Movie Preview: The Good The Bad The Weird

So let's admit it. When Asia gets ahold of American cinematic cultural icons they usually do a pretty good job of ripping it off. Often they come up with variants on the theme that are superior to many American films in the same exact genre. Credit goes to where it is deserved.

In this case the genre is REALLY American. It's the Wild West and cowboys and gunfights. We're talking about John Wayne and Clint Eastwood (when he was young) territory. So they have to get it right.

The Good the Bad and the Weird, is an obvious revisioning of The Good The Bad and The Ugly by Sergio Leone. It's one of the classic westerns and the godfather of all spaghetti westerns (though it was made in Spain with an Italian director). Many have tried to feed off of this classic, and most failed miserably.

But just watching this movie trailer and you realize quickly that the essence of what made Sergio Leone's film great feels like it's in this film.



Now I should mention something that is kind of important. This isn't exactly a preview. The film came out in 2008 in South Korea. It ran through theaters in the U.K. in 2009. Now in April it's America's turn.

That being said, and yes there are sub-titles, the film looks great. It has a flair and excitement about it that modern westerns seem to have completely forgotten about. In America we are getting all the grit and realistic weariness of westerns lately, which may well be why the genre has performed so poorly in recent years (the 3:10 to Yuma remake was just not worth it).

This film gets your blood pumping. It's faster paced, action filled, with gunslingers that are the archtypes we created and loved in the first place. Plus there is better cameras, special effects, and editing than back in Leone's day so it really gets to sizzle.

Now do yourself a favor and don't look up the plot on google or wikipedia. Save the stotyline for seeing the film. Enjoy it. Have fun at the movies for a change.

Here, I'll show you a tease of what I mean



And you thought the sub-titles would be a problem.

Jung Woo-sung, the Good, looks excellent as the Clint Eastwood-esque tainted hero. Lee Byung-hun, the Bad, reminds me of the Danny Chan look of bad guy but even meaner and far more cool as you might expect for the Lee Van Cleef inspired villian. Song Kang-ho, the Weird, rounds out the trio with a funny and desperate twist to the surprisingly emotive and yet viscious and pathetic Eli Wallach character (yes in case you didn't know he is Jewish not Hispanic).

Hopefully this will hold you until Kung Fu Hustle 2 comes out later this year.

**Check out Alchemy at World of VASS and World of Vass to help support the site. Your support keeps us alive, and we appreciate it.**

Morgan Freeman is back in the saddle

You know who I haven't heard a lot about in a while? Morgan Freeman. The voice of gravitas in our current age of instant stardom and minor talent.

Part of the reason the 73 year old actor has been a bit quiet is obviously due to the car accident he had in 2008. That left him with a broken elbow, shoulder and other damage. For a man of his age, it was a potentially deadly accident, but he has recovered and looks healthy again.

Another reason is that he has been working on a film, and the rights of another. The most recent film will be Invictus - a film about Nelson Mandela (who Freeman will portray). The film was directed by Clint Easatwood making 3 films the pair has worked together on (as I recall). Expectations are high for the film, and it seems that the typecasting of Freeman as a larger than life figure continues to grow.

And its that image of grave seriousness and immense respect that I think is holding Freeman back a bit. Hollywood just doesn't know how to use him. He is a great actor, but he is equated with quality and power - 2 things that Hollywood tends to avoid using Black actors for.

Freeman broke that image a bit with his role as the main antagonist in WANTED. He even cursed! But Hollywood seems unwilling to take a chance. That is until news of the next project that Freeman is reported to be working on.

Dirty Old Men is about a pair of friends. Both are bachelors. One (potentially Jack Nicholson who worked with Freeman in The Bucket List) finally falls in love and intends to get married. His friend (Freeman) seeks to break the marriage plans at all costs. Don't take this all to seriously, it's a comedy so hijinks will abound.

Will this break the typecast of Morgan Freeman? Do we really want it to? I mean of all the things to be typecast as, being the guy that everyone can accept as God is hardly the worst thing that could happen.

