HBO Is Showing X-Men 3 Right Now

Cyclops has this reaction:



I think my hate of this movie has slightly subsided. It's still really awful though. They couldn't even be bothered to come up with an original title sequence.

No...no...still hate it.

How do you craft a film that makes me hate Hugh Jackman? I don't even know how that's possible.

Well, Scott's dead now, so I better turn this thing off before I start getting angry.

JLA Movie

There are a ton of rumors going around about the upcoming JLA movie that appears to be getting the fast track at Warner Brothers. Blog@Newsarama has a pretty good rundown of all the news, complete with links to relevant articles.

Frankly, I have a pretty strong suspicion that the movie will suck. I got pretty discouraged when I read the words "OMAC" and "Maxwell Lord." I want Solomon Grundy, damn it! Or the Legion of Doom. Who doesn't want to see that awesome, swamp-dwelling Darth Vader head in live action? No one, that's who. And I'm sure we can all agree that movies would be far more fun if they had more talkig Gorillas. Gorilla Grodd needs to make the jump to the big screen. Basically, I want the JLA movie to be fun.

Then there's the casting news that is sure to make my obsessive compulsive, continuity loving head ache. Neither Christian Bale nor Brandon Routh are going to be in the movie. That makes me sad. I am, however, kind of excited by the idea that Tom Welling might be playing Superman in the movie. Smallville sucks, and they haven't done right by the character of Clark Kent in years, but I still think he was perfect casting for the role. Unfortunately, Millar & Gough are being bitchy about it. They own Welling's soul or something.

Then there's the unfortunate rumor going around about Katie Holmes as Wonder Woman? After not wanting her back for The Dark Knight, would Warner Brothers want to give her such a high profile role? God, I hope not.

Ryan Reynolds seems to still be the go to guy for Flash, which, no complaints here.

The best casting rumor so far though is Laurence Fishbourne as Martian Manunter (via CBR). That would be friggin' cool. He's awesome.

I can't even begin to imagine who should play everyone else. Christian Bale is so unbelievably perfect as Batman that I have a hard time even consdering anyone else. I'm still in favor of Joss Whedon's choice for Wonder Woman, Cobey Smulders. Oh, and I don't know if Green Arrow is going to be in the movie, but if they go to the Smallville well for that too, and cast Justin Hartley, I will be pissed. He can play Aquaman though. I thought he was really good in that pilot.

This Movie Is Going To Be So Friggin' Cool

A quote From Entertainment Weekly's preview of Shoot 'Em Up:

''There's a gunfight while everybody's free falling out of an airplane,'' says Davis. ''You can say, That's a little bit too much, Michael. Well, yeah, but do I want to see
a gunfight in midair? Yes!''

I think that pretty much says it all.

Just Some Stuff

I'm still catching up. I've been trying to work on some stuff for another project. Hopefully, I will get another batch of reviews before I start reading The Deathly Hollows, but I don't know how long my willpower can hold out. Also, Say Anything was on, and that's never conducive to work. Anyway, just a few things I wanted to mention.

KryptonSite has a first look at Smallville's Supergirl, Laura Vandervoort. I'd say she looks pretty much exactly as I expected her to look. She's a pretty girl, but mostly she looks like every other skinny blond girl in Hollywood, or Vancouver, whichever. Is it wrong that I wish she were wearing more clothing? I should just be happy that she's wearing incredibly short shorts instead of an incredibly short skirt.

Also, Wolverine has a director, and it's not Brett Ratner. I'm kind of optimistic now. I haven't seen Tsotsi, but pulling directors out of the indie worlds has worked really well for comic book films in the past though. Now if we can just make sure it doesn't include three scenes of him crying, we'll be OK.

I did, however, think that it was weird that the Variety article on the announcement (via The Beat), states:

Using several resources that include the Marvel Comics lore, along with the more recent Weapon X graphic novels by Barry Windsor-Smith and work by Frank Miller, "Wolverine" mixes action with an origin story about how Logan emerged from a barbaric experiment as an indestructible mutant with retractable razor-sharp claws.

Did I miss something? I do not remember any Frank Miller Wolverine comics. Nothing about Wolverine is mentioned on Miller's Wikipedia page either. It looks like the article was changed too, since it is quoted at The Beat as reading "Using several resources that include the Marvel Comics lore, along with more recent Weapon X graphic novels by Frank Miller." So, am I just unable to find these comics, or , after Sin City and 300, are they just saying that everything is written by Frank Miller these days? I think I'd be interested in reading a Wolverine comic by Frank Miller. Logan's already just ridiculous enough for it to not make too big a difference.

Finally, there's the news about Seth Rogen writing and possibly staring in a Green Hornet movie. I don't know how I feel about that. They better cast someone who totally kicks ass as Kato though, because I don't really have a lot of faith that Rogen can pull off the action.

Jason Lee Is Officially on Notice

Jason Lee has gotten a pass on a lot of things for a long time now. I've overlooked things like being a Scientologist, naming his son Pilot Inspector, and making some truly awful movies like Kissing a Fool and A Guy Thing, because the good always outweighed the bad. My Name Is Earl, is hilarious and one of my favorite sitcoms. He's awesome in his Kevin Smith movies. I still quote Brodie, and Azrael rocks. He was also great in Almost Famous. Part of me still wants a Jeff Bebe t-shirt. And we absolutely cannot forget that he was the voice of Syndrome in The Incredibles. I'm just not sure if any of that awesomeness can withstand the coming onslaught of suck he's about to heap upon an unsuspecting public.

and

[via The Beat]

The horror! The horror!

Seriously. Look at what they have done to our beloved cartoons. Those are our childhoods they are defiling. How can he live with himself?

Is This a Bad Sign?

