Taylor Lautner to become a plaything

Ok, I really must be getting older. It's the only answer to why I do know what Strech Armstong is, and don't have a clue who Taylor Lautner is. But for anyone else that is out there and unsure of either, never fear Hollywood is hard at work bringing the 2 together.

Lautner will be starring in a new movie titled and based on the toy Stretch Armstrong. The toy is very old, around 30 years or so, and is simply a doll (think He-Man style) with rubbery arms that can be stretched to extreme lengths. You might think that Hollywood is stretching the proposed plot of the upcoming film, but that would assume a plot exists.

Lautner for his part is a "teen heartthrob", which would explain why I have no idea who he is. His claim to fame is being part of the excessively hyped Twillight films. Somehow I expect this film, due out in 2012, to bring many of his fans back to reality.

Why is this film going to be made? Because of all the money Hasbro (which owns the toy) has made off of it's other toys, Transformers and GI Joe. Note that I did not say because of the entertainment Harbro gave to movie audiences (they didn't). This is merely another grab at whatever money is left in your pocket after taxes, if you still have a job these days.

I suppose that Hasbro thinks this is a great time for a movie based on this toy. The "hero" is kind of like Plastic Man, who is sort of a comic book superhero. And comic book conversion films are all the rage in Hollywood. Adding the hype of the kid from Twillight is sure to drive female fans to the film, and hopefully spark new sales of a toyline (sure to be remodeled after Lautner's image) that I doubt anyone under 35 recalls.

Seriously, things are getting desperate in Hollywood. They are making movies based on anything they can find these days. A video game, a comic book, an old television show, now toys. What's next? Board games? Wait, actually A deal was made to turn Monopoly and Chutes & Ladders (Candy Land too if I recall correctly) into movies.

The only thing left is to make a movie based on candy bars, and remakes of revisioned films. And once they start making movies about a Snickers bar you know that it's the end of the civilization.

The greatest Black films ever - in domestic dollars

Here is a list of the highest grossing films to feature Black actors, directors, writers and on. It's something you never really hear about, but Black film makes money. And lots of it.

1. The Lion King ($576 million inflation adjusted dollars) - yes I know it's animated. And yes I realize that its about animals. But this is Africa. The reality is that this film, if portrayed by human beings (even animated ones) is about Black people.

2. Shrek 2 ($530 million) - there is no shrek movie without one of the most successful Black actors ever, Eddie Murphy. He is a co-star of the film and a central theme. So this film counts.

3. Independance Day ($516 million) - the word is Will Smith.

4. Beverly Hills Cop ($500 million) - An undisputed Black film. And the first film that stars prominently and solely and African America - Eddie Murphy.

5. Blazing Saddles ($471 million) - the film is co-written by Richard Pryor (the Sheriff Bart role was supposed to be his). It stars Cleavon Little. It's about the racist history of America, in a very comical way. Yes, it's a Black film, made by jewish Mel Brooks.

**Note ** The next should be The Passion of the Christ which made $445 million. Because Jesus was Black - unless you think a man with bronze skin and hair of wool describes your average European. But since Mel Gibson chose to depict him as he did I won't include him in this list.

6. West Side Story ($417 million) - ok so they aren't Black but Puerto Rican. So am I. And the Caribbean was filled with African slaves. Ok, it doesn't belong on the list but deal with it.

**Lawrence of Arabia (417 million) - Again a film that was made about Africans and Middle Eastern people, that I define as Black, that were all shown as White.

7. Men In Black ($407 million) - Will Smith again.

8. Aladdin ($391 million) - That isn't a suntan every character in this film (except the genie) had.

That would make the top ten list of greatest grossing Black films ever, if you include the notes I made. I'm sure there is dispute about many of these films. I'd like to hear that dispute.

But the next time you hear some dumb Hollywood exec make an obtuse statement like "American won't watch a show starring an African American/Latino/person of color" remember this list. Because American will watch people of color and African American, so long as the film good. Just like anyone else.

The numbers are from Box Office Mojo

2010 movies to avoid like a plague

Given that the movies that seem to have the most hype also have been on the list of movies that I think will be good in 2010, there is also a fair chance they won't match the hype and be among the list of the worst movies of 2010. But that's a gamble and I've made my bet. As for the rest of the films in 2010...

Here is my list of films that I am ABSOLUTELY sure will be horrendous wastes of time and money. I could be proven wrong, but I doubt it.

Tooth Fairy - Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson needs a new agent. He is not a great actor, never was. He was decent in action films where he didn't need to say a lot and could use his muscles often. Kind of Arnold Schwartzennager. But unlike the now Governator, Johnson has yet to build up enough action films to allow him to make these awful kids movies he seems hell-bent on starring in. Just wait for the bargain bin DVD sale.

I Love You Phillip Morris - Jim Carrey is the opposite of The Rock. We love his comedic skills. The man is funny. But put him in a serious role and you are looking at a bomb of a movie. Make that film about a prison escapee, with a gay love story at its heart, and you are looking at a film that even DVD sales won't help. But France might like it.

Cop Out - I like Bruce Willis films. He is great as a cop and authority figure. He brings a great everyman quality to the films he is in. But none of that makes him capable of making a bad film good. Oh, and Tracy Morgan just isn't that funny.

Alice in Wonderland - Yes I will stand alone on this one. I know that Johnny Depp is in the film. I know Tim Burton directed it. But people forget that both men LOVE extreme cinema that is anything but mainstream. And the story of Alice in Wonderland is really nigh incomprehensible to the mainstream as is. It will be a good art film, but no where near a commercial success.

Clash of the Titans - Fans of the original movie will be disappointed. Fans of Transformers will likely be in love with this film. Everyone else will have moments of appreciation of the CGI, and depression at the plot in this revisioned movie.

The Back-up Plan - Jennifer Lopez is the star. Do you really need another reason to avoid this film? Ok, it's about artificial insemination as the key plot device.

Wall Street 2 - A thinly veiled political message packaged in a sequel that really is well past it's prime.

Robin Hood - Russell Crowe is no Erroll Flynn. It's another film trying to improve on a universally accepted perfection in movies. The only positive is that it should be better than Kevin Kosner's try at it.

Sex and the City 2 - Did anyone really want a sequel to this rehash of a truly mediocre television show brought to the big screen?

Marmaduke - Live action versions of comic strip characters never work. Didn't Garfield end this concept?

The A-Team - I really would like to be wrong about this. I liked the 80's television show. But revisioning of television shows to fit on the big screen just don't work. At least Ben Stiller is not in this fiasco waiting to happen.

Jonah Hex - Ever hear of the comic book? I didn't think so. This is a comic book to movie conversion of a 3rd rate comic book that no one cared about 38 years ago. Even comic book fans will avoid this. And if you think the plot might help, you haven't read what the plot is.

SAW VII - When a horror movie (slasher, whatever) goes to 3-D for a sequel you just know it's all over.

Red Dawn - Another revisioned remake of an 80's film. Sure to be filled with political messages straight from the far-left field of view. The only thought that might be of interestr is how Hollywood might resolve America-bashing with a movie that is supposed to be pro-America. I really hope I am wrong on this one, but the November launch date does not give me reassurance (it's a slot only slightly better than January).

Yogi Bear - I'll say it again, live action films don't work.

The Green Hornet - Reaching way back in television time, this is a revisioned retread of the 60's show. I just can't buy Seth Rogen as the Green Hornet. Likely the writing will target campy and hit on awful. I shudder at what it will be like.

Next up are the films that are too ugly to classify as good or bad.

2010 movies you will want to see

As 2009 is ending it's time to look forward to what movies will be coming in 2010. Like in many years recently past there will be a decent number of remakes and revisioned films, several conversion films, and more than a few major movies that have huge anticipation.

Instead of trying to list every film that will be in theaters in 2010 I will instead hit on some of the best, and worst, ideas that Hollywood has to offer us. I'm sure that I will be as right and wrong on these films as most movie reviewers always are.

The films you might want to see include:

Legion - Though it is a January film - normally an indication of a horrible film - this looks like it has potential. I think this might be a film that will appeal to those who enjoyed the original The Prophesy movie.

The Book of Eli - Denzel Washington is known for his ability to act and to pick quality films to appear in. Which surprises me as this film is slated (last I noticed) for the graveyard of January. I have high expectations for this film, I hope to not be disappointed.

The Wolfman - Benicio Del Toro is a great actor and should be perfect in this remake. The addition of Sir Anthony Hopkins adds to the potential of this being a quality film. The moderating thing is that the film is a remake, which in Hollywood these days is a 70/30 proposition against a quality film. But so far the movie trailers say it will beat the odds.

Death at a Funeral - A remake of a British film of the same name, subject and likely everything else except the color of the cast. That's a good thing as Hollywood writers seem to be the laziest and least creative in the movie making world these days. From the movie trailers I've seen this should be a hit for Chris Rock and Martin Lawrence. Thank you England.

Iron Man 2 - War Machine. That says it all.

Prince of Persia: Sands of Time - A risky bet, but the effects look great. If the Hollywood writers kept the storyline from the video game intact this should be a great video game to movie conversion. If not, which is likely, this will be a revisionist waste of time to capitalize on fans pocket money. But it should be worth finding out in theaters.

The Expendables - There is no lack of hype for this film filled with former 80's (action) stars. Sylvester Stallone, Mickey Rourke, and Dolph Lundgren get to flex their old muscles against relatively younger jet Li and Jason Statham. For action movie junkies this is a must see.

