KING KONG trailer is up now!

KONG in Quicktime!

Watch it. Now. Before you go to bed. Dream about it. I'm loving it.

July 8: Fantastic Four and Murderball

Fantastic Four

The Story: On mission to an orbiting space station, five ordinary people hit with cosmic rays that alter their genetics, giving them extraordinary… err… fantastic powers. Four of them (Ioan Gruffudd, Jessica Alba, Chris Evans and Michael Chiklis) become the widely-known and popular superheroes the Fantastic Four. The fifth (Julian McMahon) becomes Dr. Doom, the widely known yet strangely less popular supervillain. Stuff blows up… clobberin’ time, flame on… you’ve seen this trailer, you know what happens.

The Good: The tiny little look we get at Julian McMahon before the mask goes on. He looks like he has a long and storied future of villains ahead of him. One can only hope he survives this movie to be able to fulfill this. And Chris Evans looks like he’s having a great time. The fire effects look like they’ll be some kind of fun – maybe a preview for Ghost Rider coming up.

The Bad: Just about every piece of footage released for this one so far. And Chris Evans looks like the only one who is having fun, which is something that looks like it may extend to the audience as well. Comic book movies have gone two ways: they’ve been truthful to the books, but still done the movie thing, which turned something into a living, breathing big-screen comic book, a la Spider-Man 2, or they’ve gone shot for shot in a recreation of the comic book, not changing anything they could avoid changing, as in Sin City. Fantastic Four looks to fall somewhere else in between – sticking painfully close to source material in costume and style, but failing to drag something intriguing – like a fully constructed plot – out of it. And after Sin City, you need to work hard to make me not want to see Jessica Alba in spandex for an entire movie.
…
And The Thing’s costume just looks goofy. This better not be foreshadowing Beast in X3.

The Verdict: Will I see Fantastic Four? Yeah probably, though it might be out of curiosity more than interest. This one scares me, and I think you’re looking at a superhero flop the size of The Punisher.

My Guess: * 1/4


Murderball

The Story: This documentary is about wheelchair rugby – before it became an Olympic sport, it was known as murderball. Now, the people who play the sport show the world what it’s really like. In the process, they allowed filmmakers into their lives to see every detail, touching on families, rivalries, sex, honor and competition, parts of the human experience that are alive and well even if you can’t stand upright. The documentary follows the ups and downs of a rivalry between Team USA and Team Canada – the latter being coached by a former USA player.

The Good: Just about everything, so I’ve heard. It won the Documentary Audience Award at Sundance this year, along with an editing award. The trailer makes me very interested. Plus, for all of you suckers for heartwarming stories, these are people who refuse to let their disadvantaged state negatively affect their lives. And they prove that they are still the men they used to be. They just can’t stand up while they do it. Tear-jerking, really.

The Bad: Umm… it’s a documentary about wheelchair rugby. Even with the popularity of docs on the rise, that might still fit in the niche category.

The Verdict: Anyone who sees the trailer ought to be intrigued enough to check this one out. I’ve heard nothing but praise, and I hope/expect to add my own soon enough.

My Guess: * * * 1/2

Bruce Campbell Night!

Tuesday night was indeed Bruce Campbell night at Coolidge Corner. Everyone's favorite shemp spent the whole night there, from 6PM until well past midnight. He started off with a full question and answer period, allowing the packed house to ask him anything and everything. And that they did.

I have to say, I feel bad for Bruce. If you look at his current projects, it ought to be pretty obvious how far he's strayed from being "that guy in Evil Dead." Yes, he's doing Ash's voice once again in the "Evil Dead: Regeneration" game, but there's also his books, Man With The Screaming Brain, Sky High, The Woods... he's got a lot going on, and he's certainly not living or breathing Evil Dead like some of the schmucks at the Q&A were. Now, don't get me wrong, I love those movies. They are probably three of my favorites of all time. But there needs to be a point when you dissociate the man from the character. Many of them may follow him throughout his career, but it always comes back to "Say groovy!" or something equally inane.

And he wants to talk about other things. When he spoke at Northeastern a few months back, he very eloquently lashed out at the lack of unoriginality in Hollywood. Last night, he drew the crowd into a mini-debate about Batman Begins, because Bruce could barely speak the name without disdain and disappointment creeping into his tone. He says they're selling the same story to us for the fourth or fifth time. "Not interested!" "But it's a good movie!" the fans cried. "I'm glad," he said. "My son loves it, he's seen it twice. NOT INTERESTED." I did love Batman Begins, but the man makes a good point. He emphasizes it via Man with the Screaming Brain, but I'll get to that a little later.

