2010 remakes, sequels, and everything else

Lastly are the films of 2010 that are a crap shoot. These are films that are revisions, remakes, ideas and sleepers that are likely to either be great or absolutely miserable. Sometimes it's just too hard to have an opinion, especially so far ahead of time. But making an opinion is what you read this for right?

Mortal Kombat - supposedly there is another film in this series coming. Is it a revisioned restart (al la Star Trek) or another sequel? It's not clear. Filming with 3 original cast members was started and stopped in 2009. Theoretically there could be a film in 2010. Will it be worth seeing? Not if it is even the least remotely like Mortal Kombat Annihilation.

Scream 4 - Yes, it never ends.

A Very Harold and Kumar Christmas- How is this possible since Kal Penn is now an Obama flunky in D.C.? I guess President Obama decided to finally shrink the Government by 1 job - Penn's.

Jackass 3 - Well it's the only work Johnnie Knoxville can get, or is qualified for.

Daybreakers - good concept, but its an early January film. Studios have no confidence in its ability to make money. But sometimes a decent film slips into the January slot.

When in Rome - I'm over 15 so I wouldn't see this film if I was paid 3x my annual salary. But some people like this kind of drivel.

Valentine's Day - see When in Rome

Shutter Island - Leonardo DiCaprio's hypefest is waning. It has Max Von Syndow, and Scorcesse. Beyond that, I bet it's completely forgetable.

The Crazies - revisioned Romero films are a rage in Hollywood these days. Too bad I don't think those films are good (the revisioned ones). This will likely be no better than the other remakes.

Brooklyn's Finest - lots of stars, including Don Cheadle, Wesley Snipes, Ethan Hawke, and Vincent D'Onofrio. It could be great, a big sleeper hit. Or it might be bloated by all the star weight and posturing. Not sure.

Machete - I want Danny Trejo to do well in this film. It's about time he gets to have a bigger star. But this film is anyone's guess.

Nightmare on Elm Street - revisioned remake of a classic. Normally this means instant failure. But it has the benefit of NOT being a Rob Zombie film. I still don't think it will be worth the money, but as a DVD buy it should be decent.

Shrek Forever After - Mike Meyers really needs another job.

Five Killers - unless you love Ashton Kutchner and/or Tom Selleck this is a film worth ignoring. Not as bad as some I've already mentioned in 2010, but not good by a long shot.

Footloose - yes 2010 is filled with remakes. Since it's not the 80's anymore the question is will this same 'White boys can't dance' theme work in this film like it did in the past? Dance films are popular these days (for whatever reason).

The Last Airbender - anime fans get their own live action film. Will this be worth it? That's likely the only twist M. Night Shyamalan will bring to this film. Still it can't be as bad as Dragonball Evolution could it?

Little Fockers - people love Ben Stiller, I have no idea why.

Zookeeper - everyone loves talking animals right? Right?

Burlesque - we know Cher can act. She spent decades proving it. So either she thinks Christina Aguilera can act also, or she was paid a crazy amount of money to be in this film. Either way this will bring in tons of money from teen boys (and older guys) that want to see her (either woman) in tight clothes. Hopefully it will be better than Glitter (which should be easy to do if any of the actors are awake onscreen).

Ok, there you have it. The good bad and ugly of 2010. Now all you have to do is decide which ones you agree with me on as the year goes by. Let me know what you think as the year progresses.

Movie remakes: Good and/or Bad?

The tradition of remaking a film that was successful somewhere or sometime else is a revered way of doing business in Hollywood. It's something that has happened in all genres and media, probably back to the original 6 stories of the Ancient Greeks. But lately it seems that this has become one of the driving forces in modern motion pictures.

Hollywood just doesn't seem to have an original idea in its head. Or at least the execs don't seem to think the public can understand a new concept. Which means more likely that the execs can't. Either way, as we go further into this new century we seem more likely to copy something than create something.

Now if all of the remakes were good, or at least as good as their original inspirations, I don't think anyone would care. But millions of dollars, and more importantly hundreds of hours of screen time is being wasted on crap. We are being led in the desert and asked to chug sand as if it were champagne. At least that's my opinion.

But a friend of mine recently brought up a good point, I think. The thought is that most movie-goers today have no idea about the originals films that are being copied. And often, as in the case of the Adventures of Robin Hood (with Errol Flynn and the definitive Robin Hood movie), the original films are being shown far less often with later copies being shown far more often. As in this case the Kevin Costner revisioned remake is far more common than the Flynn original - thus some younger viewers may not know of a superior film existing.

So it makes me wonder, how many people have not seen the original films being copied by Hollywood now? How many people prefer the remakes to the original films? We there is no better way to find out than to ask.

The following list are an original film and it's (most) recent remake. Let me know which you have seen, and/or which you prefer.