Earlier this week, Ain't It Cool News had all the casting news surrounding The Watchmen. I've been following this because I liked the book and think it could potentially be a very important comic book adaptation, but I'm not super excited about the movie, so I haven't felt the need to comment on it. I pretty much think all the casting choices are pretty good. I was mostly intrigued by Keanu Reeves as Dr. Manhattan, but he turned it down and Jason Patric became the frontrunner. Whatever. He's good too (though AICN mentioned that they "flirted with" Billy Crudup for the part, and if I had to choose from the three of them which one I would like to see naked and painted blue, it would be him). It just wasn't something I gave much thought to.

Then, today, I was reading EW.com's 25 Worst Sequels Ever Made and I got to number 9. I'm starting to think going for Patric when they can't get Reeves is a bad omen, because that movie was unwatchable. Hopefully, everything will be OK as long as they don't get Sandra Bullock to play Sally Jupiter.

As for who's going to play The Comedian, of all the names floating around, I think Gerard Butler is the best choice. Ron Pealman is good; the AICN article hints that Thomas Jane is the frontrunner, and I always think casting him is a good idea; but Butler kind of creeps me out, even though I think he's really good looking. Dude just seems crazy.

On an unrelated note, I saw a commercial for the re-release of Blade Runner last night. How sad is it that this was the most interesting and attention grabbing ad I have seen for a movie in years? Sure I want to see Live Free or Die Hard, and Transformers is surprisingly cool looking, but that Blade Runner made me like the movie was going to be something unlike anything I'd seen before, and I've seen the movie before. Or maybe it was just Rutger Hauer drawing me in.

Why Aren't People Talking About This Movie?

Or maybe they are, and I am just missing it. Anyway, I am psyched for Shoot 'Em Up. I've been looking forward to it since it was announced, but now IGN has the trailer. It doesn't immediately grab you, but it gets pretty friggin' awesome. I mean, c'mon. It's got Clive Owen being sexy, Monica Belluci being hot, Paul Giamatti, lots of shoot outs, Clive Owen being sexy with guns, and the balls to use a Motley Crue song in 2007.

A Desperate Plea to Hollywood

According to Variety, in an article found via Comic Book Resources, Warner Brothers has optioned a script for Thundercats, which is just the latest in a long line of 1980s nostalgia projects that are coming down the pipeline, starting with the increasingly cool looking Transformers movie being released next month. Personally, I'm an 80s kid and I love all these cartoons dearly, so I'm excited. Thundercats and He-Man particularly make me happy, since they have always been on my list of movies I would like to make if I were a filmmaker. (Everyone has one of those lists, right?) If Transformers is as big a movie as I expect it to be, I bet all these other cartoon themed projects will be rushed into production, and then we'll get a ton of 1980s cartoons and toy lines being optioned left and right, even the ones that absolutely suck. Then we'll get a bunch of movies that aren't actually tied to any 1980s nostalgia item, but are desperately trying to capitalize on the theme. Basically, I'm envisioning the comic book movie craze that happened after X-Men and Spider-Man, only with more robots. In the end, what started out really cool will become really lame and will make even hardcore geeks like me groan at the potential suckage and desecration of the heroes of our youth that Hollywood will trot out every summer. But before that happens, I have one request. Can we please, please, please have a She-Ra movie?

It's been really disappointing to me that She-Ra's been largely neglected in the whole nostalgia craze. A few years back when Thundercats and He-Man got comic book miniseries, I kept waiting for She-Ra, but it never happened. It didn't even seem like anyone even thought about it. This just completely amazes me, because I've been watching my She-Ra DVDs lately and it holds up the best out of all of them. I suppose it's the whole issue with female action hero thing that The Hollywood Reporter had an article on a couple of weeks ago, but I think if there was ever a property that had the potential changing that and being a real success, it would be She-Ra, possibly even more than Wonder Woman.

The whole storyline of the She-Ra series deals with so many of the issues that we already know resonate with people from the successes of other franchises. She-Ra is the champion of the rebel forces on the planet of Etheria who are trying to overthrow the evil Horde Empire. The similarities to Star Wars are self explanatory, and, of course, Lord of the Rings. It's a classic story, and one tat I think has a lot more potential than Thundercats, which, when watched as an adult, did not hold up nearly as well. Thundercats is basically the story of a handful of people (or cats, however you want to look at them) trying to defend themselves from Mumm-Ra, a villain with little motivation. The stakes aren't even very high there, with less than a dozen people on the entire planet. (Yes, I do know that more showed up later, but it hardly matched the oppression of an entire civilization.) She-Ra, as a character, is also a lot more interesting than He-Man. His alter ego, Prince Adam is over privileged and He-Man is a tool of the established government. Skeletor, the villain, is more of an under dog than he is, and he was cooler too. She-Ra, on the other hand, has the alter ego of Princess Adora, a competent heroine in her own right, and her backstory of having been raised by Hordak, the Horde ruler on Etheria, only to discover she had been deluded into believing she served a just ruler has a great deal of dramatic potential.

Basically, with She-Ra, a studio gets both a classic story in the vein of Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, and even Harry Potter and a nostalgia property like Transformers, He-Man, and Thundercats. They should be all over that. Also, she's got a flying horse, a cool sword, really pretty hair, and her friends were all sorceresses and mermaids and ladies with wings. There is no bad in this concept. The fact that she's an excellent role model is just a bonus. Seriously, She-Ra is one of the greatest things ever. Hollywood needs to get on this.

Maybe if He-Man is a big success, they will want to do a spin off. That would make sense. I would even be OK with it if they wanted to make some minor changes. Some of the characters had hokey names, like Castaspella. I get why that might be a problem. And if producers think Bow should be a bit cooler and not so much of a damsel in distress (what's the male version of damsel?), it could work. I know I wouldn't mind seeing a Teela who does more than get captured in the He-Man movie. They just can't have Bow and She-Ra hook up. If they need a romantic interest, they can use Sea Hawk. He's a pirate, which just adds to the awesome factor and would give the movie an element of another proven Hollywood commodity. (The money making potential just keeps getting better and better.) However, if producers want to take She-Ra and make it into something that wouldn't be suitable for little kids, make her any less of the amazing role model that she was meant to be, or cast someone like Jessica Simpson, I'd rather they just not bother. I have no desire to see my childhood memories desecrated.

