Enthusiastically Ambiverted Hopepunk
While I’m not nearly as much of a movie buff as many, I do like ’em and watch ’em when I can.
Oooooooohhhhh! According to this OneRing.net story, in the two weeks before “Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King” opens, the extended versions of “LOTR: The Fellowship of the Ring” and “LOTR: The Two Towers” will be released to theaters — and some theaters will have a day-long LOTR marathon with back-to-back screenings of all three films on Dec. 16^th^.
If that marathon showing is here at the Cinerama in Seattle, I am so going to be there.
(via /.)
Activision, Inc., a leading developer, publisher and distributor of interactive entertainment software products, today announced that it has filed a breach of contract suit against Viacom. …through its actions and inactions, Viacom has let the once proud Star Trek franchise stagnate and decay. Viacom has released only one “Star Trek” movie since entering into agreement with Activision and has recently informed Activision it has no current plans for further “Star Trek” films. Viacom also has allowed two “Star Trek” television series to go off the air and the remaining series suffers from weak ratings. Viacom also frustrated Activision’s efforts to coordinate the development and marketing of its games with Viacom’s development and marketing of its new movies and television series.
(via Lane)
My first response? It’s about damn time! Trek has been going steadily downhill for quite a while now — I’m less than impressed with Enterprise, I’m being told to forego purchasing Voyager, and there hasn’t been a truly good Trek movie since Star Trek VI (First Contact came the closest, but I’ve got some definite issues with it, too). Whether it’s the fault of Viacom, Paramount, or the people writing and controlling the franchise, the fact is that it’s nowhere near where it was — nor where it likely could be.
However, that said — this seems pretty frivolous. Is it really Viacom’s purported mismanagement of the Trek franchise that is causing problems for ActiVision and their Trek-themed games? Or is it that the games themselves aren’t all that good to begin with? I’m not a gamer myself, and have neither seen nor played a Star Trek themed computer game since NetTrek, so I’m not at all in a position to judge the games. I just question whether the downward slide of the Trek franchise is enough of a contributor to ActiVision’s lack of sales to support a breach of contract suit. I’m sure it was one factor, but that much of a deciding factor? I’m not sure.
Ooooh…I’m all sorts of excited about this: Neverland, a modern retelling of Peter Pan.
Neverland is [Damion Dietz] updated take exploring that thesis, with the Lost Boys a group of urban punks, Tinkerbell a single parent, Tiger Lilly a drag queen and Hook a sadomasochistic fury out to destroy all the beauty he envies.
…it works both as a fable and on straightforwardly realistic terms as well — and he’s not afraid to explore the darker implications of Peter’s refusal to accept adult responsibility and Captain Hook’s obsession with his own lost youth and beauty.
…Neverland seems like an appropriate way to celebrate the centenary of a book that never grows old. It opens up the book to newer dimensions, not to mention new audiences. Adults who remember the story only vaguely will be induced to pick up the book again, to check how the metaphors line up with the events in the book, to see whether they can see those pale colors when they close their eyes.
— from various reviews on the Neverland press page
(via Wil)
Y’know, I’m almost ashamed to admit it, but after seeing the trailer for Spy Kids 3 before Pirates of the Caribbean this weekend, I kind of want to see it. I’m certainly not expecting it to be good, but it sure looks like it could be some great campy fun.
I mean, come on — Robert Rodriguez directing; a cast that includes Antonio Banderas, Ricardo Montalban, Sly Stallone, and Salma Hayek; and to top it all off, over-the-top 3-D special effects? Even if it’s absolutely horrid, it could be a blast to see in the theater.
Guess one of these days I’m going to have to rent the first two Spy Kids movies to catch up on the story…
The first pic (that I’ve heard of, at least) of the villain in next summer’s Spider Man sequel — Doctor Octopus — hit the ‘net yesterday. Looks quite promising, from the one shot that’s up, I definitely like the design (though the arms do seem to bear a definite resemblance to the arms of the ‘squidies’ in the Matrix films).
