Movie Preview: 2012

Well it's almost a year to the day that I mentioned 2012, and one thing is certain. The hype surrounding that date, and likely this movie, is only growing with time.

There wasn't a lot known in 2008 about this film - other than it would be the disaster film that might relaunch the trend in films (at least until 2012). It is sure to be followed by numerous other films based on exactly the same theme. The question is were the Mayans thinking of this film when they thought of how the world might end?

The latest movie trailer for 2012 looks like this



By the way, the words on the side of the number at mark 2:35 appear to be "Into A Place GUE[? not sure of this] Apocalaypse" which might be a reference to

"And he gathered them into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon" Revalations 16:16

So it seems that the film is going to try to fit in several messages besides the CGI shock and awe. That is a bad sign though. When movies try for political or other messages generally you get crap like Lions for Lambs or War, Inc. (didn't see them? No one did).

Given some of the imagery of the film, and who is in it, conspiracy nuts will likely love this film. I'm not knocking Danny Glover, John Cussack, Oliver Platt, Thandie Newton or any of the other actors in the film - at least for their acting ability. But several of these actors are also known for their hyper left-wing political leanings and more than a few oddball beliefs. If this film is feeding into that part of their lives, well another big budget film that went that route is Battlefield Earth.

Add to that the facts of what the director has done, as I stated before

"The director is Roland Emmerich, who made Stargate, Independence Day, and Godzilla. Sadly he also made Godzilla, Universal Soldier, The Day After Tomorrow, and 10,000 BC. So the odds are only slightly worse than 50/50 on how well it will be made."

But this film will probably do really well no matter what. I mean NASA is already trying to debunk the internet hype over 12/21/12. They have already made the case against a wayward planet hitting us, which I never believed. But as to the only issue that I do give some credence to, a shift in the polarity of the planet - well NASA is less believable.

Of course this film seems to be more than a magnetic shift of poles. It looks like it is based on the theory that the tectonic plates are going to move. Which makes for great CGI scenes, but hardly believable. And thus the film looks to be squarely fit next to The Day After Tomorrow - a horribly acted, unbelievable sci-fi scenario, that proved to be a bore and waste of money if you paid to see it in theaters.

I said a year ago that we will have 3 years to mull the quality of this film. Having seen the full trailer and noting the hidden message(s) already available, I don't think it will take 3 years. Unless there is more to this film than what the movie trailer - which is meant to provide the best reasons to see this film - has shown, this is a film to avoid until the world ends. Which is a shame.

Well maybe the next 2012 disaster film, soon to be released no doubt, will be better.

2012

Way back in 1999, as many began to panic about the legacy codes and what would happen as computers struck 2000, I recall watching a program that detailed the possible ways the world might end. This show, which I don't remember the name of, covered most of the myths surrounding the start of the new millennium and several prophecies.

One of the things that the programs covered was the fact that 2000 was nothing to fear, because 2012 was the real danger. It is on that day that the Mayan Long Count calendar ends. To be exact it will end on either December 21st or 23rd, 2012. Most tend to believe that the 21st is the date, possibly due to they symbolism of the date, 12/21/12.

If you look at the internet you will either find that this date is the day that aliens will take over or save humanity, humanity will ascend to a higher level, or the earth will be destroyed/end.

Of course given the gravity of the situation you know that Hollywood had to make a movie about it. In fact I expect a dozen by that time. But here is the first.



If nothing else it makes it's point pretty clear. Starring Oliver Platt (who I like), Danny Glover (I like), John Cusack (also very good), Thandie Newton, Amanda Peet, and Woody Harelson. With that kind of cast I would expect something memorable.

The director is Roland Emmerich, who made Stargate, Independence Day, and Godzilla. Sadly he also made Godzilla, Universal Soldier, The Day After Tomorrow, and 10,000 BC. So the odds are only slightly worse than 50/50 on how well it will be made.

Luckily, either way, we will have 3 years to mull the quality of the film before the clock stops running.

Entertainment and politics: do they mix?

So have you seen An American Carol yet? If you have not you are hardly the only one. And the question is why is that.

An American Carol is a parody film by David Zucker of Airplane! and Naked Gun fame. So the question is not if the premise works. Considering his input, the writing is also not that difficult to imagine as being solid. And the acting includes Kelsey Grammer, Bill O’Reilly, Jon Voight, Dennis Hopper, Trace Adkins, Leslie Nielsen, and many other celebrities and entertainers. So it is solid on that footing as well.

So what is the issue?