Third Time, Not So Much the Charm

Huh...so, Spider-Man III. What to say? What to say? Honestly, I'm not sure what I thought about it, and that's what has taken so long with me getting this post up. Also, every time a comic book movie comes out, I swear that I am going to do an objective review of it, and then find myself unable to do so. Anyway, I guess the bottom line was that I was disappointed. I still really enjoyed it, but the first two films set a really high standard. They are two of the best, if not the best comic book adaptations ever made. This was more on par with Superman II. It was entertaining, but not really good. Spoilers follow, so beware if you haven't seen the movie yet.

I think my biggest problem with the movie was that it lacked the heart of the first two films. I think it was interesting that they put Peter in a situation I don't think I have ever seen him in in any comic book, that of be well liked and accepted by the public at large. He's always been a kind of hero to the common city dweller, but opinion on him is generally fairly divided and he's never been accepted by establishment. Here he is getting the key to the city, and seems almost universally beloved (except for by J. Jonah Jameson, of course). However, I ultimately didn't really find the effect it had on him to be very entertaining to watch. I think the closest to this I have seen in a comic book was House of M: Spider-Man, and it's worth noting that I didn't find Peter especially likable there either. Exploring Spider-Man's dark side through the effects that the symbiote (black ooze) had on his psyche, is one thing. Watching Peter Parker act like a self-absorbed jerk and treat his friends and loved ones like a dick is something else entirely. Kissing another girl while he knew Mary Jane was watching, was bad, accidentally hitting MJ (which pissed me off when it happened during the "Clone Saga," but hey, at least she wasn't pregnant here), and blowing off the side of Harry's face was a little too much for me to watch.

The movie's other problem was the cluttered storyline and the glut of characters. However, that wasn't nearly as big a problem as I feared it would be though. The brothers Raimi and Alvin Sargent managed to intertwine all the plots really well. Schumacker's Batman movies, and even maybe Batman Returns, could have learned a thing or two from Spider-Man III. Still, the Harry and Sandman plots paralleled each other so nicely, that I really think they could have done away with Venom altogether and had a better, less complicated movie. As for the new characters and cast members, I think they all did a good job. I had noted in previous posts that I was upset about changing the story to make Flint Marko Uncle Ben's killer. I felt it was a needless change to the origin, and a betrayal of the character. I couldn't be happier at how wrong I was on that count. While changes were made to Marko, the film kept him true to form and Thomas Hayden Church was perfectly cast. The scene between Sandman and Peter at the end was one of my favorites of the whole film. Topher Grace, an unconventional choice for Eddie Brock, also did a good job. He's a talented and charismatic actor, so I wasn't really surprised by that. I felt that Venom's potential was wasted though. I've always thought he was the most overrated member of Spidey's rogues gallery, but the end just seemed like a waste.

Gwen Stacy, while not really any less bland than Mary Jane, was refreshing simply for not being nearly as mopey and being played by a much more charming actress. Kirsten Dunst continues to drag the cast down. While never an appropriate choice for the role of Mary Jane Watson, if she would at least bring some of the spark she brought to her performances in The Cat's Meow, The Virgin Suicides, and Elizabethtown, she might at least have succeeded at being less annoying. I continue to see the major failure of these adaptations to be the portrayal of the female characters, who, despite what Kirsten Dunst might think, are far more interesting and positive in the comic books. However, I do really hope that Gwen and MJ become close friends in the fourth installment. Part of that is because of my affection for the Peter, Gwen, MJ and Harry group dynamic of the comic books, and part of it is just because it would serve Peter right.

I think the best part of the movie was the Harry Osborne plot. The filmmakers managed to compress at least a decade, if not two, of the character's history from the comic book into this one movie. James Franco has done a wonderful job in the role since the first movie and he really shines here. Going into watching the film, I remarked that if the resolution of Harry's storyline didn't make me cry, the movie would have been a complete failure. Suffice it to say, it was not. I cheered when Harry showed up during the final battle and my heart broke during his final scene.

Also, the entire ending was incredible. I think the big finale battle may have been one of the best I have ever seen in a superhero movie, but it was the emotional punch of the follow up scenes that would make this movie a success. After all, it was the drama and character development that set the first two Spider-Man movies apart from the superhero pack. Another thing worth noting were the returning cameos. This may have been Bruce Campbell's most enjoyable appearance yet, and hearing Stan Lee say "'Nuff said" filled me with geek joy.

Looking back over these comments, they are far more negative than I actually felt while watching the movie itself. I suppose it was just enjoyable to watch, but doesn't hold up as well to scrutiny when all is said and done. In the end, I think I need to see it again in order to really form a final opinion on it. I do think that I might like it more the second time around since I will know what to expect. I'm dying to see some of those fight scenes, all of which rocked, by the way, in IMAX.

But He's Bill Pardy! You Can't Cancel Him!

Apparently Drive has been canceled, which is kind of a bummer. I was enjoying it. The thing I don't get though is why Nathan Fillion and Tim Minear can't catch a break. This is at least the fourth show that Minear has executive produced to get the axe by FOX, and the second for Fillion. By all rights, both of them should still be hard at work on Firefly's fifth season, but barring that, they just deserve better. I especially don't get the lack of success for Nathan Fillion. I would have thought that, despite the relative box office disappointment of Serenity, he would have at least gotten noticed by studio executives and gotten some decent sized roles in some mainstream movies. Honestly, I expected to see him pop up in a romantic comedy or two, or maybe in some small but stand out roles in some big budget action movies, inevitably becoming the next generation's answer to Harrison Ford. Instead, it seems like he's becoming the next generation's answer to Bruce Campbell, which is fine. You know I love Bruce Campbell. I love him way more than I love Harrison Ford. I just thought that Nathan Fillion had a lot more mainstream appeal than that.

