Movie Preview: The Joneses

Ok, I have to give it to whoever came up with this idea. Hollywood loves liberal values. They hate almost anything not ultra-green, liberal, or anti-patriotic. There are exceptions, but they are rare these days. There have been numerous films depicting all the above, and every one of them has failed miserably. But that might change with this film.

The Joneses is a salute to the corporate greed that Hollywood hates with a burining passion (which is funny as they are a mega-corporate industry). Corporations are so desperate for your money, and so evil, that commercials on television, radio, magazines, video games, and on DVD's just isn't good enough any more. Now it's time to go direct. [funnily enough the movie is a big commerical itself]

The Joneses are a stealth marketing team. A fictional family set up to grab the attention of every family around them. They have it all. Cars, clothes, whatever widget and gadget you could ever want. And they are more than willing to let you know they have it. Just so everyone else will buy it to.



The film is dependant on the fact that you accept the concept of 'I want what they have'. A pretty easy concept to sell. If everyone thinks your grass is greener, they will want it more than their own.

The drama of the story, because a movie based on just corporate greed is hard to sell, is what about the people in this fake family? How can they deal with the stress of being the center of attention based on just what they have and not who they are?

David Duchovny looks to be likeable and the key shred of decency in this corporate swindle machine. Demi Moore is the cold-hearted "management", who only cares about the bottom line and keeps Duchony at arms distance.

The questions of the movie are simple. Can 4 people who pretend to be a family be a family? Can they deal with the pressures and difficulty of getting along, while coercing everyone around them to buy buy buy? What happens if they rally together, but the sales drop?

Generally this looks like a mediocre movie. Not the best or worst of the year, nor any year. But it has a gimmick. It looks slick and has lots of toys. Hollywood is banking on your desire to see the toys, and get a feel of the "good life", so they can swindle you out of your money while telling you how bad OTHER corporations are.

I just love the 2-faced nature of the film.

Oh, and by the way. The "good life", the people worth selling to and pretty much the only apparent people on the planet are White. Other than 1 (apparently) gay Black character - stereotypically a hairdresser - there isn't another person of color in a speaking role that I am aware of or that I saw in the credits of the film. I guess Hollywood thinks people of color are too busy watching music videos, getting high, and going to jail to be successful enough to be characters in the film, or to even afford a ticket to see it. Just an observation of mine.

Movie Preview: Harry Brown

Since the 70's there has been a growing need in each decade to have someone stand up to the bad guys. There was Dirty Harry, and Death Wish, and Die Hard, ect. But what was there recently? What movie gave us a regular sane person that stood up, where in reality people just close their eyes?

Michael Caine has the answer, as the titular Harry Brown. Harry Brown will make many older viewers think instantly of Death Wish.

An older man, long past prime, becomes the justice that so many of us hope for and don't see coming. Brown is an old British combat vet (not sure of which war, but post WWII) living a modest life in an apartment building, and an old friend. The area he lives in now is assaulted by gangs and drugs. The youth of today are rampaging towards their own destruction and willing to take everything and everyone with them.

Harry like everyone else just ignores the violence. Until it hits home in the form of the brutal death of his long-time friend. That's when this old Royal Marine gets out his .45 and gets to work on serving ultimate justice.



The concept worked in the 70's and 80's for Charles Bronson. It matched the growing fear some of the older adults had in watching kids go wild, and the legal system fail to keep up. In 2010, globally it would seem, things have gotten no better.

Michael Caine is a great actor. Even in the worst of films he raises the bar of those around him. This looks to be far from the worst, though not his best. Still you can feel his anger and frustration, as a reflection of the reality of modern day.

Films like this aren't action films, they are social commentaries. Visualizations of the reality of the day as seen by eyes made wise by living more than 2 decades. But most of the audience this film will have likely will not notice the commentary. They will be looking for the violence.

The question in this film is if it can justify the violence enacted. Are the vigillante acts equal to the danger? Is the legal system so corrupt and broken that this solution is best? Can this be worth the consequences?

Harry Brown: I don't reckon you've got long. Seen that before. Gut wound. The slug's probably torn right through your liver. Mate of mine in Ulster got caught in sniper fire. Bullet blew his inside out. He screamed for a good 10 minutes. We couldn't send a medic in, the section was too hot. So we all took cover... and watched him die. I've never told that... to anyone... you should've called an ambulance... for the girl...

I take this cerebral approch to the film because the first Death Wish asked these things. Given Michael Caine's overall reputation I would expect the film would address these issues. Which means it can entertain, and yet have a message. An uncommon combination in an era of movies that choose one or the other.

Perhaps the biggest question on the success of this film )in America) is if the public still agrees with the violent answer to rampant drugs and gangs. In 1974, in America, crime was at incredibly high levels. Today, the very same crimes are the promotions of rap music videos and rappers. Drug use is glorified, in some States legalized. The proliferation of violence merely for the ability to put it on Youtube is escalating. All troubling signs of a vortex of youth wasted in the most stupid of ways.

Ultimately Harry Brown should do well in theaters. But how well it does with the gravy train of movies, those 18 - 30, will determing if another rash of copycats follows for the next decade or not.

Oh, here is one of the songs from the soundtrack of the film

Movie Preview: Brooklyn's Finest

The last time that I was speaking about Wesley Snipes, the Government had just quietly lost it's attempt to railroad him to jail. Since the debacle, many have wondered if Snipes' carrer would ever have the chance to flourish again. That question may be answered in Brooklyn's Finest.

Brooklyn's Finest is the latest film by director Antoine Fuqua. The film is a gritty and somewhat realistic view of the "ghettofabulous" lifestyle, from the perspective of the police. It takes place in and around some of the worst, most drug-ridden projects in New York City (filmed in part in Brownsville and the Van Dyke Houses).

The focus of the film are 3 police officers. One, Richard Gere, is on his way out to retirement after a career that was just mediocre. Another, Ethan Hawke, is facing the struggle of providing for his family and trying to ensure they never have to endure the hardships he encounters every day. The 3rd officer, Don Cheadle, is a successful undercover officer that has been dabbling in the shadow far too long to be clear where his loyalties ultimately lie. Wesley Snipes rounds out this top notch cast as a notorious drug dealer Caz, who is a friend of Cheadle's Tango character.



In many ways this film is a continuation of what we saw in Spike Lee's New Jack City. It is the result of the progression of drugs and criminal life after decades of abuse and general lack of enforcement. It is the less glamorous, far more violent and real look at the toll drugs and criminals have on themselves, the police that pursue them, and the people that are caught in the malestrom of these two forces.

A question might be asked how good the film is. Wesley Snipes has long been removed to the direct to DVD sector of Hollywood. Gere hasn't had a major hit in decades. Hawke has never seemed to live up to the expactations that continue to surround him. Even Fuqua has not revisited the universal acclaim of Training Day.

But I think the answer is that most of the cast have not had the chance to really shine. Snipes was long ago stereotyped into action based roles, and then almost outcast as a result of the Government. Cheadle has only once been given the opportunity to step out into the lead of a film. Often he is deprived of the time to showcase his abilities. The same can be said of Hawke. And Gere has finally hit an age for male actors where most are found to be uninteresting and unappealing to young viewers, though their talent has not faded.



Looking at the movie trailer the feeling that this film will be a powerful drama is inescapable. Still there is no question that an excellent editor can make the worst movie look incredible. But when I consider the fact that in addition to the trailer, there is such a rich cast - who all took pay cuts so the film could be made at the modest $25 million budget - and that director Fuqua is back to a subject and theme that he has been most successful at, I come to a conclusion that this may be a sleeper hit.

