Tuesday, July 14, 2009

Universal picks up film rights to boring old game

Yes, Universal wants to make the classic Atari game "Asteroids" into a movie. This is a game with a simple premise: Shoot little lines from a triangle and destroy incoming "asteroids". No offense to fans, and nothing against retro gaming, but this wasn't exactly the best game to come out of the golden era of video games. If games like Yars Revenge and Donkey Kong were some of the bigger hits of the era, this was a surprise game that was fun enough to play once or twice, but then you got bored with it's simplicity and moved on to a better game. Apparently Universal likes this concept of something that gets old really fast, as their recent films would tend to suggest.

The thought here is that a popular retro game with no story whatsoever gives breathing room to the people producing it -- namely, TRANSFORMERS producer Lorenzo di Bonaventura -- so they can come up with a highly original story and escape ridicule from fans for "not sticking to the formula". All I can say is that if the ship is not triangle shaped and working from a fixed point in space, I will be VERY disappointed.

This is something people joke about, along with making a movie out of Pac-man and games like it. Surprise! The fantasy we used to joke about to poke fun at Hollywood's inability to create anything original is now becoming a REALITY!

You have a head.

You have a desk.

You know what to do.

Thursday, July 9, 2009

Facebook: The Movie!

No, really. I can't make this up. I'm not that original.

However, apparently the "amazing" story behind Facebook is just original and riveting enough that it should be a movie! Wait, the news gets even better.

You know that guy who directed such brilliant films as Fight Club, Seven, and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button? You probably know where this is going, then. Yes, David Fincher is in talks to direct FACEBOOK: THE MOVIE, which has actually been dubbed with the new title of "The Social Network". Now, I'm not going to just bash this movie from the start. For all we know, it could end up being good. With Fincher behind the reigns, anything is possible. All I know is, the premise of the story of how Facebook became just another social networking website among a slew of already popular and famous sites just like it does not sound like a good movie to me. The war between Microsoft and Apple, that was interesting. This? A couple college kids stumble into wealth and I'm suppose to pay money to see a story about it? that's like telling me that a bunch of banks and corporations made a stupid mistake and they want me to pay for it.....oh, wait...

I guess it could be good, but there's nothing even remotely exciting to wet my appetite about it just yet. A Director makes a movie what it is, but I'm not sure even Fincher can pull a stupid concept like this out of the trash and make a diamond out of it.

Wednesday, July 1, 2009

Dragonball Evolution....part 2!

American audiences loved Dragonball Evolution (a live action take on a beloved anime/cartoon series from the 80's) so much that it made around $9 million during it's time in box offices around the country! By comparison, Battlefield Earth earned over $11 million in its opening weekend. Evolution never even reached that mark during it's entire stretch in theaters. This is how much American Audiences LOVED Dragonball Evolution.

Guess what! They're making another one!

One rather excellent article suggests that perhaps it's the fact that the film earned over $45 million outside of the US that has lead them to decide to make a sequel to this steaming pile. I guess we shouldn't be surprised since the film no doubt cost a fraction of it's total earnings to create. At least it's not American audiences behind the gun this time. $9 million domestic for Evolution is a sign to me that we are getting a lot more intelligent about the films we watch. At least there's something positive to take away from all of this.

Unfortunately, that doesn't make this throbbing headache disappear. Lets pray for a straight to DVD release and hope they won't even attempt to sell the second disaster to American audiences.

Thursday, June 18, 2009


After only two Transformers films, Michael Bay has said that he is done with the franchise. When I first heard about it, I was for sure this was a joke created by the fabulous minds at the Onion. However, a slightly more reliable source is at work here, so I'm more tempted to accept it as reality.

and what a fantastic reality it is!

Lets accept the facts here, it was by the grace of god that Bay was unable to ruin Transformers to this point. How many directors could do a better job? Well, the options are limitless!

Okay, perhaps I'm being hard on Michael. After all, who do you want to direct Transformers, the artsy fartsy guy? or the guy who knows one thing -- explosions, and lots of em? However, explosions aren't exactly art. There are plenty of directors in Hollywood that can do exactly what Bay does, and probably for less money. I have a feeling that whatever they do with the Transformers franchise next, whoever they get to direct what will most likely be a third film in the franchise, we will all be a lot better off without Bay behind the wheel. God forbid the loss of an overpaid, overblown windbag like Michael Bay.

