Sir Anthony Hopkins is Odin

I've been neglecting my movie news for a bit. There hasn't been much worth of reviewing lately, so I kind of put it on a back burner. But there has been a bit of news about films that will be starting production soon.

Anthony Hopkins has another role set up for himself. Like in the Wolfman he will again be involved with a bit of mythology. But this time the myth is more modern. In fact its a comic book conversion.

Sir Hopkins will be in the upcoming Thor movie. I mean the Thor from Marvel Comics and not the Norse myths. I;m sure there are a few fans that are looking forward to this film, but I have my reservations.

Unlike Spiderman, Iron Man, Captian America and the X-Men, Thor is a secondary Marvel character. The comic book has a solid fanbase, but its not nearly as widespread. And considering the nature of the character, success of the movie will be solidly based in the look and the acting.

So Sir Hopkins makes sense as the wise, old, and powerful Odin. Odin is the father of Thor and all the Asgard gods. Sir Hopkins will certainly bring a bit of flair and credibility to the film. As will Natalie Portman (well maybe she will just bring in all the guys that thinks she is hot, but that's close enough).

I just wonder if watching Anthony Hopkins in this role will bring up images of his role as Hannibal Lecter. Odin is not a nice guy, so it is possible that there may be a resemblence of the 2 characters. But we will see once the movie trailers come out, around 2011 I believe.

Movie Preview: The Wolfman

It seems that the remake season will be starting early in 2010. In this case though we might see a change from the normal massacre that ‘revisioned’ Hollywood films tend to provide these days. Or so the trailer for The Wolfman wants us to believe.



I really would like for this film to be good. For several reasons.

First, I think Benicio Del Toro is a great actor. He doesn’t get as much acclaim as he should, nor as many leading roles. Comparing him to most of the leading men in Hollywood these days, he stands far affront of the crowd. Unless you think that GI Joe was an Oscar winning film.

Another reason I’d like to see this film do well is that this remake looks like the classic version done by Lon Chaney Jr. No he isn’t related to the former VP. I’m talking about the son of the actor with 1000 faces, and you just have to see his role in Of Mice And Men.

The original film wasn’t about the intense special effects that seems to fill every movie these days. It wasn’t done with CGI or complex make-up. It was just acting, and it holds up over the decades.

This version looks to try to capture some of that filmmaking style. Yes there is a lot of make-up. And it couldn’t be made these days without CGI (which seems to be as important as lighting in current films). But considering how absolutely ridiculous the effects could have been (ie Transformers), this is comparatively barebones. Which means the acting has to be spot on or it won’t work.

Add to the above the fact that Hugo Weaving and Sir Anthony Hopkins are in the film and you have a cast that can be right on the money.

The potential problems with the film?

It’s a period piece, which usually doesn’t sell well with the modern youthful movie-goer.

There are no vampires in the film. How dare they.

You have to wonder if the above the line cost went to the actor’s pay or the script.

It’s being released in February and not October or March. Not a great sign, but usually means a weaker film.

It’s unlikely anyone but the actors know who Lon Chaney Jr is.

Some people will hear the accents and think it’s a foreign film. Which means it’s like garlic to a vampire.

So will the film work? We don’t have too long to find out. But my money is on Benicio Del Toro.

Will Smith vindicated - 2.22.2008.1

Well here is something else that you probably won’t see in the news in the U.S. today. Not long ago I wrote a post in regard to the well publicized article of one reporter claiming that Will Smith thought Hitler was a ‘good guy’ in essence. The major news media focused on this like vultures, in another example of what I believe is their deep seated need to promote negative images of successful African Americans.

At the time I stated

“This applies to the Will Smith lead character Neville in I am Legend. For those that are not familiar with the original book, or the prior 3 movies, Neville is the bad guy. He is the monster in the night that kills people in their sleep. He is the Dracula, or Frankenstein’s monster. He is the thing under the bed. Net result, he is the bad guy that the people of the world fear, and speak of in legends and ghost stories late at night…

There is no reason to slap the image and personal character of Will Smith. It’s an affront I have never seen made of any other actor. I have heard dozens of actors of note that have made similar statements when portraying questionable or reviled characters. None have ever been accused of promoting the base nature of the character they portray.

You have never heard say Kevin Kline advocating animal cruelty or violence (Fish Called Wanda), or Al Pacino advocating devil worship (The Devil’s Advocate). How about Al Pacino being a role model for cocaine use (Scarface), Sir Anthony Hopkins being Hannibal Lecter (Silence of the Lambs), or Henry Fonda as an assassin for hire (Once Upon a Time in the West). Of course not. To claim such a thing is ridiculous. But if you look at each character you can see where they have a motivation that is positive (from the bad guys perspective) and that makes the character engaging and deeper.”

But the major media never once made a similar connection or observation. I never noted this commentary in cable or television news and celebritiy telezine shows. They left the commentary, in general, that the comment made by Will Smith was odd and that he was upset. Thankfully they at least mentioned his statement about the article.

But a casual glance will show you that NOONE is covering the fact that a court has awarded Will Smith damages, vindicating his point that this article was misleading, damaging, and an embarrassment. He will also be receiving a public apology, not that the U.S. media is going to cover a second of this.

How do I know this? Because I found this news on Haaretz.com. Not on yahoo or via a cable news channel. The major U.S. media is too busy discussing how unfair and inaccurate the NY Times article against Senator McCain was (and I agree).

