Tron Legacy - update

Technology can be beautiful.

In one of those rare occassions, Tron Legacy is taking everything that CGI can create and using it to make a stunning visual tour de force. My initial reservations are being eroded as I see more of what is coming in this movie. Here is the latest movie trailer, and you can see what I mean.



Visually this looks like a movie that even the Academy Awards dislike of sci-fi movies will overcome. That still leaves a plot which we know little about. There will be action, and from the looks of the latest trailer there will be plenty.

But the visual impact of the movie is breathtaking. This may be one of the rare sequels that you just have to see. Never fear, more trailers will come before the release, so keep an eye out.

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.

Hugh Jackman ain't Lee Marvin - Real Steel

Let's say that you are a Hollywood executive. So between meetings deciding where you can eat dinner and get the most peer attention, and where to drink to get the most peer attention, you have to figure out a movie to greenlight for Hugh Jackman to be in.

You could:

A) Read through the pile of original scripts that you have been using as a makeshift coffee table
B) Look through your son's comic book collection
C) Keep watching Nick-At-Nite since you are overstimulated and can't sleep more than an hour a day anyway

Sadly for Hugh Jackman, or at least his agent, the option picked in real life was C. Thus we have yet another revisioned remake of a Twilight Zone episode coming to a theater near you. Not that the horrendous revisioning of Button Button - in theaters now as The Box - had any influence on the decision.



Yes, Jackman will be starring in Real Steel. A rip-off of the Twilight Zone episode Steel that aired on October 1963 and was based on a short story from 1956. That episode starred a real great actor, Lee Marvin. It was a tale of indomitable spirit and optimism. It was gritty and Black & White. It is so old that whichever Hollywood exec is completely sure that movie-goers by large will have no idea it's yet another copy of a television show episode (not even a series).

Such is the dearth of ideas that Hollywood is willing to take a chance on. Their quest of "bankable" ideas matched with popular entertainers trump any real effort at providing entertainment more often than not. But at least this is not yet another sequel or comic book to movie conversion or video game to movie conversion.

The premise of the film is basically the same as the Twilight Zone episode. It's the future. Boxing is now relegated to only androids. Jackman is the owner of a run-down android that is his last chance at success. The theory of the film, as stated so far, is that this will be a Rocky-esque film. I suppose that means the underdog will win even though there is no reason in creation why anyone would ever believe it should happen. Then again there is always the thought



Look, Jackman is ok. But a boxer? Unless he has a crazy intense workout schedule nowhere near believable shape. Especially if they follow the Twilight Zone script and have him fight a machine. Lee Marvin was a WWII Marine Scout Sniper vet with a purple heart. Jackman is a teen heartthrob (ok, maybe to ladies older than that too). Jackman is basically the guy that is the butt of the Eddie Murphy joke (just taller and Australian).

And all of this says nothing of the filler that will be thrown into the movie to fill up the time that is outside of what was already in the Twilight Zone episode. So roughly about 30 minutes of new material from writers that haven't done anything truly original in decades. That worked out really well in The Box. I expect about the same here.

The only real hope of this film lies in the director. Shawn Levy is known for his Night at the Museum - which was decent - and the atrocious Pink Panther revisioning. That's 50/50 odds, not including the fact that Real Steel is not a comedy. My hopes are not rising.

But there is time before the trailers come out (in 2010). Who knows, maybe a writer with a spark of originality might be hired as a Christmas gift to the public. Or more likely, accountants have figured out that it's time for another great White hope, and theaters are the only place it will really pay off even if it sucks.

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: 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.

The Cylons are coming - again

You just have to love Hollywood. Because the only thing better than a hit original idea is someone else’s hit original idea that you can copy and revision over and over again. Like Halloween, The Brady Bunch, Dukes of Hazzard, Alien Vs. Predator (2 different great movies, one horrible waste of time), Mission Impossible, Invasion of the Body Snatchers (redone 4x now), Star Trek, and Battlestar Galactica. Every single one of these examples has been remade from generally a better original. Some remakes and revisioned films have even been done over 2x or more.

That is the motivation to the just announced Battlestar Galactica movie. Revisioning the original classic sci-fi television show. Again.