Characters will take their paths to conclusions you may not expect in this film. The outcome may not be as obvious as it first seems. But the journey that each of these actors take us on looks as if it will make the 140 mintues fly.

Movie Preview: Repo Men

If flattery is the highest form of compliment, then Hollywood gives more compliments than a politician trying toget funds to get re-elected. But Hollywood is usually a bit less blatant in its compliments than the upcoming film Repo Men is.

Repo Men is the rip off of 2 film predominantly. Logan's Run and Repo! the Genetic Opera. You might have heard of Logan's Run but I doubt you heard of Repo!

The plot is basic. Our hero is running from the bad guys. In this case he is a former repo man - in a world where augmenting the body is a life-saving and profitable business, those that don't pay lose whatever was replaced. Repo men are the guys that collect on the bad debt. Remy (Jude Law) and his partner Jake (Forest Whitaker) are the best at collections. Remy winds up getting an augment, and failing to pay becomes next on the list for collection.

You've seen this movie in Logan's Run, as the former pair of friends now are at odds with each other. You saw a take on the idea in Running Man, as the oppressive authority forces a hero to rise up and the people to join him.

What you didn't see is how it works in a world like this. That's where Repo! comes in.



Given that Repo! had Paris Hilton in it, and it's a musical. 2 great reasons you never saw the film. But ti doesn't make Repo Men any more original. Still the question is if it is a good movie.



Well the film looks better than Repo! which says a lot. Plus it does NOT have Paris Hilton in it, which is a HUGE statement for it's quality.

Forest Whitaker is a great actor. He has been in more than a few great films. So to see him in this adds credibility to the film, and an assurance that it's not a complete waste of time.

Jude Law is also a solid actor and more than capable of a film of this nature. So again this is a plus for the film.

The fact that it copies some of the more time honored ideas in Hollywood, friends as rivals, futuristic drama, decent helpings of actions and new gadgets, helps.

This is yet another non-Oscar worthy film. Which means that someone besides the Oscar community will see it. It will likely give action and sci-fi fans what they are looking for. Some ladies (possibly men too I suppose) will get their fix of Law, and the afrocentric crowd gets Whitaker in a lead support role. It's got almost something for everyone.

I would see this in a theater. It's likely better than most of the films coming out for the 2010 summer blockbuster season. And considering the repercussions of the recession, this will be one of the few films of any note for most of the year. Though it won't be the last rip-off film, it is far from the worst.

Movie Preview: King of Fighters

I love kung-fu movies. Bruce Lee, Jackie Chan, Jet Li. There is something about a well done martial arts movie that just draws in fans by the boatloads. I mean Jean Claude Van Damme is anything but Oscar material, yet one good movie (Bloodsport) made him a star.

But that's when a martial arts movie is done well. Then there are those movies that stand out for being different (by American standards) with stars we are just dying to see more of. Movies of this type include the well done Ong Bak (and Ong Bak 2) and Chocolate (Thai film).

King of Fighters doesn't fall into any of those categories. It is in the realm of films like Mortal Kombat: Annilhation, Street Fighter, and all the other video game to movie conversions. In other words this is a movie not worth seeing.



The first thing I know will shock you is that this is a $12 million film. That wouldn't be so bad except it looks like a low budget quickie film. I would sooner expect this quality to come from a SyFy Channel "original" film than a major motion picture.

Obviously most of the money probably wasn't spent on the look of the film. And the writing appears to be equally as thin. This style of conversion film rarely cares about plot, or logic. They just need to get from one fight to another, which can still be worth watching if the fighting is good. It's not.

Ray Park is hands down a respected martial artist. His name may not be the most familiar, but his most famous role is. Darth Maul. Yep, this is him (he also was Toad in the first X-Men movie).

Will Yun Lee has respectable martial arts movie skill. He's been in Elektra (the lead bad guy), the short lived televison show Thief (which was quite good), and several other films and movies. He will also be the in the upcoming Red Dawn remake.

Maggie Q is perhaps easiest of the films stars to recognize. She was featured as part of the IMF team in Mission Impossible III. She was the "crazy kicking chick" that beat the crap out of Bruce Willis (till he dropped a SUV on her) in Live Free or Die Hard. She is indeed interesting to watch.

Given the talent of this film you might expect that the movie would be good. But then there are the minor issues of plot, scenery, lot's of CGI and special effects. Put a diamond into crap and you won't notice it shine.

Either the director, movie studio, and whatever other exec involved wanted to lower the expectations (which the movie trailer does in spades) or the film is what I believe it is. It's a shame because I like the cast. But I won't spend $20 to have a bad time. I suggest you don't either.

Movie Preview: The Losers

If there is one thing you know that Hollywood loves, it's ripping off an idea. That's where the A-Team movie came from. It's why Armeggedon and Deep Impact went head to head. There is no end of the copycat and ripped-off ideas Hollywood is willing to flood theaters with, all at the same time.

But don't think that this is all bad. Armeggedon was a good popcorn film. Occasionally the rip-offs are worth the time. And the head to head competition sometimes turns up a bright gem of a film. The Losers just might be one of those gems.



To be clear from the start, The Losers is a rip-off of the A-Team television show as much as the movie of that name is. But unlike the other film, this looks to be an interesting movie.

There is nothing deep or artsy about the film. A secret para-military group get set up and tossed aside by corrupt politicians. They escape and want revenge, big time. Lot's of stuff blows up inbetween. You won't need an Master's degree to keep up.

But, the film understands that they will never see their name on an Oscar ballot. It's not the point. This is just good natured fun, lot's of bullets, lot's of explosions, and just a bit of women with T&A.

The most serious question dealing with this film is likely to be if it is as much fun for 90 minutes as it is in 150 seconds? If you are having a bad day, this is a safe bet to distract you for a while and not piss you off for spending the money.

Stars Zoe Saldana, Jeffrey Dean Morgan, Chris Evans

Movie Preview: A-Team

I had many reservations on how this film, based on the 80's television show, would turn out.

"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."

Well the first indications are now getting out.



Ok no that isn't it, but I thought it was funny. And at least as good as the actual movie trailer. Ok, for the serious look at the movie trailer



So my fear of the weakest link being the BA Baraccus character seems to be correct. Also the obvious link to the Iraq war is firmly in place. Beyond that many of the old standbys of the television series have been kept. Well at least a couple of the catch-phrases of the leading characters.

What is new are some of the gadgets that are used. C-130 planes, tanks, high-end weapons and such really make it seem unrealistic that this group of men could operate in a post-9/11 Homeland Security America. And who are they using these weapons against?

Believability is also seemingly out the window. Surviving a rocket attack in a C-130 by being in a tank that cleanly escapes the mid-air wreckage and deploys it's parachute, then popping out and shooting down a plane with an M-60 is beyond the pale. Thus we can conclude the film is solidly focused on explosions, with the characters the means by which we can get from one to another.

Given that the A-Team television show was not Shakesperian writing, it did have a bit more credibility and slightly tighter plotting. Plus the acting abilities of the stars were far more solid and recognized. Even Mr. T (then) was far more accomplished than Quinton Jackson - an obvious ploy to draw sports fans that have moderate expectations beyond watching things go boom or crunch.

But, if your expectations are very low and you have never seen the original A-Team and you prefer a movie with more explosions than spoken words, this will be a fine film. If you are merely looking to waste roughly 90 minutes of your life and at least $9 of your hard earned cash, this is your film.