MegaMind - Yes this is an animated film. Yes it's meant for kids. Even so I think this will be The Incredibles of 2010. The concept seems great even though it will feature Will Ferrell and was created by Ben Stiller. If nothing else it will rake in cash.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 - It's a Harry Potter movie, how can you not see it. Honestly, Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, and Emma Watson have really grown into solid actors and this should be very entertaining. Hype aside, this should be the big hit (box office) of the year.

And that's the list of the good. Now comes the bad.

Ataque de Panico!

If you have not seen this video on Youtube, than you have to see it here. It is a video that honestly has more of a story, better visuals, and better effects than virtually any SyFy original (ie. revisioned copy) film, and more than a few major movies in the past several years.



Believe it or not, this was made by Fede Alvarez for $300. I love the effects and wonder how he got all of that done for so little. No matter how he did it, the video is great!

But here is the kicker. Alvarez has now joined Neill Blomkamp as a new director for Hollywood. Considering the skill of the above video, the budget, and the slick forethought to not include any dialog so it basically fits in any country, Hollywood is getting more than they deserve.

I'm not sure what the first film for Alvarez will be, supposedly it won't be a continuation or expansion of this video, but he is going to get $30 million to make it. I'm getting goosebumps at what he might be able to do with that kind of money with his vision. That is, as long as the Hollywood studios leave him alone.

Fede Alvarez, we are watching out for you.

Movie remakes: Good and/or Bad?

The tradition of remaking a film that was successful somewhere or sometime else is a revered way of doing business in Hollywood. It's something that has happened in all genres and media, probably back to the original 6 stories of the Ancient Greeks. But lately it seems that this has become one of the driving forces in modern motion pictures.

Hollywood just doesn't seem to have an original idea in its head. Or at least the execs don't seem to think the public can understand a new concept. Which means more likely that the execs can't. Either way, as we go further into this new century we seem more likely to copy something than create something.

Now if all of the remakes were good, or at least as good as their original inspirations, I don't think anyone would care. But millions of dollars, and more importantly hundreds of hours of screen time is being wasted on crap. We are being led in the desert and asked to chug sand as if it were champagne. At least that's my opinion.

But a friend of mine recently brought up a good point, I think. The thought is that most movie-goers today have no idea about the originals films that are being copied. And often, as in the case of the Adventures of Robin Hood (with Errol Flynn and the definitive Robin Hood movie), the original films are being shown far less often with later copies being shown far more often. As in this case the Kevin Costner revisioned remake is far more common than the Flynn original - thus some younger viewers may not know of a superior film existing.

So it makes me wonder, how many people have not seen the original films being copied by Hollywood now? How many people prefer the remakes to the original films? We there is no better way to find out than to ask.

The following list are an original film and it's (most) recent remake. Let me know which you have seen, and/or which you prefer.

12 Angry Men (1957, with Henry Fonda)* - 12 Angry Men (1997)
One Hundred and One Dalmatians (1961, animated)* - 101 Dalmatians (1996 live action)
Alice in Wonderland (1933) - Alice In Wonderland (1951, 1985, 1999, 2010)
Alfie (1966, Michael Caine)* - Alfie (2004, Jude Law)
Amityville Horror (1979) - Amityville Horror (2005, Ryan Reynolds)
Assault on Precinct 13 (1976, John Carpenter - director) - Assault on Precinct 13 (2005, Laurence Fishburne)
The Bad News Bears (1976, Walter Matthau)* - Bad News Bears (2005, Billy Bob Thornton, Greg Kinear)
Bangkok Dangerous (1999, Thai film)* - Bangkok Dangerous (2008, Nicolas Cage)
La Cage aux Folles (1978, French film) - The Birdcage (1996, Robin Williams)*
Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956)*! - The Invasion (2007, Nicole Kidman)
Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory (1971, Gene Wilder)* - Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005, Johnny Depp)
The Thomas Crown Affair (1968, Steve McQueen)* - Thomas Crown Affair (1999, Pierce Brosnan)
Carrie (1976, Steven King book conversion)* - Carrie (2002)
Charlotte's Web (1973, animated)* - Charlotte's Web (2006, live action)
Les liaisons dangereuses (1956, French) - Cruel Intentions (1999, Ryan Phillippe)*! - Dangerous Liasons (1988, Glen Close)
Night of the Living Dead (1968, George Romero director)*! - Night of the Living Dead (1990)
War of the Worlds (1953)* - War of the Worlds (2005, Tom Cruise)
The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951)* - The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008, Keanu Reeves)
Death Race 2000 (1975, David Carradine)* - Death Race (2008, Jason Statham)
Fame (1980, Irene Carra)* - Fame (2009)
Yojimbo (1961, Akira Kurosawa) - A Fistful of Dollars (1964, Clint Eastwood)
The Fly (1958) - The Fly (1986, Jeff Goldblum)* - The Fly (TBA)
The Sons of Katie Elder (1965, John Wayne)* - Four Brothers (2005, Wark Wahlberg, Andre Benjamin)

The list just keeps going. But I think you get my point. Keep an eye out for my list of the best and worst remakes ever.

Note - Any movie marked with an * means it was the best version in my opinion. A movie with a ! means this is the best version of several movies based on the same film.

Where are the women of color?

As much as I deplore the secondary status that is generally imparted on actors and actresses of color, I do have to admit that there has been huge progress over the years. It's not that I accept the roughly 7% immersion of people of color in Hollywood, just that it far exceeds the perhaps 1% or less that was Hollywood just 3 decades or so ago.

But often I have to admit that I do not focus on actresses of color as much as the men. The fact is that male actors of color have found more success as Hollywood painfully slowly realizes that audiences aren't concerned as much with color as quality of acting. In just the last 2 decades we have seen Will Smith, Denzel Washington, Wesley Snipes, Samuel Jackson, and a handful of others gain leading roles in big budget movies. At the same time women of color have barely gotten recognition.

It took some 50 years to go from Dorothy Dandridge to Halle Berry. And even with that, Berry is hardly in the position to pick and choose her films as other Oscar winners routinely do. There just aren't roles being provided to her. Kind of like how the proposed spin-off of James Bond, her Jinx character was supposed to receive just died on the vine. Name another Oscar winning actress' highly popular character that was proposed to get a leading film and was just forgotten about. I can't.

Of course there is Oprah Winfrey. But while she has more than enough power to appear in various roles, that generally has come to fruition due to her ability to fund her own projects. Her vast popularity may be the kiss of life to consumer products and recreation, but Hollywood is indifferent to her massive appeal.

There is also Queen Latifah. After decades of work honing her skill on television and small roles she has become a serious star. Yet serious roles are denied her, likely both due to the color of her skin and the fact she wears a dress size larger than 5 models put together. That's not fair, it would probably take more models as they can be stacked together like toothpicks but you get my point.

When I think about it, there just aren't any roles being given to women of color. That is unless they can pass as White. Which is not something they have control over, it's something that Hollywood seeks out. Take Carmen Diaz. How often is her Hispanic heritage ever spoken about? How many roles is she ever placed in that gives attention to any ethnicity to her?

I suppose my point is simply that there is more to the failure of Hollywood to see the talent before them. It is willful and it denies audiences of an experience that might be far superior to what they are getting. That alone just irritates me from time to time.

White Chicks 2 - a reality you never wanted

It’s amazing to see Hollywood in action sometimes. Not because of the glamour or the impressive style that is normally splashed about. I’m talking about the business mentality (or arguably lack thereof).

Only Hollywood execs could look at a film that was clearly not a fan favorite and decide that it is deserving of a sequel. Based solely on the profit margin that they see the film capable of making. It is the same reason that reality television is so popular, and why conversion films (books or cartoons or comic books to movies are the latest trend) dominate the screens.

Quality is no longer a motivating force. Originality is far from the minds of those that decide what gets made. Rather the though of having a film with lots of fast action, a few explosions, and a couple of cute chicks is preferred over a plot, acting ability, or visual imagery.

Thus news of the sequel to the boring, poorly done, Wayans production – White Chicks – has hit the air waves. Yes we will get another chance to see Marlon and Shawn Wayans in White-face and gender bending. I know that everyone is just drooling to pre-order their tickets.

Was the film White Chicks funny? Not really. The acting good? Sorry to say it but Marlon has improved to now be considered a B-actor, Shawn has yet to get that far. So no, the acting wasn’t stand-out. Was it original or different? Again, no. So is there any reason for this film to have a sequel? Yes, just one. The film doubled its cost. So it is a success and that is plenty of reason for a Hollywood exec.

I like the Wayans family. I think they are one of the most talented families in Hollywood. They have several siblings that have grown in ability and have been able to make some decent films, with a couple that were really good. I love the fact that they involve every member of the family in their movies, from directing to writing to cameras to acting. They cover it all with family and friends.

But that is not reason enough to promote the sub-standard fare that has been hitting theaters for years now. Obviously Damon and Keenan have made their names. Many others in the family are secure in their efforts as well. The big push has been for the younger Wayans to get their chances at the brass ring. Which is why Marlon and Shawn have gotten so many chances. Too bad there is so little to push.

Seriously, think about it. The Wayans family has found and promoted several great artists. They found Jim Carrey, Jaime Foxx, Jennifer Lopez, and a few others. But they all had talent. They had something to build on. Marlon and Shawn, Shawn especially, just don’t deserve the big push. They just aren’t that good. They are supporting characters at best, which is no small achievement and will keep them well paid all their lives.

The fact that White Chicks is getting a second shot gives me a chill. Because films like Little Man might also get that option as well. And audiences need that kind of torture about as much as we need to be forced to see Soul Plane.