Interesting tidbits to come out of the Q&A:

• MGM has expressed interest in Bubba Nosferatu, the sequel to Bubba Ho-Tep. Interest is great, but Bruce put it best. With Sony buying them, "there will be a year of figuring out whose desk is whose. And then everything gets delayed."
• Despite all the hubbub, Evil Dead IV is less a matter of "if" and more of "when." "It's our franchise," Bruce said, so naturally they want to do more. Most of it depends on Sam Raimi finding time in his ever-expanding schedule.
• Man with the Screaming Brain was originally going to be set in East L.A., but after years of delay, it got moved to Bulgaria because that's where it was cheapest to shoot. Interestingly enough, a woman from Latvia found her way into the audience, and proceeded to rant in her native language, talking over Bruce and frustrating him to no end. After about half an hour, she was escorted out of the theater. We found out later that she apparently was protesting him taking advantage of local workers in Bulgaria to make his film. According to him, Bulgarians make on average about $110 a month. "Bulgarians never had it so good as they did working on Man with the Screaming Brain!"
• Bruce and Ted Raimi had a great time doing vocies for the new Evil Dead videogame "Regeneration." Bruce said he likes putting Ted in anything he does "because Ted Raimi makes me look subtle."

That's it for now. Back later with a review of Man with the Screaming Brain. Also continuing the 2005 preview. Stay tuned!

Man with the Screaming Brain
Seen June 21 at Coolidge Corner
* * 3/4 (out of 4)

I think expectations got the best of me here. I mean, it's a Bruce Campbell movie, written-directed-starring the man himself. Naturally I should love it, right?

I liked it. I did. There were some very funny parts, and the absurdity of it all was very appealing. And hey, it was a brand-spanking-new idea that not many people would think to make a movie of, which is to its credit.

Bruce plays William Cole, a wealthy businessman who travels to Bulgaria to finalize a deal that would mean a huge tax write-off for his company. While there, he is killed in fairly short order, as is the taxi driver/former KGB thug (Vladimir Kolev) he hires to be his transportation. A brilliant-yet-slightly-crazy doctor and his less-than-brilliant-but-more-than-crazy assistant (Stacey Keach and Ted Raimi, respectively) use new technology to combine the brains of both men into Cole's body, and the quest to find the woman who killed them both begins.

I think the biggest problems I have are all technical ones, things pretty far out of Bruce's control. As he said in his introduction, this was made for "hundreds of thousands of dollars," so production-wise, I know I can't expect a whole lot. It was also made for TV, so the transfer over to a projection system might not have been as clean as it could have been. Regardless, I had real problems hearing and understanding anyone who wasn't Bruce or his wife, played by Antoinette Byron. Accents just didn't pick up well at all, and it makes it a little hard to follow what's going on. It also had something of a washed-out look to it. Part of it was just not the best translation from being shot for the Sci Fi Channel to being projected onto a full-sized screen, but it got a little distracting at times.

Other than that, it's just plain silly. That's a good thing for most of it. A scene soon after the two brains are combined involves Bruce and his newly scarred head traumatizing a group of school children in a town square - pretty priceless. Frankly, the movie was worth the price just to see Ted Raimi rapping with a Bulgarian accent. Ted is, in fact, source for lots of silliness in this one... I find it kind of odd to have a purely comic relief character in a generally comic movie. Like Bruce said, sublety is not Ted's strong point, and he kinda beats stuff into the ground, but he comes out no worse for wear. I mean, it's Ted Raimi, here. It was also kinda fun to see scenes in the movie correlate to things out of Bruce's new book, Make Love the Bruce Campbell Way, like the hilariously blatant use of a stunt dummy.

This is a B-movie all the way, as one would come to expect. That's something that it embraces fully, with sight gags galore and silliness abound. It's possible I just wasn't in the right sort of mood, and some other time, I might enjoy it much more thoroughly. It probably didn't help that in order to pass the time during the signing, the Coolidge screened Bubba Ho-Tep, which I love, complete with commentary by "The King," which made me love it a little bit more. It's obvious that this was Bruce's baby and that he's very happy with how it came out. I definitely liked it... it's not the best thing I've ever seen, but it was a fun way to spend an evening, especially with him in attendance. Check it out if you've come to enjoy him in any of his capacities as writer, director, or actor.