Honestly, for me, if the role diminishes Freeman I won't watch it. He is a role model and a goal to be reached for. He is perfect for roles that require wisdom, intensity, and intellect. And I really prefer him that way. But I can understand if that doesn't pay the bills (which I doubt even with all his chritable donations) or leaves a need to expand his abilities.

But we will see.

Movie news: April 1st 2009

Ok, in more serious news that you may not have noticed today I saw that Calvin Broadus, best known as Snoop Dogg, has joined the Nation of Islam and changed his name to Snoop Y. I would say I am shocked, but then again, its all Fo Shizzle My Nizzle, as he would say.

Also in the news today is the fact that The Hobbit will soon be in brought to fans across the world. But unlike what most have been lead to expect, Peter Jackson has been contracted to make the JRR Tolkein novel into a musical play. There is no news on who will play the vital role of Bilbo Baggins, but so far Paris Hilton has been confirmed to play Gollum. This may be the first role that I think Hilton is thin enough to make look good.

In yet more news that I just cannot fathom I have heard that Denzel Washington is in talks to take the role of Blondie in Spike Lee's remake of The Good The Bad and the Ugly. The Lee Van Kleef role is already confirmed as going to Benicio Del Toro, with the likely role of Tuco the Rat going to either Eddie Murphy or Martin Laurence. I suppose either of the 2 will have to gain weight or wear a fat suit for the role. Still I find it unsettling that the revisioned film, which I generally dislike, will be filmed in modern day Los Angeles with gangs substituted for the Civil War factions. So far Clint Eastwood has denied any comments.

Still I have to say that the Howard the Duck remake is the biggest news of the day. I am amazed that anyone would take on this idea. Stephen Speilberg may be a genius, but I continue to think this is beyond him. I remain against this remake, even as I have learned that several movie studios are jumping at the script. It has to be the fact that somehow Speilberg got Tom Cruise to say yes to play Howard. I never thought there was enough money in the world for that. But at least Cruise will not need an accent.

Given that today is All Fool's Day, I'm taking all this news with a pound of salt, at least. We can all only hope that tomorrow we will wake up and know that this has all been a big joke. Really a big joke.

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.

Reactions to Spike Lee on Iwo Jima

Now a few of you may have been wondering why I have been quiet of late. Well the first reason is that I had a cracked tooth, that I finally went and got removed. Thankfully it was in the back of my mouth. The other reason is far more important. I was waiting. Waiting for what? The comments in response to Spike Lee.

Spike Lee recently commented, correctly, that in the multiple movies discussing WWII virtually none (and definitely none that come to mind for me) include even a background scene that includes a single African American.

"Clint Eastwood made two films about Iwo Jima that ran for more than four hours total, and there was not one Negro actor on the screen”

This is a fact, as is the reality that many Black men fought at Iwo Jima, along with over in Europe and the Pacific throughout all of WWII. Oh, let me correct myself. There were a couple of movies documenting the attack on Pearl Harbor that had one Black man, a cook and Naval hero. But those movies just had him.

Amazingly, if you were to go by movies that involve WWII, you would find few that ever acknowledge African Americans in any war in America. Yet we have been in every conflict and war that America has ever had including the American Revolution. And there were many in WWII – just ask any bomber crew that was escorted by the Tuskegee Airmen (the only fighter escort to my knowledge to have never lost a single Bomber).

So when Spike Lee brings up this fact, that other Black figures mentioned when the movies came out, what kind of response do you expect? How will everyone react to the honest facts of the sacrifices African Americans made alongside White?

Spike Lee courts controversy by criticizing Clint Eastwood – title of article in LA Times

“Last time I looked there weren't any blacks in the flag-raising picture. I believe that was due to a policy called segregation which Spike Lee apparently has never heard of…” – comment by John Reece

“Hey Spike, why don't you do a movie about white people?” – comment by techie

“Hey spike, how come "boyz In the Hood" didn't have a single white or hispanic character. there are white people living is south central LA, and hispanics are the majority now, but i didn't see you whine about that. Racists come in all skin colors and you are one, spike lee, and that comes from me, a black man !” – comment by nick

“Undoubtedly, Lee will soon be demanding that one of the flag raisers be portrayed as a black man. Never mind that it was actually five white guys and a Pima Indian.