Well there is the fact that while the film started off in over 1500 theaters across the nation, many people can’t get to it. In Binghamton, a hub city in the Central New York State area, you can’t see the film. Not one theater will carry it. In fact you have to travel to Ithaca to see it – about 2 hours away. And as far as I am aware that is the only place in western New York that is carrying the film.

Would more people see the film if it were available to them? We will never know as Hollywood hates the film and its subject. The film is a satire of far-left political nuts like Michael Moore. It is the only film of its type made with major stars and major money in maybe 2 decades.

Yet in this year alone there have been 4 pro far-left-wing movies (including the abominable W by Oliver Stone and the Kevin Costner flop Swing Vote, oh and the John Cusack flop War, Inc.). Last year there was Redacted, Lions for Lambs, and several other films in far more theaters. And while each of the films has lost money like a spitball trying to avoid a blackhole, there are half a dozen more films planned for next year.

So I have to wonder, the public loves to hear about the lives of celebrities and entertainers. Paris Hilton learns to tie her own shoes and there are videos on the internet showing and discussing every aspect of it. Britney Spears gives up on her career and children and paparazzi follow every moment as the hair hits the floor. But are politics of limits?

It’s a tough question, as all the movies of the far-left and right have failed horribly. Yet films like Apocalypse Now (which I feel is an anti-war movie), Dr. Strangelove (which did not do well in it’s first run but has since done exceptionally well), and M.A.S.H all have made money.

So maybe we just don’t want to see these entertainers play acting at politics. Sean Penn, Angelina Jolie, Chuck Norris, Oprah Winfrey and others are fine in the real world – but slamming the messages down our collective throats is just too much. I agree with that thought. And considering that Hollywood has more than enough of a problem creating new ideas these days I think they can leave their messages on their high horses. No matter the political preference.

I just was thinking about that. Or am I wrong and you love the political advertisements posing as entertainment?

Movie review: War, Inc

How might I describe the film War, Inc.? Well considering the film is a mash of liberals are great, big business is bad, America is all the evil in the world clichés I’ll try to describe it in that vain.

In terms of a green film (I’m sure someone will coin that phrase any day now) it fails miserably. From the abundance of HUMVEE vehicles used and blown up, to jets the film wastes more energy and leave a bigger carbon footprint than a mid-sized city. If we look at it from an anti-religion aspect, it makes marriage and Muslims look like fools.

Politically, which is the point of the film, every conservative ever to grace a movie or television seems to be used as a prop of corporate greed. And quite a few Presidents (though Abraham Lincoln – a Republican – amazingly was left out), though the real target – President Bush is never named but is referred to.

The American military is made out to be a bunch of redneck, doped up, imbeciles. I think there was all of 1 scene in the film where our military wasn’t bouncing around popping off rounds while rambling to loud music. I was particularly insulted when the movie portrayed American soldiers slaughtering hospital/mental patients.

And of course the blatant greed of America was the central point. That we are like every country in the world is not the point. We are more vile and twisted. Our excesses corrupt every nation and culture – or so the film wants you to believe.

Now I’m not above a satire of our government. I am all for political comments in entertainment form. But at least let me enjoy the film. MASH was a great film and made significant political points, as did Platoon. This film jams those points down your throat so hard as to make you gag. Literally.

I like John Cusack. I like Ben Kingsley, Dan Ackroyd, Marisa Tomei, Montel Williams and others in this film. But in this waste of time they all are misused and, I would like to think in the case of Montel Williams (a former Marine) at least, misled as to the full nature of the film.

Hillary Duff is unbelievable as a young star twisted by the vices surrounding her. She can’t pull off the depth to make you feel bad for her, or even to accept her as a harlot she spends half the film trying to be.

The sudden and supposedly intense relationship between Cusack and Tomei never makes sense. Why he has feelings beyond mere lust (where he starts at) is unknown, as is when he suddenly starts to feel them. Like everything in this film it just doesn’t come together in any cohesive manner.

The humor of the film could fill a teaser trailer. The witty banter, not the verbal noise floating around as dialogue through 98% of this film, usually is spoken by one character in almost always 1 or 2 sentences.

Visually the film is boring, which matches the pace of the film. With all the bombs bursting, and the 3 action sequences, you might start to pay attention to the film which is exactly when it all ends. Even the over extended scenes of the on-going “war” make you yawn.

If anything was done right in this film, and I have to say it’s taken a couple of minutes of thought, it would have to be the opening sequence. Dark, brooding, a surprising bit of action, and foreboding. So after minute maybe 4 the film just deteriorates into a grating experience.