Is this different in any way the media covered ther Wesley Snipes trial, who was similarly vindicated? No. Was it different in the way the media ignored the Jena 6? Or the brutal and vile toture, rape, sexual abuse, and kidnapping of Megan Williams of West Virginia – or the fact that 3 of the 6 White men and women arrested for these crimes that covered an entire week have already plead guilty as charged.

I hate that examples like this exist. That discussion of the Oscar Awards, for movies the average American has not seen and an event that is not cared about this year, takes precidence. That the media wasted no time nor money in each of these events to glorify the negative view of African Americans, even if that view failed to convey the true facts and full scope of events.

Well I will simply say this. Congratulations Will Smith. I hope that the public apology will be able to be found here in the U.S. (if any of my readers in Britian see it, please forward me the link) and I will happily republish it. The major news media may not be able to cover the positive news related to African Americans (entertainers, celebrities or otherwise) – as they are too busy covering the birthday of Ashton Kuchner and obviously don’t employ enough people – but I will!

Prince, Anna Nicole Smith, Hannibal Lecter - 2.10.2007.1

This has been quite a week. I’ve been quite busy, and a touch ill, so I have a bit to catch up with. I will get to my thoughts on Anna Nicole Smith shortly. What was catching a lot of earlier in the week are the various television commercials for the Super Bowl. I’ve heard the Snickers ad has been removed from circulation. While many were creeped out by the ad, it seems the outcry from various groups about its anti-gay theme is what wound up being the final nail. I really don’t get where the humor was in the ad. I get where it’s supposed to be, but they really lost something in the translation from idea to commercial ad. Still they can’t be judged too harshly, at least they tried to do something new unlike Schick.

Of course television commercials were not the only thing criticized from this Super Bowl. It seems that now Prince’s half-time show is drawing fire. Truly I’m surprised and have to wonder who are these people seeking out these complaints. I really feel they are trying to find something to object to. The now infamous still image of Prince playing the guitar in silhouette seems to be driving some mad. Come on people, it wasn’t all that. At full speed it’s barely a standout image. I suppose though that if someone has sex or body parts on the mind they will pick up on these things quickly. In the same place where the Snickers ad caught and shocked every viewer no one noticed anything during Prince’s performance. Yet some, probably the same ones that are terrified of a bare bosom’s exposure for a few seconds, seem or disturbed by the half-time show than the commercial.

I have to wonder if those same people offended by Prince are offended when they park their car. It is a key-to-keyhole action. Male-fits-female, or did they not think of that in their constant search for sexuality in public. Perhaps they should start attacking bottle manufacturers, or zipper makers. I mean the vast number of actions and items that confer a phallic message in ordinary life are mind-boggling. That says nothing of the overt sexuality in most music videos, television shows and commercials, cartoons, and movies. Which isn’t too surprising considering Humans are not asexual, and procreation is one of the top 3 genetic imperatives (food, procreation, self-preservation). While I can understand to an extent the need to protect kids (blatant sexuality is unnecessary, incidental stuff is life) some people need to relax. And by the way, anyone playing a guitar is a sexual image (if you want to think of it that way) just by the nature of the shape and position of a guitar. Get off of Prince.

The new Hannibal movie is now out. I’m sure it will pull in a decent amount of cash. I doubt it will live up to the work of Sir Anthony Hopkins. Hannibal Lecter is more than a slasher killer with a large vocabulary. This character is motivated in much the same way a true killer is, which is something a ‘normal’ person will never fully get. To try to humanize this character lessens the impact he has. Epic characters can never be described in brief. Darth Vader’s backstory took 3 movies and that changed the whole meaning of the previous 3 films. A single movie motivated on capturing the violence and gore that teens enjoy en masse, especially when logic or thought are watered down to almost nil, can never capture the intensity this character needs to express his past. I can capture all this just from the televised scenes and a couple of reviews. The focus is not the mind of the killer, which is where the real shock is, but the gore of the actions (and a bad European accent). I’m skipping this movie, but tell me if you see it and I am wrong.

Now about Anna Nicole Smith. I am sorry that she has passed. It’s a shame when anyone dies so young. I feel very bad for her daughter, who will have to live with the various unresolved legal battles throughout her life. I have deep suspicion of Mr. Stern who I feel is not the father of the baby (nor the prince now claiming fatherhood), and impresses me as a male golddigger. Though I could be wrong on several points. But this is all in the public eye and thus I will comment.

Ms. Smith was a sexy woman, reminding us all that a woman with curves is more attractive than a size 0 model. I think that is part of what captured the publics attention. She was pretty, and shapely, and a touch naïve (or so she seemed) which made us all wish we could help her out. It’s a subtle desire to help those around us in need. And to an extent we all saw that, yet those closest to her seemed unable to get her the help she needed. From Playboy to Guess jeans, to movies (like Naked Gun 2) and television we all followed her. Some had envy, others admiration, but we all paid attention. Perhaps it’s not the best legacy, but it is her legacy. Hopefully her daughter will fare better.

I hope her daughter can be with her father, whoever that is. I hope her father is motivated by the love of his daughter and not her potential inheritance. I hope the daughter has something to inherit. I most deeply hope that her daughter will be able to grow into a strong woman that has overcome all these challenges.

This is what I think, what do you think?