Long story short, the departure of Michael Bay is not something anyone will lose sleep over.

Unless of course they decide to throw a party in celebration.

Nolan hasn't signed on for Batman 3? OHNOEZ!!!

Yes, apparently Christopher Nolan has not yet signed on for a sequel to "The Dark Knight". This has left fanboys evacuating in their pants at the idea of a Batman film directed by someone other than the man who apparently MADE Batman who he is according to the level of respect with which Nolan has been bestowed.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think he's a bad director. I just question whether or not he should really do another in this series of film. If he hasn't signed on yet, maybe he just doesn't want to do it. Honestly, if I were him I wouldn't want to have my name as a director forever associated with Batman, and only Batman. This is the guy who directed the brilliantly original film "Memento" for christ sake. He's capable of some great stuff, and he's doing Batman movies.

It's not like that's a bad thing, as a fan of that type of movie I have to say I'm glad they finally found a really good director to do the fims. However, if I was capable of such brilliant and original films, why would I want to be attached to some hollywood schtick like this? Batman already has a history in film, why would you feel any need to be associated with it if you were able to write your own history in film? I'm not saying Nolan is the next Spielberg or anything, I'm just saying he's got a real talent for what he does, so he doesn't really need Batman to be a success. What's more, he'd probably be a lot better off without Batman, and as such so would the average movie goer. The more originality we've got in hollywood, the better.

Warner is going to make a third Batman film with or without Nolan. We can hope for the best, but nothing they come up with is likely to top or even reach the quality of The Dark Knight. Remember the mess that came out after Batman Returns? Well, we can only hope it won't be that bad again.

As for Christopher Nolan, I feel I'd be supportive of whatever he decides to do next; whether that be Batman or his own independent films, he's good enough at what he does that he'll have me turning my head a few times. I just wish the fanboys would stop complaining and let the man do whatever he wants.

Saturday, June 13, 2009

Shia Labeouf the new Emo kid in town?

Just weeks before his big ticket item of the year hits theaters, Labeouf has decided to have what amounts to a nervous breakdown for the aptly named "Parade Magazine" to cover. Perhaps that's a little harsh, as one could also consider it an awakening of sorts, but for a guy who has been thrust seemingly unabashedly into the hollywood lights, he doesn't seem to be taking it too well.

At one point Mr. Labeouf tells us that money is the reason he became an actor, and he doesn't care for it too well. While money can't buy you happiness, I'm sure there are a lot of actors/actresses out there who would die to be in his position and really don't care to hear him complain about it.

"Waaah, I'm rich and famous, man my life sucks".

However it might sound, it would seem the message he's trying to convey isn't so much that he isn't appreciative or that he doesn't think he's talented (lord knows we here are Cinemafangeeque wouldn't be the first to suggest something like that), but that as a child actor he was literally thrust into a place he wasn't even sure he wanted to be. The life of a child actor is never as glamorous as it might seem, and often times much more troubling than one might expect. He stuck with the talents he at least acts believeably enough like he wasn't sure he wanted to spend a lifetime using, and it got him somewhere big -- but what's the point of it all, he says? it could be gone tomorrow! if it was, he'd be happy! It sucks to be living everyone else's dreams!

It is easy to accept that perhaps he is just one of the few people who has little interest in doing for a living what many people only dream of, even that he holds many bad memories of it from his childhood. It's also just as easy to accept that the loss of his girlfriend and possibly a really bad hangover set him up for an emotional breakdown in front of one of the luckiest journalists of all time. Believe whichever story you want, but the truth of the matter is that he's still a sub-par actor who must have god for an agent to be getting put into some of the biggest films in hollywood today.

Mr. Labeouf, if you're sick of the hollywood lights, nobody is stopping you from coming back to reality, and I seriously doubt that many would truly miss you. It's simple -- if money means nothing, turn down all the offers, quit your day job, and go work at 7-11. If your roots are truly as "poor" as you say, you should know how to easily and comfortably live off of all the money you have for the rest of your life. Hell, if you wanted to, you wouldn't even need to get a job.

You've got it made.

Nobody is stopping you from doing what you want but yourself.

....Just don't expect sympathy from anyone whose sympathy is worth a damn.

If you should decide that maybe your gig is a little too hard to give up, here's some solid advice:

Consider playing a vampire in the next Twilight movie. I'm sure your attitude in life would make you the perfect fit for the role.