12 Angry Men (1957, with Henry Fonda)* - 12 Angry Men (1997)
One Hundred and One Dalmatians (1961, animated)* - 101 Dalmatians (1996 live action)
Alice in Wonderland (1933) - Alice In Wonderland (1951, 1985, 1999, 2010)
Alfie (1966, Michael Caine)* - Alfie (2004, Jude Law)
Amityville Horror (1979) - Amityville Horror (2005, Ryan Reynolds)
Assault on Precinct 13 (1976, John Carpenter - director) - Assault on Precinct 13 (2005, Laurence Fishburne)
The Bad News Bears (1976, Walter Matthau)* - Bad News Bears (2005, Billy Bob Thornton, Greg Kinear)
Bangkok Dangerous (1999, Thai film)* - Bangkok Dangerous (2008, Nicolas Cage)
La Cage aux Folles (1978, French film) - The Birdcage (1996, Robin Williams)*
Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956)*! - The Invasion (2007, Nicole Kidman)
Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory (1971, Gene Wilder)* - Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005, Johnny Depp)
The Thomas Crown Affair (1968, Steve McQueen)* - Thomas Crown Affair (1999, Pierce Brosnan)
Carrie (1976, Steven King book conversion)* - Carrie (2002)
Charlotte's Web (1973, animated)* - Charlotte's Web (2006, live action)
Les liaisons dangereuses (1956, French) - Cruel Intentions (1999, Ryan Phillippe)*! - Dangerous Liasons (1988, Glen Close)
Night of the Living Dead (1968, George Romero director)*! - Night of the Living Dead (1990)
War of the Worlds (1953)* - War of the Worlds (2005, Tom Cruise)
The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951)* - The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008, Keanu Reeves)
Death Race 2000 (1975, David Carradine)* - Death Race (2008, Jason Statham)
Fame (1980, Irene Carra)* - Fame (2009)
Yojimbo (1961, Akira Kurosawa) - A Fistful of Dollars (1964, Clint Eastwood)
The Fly (1958) - The Fly (1986, Jeff Goldblum)* - The Fly (TBA)
The Sons of Katie Elder (1965, John Wayne)* - Four Brothers (2005, Wark Wahlberg, Andre Benjamin)

The list just keeps going. But I think you get my point. Keep an eye out for my list of the best and worst remakes ever.

Note - Any movie marked with an * means it was the best version in my opinion. A movie with a ! means this is the best version of several movies based on the same film.

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: 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: 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.

Faye Dunaway vs. Hilary Duff: an unfair fight

Ok, call me slow but I just heard about the Bonnie and Clyde remake. And the blow-up it has created between Faye Dunaway and Hilary Duff. Before I go farther I will say this is like a fight between Muhamad Ali and a crackhead. But before I go there...

First off is my gripe about remakes. It just amazes me how Hollywood is looking backwards more every year we go forward. I really can’t believe that all the screenwriters in Hollywood are that lazy or incompetent. If they are, I don’t understand how they continue to be employed when there are huge numbers of hopefuls waiting to get their chance. Dennis Dortch is one such writer (and he directs) and I can’t see why he isn’t being given a chance at a bigger budget film for a new idea.

But with that said, the execs in Hollywood have decided to butcher (as virtually every remake in the past decade or so has done) yet another good movie. And based on the past ability of Hollywood to capture none of the qualities of the original film (revisioning is the current buzzword – which should mean diarrhea for the eyes) I expect that none of the cast, writers, director or executives have bothered to watch the full film. I’m not sure what you might call the Cliff Notes version of a film, but I would expect that may be all they know of the film.

Thus I am not surprised that Faye Dunaway may have stated that

“Couldn't they at least cast a real actress?”

Honestly they can’t. Because an actress of real talent (not a pop star with lots of exposure) might actually know the original film and want to be inspired by the work of Faye Dunaway. And that just won’t fit with the concept that it can be done better today than the original.

I don’t think even Las Vegas would take odds on this film being better, or Duff being half as good as Dunaway on a day she is ill. The chances of Hilary Duff or the new film getting 1 Oscar nomination, let alone the 10 that the original earned, is right there with Bigfoot walking into Times Square and dancing a jig – if current standards of remakes are exceeded.

In fact, as I had suspected, the new film is a revisioning. It will throw out much of the original film in favor of

“…news clippings of the famous Depression-era outlaws, found in an abandoned house on her family's property.”

Well at least some attempt at research and some level of involvement in the story has been attained.

Of course Duff had to respond.

“I think that my fans that are going to go see the movie don't even know who she is." Duff went on to say, "I think it was a little unnecessary, but I might be mad if I looked like that now, too."

What fans? At least Duff was smart enough not to compare her claim to fame, Lizzie McGuire, to anything any other actress has done. But she wasn’t smart enough to realize that Dunaway is 47 years her elder. Nor that Dunaway looks pretty damn good for her age, or that of a woman much younger. The same cannot be said of Duff.

And in case Hilary Duff can’t read, nor bothered to do a Google search she has achieved all of the following:

• Best Performance in a TV Movie or Pilot - Supporting Young Actress - Young Artist Awards
  
• Teenager of the Year – Rolling Stone
  
• Favorite Female Singer - Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards
  
• Best Young Ensemble in a Feature Film - Young Artist Awards
  

Not exactly prestigious. Nor overwhelming.