Is the problem that Nathan Fillion has actually worked on quality projects, because I am seeing that pattern? I was pretty shocked by the lack of success for Slither as well, which I considered to be one of the best horror movies that I have seen in a long time, in light of how well horror movies have been doing in the past several years. I enjoy movies like Hostel and its like well enough, but I would much rather sit through movies like Slither, Grindhouse, and even, to a lesser extent, Snakes on a Plane, all of which were disappointments at the box office, and all of which were a hell of a lot more fun to watch than the horror movies that make huge amounts of money. At least the Dawn of the Dead remake, which had an over all grimness but still with a sense of whimsy, did well.

Don't even get me started on what passes for science fiction these days. There is little substance to any of it. Some people like to applaud geek subculture moving into the mainstream, but with few exceptions, the stuff that has any mainstream success lacks the originality and intelligence that we geeks have been enjoying for years. I think the fact that X-Men 3 was lauded by critics as a comic book movie that's actually about something for touching on, however ineptly, various social issues, says it all. X-Men comic books have been dealing with social issues since Stan Lee first came up with the idea of mutants. All X-Men 3 did was make weak analogies that ultimately never went anywhere.

The geek subculture hasn't been legitimized. It's been homogenized.

Wow! I have no idea how this turned into a rant. I started out this post simply wanting to say that I was going to miss seeing Nathan Fillion, an actor I can't get enough of, on my television every week. I suppose it's the Firefly/Serenity connection. Anytime I start thinking about Nathan Fillion, it naturally leads in that direction, and then it turns into a rant. Oh well. At least we have Heroes now. At least that show respects its roots and hasn't tried glam up for the masses. It is a show about a bunch of superheroes who do not wear costumes though, which I do think is a concession to mainstream audiences, but that's of far less concern than the fact that there's real substance there. Compare that to Smallville, which simultaneously capitalizes on it's comic book roots and is completely embarrassed by them at the same time, ultimately creating something with no more substance than your sub par teen drama with a bunch of names that will keep fanboys happy.

Anyway, here's hoping that Nathan Fillion catches on soon, so that, while I may not get the quality science fiction, horror and superhero genre adaptations that I hope for, I'll at least a funny, charismatic, talented and really attractive actor to watch in all the crappy movies and television shows I end up watching because no one cares enough to watch anything better.

I Wouldn't Count On That, Robert Downey, Jr.

I found this Robert Downey, Jr. quote talking about Iron Man from The Telegraph via CBR:

"He's a superhero who is just a man," says Downey. "Not that I wouldn't play a guy who got bit by a spider or who has some freaky connection with bats, but I think this is a little more accessible. I guess that when Stan Lee created the character back in the mid-1960s -- to see if he could base a superhero on a hard-partying, womanizing billionaire who manufactures weapons, and still make him likable enough to sell comic books -- he clearly won his bet. Tony Stark is someone who has the ability to be right at the forefront of science and we are finding out more and more nowadays that science and mythology are becoming somewhat interchangeable. Some of the things that seemed really far-fetched aren't any more." [emphasis added]

This just strikes me as funny, because those are Iron Man's likable traits. I bet Iron Man was a lot more fun when he was on the sauce. In theory, I always liked Tony Stark because of his potential to be a cool, Howard Hughes, minus the obsessive compulsive keeping his urine in a jar crazy, style superhero. There's fun to be had there. I just never found the execution all that interesting. I was (note the past tense) kind of looking forward to the movie because I thought we'd get to see some of that. So I guess Downey's right. Stan Lee did succeed. Then Mark Millar and Joe Quesada stepped in, but then, those guys clearly think any character assassination is a good idea.

(Seriously. Click on the link and read all about it. Then consider yourself lucky that you weren't subjected to the scan I saw last night, which constituted the first time I was learning about this comic. Remember the rumors from a while back that said Marvel was going to do a story revealing that Uncle Ben molested Peter? This isn't that bad. I think it's got "Sins Past" beat though. The sad thing is, a romance comic with the Dodsons on art is a good idea. The ick factor is just way too high here.)

The CBR link also includes the news on the latest superhero casting news. Edward Norton as Bruce Banner. I'm a little bit shocked by that, knowing how picky he is about his roles, but I can't say it isn't perfect casting. I'm one of the original film's few defenders, and I was disappointed that not only was this movie going to be another Marvel licensed project scripted by Zak Penn, who sucks, but also that Eric Bana wouldn't be returning. I think they may have actually traded up here though. This movie suddenly got promising.

Sadly, this bit of positive comic book movie news comes after the news that David Goyer plans on making a Green Arrow movie without Green Arrow. Not only does this sound like it could be a Steven Segal movie from the 90s with any old hero filling in for Green Arrow, but it's not going to have favorite thing about the character. No, not the bow and arrow, or the frequent need to call people fascists and fat cats. I'm talking about the goatee. It is mighty. Does Green Arrow even have any big villains that belong to him to even make this project interesting? The only plus side I can see to this is that, being set in a prison, the homoeroticism will be rampant. That's always amusing. But wouldn't a Green Lantern/Green Arrow Hard Travellin' Heroes type movie be just as effective in that regard?

I had previously heard that Warner Brothers was going to make a Green Arrow movie based on "Long Bow Hunters," which was going to have a more gritty, indie movie feel. The only thing I know about "Long Bow Hunters" is that Mike Grell Women in Refrigerator-ed Black Canary, which I'm not so keen on, but I thought more low budget take on the superhero genre would be really interesting. I was a little bit excited about that movie.

Can We Please Rethink All These Remakes?

According to this Dark Horizons article (which I found via Kryptonsite), there is a new, and rather horrifying, addition to the ever growing ranks of 80s films. Apparently the youth of the 21st Century simply could not survive without a version of Teen Wolf to call their very own.

That's right. They're remaking Teen Wolf.

