DAYBREAKERS trailer
Lionsgate has released the trailer to Daybreakers, a nifty looking new
vampire film that stars Ethan Hawke, Willem Dafoe and Sam Neill. With the movie franchise Twilight red hot and the HBO television show True Blood a cult hit, vampires are apparently as popular as ever. Personally I like Ethan Hawke as the lead. He was really good starring in the remake of Assault on Precinct 13. Daybreakers hits theaters Jan 8, 2010. Take a LOOK
TRANSFORMERS: Revenge of the Fallen – A flat uneventful follow-up
There are many things that you can say about director Michael Bay (The Rock), but the one thing I never thought I would ever say is that he could make a boring movie. YES, Michael Bay has delivered a truly bland, uninspired and BORING film with the mega budget follow-up to his worldwide blockbuster, Transformers. Conceived during the writer’s strike, Revenge of the Fallen brings back most of the main characters plus robots, both old and new, but there is a flatness to the entire affair. If I sound greatly disappointed as I write this it’s because I’m a big fan of the original film. I was looking forward to this sequel being a really fun, involving, summer movie – an event film well worth going to the theater to see. The original is one of my favorite popcorn films of the last decade.
In so many ways, Bay’s follow is the definition of the term ‘sequalitis’ (yes, I know that’s not really a word). The same components from the original are there but, for one reason or another, it has almost none of the first film’s magic. Think of the difference between 48 Hours and its sequel Another 48 Hours. Same actors, same premise, NO magic.
Bay clearly made a fatal mistake with the ‘bigger, faster, louder’ theory. Just because something is wider in scope doesn’t mean it’s any better.
Shia LaBeouf and Megan Fox are back as Sam and Mikaela, our two likeable heroes from the first film. Sam’s about to go to college on the East Coast and Mikaela is running an auto body shop with her father in LA. Right before Sam leaves he discovers a shard of the all-powerful, presumed destroyed, all spark cube. After it causes havoc by producing a dozen or so mini decepticons that wreak havoc on his house (in the film’s only moment of real energy and sense of fun) he gives it to his girlfriend Mikaela for safe keeping.
Meanwhile the decepticon’s looking to resurrect their fallen leader Megatron, who is lying on the bottom of the Pacific Ocean, are soon hot on their trail. With the help of the good Autobots, Sam and Mikaela have no choice but to go on the run in hopes of finding a way to conquer the alien adversaries. I can assure you the plot is not only thin but it quickly heads down the road to blandness after the first 45 minutes. The next two hours are pretty painful to sit through. When the story has our characters appearing in Egypt for the film’s last half, the whole exercise grinds to a halt and becomes a bore fest of epic proportions. It appeared to me that Bay shot a bunch of extraneous footage for this film’s section and used it for the sake of using it as it doesn’t advance the story in the least.
One of the things I enjoyed so much about Bay’s first Transformers was the humor. It was funny. The scenes featuring the computer hacker (Anthony Anderson) had me buckled over in laughter. He added so much to that film’s overall sense of fun. No such luck this time around. Just about every attempt at humor falls completely flat. From the extended sequence of Sam’s mom (Julie White) hopped up on pot brownies to humping dogs to the twin jive talking and pretty offensive twin autobots named Skids and Mudflap, every attempt is a misfire. Kevin Dunn (Sam’s Father) who was so appealing the first time around is wasted filler in this outing. John Turturro returns, this time as a former G-man who is now a butcher in a Brooklyn Deli. He gives it his all but even his zaniness is not enough to make much of a difference, even in the one scene where he appears wearing a g-string. Okay, I guess it was a decent site gag.
It’s nice to see Optimus and Bumble Bee once again who supply a few brief moments of excitement. Shia LaBeouf is a solid lead but, for the most part, he’s buried amongst the noise of Giant Robots fighting throughout. Megan Fox is even more just eye candy the second time around. Director Bay clearly shows no confidence in her ability to act, giving her little to do except look hot. Not exactly a blueprint for a steady career in feature films. While it’s unlikely she will be beating out actresses like Rachel McAdams for roles she must aspire to be more than this.