But the law of returns and no thought movie making is what Hollywood loves these days. I almost would be surprised if a transforming robot were in the film, along with lots of CGI scenes. It wouldn’t make sense to be in the film, but it would get attention and raise ticket sales. And that really is all that matters these days.

It’s a waste of time. It is a sad departure for the Wayans family, and the continuation of a trend for Hollywood. At least the Wayans have the excuse that they are supporting family and helping one another. Hollywood is just trying to scrape a couple of pennies together to get a third.

Alien movie prequel: what will Hollywood deliver

In Hollywood these days there is nothing better than re-working something that someone else has already done. It cuts the cost of writing, set design, and often entertainment value. Examples of this are rampant in the last decade.

Sequels are the current big thing. Why tough out a new idea when you can ride the dead horse of something that already worked? Take the Transformers, X-Men, Terminator, Highlander, Hellboy and countless other film sequels. Some are worth the time. Most are rubbish.

But that is just not enough for Hollywood. You can only go so far forward in some long running series. And for that problem is the answer of a prequel. Taking a proven cash making concept and jumping back in time to before the films started. Examples include: Wolverine, Star Trek, and of course Star Wars (episodes 1,2,and 3).

The real fun with a prequel, by Hollywood standards, is that you generally don’t need the stars that created the initial story – saving huge bucks; and you can often redo the entire storyline. This happens because many of the original fans of whatever movie are older and thus not as valuable to Hollywood. Plus it allows a film to have the latest popular movie actor/actress in it. Besides the fact that Hollywood execs often don’t know the original storyline and/or assume that young movie-goers don’t either.

Thus we get crap like the revisioned timeline of Star Trek. Going forward dozens of new films can be made with a cast and characters that have nothing to do with what made the series popular and timeless in the first place.

So when I heard that Alien will be introduced to the prequel machine, you can imagine I was not very excited. There is a host of things that could be screwed up. The near prequel films of Alien vs. Preadator and that film’s sequel displayed the utter disrespect and lazy writing that passes for entertainment in Hollywood these days.

But a ray of hope hit when Ridley Scott signed onto the production. He was the mastermind that created the vision of minimalist fear that blossomed into 3 additional films. It was his dark, mysterious and utterly disturbing direction that gave the film a quality few films match. It is why of the series, the first remains the best.

So I thought there was a chance that this could be more than a b-rate sci-fi horror film. More than the alien-as-slasher-killer that AVP presented. Far better than the drawn out and over the top visions seen in the subsequent films (though Aliens was done well).

Of course the next question is, what about Ripley – Sigourney Weaver? Will she have a role in this film? How could she have a role in the film?

That recently was answered by Weaver herself. She too found it illogical to be in the film. Which is a loss as she is the driving force of the films, but at the same time a confirmation that some thought might have to be introduced to the film.

Which still leaves the question of what they will do in this film. Will they ignore the series as AVP did to both the Alien and Predator series? How can the storyline be preserved and still be filled with the wanton explosions and cute girls that today’s audiences seem more than willing to pay for (ie. Transformers 2)?

Perhaps this is an idea. Have a small group of exploratory geologists, with one or 2 military scouts, working for Weyland-Yutani. They stumble on a barren planet, that is scarred from an ancient battle. They find skeletal remains of Aliens, and perhaps Predators?, in remnants of long ago cities. They conclude that a planet-wide war erupted with both sides being annihilated.

While searching, they fall through a floor of an old ruin, into a pit of Alien eggs. And thus begins their drama. All of this is being reported back regularly via android to the Company. In the end, after the last of the scouting crew dies in a suicidal blast destroying the Aliens and their egg cache, only portions of the Android survive long enough to state that there must be other eggs in the solar system, as a warning. But the Board of Directors at Weyland-Yutani have other ideas involving a deep-space mining vessel not too far from the now dead geologists.

Now that I would want to see.

They could even have the last scene where we see the Nostromo flying through space, go into the ship, and come upon the sleeping crew as a message beacon transmits orders to ship’s computer, and Ripley’s eyes open.

Perhaps Ridley Scott has a similar vision. Maybe we will get a coherent film with a plot, and scares, and things going bump in the night. Plus the occasional explosion. They can even put in a couple of gorgeous actresses just to ensure the hormonally challenged have something to drool about.

Then again, we might get a mix of Alien Vs. Preadator mixed with Transformers. Which I would need to get paid to see.

Transformers 2 - controversy or not?

Transformers 2 is now in theaters, so the question of whether the hype is equal to the film is about to be answered. But setting aside the lack of logic, the overabundance of CGI and explosions, and the failure to have a script worthy of the Saturday morning versions this was created from, there is a big question.

Is having a CGI robot speaking ebonics a take on Black culture and, even in the most innocent of ways, making fun of African Americans?

This is the growing question from the film. Many fans that have seen the movie (which I have not) believe that it does, others do not. But what I have read leads me to believe that this is another instance of Hollywood sticking to what it knows best – stereotypes in bad taste.

“Skids and Mudflap, twin robots disguised as compact Chevys, constantly brawl and bicker in rap-inspired street slang. They're forced to acknowledge that they can't read. One has a gold tooth.”

So the robots are deep into hip hop. Which could mean anyone, since fans of hip hop reach from Beverly Hills to Japan to the Bronx. But how often have you seen a character in a movie that speaks “rap inspired street slang” that isn’t Black? How many movies can you recall ever having a character with a gold tooth (or teeth) that were anything but African American? Add to this the connection the major media makes between rap and violence (which is a natural conclusion), and African Americans (which is not).

So is this a caricature of African Americans? Sounds like it. In fact some are relating these characters to another CGI major movie character that inflamed millions. Jar Jar Binks. They are being called Jar Jar Bots.

How do some defend these characters?

“They don't really have any positive effect on the film," she [Tasha Robinson, associate entertainment editor at The Onion] said. "They only exist to talk in bad ebonics, beat each other up and talk about how stupid each other is.”

Sounds like most rap music videos. And who is the lead minstrels in those music videos?

This disturbs me since any association some might make to African Americans is to 2 cowards, that are illiterate, eternally distracted by the useless, and are worthless. Would you like to be referred to in an association like that? I sure don’t.

“If these characters weren't animated and instead played by real black actors, "then you might have to admit that it's racist," Robinson said. "But stick it into a robot's mouth, and it's just a robot, it's OK."

Perhaps the best way to consider if this is making fun of African Americans in a negative way is if we substitute what the characters are portraying. Let’s say that instead of rap, they went with country music. Instead of street slang they speak with a Southern drawl. And instead of the gold tooth we have a confederate flag.

So in effect we have two illiterate, cowardly (since they avoid all fights), dumb, Southern brawlers. What might be identified as the Southern inbred hillbilly redneck stereotype – like Ricky Bobby. Still sound like a fun character, something that you and your friends can laugh at? Would you laugh if you were in the deep South? Would you still like it if foreigners heard your accent and compared you to these characters?

Yes it’s a movie. And movies often use a stereotype to convey thoughts that are in the societal mindset. But the negative stereotypes really don’t need to be reinforced. Especially on an international level. And saying that it’s just a movie, is akin to saying a Nazi flag is just a decoration.

You may disagree, but for me it is just one more reason not to see this film.

Prequels and Laura Croft: A combination worth seeing?

Ah the joy of prequels. Yes there is nothing quite like the ability of Hollywood to go back in time, on a movie set, and to generally screw up the history and persona of any character or storyline that can make an extra buck. As you might notice, I tend to dislike prequels. They tend to be as good as revisioned movies, and you know I hate that word.

I know that everyone, including me, loved The Dark Knight. That had a lot to do with the script, which kept the theme of the Dark Knight series of graphic novels, more than Christian Bale. Though Bale did a great job. And honestly there wasn't that much of the storyline that was changed.

Another prequel that worked out well was the restart of the James Bond series of films. Of course Bond restarts every time there is a new lead. So the public can accept every change without it being a major revision. Still there is something lost in the action first, thought nowhere, Bond that is Daniel Craig.

The Superman restart was pretty much what you would expect. Not a revisioning as much as it was an attempt to draw attention back on the movie franchise. I never was a big fan of Superman to start with - he's too much of a boyscout for me - so I'll leave that alone.

But then there are movies like Wolverine, which was horrible. Yes lot's of action, and Hugh Jackman without a shirt for the ladies. But it was disappointing. The storyline was basically missing. It was just action for the sake of action. Dare I say that the majority of the film was boring. And as for any attempt at logic, well they really stretched it even for a comic book to movie conversion film.

It gets worse when you think of films like Star Trek. Lot's of action (note the recurring theme in these prequels) and angst. Not much logic or plot. Most of the things that made Trek so enduring were thrown out. And I really disliked this new version of Spock.

So to summurize, when Hollywood wants a prequel these days they load up on action, throw out the plot, ignore all logical actions, and rewrite (or revision) everything to ensure that a youthful audience will show up for the flash of skin and lots of explosions.

Thus we are led to what got me thinking about this in the first place. Laura Croft and the Tomb Raider series. Which is set to get revisioned - excuse me, a prequel is planned. A prequel without Angelina Jolie.

To be exact, Jolie is not confirmed to be out of the film yet. But unless there is some Spock-like temporal vortex, she is too old to play herself young enough to satisfy Hollywood executives. Especially with the current emphasis on more action and more explosions vs. plot (which the Tomb Raider movies were short on to start with).

Will the prequel work for Tomb Raider? Well it's hard to imagine it being worse than Cradle of Life. That film sucked. So in regard to that, there is a huge upside potential since expectations at this point are limited to a pretty woman with big boobs (likely fake enhancements as with Jolie) in a tight shirt with explosions going off around her. Sad to say but it is honest.

