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.

The Maxim Top 10 of the Hot 100 list

Another year has passed, the stock market just closed and many are looking for a ray of sunshine. Well perchance this will brighten your day. The latest Maxim Hot 100 list has just been released.

Right up there with the annual Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue, this list is well anticipated. But being the critical being I am, I pondered the top 10. Are they really worthy of being on the list? Should they really be ranked so high?

For those that heard the First Lady was on the list, yes it is true. No, she is not in the top 10. Nor should she be. She may be one of the best looking First Lady’s, definitely in my lifetime, but being on the list is about as good as she deserves (at number 93). Besides, were she not married to President Obama [the Great] she would never have made the list.

• Olivia Wilde – at least it’s not one of the Jessica’s (Beil, Alba, Simpson). Still the best thing that can be said is that being on a hit television show, really helps push you up front. Not a #1 in my book.
  
• Megan Fox – Those hamburgers she had to eat for Transformers 2 really paid off. Still being the old guy I am, I like women that are more real than stick figures. She doesn’t match up to Beyonce (#52), Fergie (#45), or Marisa Tomei (#97).
  
• Bar Refaeli – You may not know the name, but by know you know the figure. I can see her as a top 10 choice. Too much media for her not to be.
  
• Malin Akerman – Who is this? If you say that, then you missed Watchmen and seriously missed her. She deserves to be a top 5 to me.
  
• Mila Kunis – Jackie from That 70’s Show. She’s over 21 and fits in the top 10.
  
• Eliza Dushku – she doesn’t Bring It On for me. At best she’s in the top 50.
  
• Adriana Lima – Hello. Does she make the top 10 for me? Yep. Though she is a bit skinny, it’s that foreign quality that gets her on the top.
  
• Rihanna – Like the saying goes,

  “There is no bad news in entertainment and politics.”

  I feel for what she has been through, but not enough to put her in the top 10.
  
• Jordana Brewster – Seriously? Ok she did SI, and she was in Fast & Furious (first and latest). But the top 10? No, I don’t think so.
  
• Jennifer Love Hewitt – What is it with the people that pick these lists? She is eternally on the top of these lists, and I still cannot see it. Too skinny, too ugly. Better now than earlier in her career (plastic surgery?) but still nowhere near the top considering who is on this list.
  

So in my list I need to replace 6 women on this Maxim Hot 100 top 10 list. Who would I have picked?

Charlize Theron (#38) – She has a grace, a body, and a mind. She has talent too. How do you not pick this woman?

Gabrielle Union (#71) – She can match up to any of the other women on this list any day. J-Lo wishes she had that ass. Which is more curves than basically everyone on the top 10 of Maxim. Plus she looks better and is older too.

Tricia Helfer (#75) – How did they miss her from the top list? Does Hewitt really compare? They even ranked her at #75 if you can believe it.

Hayden Panettiere (#36) – On the thin side as well. But I’m working with the Maxim list here. There aren’t many women who know what a cheeseburger is. Or even a salad in some cases.

Zoe Saldana (#29) – I said before that being in a popular item helps push yopu to the top, but obviously Maxim did not push her far enough up the list. If you didn’t think Nichelle Nichols was sexy on TV, this movie Uhura has to do it.

And for my final choice, I pick someone not on the list of Maxim. Mind you this woman is sexy, and attractive as any woman on the list (in my opinion far more than most). You might have seen her in A Good Day To Be Black & Sexy – and if you did you didn’t forgert her. Nana Hill. (and I believe she was in the Star Trek movie too)