For the rest of us, that might want just a bit more from a movie - like entertainment - I would suggest this film on DVD (bargain bin) or wait for cable. You won't be missing much.

Movie Preview: Green Zone

Let's say you are a Hollywood Liberal. You hate President Bush, dislike Republicans, loathe the war in Iraq (and likely Afghanistan) and gernerally want to tell the world that America is wrong (on just about everything). What do you do?

The result is likely Green Zone. A film that focuses on the Iraq War in it's pre-surge stages. A time when admittedly America was not focused in it's efforts or goals. A war that did not have a clear justification, and was the focal point of Liberal disgust with the Government.

But films of this nature have been made before. Lions for Lambs is just one example. There are many. The general public made a clear statement that such films were distasteful, and far too politically biased, to be worthy of viewing - even as DVD's or on cable. Thus the Hollywood Liberal is stuck; wanting to spread a message that no one wishes to hear, nor believes in total.

Green Zone resolves that in 2 ways. First is the use of Matt Damon, a solid actor, as a quasi-Bourne/average joe soldier. Damon is the spy/soldier of fortune of this generation. Sort of a Rambo with a brain or Bond with brawn. His name is sure to draw action and adventure fans, while still bringing in a female audience that just likes his looks.

The second part is the loose use of the book Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Iraq's Green Zone. A book that purported to not pick sides, and was a moment in time in the war in Iraq. A moment that specifically emphasizes the less than stellar actions of America.

With these 2 elements a film can be created that sets the American Government as bad guys, the American soldier as caught in the middle of deceptions and intrigue, and the military as bullies. It can ram home the dreams of the Liberal Hollywood in a format that will seem less political in movie trailers and finally be seen by the public at large.



I am a fan of Matt Damon. I like his acting, and I have no doubt that he will make this role interesting. Politically we are on opposite sides of the spectrum, which is fine. Until politics invades a movie in the disguise of entertainment.

I don't mind politics in movies. Anti-war movies and those with political commentaries can be great films. Like Apocalypse Now or Platoon. When the point is entertainment and then politics and not the other way around.

I dislike films that are mere propoganda, no matter how stylishly done or how many star entertainers it may contain. I dislike films that use the military as a tool to exploit to spread a message. And yes, I am no fan of anti-American films.

Thus you can take this preview of Green Zone with a grain of salt or not. You may not see the elements that I believe are present and at the fore of the film. You may agree with these ideas, in part or whole, and like the package that has been made to present them.

I do not.

Paul Greengrass is an excellent director (Bourne Ultimatum), and Damon is a solid actor. This film will have action and superb war fight scenes. It looks to have a pace that is intense, writing that is on par or above most films these days. Even the plot will be logical, if biased.

But these trappings do not seperate the true reason this film exists. To spread a political philosophy that Hollywood Liberals espouse and have been trying to disseminate for years without success by any metric.

I do not recommend this film. I won't recommend it as a DVD either. I may be completely wrong, and I will be the first to stand up and state so if I am, but that is about as likely as Hollywood becoming Conservatives.

Movie Preview: Inception

Watch out, there is a new completely derivative movie coming out soon. Considering it will star the overrated Leonardo DiCaprio, you can guarantee a couple of things: It will get far too much hype, it will make a profit, women will be the main audience (mostly in their late teens and early 20's).

Those are about all the positives that I see from the movie trailer for his film Inception.



The film is described as "A contemporary science fiction action thriller set within the architecture of the mind."

What does that mean? A story made up of the plots and devices of a host of other films. The list of films that make up elements of this film are not limited to:

The Matrix
Dark City
The 13th Floor
Tron
The Lawnmower Man
Fantastic Voyage

It's the latest rehash of the concept that in someone's mind, connected to a computer and thus made into a virtual reality, you can do almost anything. And if you are a greedy CEO, that wants the top secret plans to some new widget that will make you millions, you go into the mind and steal it.

This is an idea that has been done in part and in total many times before. But it tries really hard to disguise the copied material with lots of neat photography tricks, and ample helpings of CGI. The end result is a trailer that is uninspiring, and likely a movie that will only work for fans of the looks (not acting ability) of DiCaprio.

The film stars Leonardo DiCaprio, Ellen Page, Ken Watanabe, Marion Cotillard, Joseph Gordon Levitt, Tom Hardy, Cillian Murphy and a small role for Michael Caine.

Now I like Caine and Watanabe. I'm glad that Hollywood continues to recall their talent and include them in major films. But this film appears to be a waste of time, and their excellent talents.

As for the rest, Joseph Gordon Levitt really needs help after the fiasco that was the GI Joe movie but this isn't it. Ellen Page wants another hit like Juno so she can claim to be an A-list star (with it's pay) but likely will not acheive that here. Marion Cotillard is relatively unknown and this film will help her stay that way. Much like the rest of the cast.

As an indication of what will be out for the 2010 blockbuster season (the film will be in theraters in July but after the holiday) I can only saw that it's a good thing you can always go and see Iron Man 2 again.

Movie Preview: Death at a Funeral

One of the more interesting films to be coming out in 2010 is something that no one expected. It's a Black film - not by Tyler Perry - about a family dealing with the death of the patriach of the family. This is a comedy, so don't think you can't see it. And oddly enough it's a remake (in parts word for word) of a British film of the same name that you probably never heard of.

Death at a Funeral is a film starring some of the best Black comedic actors (and comedians) around now. But don't think this is a film only for African Americans. This looks to be a film that everyone can see and laugh at.

Chris Rock looks to be making a strong showing in this film as the son trying to keep his family from imploding, or exploding, or getting exposed (literally), at the funeral of his father. Martin Lawrence is his single, womanizing, more successful brother, and favorite of his mother. These 2 men are at the center of a whirlwind of events that make it clear why tragedy is the mirror twin of comedy.

When I saw this tralier I was just laughing out loud. The timing looks to be superb. The jokes are just spot on. The acting looks like everyone wanted to make this work.

The film also stars Tracy Morgan, Danny Glover, James Marsden, Regina Hall, Loretta Devine, Zoë Saldaña, Kevin Hart, Luke Wilson, and Ron Glass. And as I mentioned this is a remake, but in an odd twist on things Peter Dinklage who starred in the original British film will also be in this version.



Now as I mentioned this is a remake. Which sets it apart from the ususal Hollywood trend of revisioning a film. Thus it does not suffer from the pain a revision inevitably creates for an audience. This is also the 2nd remake of the film as there was a Bollywood version of it as well, which again is odd (since the film came out in 2007) but also is a clear indication of the comedy in the film.

Even though the American version contains numerous scenes that are verbatim of the original, the differences between the English stiff upper lip culture and a more animated African American culture makes this copy fresh. Still I want you to know where the ideas come from. Here is a movie trailer from the original



Either way, a film touching on the taboo of homosexuality in the Black community, while injecting the humor of the dysfunction that is family, and including the cast that it does is worth the time. I have to say the thing that really sold me on this film was the following line that is at 2:18 on the movie trailer

"Let me get this straight. Our father was romantically involved with a guy that could fit in his pocket... And you're mad because he's White?!" - Chris Rock to Martin Lawrence

Movie Preview: Prince of Persia Sands of Time

Well after being rumored and discussed by gamers for years, Prince of Persia has finally made the conversion to the big screen - no gaming system required. Yes another in the growing line of video game to movie conversions is coming for the 2010 movie season.