Of the potential actresses being rumored to take the Croft role, Megan Fox is at the top of the list. This is likely due to her performance (if it can be called that) in Transformers. A film which the director insisted

"It seems that [Michael] Bay feels women should have curves and look like a person as opposed to the near-anorexic looks usually found in actresses these days. In fact he is making Megan Fox GAIN 10 lbs. for her next film Transformers 2."

A similar need for food, and exercise, will be needed if she is to be the new buxom adventuress.

The only 2 actresses I think fit the bill are Malin Akerman, of Silk Spectre II (Watchmen) fame. Though she is too old.



And Summer Glau, of Firerfly (Serendipity)



But we will see, once the director and screenwriter are picked, how this prequel will be geared. Don't expect much.

Tron 2.0 will have good music at the least

In a world where originality is seemingly repugnant, a place where the promise of originality is delivered in the form of revisioning, occasionally the less than displeasing occurs. You might be thinking I'm speaking about the Obama Administration but in fact I mean Hollywood - it is hard to tell the difference sometimes I admit.

Still in Hollywood, the number of remakes, revisionings, conversions from comic books and sequels is full in stride. Virtually the entire 2009 summer season of movies falls into one of the above categories. Roughly half of the announced or planned movies of 2010 fit this bill. And even going out as far as 2011 you can expect to see a film you already know.

Of course Tron is not an ordinary film. Made in 1982 it was somewhat groundbreaking visually. And after 29 years it's going to get a much talked about sequel. Called Tron 2.0

The positives are that the visuals will be massively improved. There was no CGI in 1982. So there is one thing to look forward to. For fans of Jeff Bridges, he will be back as Flynn. And as a recent bonus, Daft Punk will be doing the entire soundtrack for the film.

Fans of the original will recount that it was the music of the film that worked so well with the visual display in giving the movie credibility and ambiance. In fact just speaking about the film brings back the main theme to my mind.



Daft Punk is known for electronica style music that is catchy and rythmic. It is popular across the globe, and heard in as many colleges as nightclubs.So that is a big boost to the potential success of this sci-fi film sequel.

Will this combination of positives be enough? No way to tell so far. Few details about the script are around. There are no trailers yet, and won't be for 9 months most likely. And we can only hope that the writers have actually seen the full movie, rather than the Cliff Notes that most sequels and revisionings seem to be based on these days.

A-Team: another 80's television show to become a movie

So here is some good news, and bad news. The good news is that Ridley Scott, the director responsible for Alien, Blade Runner, American Gangster and other great films is set to have a film out in 2010. The bad news is that it is yet another television to movie conversion. Worse is the fact he will not be the director.

Yes the A-Team will now join the ever growing list of films that were originally television shows. But unlike most of these remakes (or worse yet, revisionings) this film has a writer that can actually fill the job description, to some degree.

The writer is Skip Woods, who wrote the screenplay for Swordfish and the far less involving but mediocre Hitman. Given the limited work that has been done by Woods (the GI Joe film to come out later this year is anyone’s guess on quality) the odds of the A-Team film being good is a coin toss. The chance of it being decent to good are fair, which in the land of remakes is the top of the list usually.

And as I mentioned above Ridley Scott is the big sell on this proposed movie. With 9 awards having been won by his films, you can feel a bit more confident that this film will not follow the trend. With any luck we can hope to have an expansion on the storyline, not a jumping point from it.

But I am still concerned. The A-Team is about a group of ex-soldiers wrongly convicted of a crime. Hollywood, of late at least, is hardly pro-military. Or seemingly able to make a film that touches on any aspect of soldiers without making a blatant political statement over the entertainment it’s supposed to be presenting.

Ridley Scott though has made films that convey action, intensity, and a message. His portrayal of the military – in regard to squad levels at least – have been. He is a filmmaker who still recalls that a message can be in a movie without being the movie. Which seems to be a lost art these days. But again, he is a producer and not the director.

Still I expect that the A-Team will be Iraq war veterans. They likely will be blamed for some horror that Hollywood seems abundantly willing to accept on rumor and imagination alone. Hopefully the studio execs will not mandate that they are guilty of some kind of crime, thus helping those in need out of some form of redemption.

One thing that I do hope is that we see the A-Team improve their aim. In the 80’s show, the Team couldn’t hit a target smaller than a barn. It was just ridiculous that with the amount of bullets from adversaries and the Team the only thing that was successfully hit each week was the ground, and usually the same film of an exploding shrub – regardless of where they were.

Another neat improvement might be a bit of explanation on how the Team is able to make gear that McGyver would be jealous of. Or at least have them make something that realistically is possible considering the circumstances. Seriously, I recall in one episode the A-Team was stuck in a barn, and they made a makeshift tank. I think not.

Thinking of other aspects of this movie (which has run through several versions and directors) I might be interested in is the question of cast and the director. Joe Carnahan will be the man responsible for what finally hits the screens. And this is where things begin to look really bad for the film. He is the guy responsible for the films Narc and Smokin’ Aces. I think you can find both films in the $3 bargain bin at K-Mart. Obviously I am not impressed.

But actors can make a big difference in any film. Who will take over the lead as Hannibal Smith? It has to be an older actor, like George Peppard who brought loads of experience and dignity to the show. Maybe George Clooney, or perhaps Chuck Norris? It’s a really tough call for that.

The role of Faceman – as done by Dirk Benedict is a bit easier. All you need is a decent looking White actor, no disrespect to Benedict who is more accomplished that the role required. There we can go with most any of the up and coming pretty boys. Maybe Shia Labeouf, or Leonardo DiCaprio.

Dwight Schultz did a great job as the questionably mentally impaired, possibly PTSD suffering, Howling Mad Murdock. He was amiable, off his rocker, and energetic. So a similar type of character would be likely for the film. Though likely to have more of the negatives of PTSD. Thus the young Christian Slater would have been perfect. But today I would expect maybe Alicia Keys, since the movie will need a woman in it somewhere to match current Hollywood sensibilities. And she brings in a young crowd, which the director seems to target.

As for B.A. Baracus, famously portrayed by then ex-bouncer Mr. T, some rapper that thinks they are an actor. It will be a waste. I’d rather see Michael Duncan Clarke in the role. But the director loves trendy young actors. And the film is being remade, thus meaning they are looking for a young audience that will not realize this is a remake. So the only people that fit the rebellious, Black, edgy role are rappers – or so Hollywood keeps insisting. I’d expect DMX, if he is out of jail, to get this part. And if I am right it will be the singular worse part of the entire film.

Will the A-Team movie be worth watching? If Ridley Scott were directing I’d say yes in a heartbeat. With Carnahan I think not. His tendency to pick popular and low quality actors does not inspire confidence. Plus this is a remake (likely a revisioning) which bodes badly. And it involves a subject that Hollywood can’t get right these days, soldiers. With a writer that is 50/50 at best.

I’d slate this for the DVD bin, but it’s still very early so who knows.

The Razzie Award nominations are out

Ah, what is January without the annual Razzie Award nominations. Not that 2008 was a year lacking actors, actresses, and films aplenty for the nominations. In fact I’m sure the judges had quite the time trying to narrow the field.

But the Razzies generally pick the top of the worst of any given year. And unlike the Oscars, the film nominated here you have definitely heard of, and sadly might have seen. Such is the shame of Hollywood year after year.

For 2009 we have the following, with my comments included:

Worst Picture:

Disaster Movie
In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale
Meet the Spartans
The Happening - boring
The Hottie & the Nottie – any movie that would have Paris Hilton in it should automatically be nominated, if not win.
**Why is The Day The Earth Stood Still not in this?**

Worst Actor

Mike Myers - The Love Guru
Eddie Murphy - Meet Dave - What is wrong with Murphy these days. He can be so much better than this.
Al Pacino - 88 Minutes and Righteous Kill
Mark Wahlberg - The Happening and Max Payne - Neither film was worth the money
Larry the Cable Guy - Witless Protection - How he cannot win I can’t imagine.
**I know everyone seems to disagree, because he is dead, but Heath Ledger’s Joker sucked.**
***And Keanu Reeves deserves to be in this group more than Wahlberg does, for his work in The Day The Earth Stood Still***

Worst Actress

Jessica Alba - The Love Guru and The Eye - She is just really bad.
Cameron Diaz - What Happens in Vegas - Embarrassing
Paris Hilton - The Hottie & the Nottie - The must win choice. The other ladies may have tried but they all have far more talent in their sleep than Hilton at her best (if such a moment exists).
Kate Hudson - Fool's Gold and My Best Friend's Girl
The Entire Cast of "The Women" - Annette Bening, Eva Mendes, Debra Messing, Jada Pinkett-Smith and Meg Ryan.

Worst Supporting Actor

Uwe Boll, Postal
Pierce Brosnan - Mamma Mia! - How far we have fallen since The Matador and Bond.
Ben Kingsley, The Love Guru, War, Inc., The Wackness - I like him, but War, Inc. just puts him over the top in this one.
Burt Reynolds, Deal and In The Name Of The King: A Dungeon Siege Tale
Verne Troyer, The Love Guru and Postal.

Worst Supporting Actress

Carmen Electra - Disaster Movie, Meet The Spartans - Hey, be nice she can’t do better.
Paris Hilton - Repo! The Genetic Opera; - Yet another film proving that were it not for money she would have nothing to justify her life
Kim Kardashian - Disaster Movie
Jenny Mccarthy, Witless Protection; - She deserves it just for appearing in the film
Leelee Sobieski - 88 Minutes, In The Name Of The King: A Dungeon Siege Tale

Worst Screen Couple

Uwe Boll and Any Actor, Camera and Screenplay
Cameron Diaz and Ashton Kutcher, What Happens In Vegas - The only words I have are, I understand why they got a Razzie
Paris Hilton and either Christine Lakin or Jorel David Moore, The Hottie And The Nottie - Again the queen of too much money and no talent stands out.
Larry The Cable Guy and Jenny Mccarthy, Witless Protection; - Giving Paris Hilton the only kind of competition she deserves.
Eddie Murphy In Eddie Murphy, Meet Dave. – Not really a couple now is it?