This time Bryan Singer will be at the helm of the movie. Which bodes better for the film since he is very successful at making conversion movies (he made the original X-Men movie and the sequel X-2). Plus he is just a good director. The Usual Suspects and Apt Pupil are great examples of a job well done.

Of course he has had his mistakes too. There was Valkyrie (mostly Tom Cruise’s fault – is an even British accent that hard for an actor?) and Superman Returns. Though the Superman series has been run into the ground long before Singer got to it.

Still I can’t imagine this next version of Battlestar Galactica being worse than the television series made by SyFy Channel. Back when they were still playing with the concept that they were a scifi channel (ie Sci-Fi). In that fiasco of a series, the entire story was butchered.

The SyFy version took every concept of the original and threw it out. About the only thing it had in common with the original was the name of the ship and some of the characters. The major Black characters were eliminated as were several female characters, the gender of the main characters was switched, the bad guys were given a convoluted and incomprehensible motivation, and the ultimate outcome was dumb. The sub-plots were almost all boring, the main plot took twists that were generally illogical, and all but 2 of the characters were worthless.

Such is the path of a revisioned product 9 out of 10 times. So what is Bryan Singer planning for his movie version? Revisioning.

The good news is that the movie will have nothing to do with the SyFy television series. Which is very good news. The bad news is that it may well have little to do with the original series either. My expectation is that the latest version will strongly influence much of this new movie version.



I’m hoping that a few things from the original stick. Like the main characters, the mythology of the original, the motivations of the original, and the relationships of the original. From the new series I think that the graphical upgrades can be interesting. That’s about it.

Overall I tend to find that remakes are miserable these days in Hollywood. They may be cheaper and/or an easier bet than an original film but less than 2 out of 10 are actually worth seeing, even on cable let alone a movie theater. When the film is revisioned, the chances of a good film drop exponentially. So at least Singer will be starting off with really abysmally low expectations.

Will this film be a Dukes of Hazard? Unlikely since Singer is a good director and decent writer. The chance of an utter disgrace is pretty small. Will the film be a Mission Impossible? Most likely. A decent film that has little to do with the source material, but gives enough of a distraction to be worth seeing in a theater. Could it be a Fly? Few remakes ever equal, in quality, the original they are based on. Even less attain a better standing than the source material.

But there is always the potential when great actors, great writing, and a great director combine – without the influence of Hollywood execs involved. Still I don’t expect that at all.

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.

Transformers 2 - controversy or not?

Transformers 2 is now in theaters, so the question of whether the hype is equal to the film is about to be answered. But setting aside the lack of logic, the overabundance of CGI and explosions, and the failure to have a script worthy of the Saturday morning versions this was created from, there is a big question.

Is having a CGI robot speaking ebonics a take on Black culture and, even in the most innocent of ways, making fun of African Americans?

This is the growing question from the film. Many fans that have seen the movie (which I have not) believe that it does, others do not. But what I have read leads me to believe that this is another instance of Hollywood sticking to what it knows best – stereotypes in bad taste.

“Skids and Mudflap, twin robots disguised as compact Chevys, constantly brawl and bicker in rap-inspired street slang. They're forced to acknowledge that they can't read. One has a gold tooth.”

So the robots are deep into hip hop. Which could mean anyone, since fans of hip hop reach from Beverly Hills to Japan to the Bronx. But how often have you seen a character in a movie that speaks “rap inspired street slang” that isn’t Black? How many movies can you recall ever having a character with a gold tooth (or teeth) that were anything but African American? Add to this the connection the major media makes between rap and violence (which is a natural conclusion), and African Americans (which is not).

So is this a caricature of African Americans? Sounds like it. In fact some are relating these characters to another CGI major movie character that inflamed millions. Jar Jar Binks. They are being called Jar Jar Bots.

How do some defend these characters?

“They don't really have any positive effect on the film," she [Tasha Robinson, associate entertainment editor at The Onion] said. "They only exist to talk in bad ebonics, beat each other up and talk about how stupid each other is.”

Sounds like most rap music videos. And who is the lead minstrels in those music videos?

This disturbs me since any association some might make to African Americans is to 2 cowards, that are illiterate, eternally distracted by the useless, and are worthless. Would you like to be referred to in an association like that? I sure don’t.