What we can tell from the trailer immediately is that much of the violence and gore that the game is known for will not be in the movie. That's because this is a Disney film and will likely be targeted to the pg-13 rating target market. So that takes away from the story - if in fact the movie will follow the well executed script of the video game at all.

Beyond that revelation the big question is if this will be done well. Will it be some kiddie action flick pr something that adults and 20-something fans can really get into. Pirates of the Caribbean proved that a conversion film could do both. But there is no shortage of films that squander the source materials following and rich content. (think of Silent Hill, or more recently Resident Evil: Extinction)

The visuals of the film look big. Very expansive and rich in detail. There is no fear of CGI in this film. And some of the scenes look like the use of CGI plays out well. Though overuse of CGI tends to give me a feeling that a film is more cartoony than anything else.

We can also see that some of the gameplay elements of Prince of Persia is in the movie. The question with that is if these elements are just incidental items that work best in a trailer, or if they are integral to the movie itself. Generally in a conversion movie the answeer is more the former than latter.

Perhaps the one thing that really bugs me is none of the above. It's the star Jake Gyllnehaal. He is matched up with Ben Kingsley who is a far superior actor (Bloodrayne excepted) and thus may not fare well in scenes with the 2 together. Add to that the fact that I don't see Gyllenhaal as a Persian. He does not seem to have those qualities to me. Which makes sense since he is of Swedish decent. It may not be a big thing to some fans, but its a bit of a distraction seeing a Swede in Arabia as the main hero to me.

But if geography, and the expectation of seeing native populations in their homelands, is not something you ever pay attention to then the film should move along well. My guess is that the film's plot will be about as engaging as Conan the Barbarian was. Not a great film, but good enough to watch without much complaint. Nor will you be bothered with remembering much of what the film was about 5 minutes after watching it.

None of this will stop the film from making at least $250 million worldwide. Much of that (maybe 35%) will come in the first weekend as fans of the video game, Gyllenhaal, action fans, and those interested in Gemma Arterton (probably best known for her role as Strawberry Fields in Quantum of Solace and soon to be seen again in the Clash of the Titans revisioning). After that weekend, I think the hype will be over and the buzz will reveal that this is an ok film but not much more.

So there you go. One of the first films of the 2010 summer blockbuster season.

Movie Preview: Legion

Looking forward to 2010 another disaster awaits mankind. I don't mean the Mayans, Health Care Reform, Cap & Trade, or the mid-term elections. No this will be far worse. This will be an act on high.

At least that is the premise of Legion. It is another in a long line of films that pose the question, what if religious deities (or their minions) decided that mankind had to go. This was probably best done in the low-budget but fan favorite The Prophecy with Christopher Walken.

Legion takes much from that film, using angels as the means as the end of mankind. But this time man has an ally. The Archangel Michael. And there is a secret weapon in the form of a baby that can save us all. That part comes from Dogma I think. Or maybe Terminator, your choice.

In terms of the looks, it's a better than average film. There are lots of CGI effects that work. The tone matches the dark skies and lighting. The desolate feel of a desert standoff matches the sense of desperation the characters are dealing with.

Here is the video so you see what I mean.



The thing that stands out immediately to me is the number of quality actors and the time the film will be released. The film has veterans like Charles Dutton and Dennis Quaid. Both are excellent actors and can being a lot of credibility to the film. Then again the film also has Tyrese Gibson. We can hope he dies early in the film.

Paul Bettany as Michael looks like a good choice too. He has a good feel from what we can get from the movie trailer. You may recall Bettany best for his role in the DaVinci Code, but he has also been in A Beautiful Mind, Knight's Tale, and will be in Iron Man 2 (as the voice of Jarvis as in Iron Man).

Really the big question is the plot. Does it make sense. Can these mere mortals and 1 angel (given that he is 1 of the 3 Archangels [religious scholars may know of more of them]) hold out against a horde of other lesser angels (and another Archangel, Gabriel)? Would God really kill off humanity? What about the last Archangel, Lucifer. Surely in such a battle, with the stakes being so high and for a commodity that has a value to Lucifer, that fallen angel would not just sit it out.

I think the entire film is about faith. A test of faith for mankind and the angels - actually the Archangels. It's a question of how far would you go to save/help someone you don't know because you believe it will result in some good, but you have no facts or even clues that you are right.

This film will either work or fail because of the writing. The Prophecy was low budget, with only Walken being the big prize. But the writing made the story work, and fans stuck with it so much that 3 more sequels were made. This is the bigger budget cousin of that idea. And without a good script all the names are just a write-off on a bad marketing gimmick.

Of course the fact I review films constantly gives me a somewhat jaded view. The reason I have doubts about the film really comes from 2 things. The first is that the 3rd Archangel seems to be missing from the film. That means the writers weren't smart enough to include him. Which means there are going to be big gaps in logic. Not a good sign.

The other is what I alluded to earlier. This film will be out January 22, 2010. That's almost the start of the film year. It is almost always a time when the very worst ideas that have been sitting on shelves are thrown out and forgotten about. There has been almost no movie of worth that has come out that early in a year. This could be a sleeper hit, but I don't think that was the intention on this. It has too much money behind it.

No, for all their faults a bunch of Hollywood execs saw the final product and had a problem with the film. They could be wrong, and I would like that as both Bettany and Dutton could use a boost, but I doubt that.

Still I probably will go see this just because I like Bettany and Dutton. So now you know.

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.

Movie Preview: Armored

So what happens when you have several old actors, a couple that never made it big time, and a few newbies thrown in for the hell of it? Well you could make a film that has been done a dozen times before.

Armored is a film we all have seen before. It's a heist film. Which means it's the same as Heat, or the Sting, or even a major sub-plot for The Shield. The question is really, is this a well done version of the same old thing?



As can be seen, the film is looking to convince with a couple of interesting tidbits. There is the influence of Laurence Fishburne, and Jean Reno. There is a bit of the old in Matt Dillon resurfacing in a major film after decades of straight to DVD films. Plus there is Skeet Ulrich, the go to guy for looking like you have Johnny Depp in a film.

The concept is simple and obvious. An inside job, planned to the very detail. Except a detail comes up that was never considered. And there is where the film will be made or broken.

This is not a deep film with a massive twist from start to finish like Inside Man. This is not a bad versus even worse like on The Shield. It isn't a catchy slick con like Ocean's Eleven. It isn't even cops and robbers like Heat. It's just how bad people can get like Treasure of the Sierra Madre. (hope you saw all those films to get what I mean)

The questions that hit me are far from the movie trailer itself. Is this a film that Lawrence Fishburne had enough time to really commit to since his work on CSI? Is this a good film that just doesn't fit the summer blockbuster season, or is it a fill-in until Oscar season yet better than the ususal January throw-aways? Will Matt Dillon finally make the comeback he has been hoping for or is this another cable standard?

None of the questions I pose are the ususal ones asked about a film by the general public. Still they all reflect the quality of the film. In all likelyhood I expect this film to do 2 things:

Justify the desire to have a nice thriller/action film before the feel good and Oscar (boring) contenders come out

Keep the audience busy for 1 1/2 hours of their life

Now I will add to this. I felt the same way prior to seeing Inside Man. I came away from that film far more rewarded than I went into it. Low expectations can be a good thing when you get a quality piece of film. But low expectations are more the norm from the copycat and derivative nature of Hollywood films these days.