Worst Prequel, Sequel, Remake Or Rip-Off

The Day The Earth Stood Still - Horrendous remake, the writer should be slapped.
Disaster Movie
Meet The Spartans
Indiana Jones And The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull
Speed Racer - Someone was on drugs when they filmed this. Give me the original cartoon anytime.
Star Wars: The Clone Wars - George Lucas can’t need the money that bad, can he?
**Max Payne fits this category, as it is a ripoff of the video game. And a bad ripoff at that.**
***Again in the ripoff, a film that stole from at least 3 other films - Doomsday. If you missed it, be happy.***

Worst Director

Uwe Boll - Tunnel Rats, In The Name Of The King: A Dungeon Siege Tale And Postal
Jason Friedberg And Aaron Seltzer - Disaster Movie And Meet The Spartans - And anyone expected better in these ripoff ideas?
Tom Putnam - The Hottie And The Nottie - Paris Hilton, do I need to say anything more?
Marco Schnabel - The Love Guru
M. Night Shyamalan, The Happening. – The best film to put you to sleep.

Worst Screenplay

Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer - Disaster Movie And Meet The Spartans - The obvious favorites to win.
M. Night Shyamalan - The Happening
Heidi Ferrer - The Hottie And The Nottie
Doug Taylor - In The Name Of The King: A Dungeon Siege Tale
Mike Myers and Graham Gordy, The Love Guru
**Actually I don’t understand how The Day The Earth Stood Still missed this category**

Worst Career Achievement

Uwe Boll - "Germany's answer to Ed Wood" - Ed Wood was funny at least.

Such are my thoughts of the films worth of Razzie’s in 2008. Perhaps you know of a film that deserved to be on this list? Let me know because no one should need to own a DVD of films of this quality. Even if you need a Frisbee in an emergency.

Oh and here is an early prediction for 2009, Notorious will top a few of the categories here.

A karate chop to your funnybone

OK, here is a scary thought. Take an iconic film from the 1980's and give it a remake. Considering the films of the 80's there is no end to the chills you may get.

In this case there is a potential silver lining in the making. Actually 2. But first the film. It's the Karate Kid. Yes I know, of all the films someone could remake, why pick that? Probably because the martial arts films have been doing quiet well for over a decade now and you can't even have an action film without some in it. Just look at any Transporter movie. Or virtually any film in recent years by Jason Statham.

But before you decide to commit hari kari, you may want to consider the silver lining. It both indicates this could be an idea that is worth watching, or confirms the doom of all movies for the next decade.


This film might star Jackie Chan, and Will Smith's son Jaden.

There is no need to describe Jackie Chan. But I will anyway. He is the biggest martial arts action film actor in the world. He is probably only second to Bruce Lee in popularity, even throughout America. And at a crisp age of 50-something he is still someone a bar full of people would never want to piss off. The man is an icon, and considering he does his own stunts comparing him to any other action star makes them look like a wuss.


As for Jaden Smith, he has his fathers genes. He was the best, and probably the only good thing, in the recent remake The Day The Earth Stood Still (with a miserable performance by Keanu Reeves). In that movie, correction extended pro-ecology infomercial, he was the one character that was believable, consistent and interesting. And if we consider his work with his dad in The Pursuit of Happiness, much the same can be said of his work there.

In fact, I think that it is highly likely we will see a lot more of Jaden. As long as he stops working in remakes. Even if by some chance this one works out.

And yes you can read it, I have a doubt. It's not Chan nor Smith that concerns me. I doubt Hollywood. I can't see them committing to the story.

Without question some Hollywood exec is going to want to play up the laughs in the film since Chan can do comedy. And they will want a needless and plot-killing action sequence just to show off what Chan can do. And then we will likely get an overly sappy cuteness for Smith. So it will end up being all the extremes of the original film, thrown together without regard for the original storyline - which will likely be thrown out completely if the history if remakes in the last decade is any example.

Could this idea work? Yes. The talent is definitely there. But the greed of Hollywood studios and the laziness of scriptwriters weighs heavy in my mind. Either way this is something that deserves more attention as details get fleshed out.

America likes quality not color in movies

I just want to back track for a moment. At the end of 2008 there was a top of 2008 list that I think most have never heard of nor are they aware of who made the list. While this list is mostly for acting entertainers, movie studios and movie theaters it bears worth mentioning.

The Quigley Poll has been around for 76 years. It surveys movie theater owners and asks them whom they feel was responsible for the most revenue generation in the year. This is important to Hollywood as it confirms or changes how much an actor/actress is worth, and who they want to star in additional films. And it also influences what films will be made, indirectly. If an actor/actress who is know for dramas brings in enough to top the list for drama films, Hollywood with their tunnel-vision will make more of those types of films especially with that entertainer.

In 2008 Will Smith topped the list. Now that is very significant. He is only the second Black actor to top the list in 76 years. The last time an African American topped the list was 40 years ago, and he was Sidney Poitier. Just imagine that.

That means that all the success of Denzel Washington was not enough. Samuel Jackson didn't count. Even Jamie Foxx was not seen as successful enough. Not to mention Don Cheadle and many others over the decades.

This also means that Will Smith (the first and only actor to have 8 films consecutively gross over $100 million) has attained a level of acceptance in America not seen in 2 generations. In the late 60's America was forced to open it's eyes to all the people in the nation. Leading that charge on screen was Poitier. He opened doors that had been closed for the better part of a century. Then America looked away again.

This is important because Hollywood uses the excuse

"White people won't go to see a film or television show starring Black people. They can't connect with them."

That feeble attempt at justification enables television to mirror the 1950's mentality, and denies opportunity in front of and behind the cameras to thousands of qualified and non-White Americans every year.

But Will Smith has given just cause for that excuse to die. He again proved that America wants to be given quality, not just repetition, in their entertainment. It is the American spirit of competition that says the best demand equal time regardless of race or any other superficial factor.

I love quality Black cinema. I hate Soul Plane and other such trash. And I enjoy equally as much quality work of any capable actor/actress in multiple genres. But I cannot say that I will begrudge Hollywood if they finally join the rest of most of America in the 21st century. Will Smith is just one example, as is Spike Lee, Bill Duke, Denzel Washington, Don Cheadle, Forest Whitaker and on and on.

Americans go to see the top actors/actresses in the top films. It's time that Hollywood look around and see who really is in the A-list, regardless of color.

Hollywood movies: Remakes are king, or are they

There are a lot of remakes, or revisioned movies, coming out of Hollywood these days. And based on rumors and confirmed fact we can expect dozens more really soon. That says nothing of comic book, video game, and novel conversions to film.

So here are my thoughts on the bulk of these movies. Do you agree?

Update on The Day The Earth Stood Still

Way back in August this year I mentioned my preview of The Day The Earth Stood Still. In that preview I had only one video clip of the film to judge the revisioning of the 1951 classic by. And I stated that it would be more of a waste of money than the total auto industry bailout - well not the bailout but a waste of time. But I also made a couple of assumptions.



While I am right that this film is a disservice to the original, and is yet another example of why a revisioned film is a pathetic excuse for Hollywood to say something no one wants to see/hear, I did get something wrong.

"And there is the benefit of appealing to women with the hint of the line

“If the Earth dies, you die. If you die, the Earth survives."

Such a hokey line and idea never was in the first film, but I’m sure it will garner positive reviews from women’s groups because she is so important to the world."

Wrong. The line is not meant about the one woman it is said to but about mankind in total. Of course I was placing the importance of that singular female character on a high category, which it was in the first film along with her son. But then again I am not an eco-fanatic nor am I a far-left Hollywood writer or movie studio exec. Films might be better if I were, or at least remakes I think.

The line in fact refers to the ecology of the Earth. We humans are destroying it and so some alien needs to come down and save our planet from us. Basically an alien version of Greenpeace and PETA mixed together without that much peace. Thank you Hollywood for giving us your political commentary yet again.

I also stated in my original preview

"The new film will likely lose all the nuance, and subtle political message of the original film. In fact I expect the film will make a political point like using a sledgehammer to open a sunflower seed."

Well a 25 foot tall robot could definitely be a sledgehammer. Or the plague of microbots and their erasive nature. But the point was correct. Be green or else is the only mission, plot and image this film wants to convey. Which is fine if you want to be at an Al Gore rally. But when I spend $9 just to get a ticket, and give up 2 hours of my life, I prefer to be entertained.

Film has long ago given messages in the stories that it presents. For America, most of the films that were solely focused on this were called B-films, and were laughable. Today we see a Hollywood that could make Ed Wood proud. Hollywood gives us over the top, often CGI enhanced, massively budgeted, political commentary in the guise of something we liked in the past and are lured in to see again. In essence we are just throwing away good money and time for a stump speech that does do more than annoy and infuriate because we were given a bait-n-switch flim-flam. [They could have just given the entire budget to Greenpeace, PETA, and various global warming groups and saved the planet their carbon emissions and wasting out time.]

I stand by my original postulation on The Day The Earth Stood Still. It will make some money because of the effects and the stars in the film (notably Keanu Reeves and Jaden Smith, not to mention Jennifer Connelly). But this will ultimately be a failure. It will fail to do justice to the original film, the original message, the writing, and the entertainment value we expect to receive for our money.