6/29: War of the Worlds

The Story: This one centers on one man (Tom Cruise) who is fairly disconnected from his son and daughter. While spending time with them, aliens happen to execute an invasion plan they've had in the works for a long, long time. Kinda kicks the paternal instinct in when you know your kids are in danger from bad-ass ETs, doesn't it? The aliens attack, and all sorts of chaos ensues.

The Good: Steven Spielberg returns full-force to aliens for the first time since E.T. Between that and Close Encounters of the Third Kind, there's no question he knows what he is doing. It's written by David Koepp, who I think it's safe to say is one of the most successful writers working in Hollywood - Jurassic Park, Panic Room, Spider-Man, Mission: Impossible... he's done all right for himself. It's also been reported that Koepp had a list of things that could not appear in the movie, because they're just too cliched (unnecessarily brutal assaults on New York City, world capitals being attacked, etc), so something original had to be thought of to keep this one moving. Plus the trailers just look like all kinds of fun, with some awe-inspiring destruction. And Dakota Fanning may be the best 10 year old actor around. Like scary-good.

The Bad: Rumors of Cruise's and Katie Holmes relationship being staged have worked their way towards overshadowing this movie and Batman Begins, neither of which need the extra help. Also, I can understand people who might be getting sick of Cruise. He's gotten to the point of playing a caricature of himself unless he's given something good and new to work with (see Collateral).

The Verdict: Unabashed fun. I'm there as soon as I can be. Spielberg dealing with aliens and war in the same film? Who can argue?

My Guess: * * * 3/4

June 24th: Bewitched and George A. Romero's Land of the Dead
Summer Movie Preview
All ratings out of 4 stars.

6/24: Bewitched

 

The Story: An actor (Will Ferrell) trying to get his career back on track cast
himself as Darren in a new version of the classic sitcom. The show has been retooled
as a staring vehicle for Darren, but he doesn’t tell that to Isabel (Nicole Kidman),
who he casts as his wife. Little does he know that the slighted actress is actually
a real-life, practicing witch. Hilarity ensues.

The Good: Nicole Kidman tends to offer a minimal level of quality in whatever she
does, so that should be worth watching. Michael Caine, playing Isabel’s warlock
father, looks to be having fun, and he can be very, very funny when he has a good
time with what he’s given – think Dirty Rotten Scoundrels, or even Batman Begins.
Also, Bewitched was written and directed by the sister team of Delia and Nora
Ephron, who put together Sleepless in Seattle, When Harry Met Sally, and You’ve Got
Mail. At the very least, they know how to write romantic comedies.

The Bad: The trailers show Will Ferrell overacting to the point of irritation,
which isn’t anything unusual. He tends to surround himself with good people, though
not much seems to rub off on him. Also, the idea of a Bewitched movie that
recognizes the show as a separate entity fits into the “movies about people who
make movies” category, which I find hard to take in large doses. It’s a little too
close to biting the hand that feeds you, I think.

The Verdict: The strong supporting cast (Caine, Shirley MacLaine, David Alan Grier
and others) will give some laughs, but I’m still not convinced that Will Ferrell
can carry a movie. Especially not something with as weak a starting point as a
former sitcom. 

My Guess: * *

George A. Romero’s Land of the Dead

The Story: As if it really matters… George Romero returns to the genre he “created”
for another tale of blood, guts and the walking dead. The last surviving humans on
the planet have taken to a walled city, and while the wealthy ignore the outside
threat, revolutionaries plan to overthrow the authorities. A group of mercenaries
must stop the impending anarchy, all the while dealing with the zombie threat. It
certainly doesn’t help when the zombies start evolving.

The Good: While I don’t know if Romero quite invented the zombie survival-horror
genre, he certainly did more for it than any other single filmmaker. There’s no
doubt he knows what he’s doing. A cast of lesser know but still competent leads led
some support, but the real stars are the latex-covered undead, which look better
than ever. The sheer number of zombies alone should make for lots of fun action.

The Bad: The preview starts off with two of the weaker plots ever conceived. Still,
unlike Bewitched, most people going to see this movie aren’t going to care so much
about the plot. The idea of zombies evolving has me a little worried… doesn’t that
start to violate the definition of “zombie?” It’ll depend what Romero decides they
can do.