I'm not even that pissed about this. I just don't get it, and I don't get it on a lot of levels. As much as I loved the movie as a child - a love supported entirely by the universal appeal Michael J. Fox had to all little girls and the typical lack of taste associated with my age at the time and the decade - it's not a very good movie. It's actually a pretty bad movie. It's certainly a bad werewolf movie. He doesn't even kill anyone.

Now, I have long said that the best remakes are the ones that take movies with good ideas and bad executions, and do them better. The 2001 version of Ocean's 11 is a prime example of a great remake. The original film, could have been good, but aside from having the coolest cast ever (I'm talking the entire Rat Pack and then some), it has nothing much to offer. I don't even think I've ever been able to sit through the whole thing. The remake, on the other hand, has an equally high profile, if far less cool, cast, plus a fun and exciting script and a director at the top of his form. (I always find it ironic that the 2001 Ocean's 11 is what I always use as an example of a remake that should be made, while Ocean's 12 is always one of my examples of sequels that should never have been made.) Well, I would agree that Teen Wolf had a poor execution, but I'm not even sure it was a good idea. Even if it was a good idea, it's certainly not an original idea.

In case you don't remember, I'll give you a rundown of what Teen Wolf was about:

• Awkward and unpopular teen develops an ability that suddenly makes him popular
• Teen lets sudden popularity go to his head
• Teen becomes a total jerk and neglects his true friends for his current gang of hanger ons
• Teen learns valuable lessen, fights bully, reconnects with dorky unpopular friends and ditches his hot and popular girlfriend for the the cute and loyal best friend who has always had a crush on him.

I saw the 2000s' version of this movie. It's called Sky High, and it's actually really good. You should rent it. Not being a teenager anymore, I don't watch as many teen movies as I used to, but I'm willing to bet Sky High is the only movie from this generation with that exact same plot either. So why exactly do we need a remake of Teen Wolf? What exactly could be the appeal of such a movie in light of the fact that there are so many others like it?

Oh right, the Teen Wolf remake is going to be about a girl. That makes all the difference. I hope it stars Amanda Bynes, because I just don't think anyone else could pull of such a unique role. Except for maybe Hilary Duff, or Ashlee Simpson. It's deffinitely time for her to make her big screen debut. She might have trouble grasping the concept of ADR though, since it's pretty much the opposite of lipsynching.

It just seems to me that if they really wanted to do yet another variation on this theme, they could have done it without remaking yet another mediocre 80s film. Is everyone in Hollywood so creatively bankrupt that they couldn't come up with a different ability for this girl to develop? Couldn't she become psychic or turn into a gazelle or anything other than becoming a werewolf (or a witch, because that's been done too). I have to admit though, considering how much hair removal is associated with a girl's coming of age, the idea of a teenage girl that becomes popular because of some rather extreme hair growth amuses me to no end. Time to throw out those pink razors, girls.

On a sidenote, poor Tom Welling. Is he doomed to a film career that consists entirely of crappy remakes? That's too bad. Surely anyone who can manage to make Smallville's version of Clark Kent even remotely likeable (and Tom Welling's really had his work cut out for him the past couple of weeks) deserves better than this? He's not even the star of this one. Oh God, and I certainly hope they aren't going to try and pass him off as a teen. The nineteen or twenty he's supposed to be on Smallville is ridiculous enough. Seeing him in a high school would be enough to produce giggle fits.

Edited to add that it appears that the Tom Welling connection is just one of those vicious internet rumors. I'm relieved.

The Name's Plissken!

So, it's announced a while ago that a remake of Escape from New York is going to be made with 300's Gerard Butler as Snake Pliskin. Well, now I've found this Q&A with Kurt Russell on EW.com. Basically, Kurt's not happy about it, which I would normally dismiss as an overly developed sense of entitlement, and that's exactly what a lot of his comments are. After all, everyone's movies are getting remade. Why should his roles be sacred? And is he actually getting pissy over the fact that The Thing is being remade? The version of The Thing he was in was a remake. So yeah, get over yourself Kurt Russell. But also, you're absolutely right Kurt Russell.

That doesn't make much sense. Does it? Let me explain.

I don't really think that actors have much of a right to complain about their movies being remade. I certainly don't think that a guy who stared in the remake of The Poseiden Adventure has a right to complain about it. I think it sucks that so many remakes are being made, but if Hollywood will let Gus Van Sant do a crappy remake of Psycho, then I hardly think the works of John Carpenter should be off limits. However, certain roles simply cannot be recreated. Do you really think that any other actor could fill the shoes of Harrison Ford as Han Solo or Indiana Jones? And I know I would have absolutely no interest in the Evil Dead remake if we had not already been assured that there will be no character named Ash. Now, Kurt Russell is no Bruce Campbell, but he's absolutely right in that he is Snake Plisken. I love Gerard Butler - he's sexy and cool and talented and totally reminds me of Sean Connery - but, as hot as he might look in an eye patch, I am not going to see that movie. I'll wait until someone casts him in a remake of Outland or Darby O'Gill and the Little People.

Although, if the movie turns out to be really awesome, like the Dawn of the Dead remake that I refused to see and then saw and it was awesome, I will completely reverse my opinion on this.

So, what characters do you think couldn't possibly be recreated by different actors?

Happy St. Patrick's Day

I'm not Irish, and I'm not even particularly fond of St. Patrick's Day, but I simply cannot let the day pass without watching The Quiet Man. Every time I watch it, I long to visit the Emerald Isle. It's one of my favorite films of all time, and in my opinion, it's probably the best performance that John Wayne ever gave. There's so much subtlety to it, and Shawn Thornton so completely different from any other character he ever played. It's also one of John Ford's finest films, which is saying a lot, since he has to be one of the greatest directors of all time. Maureen O'Hara is wonderful too - beautiful and strong. I think I like the supporting characters the best though. Whether they be yelling like Protestants or giving Shawn a branch to beat his wife with, they're all so funny and interesting, they make me wish I lived in Inishfree. Most importantly though, it features the best fight scene in film history:

They Better Not Have Fired Him Over the Invisible Jet

Joss Whedon just posted this over at Whedonesque:

SATIN TIGHTS NO LONGER. Joss will not be fighting for our rights after all.