I had high hopes for this film. It’s obvious play on Grosse Point Blank gave me hope it would rise above the polispeak that was a given it would be encompassed in. But like a ship in the Sargasso Sea it was held fast and rotted away.

Let me put it this way, I would rather listen to Al Gore drone on, or have lunch with Senator Clinton, or have front row seats for the entire season of American Idol than see this film again. Stated in a less PC manner I think that having my left testicle cut off would be more fun.

I truly understand why this film has opened to limited theaters, and will unquestionably never recoup its cost. If there was going to be a Grosse Point Blank 2, this film has assassinated its hopes. Seriously don’t even pay for a bootleg copy of this film, watch Gigli or Glitter – you’ll enjoy them more. (ok it’s not that bad, but you get my point)

Hints on the movies of 2009

So since I was recently talking about the start of the summer movie season I thought I might also mention a few movies that will be out in a year or so. Luckily there are 2 that should be interesting, though I’m not sure if that means a good movie or not.

The first is news that the sequel to The Lord of the Rings (in fact it’s actually a prequel and the first book about Middle Earth), The Hobbit will be directed by Guillermo Del Toro. He’s a great director and has a very unique vision. His movies are usually quite entertaining, and he gets a lot out of his actors.

As good as he is, and the bonus that he is one of the very few Hispanic/Latino directors in Hollywood, I have reservations. The bar was set extremely high by Peter Jackson’s version of Lord of the Rings. His ability to translate the words of J.R.R. Tolkien into the visual experience was remarkable and believable. I severely doubt anyone’s ability to duplicate that, even if Jackson were still at the helm.

Yet one positive for the film is that Sir Ian McKellan will be returning in his role as Gandalf the Grey. Well at least they are talking about the pay, so excluding the studio getting cheap, he’s in. Another bit of good news is that Peter Jackson will be producing the film.

Now what other people will be involved is unknown. There are many dwarves and men in this film. And of course there is who will be Bilbo – the original Hobbit on the go. And then there is a huge amount of work for the CGI team in trying to bring to life the central character of Smaug. And a return of Gollum.

The challenges will be daunting. But we will see once the trailers start appearing in about a year and a half or so.

In other movie news there is this other item.

The Terminator is back. But it won’t be the Guvernator on the screen. This time out the story will be advancing to new territory. Or more accurately traveling further into the post-nuclear Skynet controlled future.

In this new movie expect to see Christian Bale and Moon Bloodgood (that has to be a stage name – who would name their kid that?). I have no idea who Bloodgood is, but some may recognize the name from the television series Journeyman. I never saw that so it doesn’t help me. As for Bale, well he has done exceptionally well as the Dark Knight and several other movies so that gives me hope.

And of course there is the other side of the news. It’s a big negative too. The director at this moment is McG, the same person responsible for Charlie’s Angels. That was a horrible television show to movie creation. While it may have made money because of Lucy Liu and Drew Barrymore (Carmen Diaz is just not cute and way too skinny) it was a miserable film. Be honest, you know it was.

Considering the news for the upcoming films in 2009 it’s anyone’s bet on what will be worth the time. Until that time there are a few good things to keep you entertained. As I’ve already mentioned, Iron Man is definitely the movie to see. The new Hulk film with Ed Norton looks appealing and should erase any memory of Ang Lee’s version. WANTED looks to be a major hit with Angelina Jolie, and Morgan Freeman.

The Take with John Leguizamo, Tyrese Gibson, and Rosie Perez sounds like it will make it straight to DVD – a shame since I like Leguizamo and think his ability as an entertainer is severely underestimated.

War, Inc. looks to be the first anti-war movie that will do well and be entertaining. Unlike every film so far that has been a poster-child for the ultra-liberal left wing loons (all 10 of them that collectively went to those films), this film uses humor and a well rounded cast. John Cusack leads the film in a role similar to his hitman in Grosse Point Blank (a really fun film). His sister Joan is also in a similar character. There is a bunch to say about this, but I will wait til I get the trailer. Oh, Ben Kingsley has a small role, and the scary part is so does Hillary Duff.

Of course Indiana Jones is going to be a hit. So far trailers look great and I have to imagine that Harrison Ford doesn’t need the money, and his reputation doesn’t need a flop, so it should be good if not very good.

I’d avoid Speed Racer, and Hellboy might be worth the cost. And the Love Guru seems like it will redeem Mike Meyers for doing The Cat in the Hat.

More on those movies and the rest soon.