Maybe we should start complaining about Lee under-representing whites in his movies if he is so concerned about proper proportions.” – E. Burke comment

“Spike Lee launched a bitter attack on Clint Eastwood yesterday, condemning his failure to include a single African-American soldier in his films about the Battle of Iwo Jima.” – Times Online article’s first line

“Eastwood's film is historically acurate, 70,000 US Soldiers landed on Iwo Jima 900 were black, and in all black units. My Father served on the USS Indiana in WWII and told me the only black sailors on board served in the officers mess. Better than being a snipe where my father served.” – comment by Peter Stella

and of course the reaction by Clint Eastwood himself.

“Asked twice by The Times to respond to Lee’s criticism, Eastwood stared out into the audience as the compere refused to accept a question that did not relate to L’Échange. Later, his spokeswoman also declined to comment.”

So in every version of this story I see a couple of common threads. One is that Spike is after money and publicity. It’s true that he is presenting his movie about the all black army unit in Italy right now. Of course this will affect the movies ability to make money. But it’s also true that in the past many African Americans have made comment about the portrayal of Blacks in EVERY conflict America has ever engaged in. The news just wasn’t covered, but in this case they had too since it relates to a film that is in Cannes now, and the world media is coverung his comments too.

Another common thought is racism. Either Clint Eastwood, Spike Lee, or both are racist for what they did and said. Such are the comments of others. I in fact believe neither is racist, though the issue is racial. There were 900 African Americans in the battle at Iwo Jima. That may not be many compared to the total, but it is enough to portray at least one or two somewhere in the background of a battle scene to pay some tribute to the lives lost in WWII by men who could not ride in the front seat of a bus back home.

Acknowledgement does not have to have a starring role, but it does have involvement. That’s not racist, just racial and true.

Of course there are those that want to lump any film made by a Black director into the themes attributed to Spike Lee. It’s part of the expression of anger I see in the comments and reporting. It comes off as ?‘How dare you point out that the media and America in general, have completely ignored African Americans defending the nation. Don’t you know that you aren’t supposed to exist – you have seen Friends, Will & Grace, Cheers, Dallas, and so on. Just be quiet and leave things alone, and we’ll let you have the Moesha, Sanford & Son, Cosby Show. Now be quiet.’

How about this. Black Americans have actively helped to build this nation at every turn. From the early plantations, buildings, and roads built by slaves, to every war and conflict, thru segregations and up to today African Americans have been involved with the growth of America. In fact I believe that it can be said that without Blacks America would not exist as it does today, if at all. So a little acknowledgement seems like a small thing to receive. Especially for those that fought for the freedoms they knew they would not receive but hoped their children might.

But according to the need to make these comments an attack, or by the comments seeking to find justification it saeems that acknolwedgement is too much. America just can’t accept Blacks history in America. Not the true full history anyway.

Kind of makes you wonder about Senator Obama’s chances doesn’t it. Makes you wonder about a lot of things, I hope. And once you are done thinking, what will you do next?

Spike Lee to direct film on 'hidden' heroes - 6.8.2007.2

As justice once again weighs heavily on the frail and spoiled shoulders of Ms. Paris Hilton, I will return back to the more important and interesting issues of late. One of the more important items I saw recently is the comments of Mr. Spike Lee.

Mr. Spike Lee will be working on a new film, to be made in Italy. The subject of the film is something that few are taught about in basic American history, yet was as much a factor in the existence of the nation as what is taught. I am speaking of the soldiers that fought in World War II. To be more specific I mean the African American soldiers, men that have been barely recognized and only recently discussed in depth.

Some have heard of the Tuskegee Airmen, an all Black unit that flew support to American bombers and the only unit to never lose a single escort. Recently the surviving members were honored with the Congressional Gold Medal; 60 years after their historic and unmatched efforts took place. But they were not the only Black Americans to fight on behalf of America, even though as Mr. Lee states,

“Despite the fact that they had been slaves for more than 300 years and that they were still at the time subject to terrible forms of discrimination, black men fought like heroes. They behaved like patriots while their brothers were lynched or at best considered second-class citizens.”