You (hopefully) heard it here first: I'm no longer slated to make Wonder Woman. What? But how? My chest... so tight! Okay, stay calm and I'll explain as best I can. It's pretty complicated, so bear with me. I had a take on the film that, well, nobody liked. Hey, not that complicated.

Let me stress first that everybody at the studio and Silver Pictures were cool and professional. We just saw different movies, and at the price range this kind of movie hangs in, that's never gonna work. Non-sympatico. It happens all the time. I don't think any of us expected it to this time, but it did. Everybody knows how long I was taking, what a struggle that script was, and though I felt good about what I was coming up with, it was never gonna be a simple slam-dunk. I like to think it rolled around the rim a little bit, but others may have differing views.

The worst thing that can happen in this scenario is that the studio just keeps hammering out changes and the writer falls into a horrible limbo of development. These guys had the clarity and grace to skip that part. So I'm a free man.

Well, sorta. There is that "Goners" movie I can finally finish polishing, and plenty of other things in the hopper I've wanted to pursue. I'm as relieved as I am disappointed, and both of those things lead to drink, so that's a plus. Truly, you may be hearing some interesting things brewing in the coming months. But all potential jets therein will be visible.

But most importantly, I never have to answer THAT question again!!!! And you don't have to link to every rumor site! Finally and forever: I never had an actress picked out, or even a consistant front-runner. I didn't have time to waste on casting when I was so busy air-balling on the script. (No! Rim! There was rim!) That's the greatest relief of all. I can do interviews again!

Thanks for your time. You are the people who make the world go 'round. Or, no, science does that.

-j.

ps All right, it was Cobie Smulders. Sorry, Cobes.

I doubt I have to say that I am disappointed. I'm not impartial. I get excited about anything that Whedon touches and rarely doubt his suitability for a project (even if I am a bit disappointed with how Astonishing X-Men is shaping up). If I am going to try to be impartial though, I still find this disappointing. Female characters have not fared well in comic book movies of late. The superheroines (Catwoman, Invisible Girl, Elektra) are either little more than eye candy, or just really poorly written. Even the love interests (Lois Lane, Mary Jane) are fairly insipid and fickle. Joss Whedon has proven himself to be one of the few creators in Hollywood who has proven adept at handling (super)heroines that appeal to women and men. I cannot even conceive of another writer or director who I would like to see on a project like this...perhaps J.J. Abrams, but considering his unfortunate take on Superman, I am not so sure. I seriously doubt there is a chance in hell Warner Brothers would put a woman on a project on this size, even if the good PR it would create might make it worthwhile from a marketing standpoint alone.

I obviously do not know, but given certain comments in his post, like "all potential jets therein are visible," I am going to hazard a guess that the studio wanted something more "realistic" than the approach Whedon wanted to take. However, with recent reports Warner Brothers has bought a spec script set during World War II (originally believed to have been done to eliminate potential lawsuits over possible similarities, a common practice), it's also possible that they wanted a more traditional take than Whedon's. Somehow, I don't really see Warner Brothers making a superhero period piece though. As much as I think Nazis are always a good idea, it does not seem as commercially viable as a modern approach. I do hope that we eventually get to hear what his plans for the character were, much like I hope to one day find out what Bryan Singer had planned for X-Men 3, at least so that if the movie sucks, I don't have to wonder what might have been.

An unexpected point of disappointment in all this comes from that fact that, while I had not given any thought to it before (even though I had read the rumors of her being in the running), I think Cobie Smulders could have made an awesome Wonder Woman. She is strong, tough, sweet, fresh, funny and just all around really talented. Plus, she already has experience with Superman and Lex Luthor and I don't think there is a single person out there who does not love Robin Sparkles.

Worst of all, I can only imagine that now we will have to wait even longer Wonder Woman to hit the big screen. They will have to find a new writer and director, unless they already have people lined up. I hope they don't put anything together too hastily, since that was done with Fantastic Four and X-Men: the Last Stand, and both those movies are horrible. I guess we will just have to wait and see, but for now I will just have to look forward to Goners.

Spider-Man 3 Trailer Thoughts

OK, there was a lot going on in this, and I am all excited and worried and this is going to be rambly and, well, here it goes...

Flint Marko did not kill Ben Parker. That's just wrong, and it smacks of John Byrne style revisionism and I don't think I like it. OK, now that I've gotten that over with, I can get on with everything else.

I had thought we were going to get a glimpse of Venom in this one, but if we did, I missed it. However, we did get a look Harry going all Green Goblin-lite and trying to get revenge on Spidey. I'm kind of glad he didn't actually become the Green Goblin with the suit and all. I had no desire to see that particular costume again. James Franco is so great as Harry Osborn, and I think that whole subplot will be amazing. I know it happened the comics, but I hope they don't kill him off. I guess that's exactly why they should kill him off though.

There was plenty of Sandman in the trailer, and aside from what I mentioned up top, it looked great. Thomas Haden Church looks perfect, and while I am happy about the aforementioned revisionism, I think the character stuff for Peter will be amazing. I'm still disappointed about how they are depicting the symbiote from what we have seen so far. It was much cooler in the comics, but maybe this is just part of the restrictions of live action. I don't know, and we still don't even have a hint of why the symbiote wants to bond with Peter.

Kirsten Dunst still sucks, but at least she didn't seem all passive aggressive, which I suppose is a side effect of being in on the whole Peter Parker is Spider-Man thing. I guess I still hold out hope that, while we can't stop Kirsten Dunst from being awful, the writing will start making the character resemble the Mary Jane we currently have in the comics (since we can't go back and re-do the whole evolution of the character). I love Mary Jane almost as much as I love Spidey and I just want her to be awesome. The addition of Gwen Stacy actually makes me wonder about Mary Jane's fate. I think she's either being introduced just to be killed off, or she's being introduced as a replacement love interest in case Kirsten Dunst doesn't want to do any more movies. As much as I don't like the films' portrayal of Mary Jane or Kirsten Dunst in the role, I think I would hate the latter option even more. What can I say? I've loved Mary Jane since I was a little girl and Gwen Stacy was just way too prone to hysterics for my taste.