I don't think I can say it more bluntly.

War Machine no more - Terence Howard out, Don Cheadle in

What the hell was Marvel thinking? If you are like me, you are unaware of the news that apparently came out last week in Hollywood. This news deals with the sequel to the hit film Iron Man.

The cast of Iron Man included Robert Downey Jr. and Oscar-nominee Terence Howard. This film has been a massive hit in theaters and the DVD sales have been brisk. Expectations for the obviously hinted sequel have been high. In fact, Iron Man and the Tony Stark character play prominently into the upcoming Avengers and other Marvel comic book film adaptations.

Marvel did a great job of conveying the character flaws from written form to movie. And the acting of Robert Downey Jr. was instrumental. But as important was the acting of Terence Howard as Stark’s best friend Jim Rhodes. It is the Rhodes character that Stark relies upon throughout the comic book, and is the only person he is willing to entrust his upgraded technology to. That new armor suit is called War machine, and it lives up to its name well.

In the movie Howard looks to the new armor and mentions “next time”. But it seems that it will never come as he has now been dropped from the sequel. I find that to be horrendous. Howard is an exceptional actor, and capable of a range of roles as his career shows.

Not only has Howard been replaced, by the equally talented – but far too short – Don Cheadle, Marvel did not have the balls to tell Howard beforehand. According to reports the excuse is a failure to come to terms on pay. But according to Howard

“…And I read something in the trades that implicated it was about money... but apparently the contracts that we write and sign aren't worth the paper that they're printed on sometimes. And promises aren't kept, and good faith negotiations aren't always held up.”

I like Don Cheadle. He is a great actor. But I don’t see him as Rhodes. It just doesn’t work for me. And now the new dynamic of the actors is very different than what was expected or as existed in the first film. There is a chance that Marvel may have shot themselves in the foot as it seemed that the second film was going to focus on War Machine and Rhodes.

It appears that Marvel is going the route of Disney, which is reported to be a tightwad and miserable to work for. The actions of Disney cost it an animation department and hundreds of millions in animated film revenues. Marvel seems ready to follow that same path, which was also the cause of the creation of Imagine Comics, and gave growth to several underground comics that ate away a large portion of their readership in the 1990’s.

Perhaps the next Iron Man movie will be fine. All the actors are phenomenal so you wouldn’t expect different. But I think that the future comic book adaptations may be in danger of failure. And just before Captain America can make it to the silver screen. It would be a shame.

Hollywood has its issues, and they are seeping into Marvel apparently. The loss of Terence Howard is a bad sign, hopefully it just remains that. And I hope that Marvel comes back to Howard with a sweetheart deal to make up for this public and unwarranted slap in the face.

And I really hope this does not cause a fued between Howard and Cheadle. They are too good, and there are too few quality roles for African Americans for that to happen.

Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, and Star Trek all from a different perspective

There’s been a huge hustle and bustle of news and events of late and the tone to many posts I’ve written has been a bit darker than usual. So today I decided to slow down a bit and look at things from a different perspective.

Perhaps the best way to get a different perspective is to view things from a new way of seeing an old idea. So I sought out Youtube and checked out some of the mashed up movies there. I present you a couple of great ideas that Hollywood will never think of, done quite well by people just like you and me (actually I admit I don’t have the knowledge and perhaps the talent to do the videos you see below).

The Universe is big, so what would happen if some of the galactic travelers of sci-fi met up?



What if the culture of the Spartans never died, or at least in a galaxy far away a long time ago? How could they not be the forefathers of the greatest forces in the galaxy?



And for something completely different – and one of my favorites – what if JRR Tolkein wasn’t always a stand up guy?

The Joker - an example of speculating and not collecting

Do you recall back in the day when you would play with a 3 inch Yoda doll that was part of your Star Wars collection? I’m talking about the toys based on the original movie, before they paid attention to which chapter they represented. They were fun and cool and everyone wanted a Darth Vader or Boba Fett (which came out before the second movie as I recall).

Perhaps you were more interested in the G.I. Joe dolls. Each stood about 6” tall and some had special abilities like ‘karate action’ or an ‘eagle eye’ or simply a 'fuzzy' beard. Again this is before the cartoon series that spawned a new version of toys, a mere 3” tall.

If you do recall these toys, or others like them, with joy in your heart don’t search on eBay. The prices these then-modestly priced items go for now will astound most. But some want to search around for the latest in the Batman: Dark Knight series of toys, or the X-Men, Hulk, Spiderman and so on. They should choose carefully.

There are hordes of would be collectors buying up the various items each movie spawns, hoping that one of their purchases will one day broker their dream vacation. A great example of this is the current craze for all goods that are the Joker, bearing a likeness to Heath Ledger. Honestly I think such pursuits are a waste.

Collecting generally happens either because of a rarity of an item, it’s representation of a significant event in time, age, or it’s value as an item of fond memories – even if those memories are second or third hand. That’s why you can sell a good condition Dr. Seuss Green Eggs and Ham first edition book for several thousand dollars. Or why certain stamps are priceless. The same can be said of the above mentioned Star Wars, G.I. Joe, and various coin collections. There is a value that can stand the test of time.

But today there is a rush based on minor activities and passing curiosity. Not unlike the comic book craze in the late 1980’s that caused comic book prices to rise dramatically, and then all but the older, rarer books to have that value nearly evaporate within a year or 2.

Heath Ledger is dead. It is a shame. But he did not die, say like Bruce Lee – at the top of his career, rising in legend and acclaim, in the middle of filming what might have been a classic film. Mr. Ledger died of a drug overdose that he gave himself. No mystery or glamour to it. His death was no Marilyn Monroe event. He was no mega-star. Thus there is no significant event that can survive time.

Thus anyone hoarding the Joker toys is making a massive bet that Ledger will be remembered in an historic manner in 5 years, thus giving a value to their collected items. I’m sure they are also hoping that the millions of other items produced before his death, and more than a few after, will all wind up in the trash as little Jonnie or Jane grow up. But considering many of the Joker items, and Batman as well, were snapped up by hopeful collectors (or speculators might be better to describe them) the chances are slim for rarity. Thus the hope of selling an item in the future to die-hard Heath Ledger fans diminishes.

Since the Joker items have just come out along with the movie, age is something that won’t happen for another decade or more. And considering the trend of Hollywood to ‘revision’ older successful films, it’s highly likely that by the time any item today becomes a fond memory of a middle- or later aged adult, there will be at least one more version of Batman corralling bad guys on either a small or big screen.

So overall the chances of a Heath Ledger Joker item becoming a collectible of worth are unlikely. Now I don’t say this to diminish the memory of Heath Ledger, but this is the most recent and dramatic point that can be made right now.

Collecting is not speculation. It should not be done with the hope of a reward in the future. That kind of wait-and-sell is best suited for the stock market, and your odds are far better there. Collecting should be done for the sheer joy of it.

I recently sold a few of my Magic The Gathering cards. I owned them from my time in California (in the early 1990’s) when I started to play the game and collect the cards after I had broken my leg in a motorcycle accident. I had no idea what the value was then, and even less now. But when I sold them – clearing away some things as I moved into a new house – I found out that just 3 of my cards alone were worth $200. That was more than I had spent on the whole collection. And I honestly had a hard time selling them.

I think that is the real value of a collection. The emotion it provides the buyer, and holds for the seller. If you start a collection for any other reason than that, you’re probably wasting your money and time.

The growing bandwagon against Spike Lee

Shame on Spike Lee. That’s what it seems Clint Eastwood feels in commenting on the comments of Lee about the absence of a single African American in the nearly 6 hours of film Eastwood created in 2 films about Iwo Jima. And Eastwood is not alone in rebuking Spike Lee.

Amazing. I’ve already made my comment on this issue, where I’ve agreed with Lee and am upset with Eastwood. And yes I do realize that the number of Black troops were less than 1000. Still nearly 6 hours of is more than enough to have one Black face in a background shot at least. Acknowledging the existence of the African Americans that fought and died in WWII is not a lot to ask for. Not that Hollywood has ever cared, as evidenced by the flood of films featuring or including Blacks in WWII films.

But I am now hearing how Spike Lee is being called out for his portrayals of Italian Americans.

“Spike Lee is very talented, but I sometimes wish he'd practice what he preaches," Dal Cerro said. "His points about African-Americans are well taken, but, ironically, he does the same thing to Italians in his films.” - Bill Dal Cerro, president of the Italic Institute of America

Oh really?

This annoys me. Unlike the overwhelming number of movies made by virtually every director since movies have been made, the movies by Spike Lee have diversity in them. People of all colors appear in most of his films. They may not be leading characters but they are there. The same cannot be said of Hollywood in general.

But Spike makes Italians look bad? As far as I recall the Godfather was out long before any film by Spike. As far as I can recall Italians have been portrayed as loud, rude, violent, under-educated, mafia members in dozens of movies and television programs for decades. Spike Lee had nothing to do with the Sopranos. He did not direct Andy Garcia or Robert De Niro in the Untouchables. I really don’t need to go on do I.

There is no absence of Italians in hundreds of films a decade. There is no absence of Italian actors in films, television and the theatre of every style and genre an any year. So this claim against Spike Lee is just a grab at attention, and a means to damage his image. It supports Clint Eastwood and the perception that African Americans were anywhere but fighting for America in WWII.