Still I think that this might live up to more than what it looks like. There are far too many good actors for me to think this is just a throwaway. The trailer is not filled with just random action impling the lack of a plot. It almost asks you to see it to be sure exactly how good it might be.

Would I see this instead of Ninja Assassin? No. But I would see both films. The only thing is that I am pretty sure what I will get from Ninja Assassin. I'm not as sure this will be worth the $20 a ticket. Though it at least seems like it might be, which is better than most films out around this time of year.

Movie Preview: Not Evil Just Wrong

Remember when a regular guy stepped up and took on the mega-corporations in a movie. There was no end to coverage in the media and support for the film created a career for Michael Moore. Since that time he has jumped up and down on the Conservatives of the nation, and most recently hypocritically denounced capitalism as he reaped rewards from it. All to acclaim from the media and Hollywood.

Because the media loves when regular people step up and fight injustice and wrongdoing. At least that is what they claim.

When former Vice President Al Gore skipped around the world on private jets to promote global warming in his movie An Inconvienient Truth, the media lauded praise. The movie was instantly setup as if it were fact. It became a mantra for eco-fanatics and an instrument to dynamically change society across the world. Hell, they even gave Al Gore an Oscar and a Nobel Peace Prize (at least he did something to earn it).

Again the reason this film was promoted, with jet fuel being guzzled like gatorade, was because it was fighting a wrong. Or so we were told by the media and politicians.

But what if someone stood up and said, "hey, I think you got it wrong." Well that would be fighting an injustice and preventing a wrong. The media should love it. They should be all over such a film, and praising its challenge to the big money of mega-ecology organizations. They should, but they aren't.



The movie being ignored is Not Evil Just Wrong. You probably haven't heard about it, since the media wants it to die on the vine. The film simply looks at the hype surrounding the "green" movement - especially global warming - and points out all the flaws. It's a bit of honesty and prepercussions that Al Gore and others like him refuse to acknowledge.



Note the key things, which are fact. Al Gore has not answered a question about global warming in 4 years. Even as scientists are becoming more sure that global freezing is likely more of an issue than warming. When asked what he has done to correct the errors in the film he has shoved down the throats of schoolkids as fact (yes it was allowed to be shown - with a requirement that actual facts be presented with the film correcting those errors), he refuses to answer the question. In fact he hides behind the emotion of the danger to polar bears, mitigating the FACT their numbers have increased. Then he has his people shut off the mike to end the possibility of debate, the need to answer the question asked, or to prove his position.

This is what Not Evil Just Wrong proposes to address. The questions that the media REFUSES to ask. The FACTS that eco-fanatics refuse to acknowledge. And it does so not with guesses, it uses science and scientists to do so.

Further the film does something that Al Gore (and I believe Michael Moore) doesn't. It provides the real full consequences of the actions taken. What happens when eco-fanatics get laws passed that change society. What will happen if they change things more?

If anyone believes in global warming (which I never have and continue to not believe) then they must - in my opinion - at least hear what facts and consequences exist against that arguement. They must be able to debate these findings without the crutch of emotion, to ensure that they are leading EVERYONE down the right path. Because if they can do so, then even those who disagree will join them in their efforts. But if they cannot, then we all must join together to find solution that really works, and not just make some people feel good at the expense of others.

I suggest that you see this film. Throw out every reason I have just presented. See this movie because Al Gore, the media, and the eco-fanatics are motivated to make sure you DON"T see this film. See this because they don't want you to think about the debate. See this because they are trying to actively control your choices.

You may not agree afterwards, but like with President Obama's attacks on Fox News, the question you should be able to answer is this

Why are they afraid to let you find out what is going on?

Remember something I have said often

"Liberals and the media are happy to have people say and do absolutely anything they want, as long as it agrees with them. The second it does not, they want it shut down and shut away. Isn't that liberal of them."

Movie Preview: The Box

With the summer blockbuster season over, and before the Oscar contenders come out we have this lull in the movies that are filling theaters. These are the movies not good enough for the Oscar, not thrilling enough for summer and not bad enough for January. In other words these are the films that are best seen in your living room on cable.

In this case we have The Box. At a first look at the trailer you would think that this is a new idea. That Hollywood finally came up with something different. But in fact its another in a long and growing line of movies that are a remake. In this case of a Twilight Zone episode from the 70's.



Now the film has of course been revisioned from the original idea. There is more violence, and a touch of the supernatural. Invariably extra has been added to the film to fill up time. Likely none of it is of much use.

I don't want to give up too much of what will happen in the film. Anyone who has seen a Twillight Zone marathon has likely seen the critical plot of the film. The episode was Button, Button. That was based on a short story in Playboy. This remake is so short on ideas that the film even takes place in the 70's.

I like Frank Langella. Carmeron Diaz is ok. But there is nothing really compelling here. It's just an attempt to make a quick buck based on the thought that moviegoers are too young to have seen the original and too lazy (or uninterested) to have seen a Twillight Zone marathon.

In general I dislike remakes. And I despise most revisioned fare from Hollywood. I see no reason for this film to change that general rule.

The entire movie is just what you see in the trailer. If you got a button that does what this does, would you use it? Once that question is answered, the movie is basically over. Just like it was on television.

Given that there is nothing else compelling in theaters right now, I would suggest that you just save your money. Or get a DVD of something you haven't seen in years, or ever. This will be on cable soon enough.

Movie Preview: Vampire Girl Vs. Frankenstein Girl

Sometimes you just run across a title that makes you say ‘What is that?’ Well that’s how I found Vampire Girl Vs. Frankenstein Girl.

This is not what you might be thinking. It’s a foreign film - Japanese. It’s filled with gore and the concept of PC has not reached the director (Yoshihiro Nishimura) or writer (Shungiku Uchida). It’s low-budget.

It’s the type of trailer that makes you wonder what you just saw. And compels you to look at it again just to be sure what you did see. Which either means the film itself will be worthwhile, or a complete waste of time.



There are no illusions here. This is not going to win an Oscar, or likely anything else. You aren’t watching this because of the great acting, or intense CGI. It’s an honest direct and insane kind of film. A dirty pleasure for film buffs and a unique experience for anyone else.

I won’t pretend to understand what is being said in this film. Japanese is not one of the languages I understand. Not that the lack of understanding detracts from the film I believe.

But there are a few things that I have found out about the film.

It contains wrist cutting scenes. Which is graphic and may be too much for some.

There is not shortage of blood and gore.

The film features Ganguro – a Japanese trend in clothing and make-up.

The film features Lolita – another Japanese trend that involves Victorian style clothing and Goth

This is ultimately a love triangle story. Yes, really.

A lesson of the film is to always be careful of accepting a Giri Choco

The stars are: Yukie Kawamura, Eri Otoguro, Takumi Saito

Now after all that, either you want to give up 85 minutes of your life to see this film, or not. I would because after watching Transformers 2 and G.I.Joe it just really can’t get much worse, and at least this film will be fun.

Movie Preview: Surrogates

What if you were to take the themes of WestWorld and The Matrix, add in a waldo (not the character) and some I Robot (the book not the substandard movie), what might you get? Well these are likely sources that helped to create Surrogates.

The concept is hardly new. We have a world of luxury, or so it seems. A future where people are even more removed from interacting with each other than we do know with the internet. Almost a world like Logan’s Run, separated from everything around us – effectively in a trap of our own creation.

Suddenly this “ideal” world has a serious problem. Our hero, Bruce Willis, is an unwilling piece in a series of events that move towards a revelation that will affect everyone. And the punch-line will be either anti-climactic or dead-on.