Friday, June 12, 2009

The wait begins...

Ya know, the fact of the matter is that some movies don't get nation wide releases -- especially not films with a $5 million dollar budget. I had high hopes for this one and I really wanted to see it, but it looks like I may have to wait until it comes out on DVD to see the sci-fi flick "Moon", starring Sam Rockwell and the voice of Kevin Spacey. The film was directed by Duncan Jones, a name probably unfamiliar to those who aren't in the know, but then that's the point, isn't it? Who would want to live under the shadow of the infamous David Bowie? Yes, Duncan Jones is the son of David Bowie, and has reportedly said he was influenced by the film Labrynth, which explains to an extent why he is so interested in doing sci-fi flicks.

Regardless, this film looks good for many reasons. Unfortunately, with such a tight budget they probably don't expect too many people to run out to see it, and so it is currently stuck in the limbo of "limited release". This of course means that entertainment hubs like Los Angeles and New York City will no doubt see releases of this film, but everyone else will either have to wait for a DVD release or a nationwide release depending on how well it does in limited release. Personally, I'm hoping it will do very well so that I'll at least get a chance to see it in theaters this summer. I've heard that seemingly true to the roots of Labrynth, not so much time is wasted on the special effects as is spent in the story -- which might have more to do with the limited budget they were working with than what they actually wanted to do with the film.

If you happen to live in one of these entertainment hubs, I highly suggest checking out this veritable diamond in the rough if and when you get the chance. The film is in limited release as of now, June 12th, and I can only hope that a larger release will follow soon. Either way, at least check out this more than promising trailer for the film and consider giving it a chance whenever it comes your way.

Thursday, June 11, 2009

New Scorsese flick "Shutter Island"

Hey guys, I just thought I'd make a quick little post to tell you about the new trailer out for Martin Scorsese's "Shutter Island". The film is going to star the now veteran Leonardo DiCaprio. Now, I have never been much of a fan for Leo, but Scorsese has been using him in almost all of his films lately, and it's getting harder and harder to deny the reason why. Love him or hate him, Leo is a captivating actor who is versatile enough to play almost any role.

Honestly, DiCaprio is starting to feel a little like Jimmy Stewart. Although he'll never be quite as good or unique as Jimmy, he is almost as versatile as him. The moment I first realized this was surprisingly not during a Scorsese flick, but rather Sam Mendez's "Revolutionary Road" last year. At the end of the film we see Leo's character sitting on a park bench looking lonelier than Jack Lemmon in the Apartment, and the thing that separates them both in said position is that Leo does it just with his demeanor, letting his previous acts of brilliance in the film speak for the situation. Let it never be said he's not good at what he does, because 50 years from now we will probably be talking about him -- and that has legend written all over it.

If you'd like to see the trailer, either click the title for this post or click here. Some of the shots look downright brilliant, and the storyline would seem almost amateurish if I didn't know it was Scorsese behind the camera. Can't wait to see it!

Tarantino's "Inglourious Basterds" to be hacked to pieces?

After an apparently lackluster reception at Cannes, there are talks of cutting the film down drastically by as much as 40 minutes. It is a matter of confusion as to whether the film is currently 2 hours and 40 minutes long or 2 hours and 28 minutes long. What is not a matter of confusion however is that the purpose of this cut seems to be the classic stand by:


TWC is hurting bad, and nearing bankruptcy. Apparently they think they can make some more money by cutting the film down to a length that will get them one more showing in each theater per day. However, what they fail to realize is that more often than not when you cut a film as long and original as this one by as much as they want to, you're seriously putting the integrity of the very film at risk. Sure, Tarantino fans would more than likely be able to get the full cut on DVD or Blu-ray at some point, but they would also be so upset that it was cut for monetary purposes that they might not even bother to see it in theaters. This would demean the entire purpose of cutting it down, as it might end up costing them more money than it makes them in the end.

Keep it the way it is, Weinstein -- The legion of Tarantino fans out there will see it regardless of whether it's a bomb or not. Your one job is to give QT what he wants so he can make his fans happy so they will come to see the movie so you will make more money. The length of the film doesn't matter at this point, and neither does the quality of it. Leave it as is and watch Americans vote with their wallets, as they always have.
Search Engine Submission - AddMe