Even better to find out, though, was that Tobey is still on board as Spidey, Sam Raimi is directing again, and Doc Ock is being played by Alfred Molina. USA Today has the details:
Alfred Molina, who has done wrong in everything from Chocolat to Dudley Do-Right, is the man bearing those malevolent arms.
“Alfred happens to be a great actor who has some of the qualities of a loved character,” says director Sam Raimi, who returns for a second spin with the web-slinging superhero reprised by Tobey Maguire and due next July 2. “Doc Ock had to have a commanding presence and intelligence,” Raimi says. “He’s got the look of a bodybuilder from 1954.”
Molina fit the bill as well as the costume, which includes dark goggles and a swept-forward hairdo.
“I’m told he’s one of the more popular villains,” says Molina, 50, who occasionally flipped through the comics as a kid. “It would have been foolish to have said no.” Originally a humanitarian, the doctor conducts an experiment that goes horribly awry and accidentally fuses a quartet of huge squid limbs to his spine.
(via Chaos Theory)
Okay, so I finally got a chance to go see Pirates of the Caribbean yesterday. When I first started hearing about it, I was pretty skeptical — a movie based on a Disney theme park ride? Interest was reawakened once I started hearing the cast list (Johnny Depp, Orlando Bloom, and Geoffrey Rush). Then, it finally came out, and was getting good reviews. Wow, did Disney manage to do something right without Pixar‘s help?
They did indeed. PotC:CotBP is an absolute blast, start to finish. From the wonderfully understated opening credits (a rarity these days — nothing but the title of the film is shown) and spooky opening sequence to set up the story, right through to the end credits, I was grinning all the way through.
One of the things I was very pleasantly surprised to find was that in contrast to the ride itself, which has been toned down over the years due (in one sequence, lusty pirates chasing nubile young women are now hungry pirates chasing women carrying plates of food), the movie didn’t flinch at all from innuendo, violence, and flat-out pirate fun. Swashbuckling swordfights, cursed treasure, cannon fire on the open seas, plunging necklines, it’s all there — and, of course, what would a pirate movie be without someone walking the plank?
The plot, while bearing little overt resemblance to the classic theme park ride, works well as a way to create an enjoyable movie while allowing the filmmakers plenty of opportunities to slip in references to memorable scenes in the original ride. Wench chasing abounds as the pirates sail in and invade the port, cannonballs flying and swords slashing, as other pirates locked in a cell vainly try to coax the keys from a pooch sitting just out of reach.
Depp’s portrayal of Cap’n Jack Sparrow was an absolute treat, as was Geoffrey Rush’s Barbossa, commanding the pirate galleon The Black Pearl itself. While I didn’t think Orlando Bloom as Will Turner particularly stood out, he definitely didn’t do a bad job, and Keira Knightley did a fine job as Elizabeth Swann (and she’s not bad eye candy, either!). I was also pleasantly surprised to see Jonathan Pryce pop up as Elizabeth’s father, Gov. Swann — I’ve enjoyed seeing him in things since I first noticed him in Brazil and Something Wicked This Way Comes.
The effects were, as far as I’m concerned, near-perfect. The cursed pirates, who appear normal unless seen in direct moonlight, when they appear as rotted skeletons, were simply amazing to see. Shots where the characters walked from shadow to moonlight and back into shadow, alternately concealing and revealing their true forms, were flawless. Even in the most trying of sequences — during a furious swordfight, running and leaping all over the screen, moving in and out of moonlight — it looked dead-on. Excellent work.
And the fights! Finally, I got a movie that addressed one of my main complaints about most modern fight sequences: that they’re too fast and cut too choppily to be of any real interest whatsoever. I never ended up grumbling to myself that I couldn’t tell what was going on during the movie, and the staging and coreography were equally impressive. Easily my favorite fight happens early in the film, as Jack Sparrow blunders into Will Turner’s smithy. Both Depp and Bloom obviously have fun with the sequence, and while there are definitely moments that defy credibility, none of them stretch it to the point of breaking. This may very well be my favorite swordfight since the fight between Inigo and The Man in Black in The Princess Bride — high praise indeed!