Considering the normally successful choices of films Bruce Willis has been in over his career (once he got past his first film) this film starts on a good foot. The addition of Ving Rhames is another plus to the film. Robots and a decent amount of action can’t hurt either.

But this film will be more plot heavy than most sci-fi these days. I expect that the first 15 minutes will be critical for the film, much like in Blade Runner. So keeping the plot holes small will be very critical to it being a good movie.

The look of the film is pretty consistent with most futuristic films these days. Nothing special there. And the special effects look to be lighter than most on the CGI front, which I find to be a bonus.

I can’t say that I want to run out and see this film. But I’m not dreading the fact that I will review this either. Thus this is a middle of the field movie. Likely to be worth the time of fans of sci-fi and Bruce Willis and Ving Rhames (unless Rhames has a mostly cameo role – which seems likely). But it’s all down to the writing on this one.

Movie Preview: Zombieland

Sometimes you just want to go to a movie and be completely distracted from reality. Those types of movies that acheieve this distraction the best tend to never win Oscar's or anything else. But at their best they are like what some call comfort foods. They satiate out need for visual fluff, and that's it.

Zombieland looks like a film that fits right into that comfort zone.



There not much to say about this film. The writing won't be grand. The acting will likely not be above most television fare. The plot will have holes big enough to fit a Transformer through. But none of that really matters.

This is a kill-the-zombies film. The bigger the bang, the more absurd the explosion, the more outlandish the violence, the more the film will please.

Woody Harrelson looks like he was just having fun in this film. In fact all the lead actors seem to be. Which bodes well for this film.

As a bonus, the film looks like there won't be any CGI involved - which means the focus is on stunts, explosions, and guns. All the things a good zombie film should have. Add to that a good sense of humor and it's a win-win.

Could the trailer be the best parts of the film? Undoubtedly. But if we can race along from zombie killing scene to the next without some Hollywood introduction to the cause of the week, audiences should get what they paid for. And lately that has become a rare treat at the movies.

My expectations are low for this film. They should be. Which means that it very likely may be the best film this year so far.

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.

Movie Preview: Ong Bak 2

You just knew there had to be a sequel. Tony Jaa became too much of a hit to not get another crack at this film. But this new film takes a very different direction indeed.

Unlike most sequels, Ong Bak 2 is jumping right to a prequel stage. Instead of going forward with the storyline the movie goes back in time to present us with a historical and perhaps more epic view of Thailand. Think of it as a kind of Braveheart with martial arts. The movie trailers are definitely giving it that kind of a feel.



I love the music choice in this trailer. The fight scenes definitely look like the Tony Jaa that took America by storm. But if you recall the first film you will also note that something is different. The direction and storytelling is not the same pace or style. It really shows in this imperfect trailer of a fight scene.



The reason that it has such a different look and feel is because the director has changed. This time out it is Tony Jaa himself that is taking the helm. And from what I can see he does a good job. Though the above scene is a bit slow in pace for American audiences it is good in defining the narrative and motivations of Tien (Jaa). Also keep an eye out for Dan Chupong (Crow Ghost) in this film.

I think this will be a hit in America. It has already done very well in Thailand. But it has one potential problem. This story ends in a less than happy American movie way. That is because there is a 3rd film that continues this story. Which I would expect to be just as good, though I can’t imagine the reported “boneless” fighting it contains.

This is a good film from what I can tell. It has all the elements of what you might expect from Jaa and a martial arts film. It adds to the growing trend of Thai martial arts films that are growing in recognition in this genre. I’m looking forward to this, and Ong Bak 3 next year or so.

Movie Preview: Tron Legacy (TRON 2)

You may have heard that Disney is following up the film TRON with a sequel. In fact you probably heard that rumor for the last 2 decades. But much like the Chinese Democracy album by Guns N Roses, this too has finally come to pass.

Considering the Tron Legacy movie teaser trailer that was recently released, the wait was well worth the time.



The CGI work for this film looks like something that should be a world inside a computer. Disney has taken the cutting edge special effects of the first film and gone way beyond. I mean those light cycles just look great!

I also like the fact that the look is directly an homage to the original film. Normally after such a span of time, you would expect that Hollywood execs might ignore the original film and make up whatever they thought might sell best. It would seem that at least a few of the people in charge actually saw, and liked, the original film.

Another great thing about this film is the fact that it will have Daft Punk creating the soundtrack. Considering this is an electronic film, Daft Punk is the perfect band to highlight the musical score.

The big question is what is the storyline? Again some exec did more than just read the Cliff Notes of the original.

Basically it is known that Flynn (Jeff Bridges) disappeared from our world shortly after the end of TRON. Which makes sense since he was somewhat god-like in the computer realm (he is a programmer after all). Technology grew and got bigger and faster and sharper. Flynn’s son Sam (Garret Hedlund) also grew. He is now in his 20’s and looking for his dad.

It seems that a small group of computer geeks and gamers have found clues making them believe that Flynn is alive. And in the net (or computer world). Somehow Sam is suck in the programs as well, and the father and son team race to get out.

They will get help from old favorites like Tron (Bruce Boxleitner), and I bet the fun YES/NO byte, as well as new programs just for the younger generation (Michael Sheen and Olivia Wilde as examples).

But the main thing that will drive this movie is the look. TRON stood out because when you look at the screen you believe such a world could exist. So far, it look like that same feeling has survived the Hollywood sequel system.

Now if the film can just have a plot that can hold water better than President Obama’s stimulus plan can create jobs, we will have a ride only a light cycle can bring.

Movie Preview: Book of Eli

Well the movie trailer has been released and Book of Eli looks like it will be another hit for Denzel Washington.



I have to say that I am impressed. Denzel Washington is not known for his action movies. Actually, other than a couple of fist fights or shoot-outs he has no real action movies. So this is a new departure for him. And from the trailer I would say that he wouldn’t last in a fight against Riddick, but still looks good.

The post-nuclear war world this film envisions instantly draws me to the Mad Max films. It’s gritty, with harsh sunlight, desolate, and unforgiving. It sets the mood of the depressing results of a war no one escaped. So in that the visuals hit the mark.

The fact that Gary Oldman is in this film is another plus. I have always enjoyed his portrayals. My favorite has to be ‘Stan’ Stansfield from The Professional. And while we have yet to see exactly how he is in this film I’d expect a lot. Likely this is a character that crosses say Aunty Entity, Stansfield, and Cornelius Hatcher (for a bit of lightness).

Thinking about it I think that the entire film could include a few mixes of characters we have seen before. Denzel is obviously an older Mad Max, Man With No Name (Sergio Leone films), John Smith (Last Man Standing) or Hugo Toorop type of character. Weary and burdened, but willing to be the hero if reluctantly.

The big question is what is in the book? That is what is really bugging me. It is supposed to bring redemption to mankind. Which makes me think it’s a religious tome. But it could be a scientific journal containing a cure to some biological weapon released in the end of the war. Or it could be an agricultural book with farming techniques. It even could be the Declaration of Independence. I mean it really can go in a dozen different directions. Which explains why everyone might want the book, since they don’t know what it is. Kind of like the Book of Life from Circle of Iron.

Based on what the movie trailer is presenting, and the quality of the actors, this should be a must see film. The only real doubt I have on the film is the fact that it is coming out in January. Which is a notorious time for the worst films to be released. Though that has changed slightly in recent years.

I reserve my final opinion until a bit more comes out about the film. For now, the hype is still bigger than the movie. But I will still want to see it, as it does look like a good action/sci-fi film.