When the critics of the many films of Spike Lee want to take him on, I suggest they first take a look at our media. When they can prove that Black actors and films are not the trend of the year or the forgotten red-headed stepchild of Hollywood I’ll accept the claim that there are not enough Whites in his films. I’ll accept at that time that historical and current portrayals of Italians, Britians, Germans, French and every other nationality of Whites may be insensitive or detrimental. But when we stop listening to the rhetoric and pay attention to the facts before our eyes we realize that such a dramatic change is still a long ways away.

the approaching Sumer films of 2008

Ok, I need a break from the 100+ blogs I’ve set up for a client, and the house negotiations. So what am I going to do? Write more, on politics and of course entertainment.

Well one of the bigger things to focus on is the upcoming summer movie season. So far the movies of the year have been major letdowns. I mean there really has been nothing that stands out or was worthwhile. Superhero movie was a superflop. I’ve already forgotten Forgetting Sarah Marshall. Street Kings seems to not be silver screen kings or even a joker. Smart People equals a dumb movie, The Ruins was ruinous, 10,000 BC was before common sense, Never Back Down never stepped up, Jumper (as I had suspected) needed to go over a cliff, Semi-Pro was only semi-good, and Drillbit Taylor doesn’t deserve to be mentioned.

And that was most of the better films of the year to date.

Hollywood is really out of their minds. Obviously the only thing that can save this year has got to be hero movies; specifically comic book heroes or perhaps a few Kung Fu masters. So far one of the best movies of the year is the combination of Jet Li and Jackie Chan. I have yet to see this, but I will, so I will reserve my thoughts to this. No matter how good or bad the movie masses will see this film because of just those 2 international entertainment stars.

So what hope do we have left?

Iron Man. I’ve been hyping this a bit but I have no doubt it will live up to my expectations. The previews look great; the storyline is filled with drama and adventure (if they follow most of the Stane/Stark storyline). Robert Downey Jr. is a renowned actor as is Terrance Howard. It looks like there would need to be a lot of effort made to screw up the film.

The Incredible Hulk. Thank goodness they are redoing the story. Ang Lee really destroyed the story, and we can only hope this one is better. The Abomination is the central figure so lots of big destructive fights can be expected. Ed Norton is an extremely better actor. And the graphics of the CGI look superior as well. Even if it’s not a great film it should stand galaxies above the Ang Lee film.

Speed Racer. Likely a huge letdown. This is not really the film that fans of the original cartoon are looking for. Far too stylized and tripped out, it may make the post MTV generation feel warm and fuzzy, but the rest of us will just be ill. The actors don’t seem to be impressive, even though John Goodman and Susan Sarandon are huge names in the cast. Christina Ricci may get some teen boys going but that’s about it. I think the Wachowski brothers missed the mark this time.

Indiana Jones. He may be old but expect this to pack the crowds in. Harrison Ford is an entertainer that commands the big bucks, and has no need of money or more fame. Thus his presence lends credibility to the thought that this is not just another Hollywood sequel seeking quick cheap cash based on the series name. It won’t win Oscars, but it should fulfill its purpose of making you forget the travails of daily life for a couple of hours.

Hellboy 2. I want this to be a good film. Or at least as good as the first. But the odds are 50/50. Fans will find lots to dislike, and newcomers will enjoy the action. I need to see more to be sure.

Stepbrothers. Another Will Ferrell miss. But everything he does can’t be as good as Elf. Thus we had Ricky Bobby and now this film. But this time all the NASCAR fans will be at Speed Racer so I doubt the success.

Sex and the City. Or more aptly named sluts without lives. Sure to bring in women patrons in droves, it’s still a failure as a film. Just like the television show. I’d advise guys to just give their dates/wives the cash to see it and go play their Xbox in the meantime.

Get Smart. Another remake of a classic and funny television show from the past. Hopefully this will not be the atrocity that the Honeymooners remake was. But Hollywood execs are rife with greenlighting a film without ever paying attention to what made a show classic. Expect this to either be the equivalent of remakes like Charlie’s Angels (either film) and Dukes of Hazzard, or Star Trek (the better films). Remakes of television shows only go those 2 ways.

Batman the Dark Knight. I don't like Heath Ledger as the Joker. I think he misses the mark from what I have seen. Without doubt there will be a huge sympathy rush towards this film. That does not affect my thoughts on the previews I've seen. Every film series has its failure, and this will rank among the Batman's lesser appearances, no fault of Morgan Freeman, Michael Caine, and Christian Bale.

Any film with Aston Kushner. Complete waste of time. He has no talent, and his films to date reflect this. Even his only successful role, on the 70’s Show, highlighted his inability to have any depth.

Such is the upcoming summer fare. A dearth of entertainment value. Most will fail miserably as they should. Several will test the concept that if you give people enough sand will they drink it like water. Perhaps one of these days we will have some Hollywood execs that actually believe in entertainment quality over the absolute bottom barrel cheapness of American Idol on film. But this is not that day or year.

Tropic Thunder draws questions of racism - 3.12.2008.1

I find it interesting that the question over the movie Tropic Thunder is quickly becoming an issue of whether or not a White man can play a Black man. How this became the case is not really the issue I expected, rather I was considering the question of whether this would be a funny portrayal and a decent movie.

I feel that Robert Downey Jr. is a great actor. I think he is dedicated to his roles. So I believe he will try to make this role as positive as possible. But a bad director and/or writer can kill a great film and performances by entertainers. That’s a fact. Thus I am concerned about what Ben Stiller is going to do, in his role as director. Because I think he is the weak link of every film he has ever been in.

But around the web I’m seeing the argument become, ‘Why can’t a White man play an African American?’

Some comments on it include

“I can totally see the outrage over this, I mean with all the white, young blonde actresses trying to get a break in Hollywood, how could these guys possibly be so racist as to take work away from who could be the next two big starlets of Tinseltown? I mean... um, what?... You mean this isn't all about White Chicks? There was no outcry over the race reversal in that movie?”

and

“How about Eddie Murphy playing an old white man in the excellent Coming To America? Or Eddie Murphy going undercover as a white man for Saturday Night Live? Both classic cases of just having fun, both some of the funniest films or TV moments from Murphy's career. (He was ROBBED at last year's Oscars!!)”

and

“Typical nonsense, the usual double standard. It's the same thing with black comedians ripping on white people, total acceptable, but lets see a white comedian tear into black people and listen to the out-cry. Eddie Murphy has made a career out of playing stereotypes for humor and no one says a word. Whether they be fat, white, Jewish, Asian, whatever, he has done it all and nothing is said.”

I can agree with the concept that acting ability is not limited to any one race. I have no doubt that a qualified and professional entertainer, with the proper tools can portray any race with respect.

At the same time I realize that there is a double edged sword in America. In the name of humor and jokes African Americans have long been ridiculed and minimized. The white actors portraying Amos n Andy, blackface, C Thomas Howell in Soul Man, and so many more are examples of bad representation. And there are those that are sensitive to this fact.

What’s the difference?

A Black entertainer making a bad portrayal of Whites is seen as a failure on the entertainer’s part. A White entertainer in the reverse position (for most of the history of Hollywood) had been seen as making an honest attempt at portraying Negroes, which were considered below them. That’s the history of the situation.

So I agree there is a double standard, and it is a matter of sensitivity. The double standard wasn’t created today, but is based in the past. While many Americans today don’t want to address or acknowledge the openly racist past (nor the quietly racist current day) of America, it does not change the wound that is there or its effects. To be aware of that is not to be alarmist, though some to go to that extreme.

The past cannot be ignored if one wants to make this movie a discussion or comparison of what race can or should play another. And the character that Jack Black has in this movie sounds exactly like a take on Eddie Murphy, so I do see that concern.

But I don’t think that should be the point.

Based on the storyline, and the roles that Robert Downey Jr. has had, I don’t think the intent is bad. But as they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Still the movie deserves to at least present its trailers before any conclusions are made.

The question here should simply be are they making a funny movie without degrading to laughter based on, or built upon, stereotypes. Without seeing what has been done, none of us can say.

Yet, to argue that other movies having an entertainer portraying another race and were done well means that all movies with such a device are ok is ludicrous. American memories are very short, and at times willfully so. But everyone remembers pain, and often there are questions asked that are embarrassing.

Like why in almost all westerns were the roles of Native American Indians played by Whites? In older movies Whites also played Asians too. And none of those roles were positive. Is that ok?

I recall when the movie Remo Williams came out. There was a huge outcry when the lead character of Chiun was given to Joel Grey (who was nominated for a Golden Globe for his portrayal). Chiun was supposed to be an old Korean and Grey made the character realistic and was respectful in his portrayal. I see no reason why Robert Downey Jr. cannot do the same thing.

If this film becomes an equivalent of Soul Plane, then all involved deserve to be ostracized. If it is the equivalent of Remo Williams they should be lauded. But to simplify the big issue no one wants to talk about, the elephant in the room so to speak, to they did it so we can too and it’s all ok is to say that Iran should be allowed to have nuclear weapons because France has them.

Not the best analogy but you get my point.

Prepare for Doomsday - 3.2.2008.1

So what do you do if you are in Hollywood, you don’t have a remake available, no ‘revisioned’ classic television shows on the table, and nary a comic book (even an unpopular one) in site? You make up a movie with bits of other films, no name actors, and a low budget.

That is how I would describe the previews of Doomsday. A bit of several good money-making clips with a pro-feminist twist for good measure. I mean the while thing reminds me of 5 sci-fi films (not counting low budget films). Those movies are Escape from New York, 28 Days Later, Mad Max, Transporter (ok, not a sci-fi but action), and Alien.