The Robots are extremely well done. Bay has clearly mastered CGI but you can only watch them fighting each other so long before you ask yourself “what else is going on here? The answer… not much! Revenge of the Fallen -1.5 out of 5 and a MAJOR disappointment.
THE BOX – Trailer
Warner Bros. has released the first trailer to Richard Kelly’s (Donnie Darko) sci-fi horror thriller THE BOX which stars Cameron Diaz, James Marsden and Frank Langella. The film follows the story of a couple who receive a mysterious box that grants them one million dollars but with one catch; once they open the box, a person who they do not know will die. The premise is an interesting one and actually reminds me of a great Twilight Zone episode, “The Man in the Bottle” (1960), about a genie who grants a luckless antique shop owner and his wife four wishes but with every wish warns them of the consequence of their desire. This film’s story has that feel. Take a LOOK
AMELIA Trailer
Fox Searchlight has released the trailer to Amelia, there biopic about the life of Amelia Earhart, the legendary American Pilot. Amelia Earhart, played by two-time Oscar winner Hilary Swank, disappeared while flying over the Pacific Ocean in 1937 in an attempt to make a flight around the world. The film co-stars Richard Gere, Ewan McGregor and Virginia Madsen. This could be a major player come Oscar time. Take a LOOK
Huge change at next year’s OSCARS – Ten Best Picture nominees instead of five
In one of the more interesting news stories I’ve read in quite some time, the Motion Picture Academy announced today that there will now be 10 films in the Best picture category competing in next year’s 82ND Academy Awards. Not since 1943 has there been this number of eligible films in the category and one has to wonder why…
Clearly the Oscars are losing some of their relevance as ratings for the telecast continue to dwindle year after year primarily due to a lack of mainstream interest. The glaring slight of fan favorite and worldwide critical hit The Dark Knight at this year’s Oscars could have been the tipping point for the Academy to go in this direction. Personally, I have mixed feelings about this because I don’t want to see the Oscars get watered down to the point of being ridiculous like the Golden Globes but I also feel there are years that high quality films with big mainstream interest get left out.
Let’s be honest, the Academy is way too guarded when it comes to box-office blockbusters and, in many instances, just stuck up. It’s safe to say that the insane snub of The Dark Knight left a bad taste in many mouthes so, while this change might displease the old school crowd, it should delight many others who want to see an Oscar telecast where they have a rooting interest. This change will guarantee at least that.
OFFICIAL PRESS RELEASE
Beverly Hills, CA (June 24, 2009) — The 82nd Academy Awards, which will be presented on March 7, 2010, will have 10 feature films vying in the Best Picture category, Academy Motion Picture Arts and Sciences President Sid Ganis announced today (June 24) at a press conference in Beverly Hills.
“After more than six decades, the Academy is returning to some of its earlier roots, when a wider field competed for the top award of the year,” said Ganis. “The final outcome, of course, will be the same – one Best Picture winner – but the race to the finish line will feature 10, not just five, great movies from 2009.”
For more than a decade during the Academy’s earlier years, the Best Picture category welcomed more than five films; for nine years there were 10 nominees. The 16th Academy Awards (1943) was the last year to include a field of that size; “Casablanca” was named Best Picture. (In 1931/32, there were eight nominees and in 1934 and 1935 there were 12 nominees.)
Currently, the Academy is presenting a bicoastal screening series showcasing the 10 Best Picture nominees of 1939, arguably one of Hollywood’s greatest film years. Best Picture nominees of that year include such diverse classics as “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,” “Stagecoach,” “The Wizard of Oz” and Best Picture winner “Gone with the Wind.”
“Having 10 Best Picture nominees is going allow Academy voters to recognize and include some of the fantastic movies that often show up in the other Oscar categories, but have been squeezed out of the race for the top prize,” commented Ganis. “I can’t wait to see what that list of ten looks like when the nominees are announced in February.”