It’s about time more is said on this subject. I am a former Marine, my father was a Marine fighting in Viet Nam (he volunteered), and my great-grandfather served in the Army during WWII. Each of us deserve the recognition and appreciation that every solider, during times of war or not, deserve. The blood sacrificed in defense and support of this nation is no less worth than that of ANY other American. That is something that needs to be acknowledged. Far too many movies and stories of WWII, Korea and other wars fail to mention the contribution Black Americans have made. There are far too many movies like Letters from Iwo Jima and Flags of Our Fathers (both happen to have been directed by Mr. Clint Eastwood), and Saving Private Ryan as I recall that completely ignore or blow past the existence of Black Americans during the war.

Far too often movies, and classes in school, give an image of the past that is more similar to a Seinfeld or Friends image of the world. Too often little is said about those that helped pave the way, and secure the freedoms we enjoy now. For all of these reasons I’m glad Mr. Lee will have this new movie out. With luck the film will get the attention, and media dollars, that this subject deserves.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Return to the 70's, Clint Eastwood - 2.15.2007.1

I know I haven’t been writing much. I have a few surprises planned and should be arriving soon. Just a lot of planning and preparation required, so please bare with me as I get everything in order.

I wanted to mention something I noticed. It got passed by with all the news on the death of Ms. Anna Nicole Smith, but the reports (by Yahoo News specifically) of the interview by Fox News with Mr. Clint Eastwood are wrong. The title of the article I’ve linked to and the tone of the announcement are incorrect. If you watched the interview, as I did, you would see that Mr. Eastwood mentioned that he had reservations initially (as I and many did) on being in Iraq. But he went on to say that once we were there he fully supported doing what we need to do to win.

Why does the media change the context of comments made by many? I find it funny, in a sad way, that news media try to frame the words of non liberals in more liberal lighting. If they want to make up a story, or change the context, why don’t they just make a dramatization on what they want it to be.

Moving on, get ready for another remake. There really must be no ideas left as Hollywood execs are pushing more re-treads of past successes on the youth of today, assuming they aren’t smart enough to notice. It might even work, if any of the execs actually bothered to see the original television shows and movies. Of course that would require more work and attention to detail than what has been observed in movies like The Dukes of Hazzard or The Omen and so many others.

This time it’s going to be the Bionic Woman that will be racing back from the past. The twist is that the lead is British actress Ms. Michelle Ryan. Another twist is the fact that they are bringing back the less-successful spin-off of the Bionic Man, that starred Mr. Lee Majors. I’m sure the intent is that bringing back the lesser show is more PC and feminist so it will drive in more female viewers. It’s the only reason I can think why they would pick the less popular show of the 2.

Since they seem to be going for a PC driven ‘revisioning’ of the show I have to question the quality of the television program. It might be quite good. But more likely they will be making a program that will be better accepted by those who know nothing of the show, rather than those with a memory of what it should be. An example of how they get it wrong while getting it somewhat right is Battlestar Galactica. The original show has a loving father-son relationship, a Black second-in-command, loyal and dedicated friends and evil robots. A bit cheesy but it was good at the time. Today’s version dropped all the black secondary characters (several of which were in every episode and had story arcs), replaced half the male buddies with women, took out the loyalty and dedication for weird love triangles and bitterness, and have a father-son relationship that is predominantly mean-spirited and antagonistic. The latter is not a horrible show, but it’s not what fans (who are the reason for the remake) were looking forward to. They should have just renamed the show something else and it would be more enjoyable for those of us with a memory. Oh, I forgot about the evil robots. They are still there, but now they are compelled by a loopy quasi-religion and look decidedly human.

I can’t say I expect the new Bionic woman to fare any better. Considering the lesser status of the program (compared to the television show that spawned it) I doubt it will be as well received by fans, and probably even more screwed up. You’ve been warned.

This is what I think, what do you think?