“If these characters weren't animated and instead played by real black actors, "then you might have to admit that it's racist," Robinson said. "But stick it into a robot's mouth, and it's just a robot, it's OK."

Perhaps the best way to consider if this is making fun of African Americans in a negative way is if we substitute what the characters are portraying. Let’s say that instead of rap, they went with country music. Instead of street slang they speak with a Southern drawl. And instead of the gold tooth we have a confederate flag.

So in effect we have two illiterate, cowardly (since they avoid all fights), dumb, Southern brawlers. What might be identified as the Southern inbred hillbilly redneck stereotype – like Ricky Bobby. Still sound like a fun character, something that you and your friends can laugh at? Would you laugh if you were in the deep South? Would you still like it if foreigners heard your accent and compared you to these characters?

Yes it’s a movie. And movies often use a stereotype to convey thoughts that are in the societal mindset. But the negative stereotypes really don’t need to be reinforced. Especially on an international level. And saying that it’s just a movie, is akin to saying a Nazi flag is just a decoration.

You may disagree, but for me it is just one more reason not to see this film.

Tron 2.0 will have good music at the least

In a world where originality is seemingly repugnant, a place where the promise of originality is delivered in the form of revisioning, occasionally the less than displeasing occurs. You might be thinking I'm speaking about the Obama Administration but in fact I mean Hollywood - it is hard to tell the difference sometimes I admit.

Still in Hollywood, the number of remakes, revisionings, conversions from comic books and sequels is full in stride. Virtually the entire 2009 summer season of movies falls into one of the above categories. Roughly half of the announced or planned movies of 2010 fit this bill. And even going out as far as 2011 you can expect to see a film you already know.

Of course Tron is not an ordinary film. Made in 1982 it was somewhat groundbreaking visually. And after 29 years it's going to get a much talked about sequel. Called Tron 2.0

The positives are that the visuals will be massively improved. There was no CGI in 1982. So there is one thing to look forward to. For fans of Jeff Bridges, he will be back as Flynn. And as a recent bonus, Daft Punk will be doing the entire soundtrack for the film.

Fans of the original will recount that it was the music of the film that worked so well with the visual display in giving the movie credibility and ambiance. In fact just speaking about the film brings back the main theme to my mind.



Daft Punk is known for electronica style music that is catchy and rythmic. It is popular across the globe, and heard in as many colleges as nightclubs.So that is a big boost to the potential success of this sci-fi film sequel.

Will this combination of positives be enough? No way to tell so far. Few details about the script are around. There are no trailers yet, and won't be for 9 months most likely. And we can only hope that the writers have actually seen the full movie, rather than the Cliff Notes that most sequels and revisionings seem to be based on these days.

Keanu Reeves: 2 personalities, but can any act?

Everyone loved Keanu Reeves in The Matrix. To varying degrees he was just as good in the 2 sequels to the film. Since then, well let’s just say that Reeves is likely loving the money he makes per film far more than the critical commentary.

If you think I’m saying that Reeves has sucked in the roles he has played since the Matrix Trilogy, you hit the nail on the head. There may be no better example than his most recent film, The Day The Earth Stood Still. The rewrite of this classic sci-fi film didn’t give any of the actors much to work with, and yet Reeves still underperformed. But I believe he made about $20 million for the film.

I bring this all up because of the next film to star Keanu Reeves. It’s another remake. Again it will be a classic. And I have to wonder if anything can help raise the performance of Reeves. Maybe if they don’t pay him??

The film will be a modern rendition of The Strange Case of Dr. Jeykll and Mr. Hyde. This has been done multiple times in film, on the stage, in television shows and even cartoons. There is an enormous amount of room for the writers to work in a modern story, and change anything in the story they want. So in that at least the film has a chance to be decent since there is no single version this movie will be compared to.

But Reeves is the real question. His acting has been flat for quite some time. I can imagine his portrayal as one character with the standard level of emotion we have seen n the last several movies with Reeves: and the other could be a character that actually seems alive and interested in what is going on.

We should hope that if this is true, the Hyde character will be the lively persona. But no guarantees on that.

Look, I’d be the first one to compliment Reeves on a job well done – if he does a job well anytime before I retire. I would love to talk about the film remake that breaks the trend of low cost scripts and similar acting. It would be a huge joy to watch a classic film in a modern venue. But I think the closest any of us will get to seeing this on a big screen is if we watch the BBC mini-series on a big screen television in our homes.