The Verdict: Mindless? Yeah, probably. Just like the stars. And that’s what will
make it fun. It’s not going to be something for the ages, but anyone going to this
one will get exactly what they expect – Romero doing what he does best.

My Guess: * * * 1/4

There's time!

Hey kids...

Now that I have actually found a little bit of free time to write, I figured I might do something a little different. Since this has obviously shied away from being a review blog (based on the lack of reviews), I think I'll do a bit of a 2005 preview to see what's coming up. I'll take a look at the rest of the summer, week by week, and then move into Oscar season at the end of the year to give people a general idea of what's coming up.

Also, thanks to Jay's suggestion, I'm also working on a mini-preview of upcoming shows at the Brattle in Cambridge, and maybe the Coolidge and Kendall as well.

Stay tuned...

Batman Begins
Seen Wednesday, June 15 At Loews Boston Common #2
* * * 3/4

DC ties the score.

The comic book movie is a strange creature. Most of them get unfairly transformed into action movies (see Blade. See Blade hit things. See Blade put on sunglasses, and hit things harder) because that's the easiest mainstream genre to immediately apply to a comic title. Only twice before have I sat in a movie and felt like I was watching something that came from a comic book - most recently was Sin City, which could be argued was barely a movie since it was nearly panel to frame from Frank Miller's graphic novel. The first time, it was Spider-Man 2, where Sam Raimi not only captured the feel of the action scenes, but also nailed all those little things that happen in between, the parts where Peter Parker is the star of the show, not Spider-Man. It was balanced almost perfectly. While it doesn't quite reach the balance of the webslinger's second installment, Batman Begins succeeds in separating the hero from the man behind the mask, and allowing each to exist in their own right.

Strangely, this almost shifts the other way - this is more a movie about Bruce Wayne than it is about Batman. That's an important distinction, because in the Batman movies of the past, Wayne has been treated like a supporting character, and an aggravating-albeit-necessary one at that. Christopher Nolan, David Goyer and Christian Bale recognized that Batman isn't a superhero in the regular sense of the word - he has no "powers," per se. He's not an alien, he hasn't been exposed to lots of radiation, he hasn't been bitten by something that has, and he's not the next step in human evolution. He's just Bruce Wayne, who was born into a certain amount of privilege, and at a young age had the walls fall down around him and shatter his world. Bruce being a normal (rich, yes, but still normal) guy presents an opportunity that none of the other Batmovies explored - you can competently explain how he got this way. The other situations are convenient, science-fiction write-offs that waive the need for an origin. Things were this way, and now, thanks to this incredibly cool but realistically improbable event, things are that way. Events in Bruce's life are real and unexaggerated, and the team finally fills in the gaps.

Almost everything gets answered: How he learned to fight. Where the Batsuit came from, both theoretically and practically. Where the Batcave came from. Why a bat. And, most importantly, his motivation for doing any of this. The film goes step by step through the origin of Batman, and how Bruce changes when he puts on that suit and mask. One of the other fun things is that at every turn, they consider the consequences. Previous Batman movies had Bruce out all night saving Gotham from the terrors of the world, and then out the next night in a tux, rested and energetic and charming. Bale's version of Bruce Wayne is passed out until 3 PM the day after his first foray as Batman, and he's got the bruises and sore muscles to show for his actions.

I could run the comparison directly, pitting Christian Bale against Michael Keaton, Val Kilmer and George Clooney, but there's not much point. This is a very different person Bale is playing than the playboy-with-a-secret the others all played. He quickly and easily turned away from the previous examples, and made the part entirely his own. He's backed up by an astounding supporting cast. Morgan Freeman and Michael Caine are particularly outstanding, playing loyal Wayne employees, but Gary Oldman, Liam Neeson, Cilian Murphy and Tom Wilkinson don't waste any moment they are on screen either. The other high-profile cast member, Katie Holmes as Wayne's childhood sweetheart (we're talking 10 or 11 year old sweethearts, here), is more or less inconsequential and easily forgotten. Rachel Dawes is nothing special, and is used as a device to get Batman on the scene more than any significant entanglement in Bruce's life.