All in all, an absolute thrill ride of a movie. Highly recommended indeed.
Okay, I have to see Pirates of the Caribbean now!
[Johnny Depp’s character Jack Sparrow] wears a red bandana and black eye makeup. His hair is beaded and he has three braids dangling from his chin. And his teeth are gold. Depp loved the idea of giving this 18th-century buccaneer a Rastafarian look. But he says the main inspiration for this character was Rolling Stones guitarist Keith Richards with a bit of everybody’s favourite cartoon skunk, Pepe Le Pew, thrown in for good measure.
“I was trying to figure the pirates of the 18th century and what it was all about. Initially you think money and all that. But I think it also had much more to do with freedom and to be out there moving forward. I sort of thought that pirates would be the rock ‘n’ roll stars of the 18th century. The greatest rock ‘n’ roll star of all time, the coolest rock ‘n’ roll star of all time, is Keith Richards — hands down. And Keith is very — I mean, you spend time with him and he’s very much a pirate.”
But when it came to conveying Jack Sparrow’s romantic nature, Depp immediately thought of Pepe Le Pew.
\”What I love about Pepe Le Pew is that this guy is absolutely convinced that he’s a great lady’s man. And he’s a skunk! You’re watching those cartoons and this guy falls deeply in love with this cat, and the cat clearly despises him.
“But Pepe Le Pew takes it that she’s playing hard to get — that she’s shy, poor thing. I loved that character’s blindness — no matter what the actual reality is, this guy sees only what he wants to see.”
Depp considers Pepe Le Pew the sort of character who was able “to run between the raindrops.” And that, he says, is how he envisaged Jack Sparrow.
(from Pirate’s Gold, via Anita)
Dad sent me a link a few minutes ago to this story on BeliefNet about a new film from Mel Gibson depicting the last days of Christ, which looks to be causing a bit of controversy.
But then, don’t all films about Christ cause controversy — especially before they’re released, when nobody can actually make an informed decision about any aspect of the film? Ugh. But anyway. The uproar at this point seems to be that Gibson has endeavored to create a brutally accurate depiction of the beatings and torture that Jesus went through.
Gibson, who has not yet found a studio to release the film, is a devout Catholic and was determined to show fully the torture and painful death of Jesus.
The creator of the bloody film about William Wallace, Braveheart, has not scrimped on the gore: scene after scene in the trailer, on numerous movie websites, feature a battered and bruised Jesus staggering through the streets of Jerusalem covered in blood.
The film, which cost 15 million pounds and is solely in Aramaic and Latin, has caused controversy in the US, even before a single image has been released.
First off — the film is “solely in Aramaic and Latin”? Wow. That, in itself, is pretty impressive.
The trailer itself (which I’ve mirrored on djwudi.com) looks quite interesting — and not nearly worth the controversy that it’s generating, given the subject matter at hand. I find it amazing and somewhat ridiculous that movie after movie comes out with incredible amounts of blood and gore, with nary a comment (Gibson’s own Braveheart won a multitude of awards, and it had some of the most violent battles I’d seen on screen), yet when someone dares to show the crucifixion without prettying it up, people get all up in arms.
Now, if the movie comes out and turns out to be theologically reprehensible, then people might have something to complain about. However, I doubt that that’s going to be the case, given Gibson’s well-documented devout Catholic views. It remains to be seen whether it will be groundbreaking in any way aside from not flinching away from the abuse that Jesus took, but I don’t think that Gibson is suddenly going to turn blasphemer.
For a good look at what Jesus had to endure, take a look at this article from the Blue Letter Bible site, “Medical Aspects of the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ“. I used to have this article (or one very similar to it) on my computer, and it’s a fascinating document.