Either way, don’t expect to see this film for about another 2 years. The script is still being developed. Filming is far off. And Reeves should spend some time going back to acting class, or maybe watching a couple of the Lon Cheney films (father and/or son).

More on this when the trailer comes out, or more news develops.

Movie Preview: Pandorum

Well at least Hollywood is consistent. That’s the first impression I get from the movie trailer for Pandorum.



Instantly you get the feeling that the movie is a mix of sci-fi horror movies – specifically Alien – and the recent rash of video games. The fact that the producers of the movie are also the ones responsible for the Resident Evil movies just adds to the sense of a video game conversion.

The movie trailer is supposed to give you the feeling of impending doom, yet I just get the memory of the movie Doom. It’s filmed in dark shadows to emphasize the danger. I just think it’s harder to see what’s happening. The big question in the film is whether or not the main characters are really living through this horror or are they just imagining it all. The trailer doesn’t really make me care.

Obviously the film will be doing a series of flashbacks, to show how the crew all met their demise. Likely there will be some video record to show how they inevitably went to some planet, and picked up something. That something became the object of suspicion as crew members died. If this sounds familiar, it should be. Countless numbers of video games and movies has used the same plotline, from Alien, as their theme.

Now I could be completely wrong. And the movie could be quite good. But appearances don’t seem to support those possibilities. More likely this film is perfect for those that want to sit in a theater and have a couple of gotcha moments for an hour and a half. It will be like playing an ok video game without any of the effort. Something you can forget completely once you get up from your seat. Which is not always a bad thing.

Suffice to say I am not impressed yet. I am surprised that Dennis Quaid is in the film. Normally he is pretty good a picking his films. Which means that either the trailer was put together badly, and the film has far more potential than what is presented, or they paid a lot of money to have a name attached to the film and Quaid will barely be in the movie.

There is still time for more trailers to come out. More of the storyline will be seen and either I am right in my gut instinct that this is a good $5 DVD bin movie, or it will be a decent horror sci-fi film. At this moment, I have to go with my gut, and recommend seeing the DVD of Dead Space until this hits the DVD in 6 months or so.

Watchmen: 2nd movie trailer out

I've spoken about the Watchmen movie previously, and my excitement continues to build. A new movie trailer has come out which sets the tone of the movie quite well.



That got my blog pumping. If you don't see this movie, you must be dead. Ok, a bit extreme but I really think this movie is going to surprise and blow away people in hordes.

There's nothing more to say, the video clip has done it all.

Movie Review: Doomsday

A while back I mentioned that a film called Doomsday would be out this year. I believe I described the preview as

“Could I be wrong? Sure, but the odds of this being good are about the same as television suddenly realizing the world is made up of more than just White people. I’d sooner bet on Britney Spears making a comeback and/or being named mother of the year than this movie being a hit. The only real positive for it is that the female lead is good looking, and there isn’t another action or sci-fi film out to compete with it. [Jumper is so bad as to not count.]"

Having seen the film I can say this – I was wrong. It was an even worse mash of Mad Max, 28 Days Later, A Knights Tale, and Equilibrium than I imagined. Oh and a touch of Escape from New York as well.

The film sucked. The best part of the film may have been the introduction. It was singly the most intelligent part of the whole film. Another positive in the film is that the Black actor (Adrian Lester of Hustle I believe) does not get killed off in 15 minutes, and he even has a brain (though he does get killed, have no doubt).

How they got Malcolm McDowell or Bob Hoskins I have no idea. The film did not have that big a budget. And it showed. And they were very wasted talent, though combined I think they had all of 10 minutes of on-screen time.

One positive was the way the film jumps from a nihilistic future, to Mad Max/Escape from New York, to Knight’s tale and back. Dumb, but inventive.

If there was a reason to see the film – like someone paid you – I can understand seeing it. If while playing Frisbee with a friend you realize that the Frisbee is actually this on DVD, keep playing Frisbee.

Seriously the film was dumb. And boring. And way longer than it needed to be. I was tempted to stop watching after the only Black guy in the film died, since he seemed to be the smartest person in the film and the best fighter. At least he made it ¾ of the way through.