Uh, I don't know. I've only watched it once so far. I'm sure I will have more thoughts after I have watched it a dozen more times. There's going to be so much going on in this one. It makes me nervous, especially after the X3 debacle.

From the Man Who Made Ninjas Boring...

Marvel needs to stop hiring Zak Penn to write everything because he fucking sucks. I couldn't even watch Elektra, and I think I have made my feelings about X3 perfectly clear.

At least he's not writing Captain America, so I can have hope for that. I think I am going to write a letter to David Self and ask him to include Cap's "Do you think this A stands for France?" line from Ultimates. As I have mentioned before, I really want to hear that line in the movie. It just says it all.

Finally, do you think Hank Pym is going to beat his wife in Ant-Man movie?

Sadly, Cesar Romero Has Not Been Resurrected to Reprise His Role as the Joker

After rumors swirling around for a wile now, it has finally been confirmed that Heath Ledger will play the Joker in the Batman Begins sequel to be titled The Dark Knight. I won't lie. I think casting the Aussie as the classic Batman villain is as weird as everyone else does. It's not that I don't think he can act. I have always believed him to be a bundle of untapped talent and charisma just waiting for the right roles, and while Brokeback Mountain* still sits on my desk in its Netflix envelope waiting to be watched, I'm fairly certain that his performance in that film has brought the general public around to my way of thinking. And while most people don't enjoy A Knight's Tale nearly as much as I do (there's no crime in enjoying jousting, pretty people and classic rock), it at least shows that he does more than brood. I think Heath Ledger probably has a lot of tricks up his sleeve that we haven't seen yet, especially given the limited number of good roles he has had. Also, I think it is safe to assume that, given the tone of the first film and Goyer and Nolan's emphasis on realism, we will be seeing a slightly different Joker than we are used to anyway.

My problem with casting Ledger as the Joker, since I initially read the rumors, has been purely based on his looks. He's just so pretty. He's not like Cillian Murphy either, who is so pretty with a side of creepy. Heath Ledger is just straight up attractive. Not at all like the Joker. At least that's what I thought, but then I saw the picture that went along with PopWatch's item on the casting announcement. Check out all those lines he gets around his mouth when he smiles. The whole lower half of his face is pretty exaggerated. Dude won't even need any prosthetics, except for the nose. It's still entirely too button-like. It needs a bit of a point to it.

It seems that the second villain in the movie has also been confirmed as the Penguin. I find it amusing that Nolan wants Phillip Seymour Hoffman for the part since he is being reimagined as a British arms dealer. The only American in the movie would be playing a Brit. I can't be the only one who thinks that's funny. Actually, I'm disappointed -- not about Phillip Seymour Hoffman, because casting him is always a good idea, but because I was hoping we would get to see the Scarecrow again. Cillian Murphy did such a great job and he had so much potential to become an even bigger threat. I'm also a bit disappointed that they are still going with the two villains per movie thing. The Joker is a strong enough character to pose a threat on his own. Many of Batman's rogues are, which is why his rogue's gallery is the strongest in all of comics. I just hope they don't kill the character off at the end. That's a pet peeve of mine. These characters never get killed in the comics. I'm not cool with Batman letting them die either, but that's another issue involving what is generally perceived as acceptable behavior for a superhero by the public versus what has always been the standard behavior in the comic books -- a debate for another time.

Finally, I would like to put out a suggestion for the third movie. I know I am jumping the gun, but I figure there's no reason why I shouldn't be first. I'd like to see Poison Ivy. I know it's been doe before but 1) so has the Joker, and 2) Batman & Robin really shouldn't count. She's just such a wonderful femme fatale character. I would love to see a really noirish Batman movie, one that highlights his detective skills more than we have seen on film so far, and a great femme fatale would fit in so well with that kind of movie. Sure, you could use Catwoman, another great femme fatale and one the filmmakers could actually hook up with the Bat. The character could use some redemption after what Halle Berry did to her too, but with her, at least we have Michelle Pfeifer's wonderful performance from Batman Returns (truly the best thing about that movie). Poison Ivy only has that campy performance by Uma Thurman. She deserves better. Also, she's a hot chick, ad maybe if they use a hot chick for he villainess, we the audience will be spared a Katie Holmes 2.0 situation. Who says Batman needs a love interest anyway?

*Wasn't Jake Gyllenhaal Nolan's second choice to play Batman? How funny would that be? So funny that I can no longer resist the Brokeback humor...."I wish I knew how to quit you, Joker."

Superman Returns

I finally got to see Superman Returns last weekend, but I have been dealing with wonky internet access all week, so finally, I give you my review (not that you were holding your breath). Beware of spoilers contained within:

While Superman Returns certainly had its faults, I thoroughly loved the film. It touched on all the things that make me love the character, and the visuals were incredibly stunning. Those action sequences were amazing. Bryan Singer’s visual style just seems to expand and improve with each film, and I thought Brandon Routh was wonderful as both Superman and Clark Kent. I’ll admit, I wasn’t nearly as thrilled with Lois Lane or Lex Luthor, but Kate Bosworth did not bother me nearly as much as I thought she would and Kevin Spacey’s Lex was a vast improvement over Gene Hackman. I didn’t even hate the kid as much as I thought I would.