Lastly, one caveat about the trailer that I did notice, and bothers me a little bit if Gibson was going for accuracy in his portrayal of the crucifixion. Jesus is shown being nailed to the cross through his palms. While this is a very popular depiction, it’s very medically unsound. From the above linked article (emphasis mine):
The patibulum was put on the ground and the victim laid upon it. Nails, about 7 inches long and with a diameter of 1 cm (roughly 3/8 of an inch) were driven in the wrists. The points would go into the vicinity of the median nerve, causing shocks of pain to radiate through the arms. It was possible to place the nails between the bones so that no fractures (or broken bones) occurred. Studies have shown that nails were probably driven through the small bones of the wrist, since nails in the palms of the hand would not support the weight of a body. In ancient terminology, the wrist was considered to be part of the hand.
Ah, well. The movie’s due to be released next Easter, so we’re not likely to find out much more about how good it actually is until then. Aside from the one gaffe of the placement of the nails, though, it definitely looks interesting, and I’m looking forward to finding out more about it.
Wandered up to one of the downtown theaters today to catch the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. Enjoyable, and worthwhile as either a matinee or a rent, but enough problems that it’s not a definite must-see.
Plotwise — well it was basically a Bond film (perhaps that was why they got Connery’s involvement?). Insane mastermind criminal bent on conquering the world, and our intrepid heroes have to stop him at all costs. The true draw was the heroes themselves, all of whom were drawn from literary works: Alan Quartermain, Captain Nemo, the Invisible Man, Dorian Grey, Dr. Jekyll (and, of course, Mr. Hyde), Tom Sawyer, and the sole female member of the group, Mina Harker (wife of John [?] Harker, assistant to Professor Van Helsing during that nasty incident with Count Dracula — yes, she’s a vampire). That alone made some of the scenes quite entertaining to watch, as various references would occasionally be dropped in (though not as many as I felt could have been).
Unfortunately, the plot has holes — well, holes big enough to sail the Nautilus through, some of the most astounding of which involve Venice, which is apparently some alternate-reality Venice. I’m still trying to decide which surprised me more: sailing the Nautilus (roughly the size of an aircraft carrier) through the canals of Venice, or driving a car pell-mell through the streets of Venice. Streets? Yeah, streets. And there’s more to come….
Sean Connery was, well, Sean Connery. As enjoyable as he is to watch, I can’t say that I’ve seen him in a role that really required much of him in a good long time. It’s unfortunate, too, but lately he seems to be just riding on the “Sean Connery is a crowdpleaser no matter what” wave, instead of getting anything actually challenging.
The rest of the cast — adequate, and they all filled their parts well, but none of them particularly stood out, for good or for ill.
Effect wise, it was a mixed bag. Some of the shots I liked a lot — the Nautilus, for example, I thought was gorgeous (if a little ridiculously large). Gleaming alabaster, with silver filigree and decorations, even to statues on the fore and aft of the submarine. Impractical, but gorgeous to look at. The shots of the Invisible Man were also quite impressive, especially when he had facepaint on (to make himself visible) and you’d get a shot of him from behind. Hard to describe, but fun to see. Other shots were less impressive, including an exploding building towards the beginning of the film, which was something of a surprise. I know there’s a push to do as much as possible with CGI, but would it have been so difficult to actually create a practical explosion effect? Oh, and Mr. Hyde just didn’t impress me in the least. Ah, well.
End result: not great, but not horrible, as long as you don’t think too much. Worth matinee prices or a rental, but not anything to stand in line for an evening show over.
Oh, two last things. First — I want fight scenes that can be watched, not fight scenes that have so many half-second cuts that it’s impossible to follow any of the action. Second — can we please have a movie that doesn’t have the obligatory five-minute “Look! If you give us enough money, we’re gauranteeing yet another vapid sequel!” sequence before the end credits?
Roger Ebert’s review is priceless, by the way.
Hot on the heels of the theatrical release of Pirates of the Caribbean (which I really need to see), Disney has released the trailer to their next ride-turned-movie, The Haunted Mansion.
I was a lot more interested in this before I saw Eddie Murphy in the trailer. Has he made anything even remotely funny since The Golden Child?
(via Cory Doctorow)