The 82nd Academy Awards nominations will be announced on Tuesday, February 2. The Oscar® ceremony honoring films for 2009 will again take place at the Kodak Theatre at Hollywood & Highland Center® in Hollywood, and will be televised live by the ABC Television Network.
INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS TRAILER #2
The Weinstein Company has released the second trailer to Quentin Tarantino’s World War 2 film, Inglourious Basterds, a revenge flick with Tarantino’s unique vision written all over it. According to several sources (including Nikki Finke) if this film and Rob Zombie’s Halloween 2 don’t perform well at the box-office, Harvey Weinstein’s Film Company could be headed toward bankruptcy. Basterds screened at the Canne film festival last month to more positive than negative reviews but even those who really liked it called the film more ‘talky’ than action oriented. To me that doesn’t spell Box-office dynamo.
Reports also have it that Weinstein wants to cut 40 minutes from its 2 hour and 40 minute running time in order to make the film more marketable to the vast mainstream audience. From a business standpoint I can understand his point of view but I’m sure it won’t make the core Tarantino fans very happy if he accomplishes that feat. While I’m not one who drinks the Tarantino kool-aid, I do like this trailer and look forward to seeing this film. Look for Basterds to march into theaters Aug 21, 2009. LOOK
BATMAN 1989 – 20 YEAR ANNIVERSARY
Boy how times flies. I must admit I simply cannot believe that it has been twenty years since Tim Burton’s Batman was released into theaters. Amongst the wildly inventive Bat-emblem posters plastered in subways and on buses, Batman tee-shirts and hats and people walking around dressed as the Joker, it feels like yesterday to me. Well, maybe not yesterday but certainly not two decades ago. While Jaws defined the summer blockbuster, as the first summer film to gross $100 million at the box-office, Batman clearly changed the way studios marketed movies and the after effect is still very prevalent to this day. I wasn’t the biggest of comic book readers but I was pretty excited to see this film as Warner Bros created buzz that was unprecedented at the time. You simply couldn’t go anywhere within a month of its release without seeing that Bat-emblem poster everywhere.
What truly changed the face of movie marketing was a decision by Warner Bros. The studio took a calculated gamble and decided to air the complete coming attraction trailer on a weeknight on all the network channels at about the same time, a month before its June 23rd release date. It created some great water cooler talk and many people, including myself, were psyched. After that trailer was released any negative talk about the casting of Micheal Keaton as the Caped Crusader dissipated and the footage of Jack Nicholson as the Joker was not only the talk of the industry but of movie fans who couldn’t wait to see the first serious take of Batman on film. People were roaring with applause in theathers when that trailer was played.
While I love Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight and the performance of Heath Ledger as the Joker, the hype and overall excitement for that film, no matter how big, wasn’t in the same league as Burton’s original Batman. There truly was a euphoria in the air – contagious and almost surreal for weeks leading up to its release. I honestly can’t remember anything like it. The ABC network magazine show 20/20 also aired a retrospective on the history of the Batman character about a week before its release. It was really well done and also got me pumped. WATCH below
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HI1cqFapYCs
On Friday, June 23, 1989, the highly anticipated film opened to mostly positive reviews with the NY Post giving the film four stars. In those pre-internet days, I remember running to the newstand that morning to buy the Post, the NY Daily news and Newsday in order to read the reviews. While the majority of the reviews were postive, the film did have some detractors with the trade, Variety, and Roger Ebert giving the movie a negative review.
I wound up seeing Batman numerous times in its theatrical run. While I knew the movie had flaws, especially in storytelling, there was something about it that made me keep coming back. I personally loved the mid-section of the film. The Museum sequence where Jack’s Joker
dances around to Prince’s Party Man was super cool. Batman crashing through the sky light ceiling to save Vicki Vale was great and the introduction of the Batmobile outside the Flugelheim Museum was perfectly executed. Plus Danny Elfman’s score was as good as it gets and really elevated the whole production. Bottom line – despite being far from perfect, I thought it was great. Tim Burton’s Batman had a $40.5 mil opening weekend on 2201 screens and it had legs. It played in theaters for 25 weeks ending up with a domestic gross of $251mil. Its 2201 screens is half of what many big films open up on nowadays.