I thought the emotional aspect of the film worked extremely well, since the whole movie was about Superman's isolation. Many people have complained about Clark/Superman's lack of dialogue. My response to that is to ask who he was supposed to talk to. He had no one. As Clark, he couldn't talk to anyone, because no one knew he was Superman. As Superman, he couldn't really talk to Lois, the only person he had anything to say to, because she had moved on. He just came back from Krypton, finally having come to terms with the fact that he really is the last of his kind, and then his one link to his heritage is taken away from him when Luthor stole the crystals. It was heartbreaking. That's why I found the end so powerful. I wasn't thrilled with the idea of the kid, and I would still prefer they went with a different angle on the whole thing, but you could see just how much knowing he had a son meant to him. He wasn't as alone anymore because there was this other part of him out there in the world, half Kryptonian and half human. Jason represented a link to both his heritage and his adopted world.

The main plot of the story didn’t work nearly as well for me as the emotional angle. I kept wondering about how Lex Luthor’s plan would work in the long run. The whole thing could have stood to have a bit more explanation. However, Spacey’s Lex Luthor proved himself far more menacing than Hackman’s ever was during the beat down he and his henchmen gave Superman. I actually found that scene rather disturbing, and I’m a girl who has been known to root for other versions of Lex Luthor. (Have you read my Justice League Unlimited blog entries?) Also, as I said before, the action sequences were amazing. They really carried the non-love story side of the movie. I went nuts over the plane crash scene and all the other heroics, especially the whole sequence where he saved Metropolis were exciting. I know the budget on this movie was astronomical (mostly because of all the previous failed attempts to get a Superman movie made), but it was worth every penny. Singer worked in the iconic Superman imagery seamlessly. I spent half the movie just completely geeking out.

The entire end of the film, from the beat down to the very last shot was breathtaking – a true testament to just how great a filmmaker Bryan Singer is. The shot of Superman flying up to the sun to recharge was breathtaking. Actually, every shot was unbelievably beautiful. The last movie I saw that looked this good was Peter Jackson’s King Kong. As a matter of fact, King Kong is the movie I would most likely compare it to, both in content and in the fact that it’s not nearly as successful as it deserves to be. It is fitting that both were filming at the same time. Maybe Singer and Jackson can commiserate about their under appreciation.

The acting was less stellar, but I thought Brandon Routh was wonderful. (I’ve got a crush on him now, so you will find it impossible to dissuade me from this point.) As has been noted and criticized, he did not have much dialogue, but he managed to sell so much emotion without saying anything. I never failed to feel for both Clark and Superman. My heart went out to him throughout, and if Routh had not been effective that would not have happened. Kate Bosworth did not annoy me as much as I thought she would, but she wasn’t great. Her acting wasn’t awful, but I think a better actress would have done a better job of making me overlook some of the flaws in the characterization. The way Lois Lane was written in this film just did not fit my ideal version of the character, but I thought it worked within the context of the story they wanted to tell. Kevin Spacey was great acting wise, but I would have preferred a different take on Lex Luthor entirely. However, Perry White and Jimmy Olsen were captured exactly how I imagined them. Next to Brandon Routh, I thought the most impressive performance was turned in by James Marsden as Richard White. As the man who stood between Superman and Lois Lane, he had a difficult task in front of him, but good writing and a considerable amount of talent and charm made Richard as sympathetic as Superman. Also, after X3, it was just really nice to see James Marsden get to play a considerable role in a good movie.

Superman Returns wasn't a definitive interpretation of Superman, and it may not even be my favorite, but it was a completely valid interpretation. I thought everything worked within the context of the story Singer was telling and I was incredibly moved by it. I'm not ashamed to admit that my eyes welled up with tears several times throughout the film. Between the powerful emotional storytelling, the beautiful imagery, plenty of moments to make my inner fangirl completely geek out, and quite probably the best superhero action sequences I have ever seen, I thought it was a completely satisfying movie and far better than a lot of the other superhero movies (like X3, for example). Spider-Man 2 is still my favorite superhero movie since I am 100% biased in favor of Spider-Man and I thought Dr. Octopus worked better as a villain than Lex Luthor; and it is hard to compete with the original Superman films since the are a fond memory from my child and are the standard by which I judge all superhero films; but Superman Returns would definitely be put near the top of my list.

Sometimes I Actually Love the Sci Fi Channel

Normally, I think the Sci Fi Channel is just awful. They have some good original shows, but then they go and ruin it all by adding the ECW to their line-up. How is wrestling science fiction? I have no idea. Then there are times when I think the Sci Fi Channel is the greatest thing ever, like this morning, when I was randomly flipping through the channels, tryint to find something to watch on this lazy Sunday morning. That's when I came across Alien Apocalypse.

Jackpot!

There is no better way to spend a lazy Sunday than by watching a Bruce Campbell movie. Campbell plays a doctor who returns from a 40-year NASA mission with a group of other astronauts to find that the Earth has been conquered by cheesy looking, bug-like aliens. I don't think I'm giving anything away by saying that Bruce, naturally, becomes the leader of the oppressed humans and frees them from the aliens. It's what he does. And of course, he does it all with the typical Bruce Campbell humor.

I love cheesy alien movies. I also love how crappy the production values are, as well as the fact that almost all the the supporting actors seem to be dubbed. (The movie was apparently filmed in Bulgaria, so I'm guessing the dubbing was about covering up all the Bulgarian accents, or even the Bulgarian language.) I think the theory behing movies like this is, "We have Bruce Campbell. We don't actually need it to be good." They're right. Bruce Campbell makes everything better.

Renee O'Connor is also in the movie. I don't know if I was ready to see Gabrielle and Autolycus hook up, but it was cool to see her.

Finally, since I am talking about the awesomeness of Bruce Campbell, I want to let everyone know that the complete series of both The Adventures of Brisco County Jr. and Jack of All Trades come out on DVD on July 18. While Jack of all Trades was exactly what you woppould expect from the people behind Hercules and Xena, entertaining but by no means great, The Adventures of Brisco County Jr. was a very underrated show cancelled before its time. Personally, I'm planning to rent Jack and buy Brisco. I suggest that everyone at least check them both out, purely for the Bruce Campbell factor. For some older Bruce Campbell recs, everyone must see Bubba Ho-Tep and read If Chins Could Kill: Confessions of a B Movie Actor.