Can you make ROOM for another classic horrible film?

I truly can’t call this a movie preview, as THE ROOM has been out for some 6 years now. Still it is a very safe bet that almost everybody has not seen this movie. And I can show you why.



Besides the company graphic, this movie trailer is probably the best collection of scenes of the entire movie. I could be wrong though as I have not seen the film. But the following are a couple of videos of the film that I found.

Sex talk – to really get you in the mood and make you care about the characters


Deep emotional angst




And absolute rage



Ok, you get the point. This has worse acting than maybe Gigli and Glitter (debatable), a worse script than most SyFy 'original' movies (arguable), and film editing – plus photography – that matches my worst on a very drunken night. To say this film is bad is the best compliment you can give it.

But is it the equal of say The Toxic Avenger? Or Nuke Em High? Or any Troma Entertainment film for that matter. Does this rise to the horrible joy of Attack of the Killer Tomatoes? Is it as beautifully horrid as Evil Dead (I or II). Some even dare to compare it to The Rocky Horror Picture Show.

Well that is probably best left to the viewer to decide. But this is becoming this generation’s midnight film fave. It cost $6 million to make, thus answering the question of whether anyone can make a low budget film with a decent amount of money. But Tommy Wiseau has to be commended as he raised the money without major Hollywood backing – what a shock!

The question before you my readers is not whether this is a bad film. It is unquestionably so. The question is whether this is so bad that you will laugh your buttocks off and enjoy the horror that is its film presentation?

Movie Preview: BULL

BULL is another film that caught my attention. The trailer is stylized and slick. It has a sun-washed look and gives an image of a darker Ocean’s Eleven.



The most important thing to recall in this film is the first thing said in the trailer

“Do you think that anybody actually tells anybody the whole truth.”

The movie trailer rolls off like a classic deception film. Reminding me of the aforementioned Ocean’s Eleven, Matchstick Men, The Hustle, and a few others. It just has that feel. That something is going on and you don’t know exactly what that is.

Which can make a great film if it is done right. Done wrong though and the film is a waste of time. This film could go either way.

The cast includes Maury Chaykin, a character actor that I have always enjoyed watching. He always had just the right touch to a character that is deeper and less obvious than whatever he initially appears.

Also there are a few unknowns (or at least unknown to me) including: Simon Reynolds, Lindsey Deluse, Craig Lauson, Jeff Seymour, Lori Hallier, and Ellen Dubin. Which can really add to the to the film as there are no preconceptions as Chaykin can bring to a degree.

Is this a good film? I’m not sure. But from the trailer it looks like it could be quite good. In fact it might be part of a trend back to well written and envisioned filmmaking. Hollywood has abandoned films of this nature, but obviously there are more than a few directors and writers that can still envision a good story.

Who is really in charge in all this? Who has the upper hand? What are they after?

All great questions. My guess, and that is all I have right now, is that Charlie – the lead – is the guy scamming his boss. Though the secretary might have a plan of her own. But I could be very wrong. And even if I am right, how it all plays out is yet another thing.

I will say that no matter what the film seems like a worthwhile time and easily a trip to a world that we have not seen throughout the summer.

Movie Preview: Soul Power

Taking a step back to the past – the year is 1974. Some of my readers won’t be born for another 10 or 20 years. There is no internet. There is no such thing as cable television. There is no ESPN. And in this year the greatest athlete of the 20th Century is about to engage in a competition that the world will stop to watch. The “Rumble in the Jungle”

For those that are unfamiliar it was one of the biggest boxing events ever. Muhammad Ali was going to take back his World Heavyweight title from George Foreman (long before he ever thought of a quick way to grill burgers). The fight was to be held in Zaire. And it was to feature some of the best and most acclaimed African and African American entertainers of the time (and likely since).

Back in 1974 there were none of the instantaneous luxuries we have today. Which meant that an event like this was huge. Few if any events today can compare to the 3 days of entertainment that preceded a boxing match everyone wanted to see. In many ways it could compare to watching the World Cup finals.



The focus of this film is not the classic fight though. It is about the entertainers and the struggles entailed to get to the stage in Zaire. Then it details the performances of BB King, Bill Withers, Celia Cruz, Miriam Makemba, and James Brown.

Yes, it’s a documentary. From a perspective about the entertainers, and an event that shook the ground when it took place.

It’s short, and there are not a lot of scenes of the performances (due to cost constraints and the fact this happened 30 years ago). Still there is nothing like watching James Brown in his prime, or BB King, and all the others. Plus its interesting to see the bits of commentary of all these great African American entertainers about the world at that time. Though this is hardly a film that is only an African American film.

This is a worthwhile film for those documentary fans, as well as fans of music and history. This is a short trip to the past, and a joy. Check it out if you can.

Movie Preview: Evangelion 1.0

Evangelion 1.0 is an anime movie that most anime fans already know. In fact, when I was the trailer for the film I had to ask myself why this is a movie.

This was a full anime series, Neon Genesis Evangelion. The characters, battles, and outcomes are all known. It’s so bad that the entire movie trailer is just several scenes from the coming episodes of the television series strung together. Yeah, it’s just that recycled.



The art is the same. The characters are the same. I would even guess that the voice acting is exactly the same. Beyond editing together the episodes, I am unaware of anything that this movie presents to people that have seen the series. [Though a quick scan of the internet states that there are a few new scenes. Which is still not enough for me to spend my money on.]

The argument can be made that the whole venture is an attempt to find new audiences. But let’s be realistic. In America the anime audience is relatively small, and they have seen this before. New fans are more likely to be drawn from watching Cartoon Network’s Adult Swim lineup (especially on Saturday night), than will ever come from this movie.

Add to that the fact that showing this film overseas, in Japan, is useless. In fact all the major venues of anime are pretty much out. Though some will enjoy seeing this on a major big screen, most will be bored watching a story they have seen several times over in various episode re-runs 1 more time. At a cost of over $20+ per person.

[Again, I stand corrected. My research found that this did incredibly well in Japan. Who knew a retread would do so well.]

The film is a re-release of a 2007 version. It has been dubbed into English and should hit selected theaters this weekend I believe. Honestly I would suggest getting the DVD, or the series and watching that. At least then the same money will allow you to watch the anime anytime you want.

Movie Preview: In The Loop

Ok, so I really must see the British movie In The Loop. I saw a couple of trailers and I was just laughing out loud.



I mean who in the world gets away with saying

“You are my Kunta Kinte, now go out and get your laptop.”

And makes it funny.

In fact, critics over in Britain described the film as follows



Which a friend of mine was led to comment

“You know it must be good when critics are that against it. I mean what a critic wants to see is a bunch of mimes painting the Eiffel Tower green. That they would be thrilled with and call art. It would probably win an Oscar.”

Any film that can elicit that much humor, with that many curses (which it might take American audiences 2x to catch), yet is political intelligent and original deserves to be viewed.

Or of course you could watch Transformers 2 and see a bunch of CGI robots smash a bunch of things for no real reason.

Movie Preview: Blood:The Last Vampire

If you want to see something outside the usual Hollywood mega-explosion, action without plot, summer blockbusters I think there is another choice. It’s a film that most have likely not heard of, unless you happen to be into anime and/or manga. Blood: The Last Vampire is a live-action film based on an anime of the same name.