Faye Dunaway on the other hand:

• Started her career on the stage at age 21. By the time she was 26 she starred in the Oscar winning movie Bonnie and Clyde (which was just her 3rd movie and she gained an Academy Award nomination for the role).
  
  
• She has been in acclaimed movies including - The Thomas Crown Affair (and the remake 21 years later), Little Big Man, The Three Musketeers, Chinatown (another Oscar nomination), The Towering Inferno, Three Days of the Condor (a favorite of mine), and Network (won the Oscar).
  

Simply put, Duff needs to seriously get some acting lessons and experience before she deserves to insult her betters. Especially when they are right.

A-Team: another 80's television show to become a movie

So here is some good news, and bad news. The good news is that Ridley Scott, the director responsible for Alien, Blade Runner, American Gangster and other great films is set to have a film out in 2010. The bad news is that it is yet another television to movie conversion. Worse is the fact he will not be the director.

Yes the A-Team will now join the ever growing list of films that were originally television shows. But unlike most of these remakes (or worse yet, revisionings) this film has a writer that can actually fill the job description, to some degree.

The writer is Skip Woods, who wrote the screenplay for Swordfish and the far less involving but mediocre Hitman. Given the limited work that has been done by Woods (the GI Joe film to come out later this year is anyone’s guess on quality) the odds of the A-Team film being good is a coin toss. The chance of it being decent to good are fair, which in the land of remakes is the top of the list usually.

And as I mentioned above Ridley Scott is the big sell on this proposed movie. With 9 awards having been won by his films, you can feel a bit more confident that this film will not follow the trend. With any luck we can hope to have an expansion on the storyline, not a jumping point from it.

But I am still concerned. The A-Team is about a group of ex-soldiers wrongly convicted of a crime. Hollywood, of late at least, is hardly pro-military. Or seemingly able to make a film that touches on any aspect of soldiers without making a blatant political statement over the entertainment it’s supposed to be presenting.

Ridley Scott though has made films that convey action, intensity, and a message. His portrayal of the military – in regard to squad levels at least – have been. He is a filmmaker who still recalls that a message can be in a movie without being the movie. Which seems to be a lost art these days. But again, he is a producer and not the director.

Still I expect that the A-Team will be Iraq war veterans. They likely will be blamed for some horror that Hollywood seems abundantly willing to accept on rumor and imagination alone. Hopefully the studio execs will not mandate that they are guilty of some kind of crime, thus helping those in need out of some form of redemption.

One thing that I do hope is that we see the A-Team improve their aim. In the 80’s show, the Team couldn’t hit a target smaller than a barn. It was just ridiculous that with the amount of bullets from adversaries and the Team the only thing that was successfully hit each week was the ground, and usually the same film of an exploding shrub – regardless of where they were.

Another neat improvement might be a bit of explanation on how the Team is able to make gear that McGyver would be jealous of. Or at least have them make something that realistically is possible considering the circumstances. Seriously, I recall in one episode the A-Team was stuck in a barn, and they made a makeshift tank. I think not.

Thinking of other aspects of this movie (which has run through several versions and directors) I might be interested in is the question of cast and the director. Joe Carnahan will be the man responsible for what finally hits the screens. And this is where things begin to look really bad for the film. He is the guy responsible for the films Narc and Smokin’ Aces. I think you can find both films in the $3 bargain bin at K-Mart. Obviously I am not impressed.

But actors can make a big difference in any film. Who will take over the lead as Hannibal Smith? It has to be an older actor, like George Peppard who brought loads of experience and dignity to the show. Maybe George Clooney, or perhaps Chuck Norris? It’s a really tough call for that.

The role of Faceman – as done by Dirk Benedict is a bit easier. All you need is a decent looking White actor, no disrespect to Benedict who is more accomplished that the role required. There we can go with most any of the up and coming pretty boys. Maybe Shia Labeouf, or Leonardo DiCaprio.

Dwight Schultz did a great job as the questionably mentally impaired, possibly PTSD suffering, Howling Mad Murdock. He was amiable, off his rocker, and energetic. So a similar type of character would be likely for the film. Though likely to have more of the negatives of PTSD. Thus the young Christian Slater would have been perfect. But today I would expect maybe Alicia Keys, since the movie will need a woman in it somewhere to match current Hollywood sensibilities. And she brings in a young crowd, which the director seems to target.

As for B.A. Baracus, famously portrayed by then ex-bouncer Mr. T, some rapper that thinks they are an actor. It will be a waste. I’d rather see Michael Duncan Clarke in the role. But the director loves trendy young actors. And the film is being remade, thus meaning they are looking for a young audience that will not realize this is a remake. So the only people that fit the rebellious, Black, edgy role are rappers – or so Hollywood keeps insisting. I’d expect DMX, if he is out of jail, to get this part. And if I am right it will be the singular worse part of the entire film.

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.

I’d slate this for the DVD bin, but it’s still very early so who knows.