The only disappointment here, surprising for a big-budget comic book movie, is the action. Watching Bruce train for the League of Shadows, the group that teaches him all his moves and methods, is fantastic, because it's more about how he approaches it, less about the punches and kicks he's throwing. Once Batman has to throw down and fight, Nolan succumbs to the typical frenetic, disjointed action sequences that plague Hollywood right about now. I couldn't actually tell who he was swinging at half the time. There's also a car chase sequence that seems so out of place (and much too long) that even the writers poke fun at the absurdity of it (Alfred: "If this is supposed to be covert, sir, then what do you call that?" He indicates a TV recapping the previous night's car chase between the Tumbler and the police. Wayne "Good TV.") That's all it is. It'sa crowd pleaser for a crowd that's already happy. It doesn't need to be there, and it doesn't help much of anything.

But if that's my only complaint, it's a small price to pay. The action takes up so small a section of the movie that the disappointment is a minor one. Fighting is a distraction from what's going on in Wayne's internal world anyway, so the forgettable action is also forgivable. This is an amazing character reimagining that I can only hope Warner Brothers has the balls to stick with. Should a franchise spawn, it needs to avoid becoming the abonination of the late '90s. So long as the current team stays involved, I don't think that'll be a problem. They redeemed this character and this story, and I would love to see what else they could do with it.

Star Wars - Episode III: Revenge of the Sith
Seen Thursday, May 19 (12:15 AM show) at Loews Boston Common; Monday, May 30th at AMC Fenway
* * * 3/4 (out of 4)

It took seeing it twice, but I'm sold. As cool as it is to see a movie at midnight, as soon as possible after it's released, it's not necessarily the best way to see it. After working all day, going out to dinner for my girlfriend's birthday, and standing outside on Tremont Street for about 2 hours, I have to admit I was a bit cranky when I finally got into the theater. It didn't help that I got in there at about 11:15, with a full hour to wait until the movie would begin, giving myself plenty of time to get tired as well. After the second viewing, I fully blame these circumstances for my hesitations about the 6th Star Wars movie, something I've been waiting to see for nearly 15 years.

I understand my 15 years isn't as impressive as the near-30 years some people have been waiting, but that's still a huge chunk of my life that I've been in love with something that had no resolution, no closure. That's exactly what RotS provides. The end (in the form of the middle) of the story. All those little tidbits that had been alluded to in the original trilogy materialized; everything that has been building in the prequels came to fruition. It is the missing piece that ties the two sections of story together.

That's not to say it's perfect. Far from. It's long been evident that George Lucas should be kept as far away as possible from anything involving romance, because he simply doesn't know how to keep it from being awkward. At least in this installment, Anakin and Padme seem sincere about their feelings. Even still, Hayden Christensen still plays Anakin pretty stiff... but everyone in the world has bemoaned his portrayal since day one, so I won't reiterate what's already been said. I will give him credit that once Anakin turns toward evil, he does well to keep it a pretty consistent descent into villainy - given his first act as a Sith, it's hard to see him as anything else ever again.

Performances are where this comes up a little short. I blame it on the green screen. The reason Lucas made these prequels now was because the technology had become available to give them the look that he wanted. Unfortunately for actors, that means a lot of work in front of green screens, and I can tell you from personal experience that it can be very hard to give a full-blown performance when you can't see the majority of what you will eventually be interacting with. This is most evident in the first 20 minutes, during which Obi-Wan and Anakin are in the midst of maybe one of the most frantic, exciting, and entertaining space battles ever fought, and yet their tones of voice and demeanors are akin to people on a leisurely drive. Something doesn't quite fit.

On the other hand, Ian McDiarmid, gravely underpraised for his work in any of the films he's graced, solidly cements himself as one of the most heinous villains on film. In this installment, his Senator Palpatine finishes the dark side seduction of Anakin, and despite the serpentine, demonic quality McDiarmid gives him, I can almost understand why. He's evil, but he's that dangerously charismatic kind of evil. McDiarmid absorbs everything, and I think it's a shame he never showed up in more films than he did.

Everyone can say what they want about the prequels. I personally get a tad bit offended by people who say that Lucas is taking them in the wrong direction. I'm not sure how he can take something he created and take it in any "wrong" direction; if this is the direction he intended, then it is the correct one. Regardless, Revenge of the Sith completes a thirty-year story, and solidifies Lucas's world. I think that is what has always amazed me about Star Wars. Lucas was able to do what very few people in the world have the creative capacity to do: he created an entirely separate world. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis did in in literature, and Lucas gave film it's own entirely independent universe, allegorical though it may be. Many fans have lost themselves in it before, and more than the other two prequels, Sith will ensure that many others get lost for a long, long time.