The original story, in the anime, is of a girl called Saya. She happens to be at least several hundred years old, a vampire, the last of her kind, and hates an offshoot breed called Chiroptera. The Chiroptera are literally hematophagous bat-like creatures, or if you recall the comic book character Man-Bat (on steroids and not as cute). Saya kills and feeds off of the Chirptera. The story takes place in Viet Nam era Japan.

To give you a better idea of what it’s about I found this video.



This is the basis of the live-action film. While there have been a few changes, the core story is basically intact. Saya is now a half-human, half-vampire. She still is out to kill, just this time it’s other vampires. She is still incredibly old. And she still works with a mysterious government agency.

Saya has been made a bit older for the film. The time has been changed to around the 70’s, still in Japan. The film is in English with Japanese sub-titles overseas, which is a switch based on improving the number of people seeing the film (silly Americans can’t watch a film and read at the same time you know). And it looks like a solid film.



The look and feel of this movie is incredibly close to the original anime. This is likely due to the attentions of producer Bill Kong (who was producer of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon), and the original direction thoughts of Ronny Yu (known best to American audiences for Fourmula 51, Bride of Chucky, Freddy vs. Jason, and Jet Li’s Fearless) – who became a producer on the film as well. Both men are very good when they are left alone to make a non-Hollywood style film, which Blood is. As for the director Chris Nahon, the only thing he has done that I am aware of is Kiss Of The Dragon. That was a so-so film, thus this may be his break-out or break-down piece.

If you know anime, you have likely know all about this film. If you don’t I suggest it anyway. It is rare that you get to have a plot (of some degree), action, martial arts, strong female leads, and solid visuals in a single movie. The fact that the film was made in English is just another benefit and reason to go see the film.

I realize that there is no hulking CGI robots, that the lead is Korean (Jun Ji-hyun also known as Gianna Jun for this English version film), and that there is a plot. Obviously that makes this film less appealing to some that prefer intergalactic robots that apparently are idiots and plot-holes so big that the NCC-1701 could fly through them. But perhaps these comments might change your mind

“The Hollywood Reporter's Maggie Lee praised Jun's performance as Saya, feeling that she "displays ample aptitude for being an action heroine, doing most of her own tendon-twisting martial arts stunts and looking utterly fetching in a sailor suit that could turn any guy into a uniform-fetishist".

Will this film win an Oscar? No. But it should fill the void in a higher quality action films that nothing so far this year has hit upon from Hollywood. At least that’s what this movie preview concludes. I’ll review the actual film as soon as I can.

Movie Preview: Sherlock Holmes

As is wont of so many movies these days, the film Sherlock Holmes – starring Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law – is a physical take on an old theme. At least that is what the trailer is displaying at this moment.



I find it odd that one of the more classic and noted intellectuals of literary work has now become a brawling less thinking more ordinary hero in the hands of Guy Ritchie. I suppose that in this “revisioning” of the character is targeted to the Hollywood mentality that explosions beat thought. Or they just want to draw more younger fans that have never seen a movie based on this character let alone ever read a book about him.

My questions about the film all lie in the depiction the trailer presents and Guy Ritchie. They seem to be emphasizing the many notable flaws that Sherlock Holmes certainly has, and downplaying the deductive reasoning that made the character a master detective. Which is a real letdown.

Of course I have to mention that the accent by Robert Downey Jr. appears to be less than convincing, which is a surprise. In the past Sherlock has always had the distinctive British accent one would expect from an Englishman. But Downey is very American, and his accent betrays a weakness in the portrayal. I would hope it was just that the scenes selected were less important and not a complete picture of the accent employed. Not that many scenes in the movie trailer are speaking scenes.

Guy Ritchie tends to focus on the physical in his movies. He likes the ferocity of combat, and the motion of chaos as I have observed (which is hardly a complete vision of all his films). Thus I expect that much of what makes Holmes indelible will be lost due to no fault of the actors. How modern movie audiences will react is hard to say.

This is a period piece film. Yet the movie trailer flows more like a Dark Knight video clip than you would imagine. You can almost feel a Batmobile ready to pop out of a street corner.

I am comparing this a lot to the latest Batman revisioning. Not because I dislike the Christian Bale version (other than the Joker) but because it too generally ignores the deductive though and detective work (basically all the thinking of the character), replacing them with action. It works well, and audiences like it, but that does not mean that the character is being given the full depth it can have.

Thus I see Sherlock Holmes in a similar manner under the guidance of Ritchie. Bravado and flash, daring do vs. understanding of the situation. It can work well, and be a good film. But somehow I see Law and Downey being under used for such a film.

This is of course the first trailers for the film. This is a tease and as such we cannot be really sure what the actual film will comprise. But we can be sure there is a bit of titillation for the ladies, and action for the guys. Lots of on location scenes, and a bit of the classic British flare. But will there be a mind to the film, a piece of the soul found in the books? Maybe the next set of trailers will tell.

So until we can see more, I think this will be a decent film. I think it will do well in the box office. It will be worth the time spent in the theater, and for many that’s all that matter in the end.

Movie Preview: Gamer

There is no question that video games are the wave of the future. The industry has steadily moved to become one of the leading forms of entertainment, and massively multiplayer online games have a firm grip in forging that path. But what will the future bring?

That is the question posed in the upcoming film Gamer. This is basically a revised mix of the Running Man and Death Race (or Death Race 2000 if you are younger and did not see the original).



From the trailer we are sure of a couple of things. First is the fact that there will be enough explosions for any action movie or video game fan. Based on the reaction to Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen that should be enough to garner $100 million in the box office.

Of course there is a lose plot to the movie. The lead is Kable (Gerard Butler) who is most likely a wrongly convicted criminal (aren’t they always) who is brought into the game – called Slayer – to draw attention. It is highly likely that Kable has a wife and child, is a former military hero of some distinction, and is never supposed to see freedom again.

Somehow the convicts are implanted with devices that allows a gameplayer to takeover the body of the convict and control how they act, with some input from the convict direct to the player. This is all televised as well. Does this sound familiar?

Inevitably Kable is helped along in the game by Freek (John Leguizamo – been a while since he was in a major movie), and in trying to escape the corrupt system by Ludacris (don’t know his character’s name – though he seems to be trying to evade his rap image by going under his real name in the credits). Ken Castle (Michael C. Hall of Dexter fame) is of course the corrupt mastermind of the game and intent on ensuring that no one ever reaches the 30 wins that will free them of the game and prison. [I know we have heard this all before]

Keith David and Kyra Sedgwick both have small roles in the film as well. Don’t expect to see much of them though.

I think you can figure out the whole movie, because we have seen it before. It may well be too much to ask for a surprise ending, or a reasonable plot twist. But that does not mean the film cannot be worth the money.

The director of the film is Mark Neveldine. The name may not be familiar to everyone, but if you liked Crank and/or Crank: High Voltage then you have seen his work. Thus in this film you can expect lots of explosions, plenty of fast moving cut scenes, more than a few fist fights, and 5 minutes of slow moving plot to tie up the big questions. Neveldine is also the writer of this film as well as the Crank movies, so the plot will be basically flowing.

This looks like a decent big budget popcorn film. No Oscars of course, but still engaging enough for the likely 90 minutes it will run. The big question to this film is can it do the story we all know, with enough new scenes and explosions to draw the 18 – 35 video gamers they are targeting? Another question I wonder about is will the use of a rapper drag down the film, as they normally do, or has Chris Bridges (Ludacris) taken enough acting lessons to have his bit role justify the time he will be on screen?

Ultimately the answers will come in September when this film is slated to open.