From what I can tell we start with 28 Days Later, because some virus is released killing a good part of the world, or threatens to. A last bastion of humanity is secluded in a walled off city (Day of the Dead/Aeon Flux/Waterworld/Resident Evil). Out in the badlands surrounding the city is a crazy chaotic new society of (probably) post-apocalyptic mutants/survivors. So an adventurer/loner that travels the wasteland (Mad Max) is given a mission because a cure was identified and lost or otherwise unattainable. The Loner/adventurer needs to get whatever it is and bring it back. The loner has a souped up vehicle (Transporter/Knight Rider/Ghost Rider) to help do this. Of course the Item is held in the stronghold of the mutant/survivors (Escape from New York) that have their own barbaric society based on brutality. I’m sure they throw a timeframe ticking away too.

Oh. Where does Alien come in? Like in that movie we have a heroine, because that sells really well these days.

Seriously, this all does not bode well for the film. Besides being formulaic, when was the last time you saw a film that blatantly stole ideas from better films well? Excluding, in fact, including spoofs. The low budget aspect virtually ensures that the below-the-line costs of the film were spent on the special effects. Probably a good bit of the above-the-line too.

So the net of it all is what? A less than entertaining mash-up of ideas done better previously. My suggestion is to skip spending the $20 or so per person to see this in the theater. Wait 6 months and get the DVD for $10 - 15 and watch it on a rainy/snowy night when the car is busted.

Could I be wrong? Sure, but the odds of this being good are about the same as television suddenly realizing the world is made up of more than just White people. I’d sooner bet on Britney Spears making a comeback and/or being named mother of the year than this movie being a hit. The only real positive for it is that the female lead is good looking, and there isn’t another action or sci-fi film out to compete with it. [Jumper is so bad as to not count.]

If you are masochistic enough to see this film in theaters, do let me know how close I’ve come.

Coming to a movie theater soon: Monopoly - 2.20.2008.3

The Writer’s Guild strike is over, but the damage may have already taken its toll. Not that there has been any exceptional stories in movies or television in years if not decades. In fact were it not for comic books (X-men, Spiderman, Wolverine, Iron Man, Batman ect), real life events (American Ganster, Hotel Rwanda), and the ever present ‘revisioned’ remake (The Invaders, The Honeymooners, I Am Legend) the quality of ‘original’ movies would be on par with American Idol. And to compliment that vacum of thought or creativity is Candy Land.

Now if you are thinking that I mean some kind of strip club, take your mind out of the gutter. Candy Land is the children’s game made by Hasbro. Yes, this game intended for ages 5 (or is it 3) and up will soon be on the big screen. I can see all the parents lining up for the tickets now.

I don’t know what is worse. That Hollywood is so devoid of ideas and has remade all the quality films and televisions shows that now children’s board games are the next source of inspiration. This must be connected to the Transformers movie (that contained more plot holes and blatantly stupid characters than anything that comes to mind at the moment). It was that fiasco of a movie, that had just enough explosions to numb the minds of viewers, that must have given Hasbro the thought that they have movie worthy material.

Of course the Transformers was originally a childrens cartoon, and then became a comic book. It had depth, of a sort, in the various versions of the cartoon series and character development in the tomes. There was something to build on. Not that any of this made it into the actual movie.

But I cannot fathom a movie based on Monopoly. Or Ouija which is also planned. Though the game Battleship does have potential. In that at least there is some sense, but I would expect it to turn out to be a modified remake of Run Silent Run Deep or The Enemy Below. Modified to be less than heroic or patriotic which is the current trend in military movies, sadly.

The truly sad part? Once these movies come out, and the inevitable sequels and prequels, what is next? If this is not scaping the bottom of the barrel for ideas to base a motion picture on, I’m sure Hollywood will find the bottom. But do you really want to see Doggroomer – the story of Fifi on her daily walk down 5th Ave.

Don’t worry though, a ‘revisioned’ American Idol – The Movie is sure top be out soon.

Which do you prefer: Razzie or Oscar Awards?

On lighter news, the Oscar nominations are out. Yet again there is a list of movies that no one has seen, nor interested in going to see. Yet again better movies and actors are being ignored completely. Yet again Hollywood disconnects from the average American.

Not that any of this is a new thing. And some of the actions are not surprising. I mean Denzel Washington will not receive another Oscar probably for some time, if ever again. Why? Because he has already won an Oscar, and once you win you often get place in the back of the list for a while. Exceptions exist for that rule, notably Tom Hanks, but it is a general rule that once you win you won’t win again for a long time, no matter how good you are or the films you are in.

So don’t expect to see Jaime Foxx, Eddie Murphy, Jennifer Hudson, Denzel, Halle Berry, or a host of others any time soon. The fact that everyone I just mentioned is Black is secondary to my prior point. The abovementioned are prominent in that the Oscar Academy is almost a half-century behind the American movie-goers in recognizing the ability of African American, Hispanic/Latino, and other minority entertainers. That goes for directors, movies, genres, actors/actresses, and virtually ever individual behind the camera lens that helps to create the films we love.

[Special interest should have been noted for Don Cheadle and his movie Darfur Now. He is one of the few Americans, and even fewer celebrities/entertainers that are out there trying to improve the lives of millions that deserve and need it.]

So rather than discuss the constant myopia that the Oscar Academy views films via, I will instead speak about the Razzies. They are the recognition of the absolute worst films that are churned out each year. In general these awards are more in line with what the average person feels, and is unbiased in terms of race.

The nominees this year include the following:

Worst Picture
Bratz – ** anorexic dolls with attitudes on film- Joy!
Daddy Day Camp
I Know Who Killed Me
I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry
Norbit

Worst Actor
Nicolas Cage, in Ghost Rider, National Treasure and Next
Jim Carrey, The Number 23
Cuba Gooding, Jr., Daddy Day Camp and Norbit
Eddie Murphy, Norbit
Adam Sandler, I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry – ** Did he really think this would work, or did they pay him a lot of money?

Worst Actress
Jessica Alba, Awake, Fantastic Four, and Good Luck Chuck - ** sort of cute, but no ability and the movies she’s in prove it
Logan Browning, Janel Parrish, Nathalia Ramos AND Skyler Shaye, Bratz (real close with Alba)
Elisha Cuthbert, Captivity
Diane Keaton, Because I Said So
Lindsay Lohan, I Know Who Killed Me

Worst Supporting Actor
Orlando Bloom, Pirates of the Caribbean
Kevin James, I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry
Eddie Murphy, Norbit
Rob Schneider, I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry
Jon Voight, Bratz, National Treasure September Dawn and Transformers - ** Because of Bratz, but Transformers was a waste as well

Worst Supporting Actress
Jessica Biel, I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry
Carmen Electra, Epic Movie
Eddie Murphy (as Rasputia), Norbit
Julia Ormond, I Know Who Killed Me
Nicolette Sheridan, Code Name: The Cleaner - ** An obvious winner! Please no more films starring Cedric

Worst Screen Couple
Jessica Alba & either Hayden Christensen in Awake; Dane Cook in Good Luck Chuck; or Ioan Gruffudd in Fantastic Four - ** winner for Fantasic Four, no chemistry or even talent there
Any Combination of Two Totally Air-Headed Characters in Bratz
Lindsay Lohan and Lindsay Lohan in I Know Who Killed Me
Eddie Murphy (as Norbit) & either Eddie Murphy (as Mr. Wong) or Eddie Murphy (as Rasputia) in Norbit
Adam Sandler & either Kevin James or Jessica Biel in I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry

Worst Remake or Ripoff
Are We Done Yet? (remake of Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House)
Bratz (A rip-off if there ever was one)
Epic Movie (Rip-off of every movie it rips off)
I Know Who Killed Me (Rip-off of Hostel, Saw and The Patty Duke Show)
Who's Your Caddy (Rip-off of Caddy Shack) - ** while the host of films that are horrible or blatant rip-offs and remakes of far better films, this had to be the most poorly done concept yet

Worst Prequel or Sequel
Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem
Daddy Day Camp
Evan Almighty
Hannibal Rising - ** they were drunk when they gave this a greenlight right? Drunker still when they didn’t go straight to DVD I bet
Hostel: Part II

Worst Director
Dennis Dugan, I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry
Roland Joffe, Captivity
Brian Robbins, Norbit
Fred Savage, Daddy Day Camp - **Funny is not in your vision
Chris Siverston, I Know Who Killed Me

Worst Excuse for a Horror Movie
Aliens vs Predator: Requiem - **Hey why follow any of the established rules or concepts behind the actual success and interest in the original movies. Screw it up in ever more boring ways and be original
Captivity
Hannibal Rising
Hostel: Part II
I Know Who Killed Me

Now that is a group of horrendous films. I could add a few easily to that list, and in fact I did with my review of 2007 movies. How Codename: The Cleaner, Underdog, and The Invasion missed all these lists amazes me.

But Bratz, a film dedicated to anorexia, poor attitudes and the dolls that promote it, easily belongs here. Did anyone even see the film? My winners were noted in the lists above.

I want to bring up another list I mentioned last year.

“I equally reveled in the failure of equally America hating films Rendition, Lions For Lambs, and Redacted. The abject failure of these films to garner any interest is a testament to the good taste of everyone except the people who greenlighted them. I can only hope that the actors in these films were doing them for the paychecks and not their political views. I would also say that if the producers and writers of these films feel that strongly (especially Mark Cuban) give up your citizenship and move to Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan or any other nation that will take you. I will not mourn your loss or the money you have.”

Every movie in that quote should get a special Razzie for America hating, Bin Laden loving, MoveOn.org loving, loserfest!

Well those are my thoughts. I hope this year will be better, but if Hollywood is anything it’s consistent.