Batman is a film that has a couple of real legacys. The first is that it was the first serious film take of the comic book hero Batman that helped create one of the most popular franchises. The second is that it truly changed the way movies are marketed. Since the release of Batman 20 years ago, the only weekend that a studio thinks about is its opening one. Studios now use every tool and resource they have to get a huge mass audience into the theater for its opening frame for their high profile tent pole films. There is now no such thing as platforming, building word of mouth (although its always nice) and hoping the film is playing in theaters eight weeks after it comes out. Not for Summer movies. No, its all about the opening weekend and spending the bulk of marketing dollars getting the word out that this is the film you will see now – not next week. It’s all about the event. Maximum effect is the operative goal. While this event usually doesen’t last very long, and the legacy of any given film doesn’t burn in ones memory, Batman was truly a game changer. Love it or hate it, Jon Peters, Peter Guber, Tim Burton and Warner Bros made history on June 23, 1989. Theres no doubt about that and every studio had its marketing blueprint in place thereafter. HAPPY Anniversary and thanks for the memories!
WHAT DOESN’T KILL YOU – A crime drama well worth checking out on DVD
While searching through a Redbox for a DVD to watch over the weekend I stumbled upon What Doesn’t Kill You. While I remember watching the trailer sometime last year, the movie never got much of a theatrical release so it was basically out of mind – out of sight. After viewing I have to say, if you’re a fan of the crime genre, which I happen to be, I must say that I was pleasantly surprised at the quality of the acting and really liked the raw believable look of the film.
What Doesn’t Kill You is basically an old fashion crime drama that is compelling viewing for those who enjoy a solid character study. From the get go you are told that the story is an autobiographical take on the life and experiences of its director, Brian Goodman, who was a petty criminal and drug addict as well as a husband with a wife and two kids.
The story focuses on two characters, the aforementioned Brian (Mark Ruffalo) and Paulie (Ethan Hawke) who are childhood friends, growing up on the mean streets of South Boston. From a very early age the two are overtaken by the road to easy money and big time trouble with their negative environment greatly influencing a destructive lifestyle. In many ways the film is like watching a modest version of The Departed without the complexity. Brian and Paulie first start out as runners for the local organized crime boss (played by the director Brian Goodman), collecting money and doing other low level jobs of need. Eventually the two evolve from small time crime to full blown risk taking (including robbing drug dealers) in order to stay ahead of the curve.
What makes the character of Brian interesting is that he has a wife (a well meaning enabler well played by Amanda Peet) and two kids. While Brian is submerged in his dishonest world there is apart of him torn between that and his responsibility to his family. That small glimmer of reality is what kept me interested in his plight. There’s also a true sadness in his totally self destructive personality (his drug use is another vice) and, while it’s not easy to be empathetic with either him or Paulie, What Doesn’t Kill You is still a compelling piece of work that had me involved throughout. Ruffalo, Hawke and Peet are top notch and I certainly recommend the film for viewers who are into Goodfellas and The Sopranos. Considering its small budget this is a nice piece of work by a first time director who is proof that one can turn their life around no matter how bleak. I give What Doesn’t Kill You 3.75 out of 5. It was a nice find and a diamond in the rough. Glad I stopped by the Redbox – and all this for just a buck!
-
Archives
- December 2011 (2)
- November 2011 (3)
- September 2011 (1)
- August 2011 (1)
- July 2011 (2)
- June 2011 (1)
- May 2011 (1)
- April 2011 (1)
- March 2011 (1)
- February 2011 (1)
- January 2011 (2)
- December 2010 (1)
-
Categories
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS



