worse than worthless - it's an "anti-good" film; it's existance lessens the world around it.

It's based loosely on a sports book of the same name from the author "Moneyball," which details the rise to prominence of the Left Tackle position in professional football. The "human interest" aspect of the story focused on Michael Oher, an NFL pro who started out as a near-homeless teenager who's life turned around after a local rich family more-or-less adopted him. He's black, they're white, is the "hook." The film gives lip service to the sports-history context, but it opts to focus mainly on Oher's story... without actually focusing on him. Instead, it reworks itself into a star-vehicle for Bullock as the tuff-love matriarch who takes him in.

And that's the main problem - all "Blind Side's" other sins... the unoriginal structure, the formula "big" scenes, the treacly sentiment and the overall "feel-good-movie-matic" aura of the whole enterprise - might be forgivable if it weren't also such a smug, self-satisfied piece of white-guilt-reassurance. Oher is a specter in his own story: A one-dimensional "big lug with a heart" caricature who's only function is helping his benefactor's feel better about themselves. The plot is about how Oher escaped the dead-end of the ghetto with help from these people, but the STORY is about how encountering Michael and his world has made his adoptive mother a more enlightened, socially-aware human being. Fuck that shit.

And that's not even taking into account all the out-of-nowhere "the HELL!?" scenes. At one point, Oher gets to tear a bunch of his old-neighborhood crack dealers apart with his bare hands even though they've all got guns. No, really, and it's cut like something out of a Jason Statham movie. Later on, Bullock goes all Erin Brokovich on the same dealers, apparently able to cow them with sheer force of word. Please. The film also manages to sidestep the main note of moral-gray from the real events - there was some eyebrow-raising about Oher's adopted family, and tutor, and others involved in his redemption being financially-connected to the college he ended up signing with, do the math - by the old standby of placing the only dialogue questioning it into the mouths of a "mean" character. Earlier on, one of Bullock's "bitchy" friends asks her "is this some kind of white guilt thing?," which is meant to make curmudgeon's like me feel bad about mentioning the fact that it kinda IS.

It's a piece of shit, and the idea that it has any kind "momentum" right now is incredibly disturbing.

Read more »

quick bit

On my way out, but just quickly:

"INTERMISSION" is now up, this one is about Ignmar Bergman:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/moviebob/6821-On-The-Road-With-Bergman

Also, if you get the chance - DON'T skip "Fantastic Mr. Fox." Ignore the underwhelming, slapstick-heavy trailers. It's a beautiful little romp of a thing, possibly the best thing Anderson has been involved with since "Rushmore." The notion that Anderson directed this "hands-off" by email is baffling once you see it - it looks so completely and utterly "him" from the titles to the colors to the staging... even the tiny little costumes on the animals. And there's a random exchange about songwriting that I know I'll be quoting for the rest of the year.

The main thing I was unsure about was the risky decision to use deliberately fake-looking puppets an animation. The "sets" all look exactly like sets, with visible joints and brush-strokes, you can see the "fingerprints" of the animators in the real-fur animal characters (when a pregnant Mrs. Fox is said to be "glowing," the next cut replaces her with an internally-lit double clearly made from painted plastic) effects are accomplished using cotton for smoke, cellophane for water and the barest hint of rotoscoping... even the cinematography is stage as though shot by a camera that can only move in 2 directions - in, out, back, forth - at any given time. Topping it all off, the animation itself avoids smoothness at all costs - it looks as though the puppets were moved only ever-OTHER-frame.

But the ultimate effect is really hypnotic. The "trick" is that it's all about the details. The puppets are astoundingly detailed - the animals have tailored clothes, real fur, rows of realistic teeth, expressive faces and eyes that not only have pupils but irises - and intricately animated: Lips curl back over teeth, tongues move to enunciate and whiskers twitch in-sync. A minute or two in, it clicked for me: Anderson has always been fixated on cinematic artiface - look at the lovingly-obvious water-tank shots in "Life Aquatic," or the unmistakably-unreal animated fish in the same. An amazing amount of work went into "Mr. Fox," and he wants you to SEE that work happening.

Gvie it a look.

Read more »

His blood runs through my instrument

The real brilliance of Seth Green and Matthew Senreich's "Robot Chicken" is that it may be the first sketch comedy series to fully grasp the concept that, while blasphemy is funny, blasphemy against "official" religions is pretty hard to do these days: It's played out, for one thing, and the ever-decreasing irrelevance of organized faith in much of the modern world means that there aren't as many people who'll actually be offended.

SECULAR "religions," on the other hand, are much more a part of our lives now, and the jokesters who "get" that tend to be the ones who're on the real cutting-edge now - think Stewart/Colbert's open mockery of journalistic gravitas, South Park's constant assault on politically-correct piety, "Borat's" goosing of the politeness-instinct, that sort of thing. Or recall that in it's early prime "The Simpsons" drew gasps for it's evisceration of the sitcom nuclear-family ideal.

"Robot Chicken's" idol-to-be-shattered of choice is the religion of Nostalgia: Their main recurring them is taking the movies, TV shows, cartoons and - especially - playthings that my generation (which is, of course, also Green & Senreich's generation) tends to hold sacrosanct because of the impression they made on us at certain ages. And they're damn good at it - I've seen an aquaintance who regarded themself a casual student of the "nothing can offend me" school of psuedo-nihilism respond with bug-eyed shock at RC's re-fitting of "The Neverending Story's" famous "SAY MY NAME!!!" exchange into an (innevitable, in retrospect) sexual context; and I have an aunt whom I'm fairly certain would burst into tears if someone showed her the "Wizard of Oz alternate-ending" sketch.

With that in mind, my favorite RC sketch of all time is probably the short bit goofing on Dan Fogleberg's song "Leader of The Band." If you're not familiar, here's the song:



So... yes, one of those sappy/sentimental ballads; but if you knew of it beforehand you probably also know it's up there with "The Cowboys" or "Brian's Song" in the "stuff guys are allowed to cry during" pantheon. People play this song at their father's/grandfather's funerals. There's a pretty good chance that at some point, somewhere in the English-speaking world, someone is fighting back manly tears while quoting from this in the vicinity of a casket and/or headstone.

So, here's what "Robot Chicken" did with it...


http://robotchicken.wikia.com/wiki/Leader_of_the_Band

When I saw that the first time, I remember thinking "That's WRONG!!!" and THEN realizing that this was the first time I actually MEANT it in a long time. Brilliant stuff.

Read more »

Escape to the Movies: "The Road"

I wish it was better.

("Intermission" should be up around 5pm ET on The Escapist)

Read more »