Movie news on your iPhone today!
Advertisement
Coverage of what is truly interesting in the film world

TOP STORY:

Speculating About Spider-Man 4 Villains. Today in Film Bloggery 10/13/09

Christopher Campbell
By Christopher Campbell posted 1 month ago
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • Reddit
  • Ma.gnolia
  • YahooMyWeb
  • Facebook
  • StumbleUpon

One of the few things I like about Spider-Man 3 is the depiction of Sandman. The character was never that interesting to me in the comic books — few Spidey villains were — but he proved to be a pretty cinematic creature, even if he sometimes reminded me of The Mummy. Surprisingly Venom, who was always interesting in the comic books — until he started finding underground cities and acting less like a bad guy — did not translate so well to the big screen.

So, as long as it seems, via an interview with MTV.com, that Sam Raimi still doesn’t know who the villain(s) in Spider-Man 4 will be, despite it going into production in March, I thought I’d offer an opinion, which is likely an unpopular one: he should go with Absorbing Man. Too much like Sandman? Maybe, but the special effects could be cool. Oh, wait, is he too much of a Thor villain? Man, Marvel is so confusing. Okay, then I pick Kraven, since he probably requires the least amount of CG of all the Spidey villains.

According to a poll on MTV’s SplashPage, the fans want Spidey to battle The Lizard, but knowing Hollywood, that’s just going to look like Spidey vs. a velociraptor (in a lab coat). Meanwhile, second choice, Carnage, would just be a mess of CG that will be nearly as disappointing as the Venom of the last film. In the new interview with Raimi, he makes it seem that neither of these are who he’s got in mind, but unfortunately we still have no clue.

Anyway, them’s my thoughts, which don’t matter much since I haven’t read a Spider-Man comic since the mid-90s and even then barely knew much about most of the superhero’s enemies. So, let’s check in with the rest of the film blogosphere for other responses after the jump:
…Read more

Bryce Dallas Howard Replaces Another for Twilight Franchise. Today in Film Bloggery 07/29/09

Christopher Campbell
By Christopher Campbell posted 3 months ago
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • Reddit
  • Ma.gnolia
  • YahooMyWeb
  • Facebook
  • StumbleUpon

It seems impossible these days for a film franchise to keep its cast intact for a full run. This time it’s the Twilight series that has succumbed to the switcheroo game, as Bryce Dallas Howard was announced to be taking over Rachel Lefevre’s character, “Victoria,” as of the third film, Eclipse. This sort of thing nearly happened before for the Twilight series when Taylor Lautner came close to being fired from the part of “Jacob” after the first film, because he wasn’t seen as a strong or fit enough actor for the demands of the role in New Moon.

With this news, Howard cements herself as the official go-to actress for filling in vacated roles. In the past she has been a substitute in Lars von Trier’s USA - Land of Opportunities trilogy, taking on the lead role “Grace” originated by Nicole Kidman in Dogville for the sequel Manderlay, and she more recently filled in for a non-returning Claire Danes as “Kate” in the Terminator franchise (for which she also replaced the first-choice substitute, Charlotte Gainsbourg) Also, let’s not forget that she replaced Kirsten Dunst as the lead in M. Night Shyamalan’s The Village, when Dunst departed to make Elizabethtown.

With the way things are going for her, I predict she’ll be taking over as “Ginny Weasley” in the second part of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, “Black Widow” in Iron Man 3 or The Avengers, “Rachel Dawson” in the next Batman film and “Kumar” in A Very Harold & Kumar Christmas.

Let’s take a look at what the rest of the film blogs are saying about the substitution after the jump:
…Read more

5 Musical Numbers (in Non-Musical Films) That Just Don’t Work

5 Musical Numbers (in Non-Musical Films) That Just Don’t Work

Christopher Campbell
By Christopher Campbell posted 4 months ago
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • Reddit
  • Ma.gnolia
  • YahooMyWeb
  • Facebook
  • StumbleUpon

Fox Searchlight’s latest pop-indie festival pickup, (500) Days of Summer, is promotionally packaged, as is typical for the distributor, with a hip soundtrack featuring multiple songs from The Smiths and Regina Spektor, as well as tunes from Feist, The Doves and the obligatory Simon and Garfunkel. Though heavily dependent on music, the movie is not a musical, yet like other Searchlight releases it has that one moment where the line between non-musical and musical is just barely crossed.

In the past we’ve seen this moment restricted to diegetic circumstances, whether a dance performance or an in-scene duet of a Moldy Peaches song. But this year Searchlight’s titles have been venturing even further, first with the non-diegetic, Bollywood-influenced song and dance in Slumdog Millionaire and now with an equally fantastical sequence in (500) Days, in which Joseph Gordon-Levitt struts about to Hall and Oates’ “You Make My Dreams,” joined by a surplus of extras and an animated bluebird.

Musical numbers in non-musical movies can certainly work, as is evident in Citizen Kane and many David Lynch and Adam Sandler films, but there’s something very forced and cliché about the sequence in (500) Days. Never mind that it seems lifted out of Enchanted, a movie we very much despise, and never mind that we prefer our Zooey Deschanel movies to feature musical interludes performed by the singer-actress herself rather than lip-synced by her costars (director Marc Webb acknowledges the mistake of not including her in the scene); this number is just completely over-the-top and unoriginal.

In response to the scene, we’ve selected five of the worst musical numbers from non-musical films to show what kind of horrible company (500) Days of Summer is in.
…Read more

CG: Death to Imagination

Christopher Campbell
By Christopher Campbell posted 1 year ago
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • Reddit
  • Ma.gnolia
  • YahooMyWeb
  • Facebook
  • StumbleUpon

When I saw the title of Olly Richardson’s rant on The Empire Blog asking if CG has killed our imaginations, I presumed he meant filmmakers’ imaginations and how special effects are less creative when done with the ease of computer graphics. But no, he’s really talking about our imaginations, meaning me and you and everyone we know. I’d never given it too much thought, but maybe modern audiences are really losing their ability to believe at the movies:

We never used to be so picky. If somebody watches the original King Kong or any of the works of Ray Harryhausen, you will never hear them complain about how the skeletons were a bit jerky or that the big ape’s fur didn’t blow realistically when he was climbing the Empire State Building (if they do complain, however, you should feel free to shoot them on the grounds of wrongness and philistinism). You just watch the film, acknowledge that what you are seeing couldn’t possibly exist, admire the artistry it took to create it and choose to believe it anyway. That’s what suspension of disbelief is: ignoring the protests of your eyes and more logical parts of your brain in order to enjoy a good story.

…Read more

Barry Sonnenfeld Prophesizes Totalitarianism

Christopher Campbell
By Christopher Campbell posted 1 year ago
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • Reddit
  • Ma.gnolia
  • YahooMyWeb
  • Facebook
  • StumbleUpon

The internet is an evil construct that’s causing us to submissively open our arms to totalitarianism! No, this isn’t another one of my posts about how our society is entering the world of The Matrix. This is the belief and fear of Barry Sonnenfeld, the director of Men in Black, Men in Black II and Wild Wild West, clearly a fan of lighter sci-fi than of the Orwellian sort. Speaking this week at the National Association of Broadcasters Show in Vegas, he lashed out against the internet, because of how it’s threatening democracy:

Sonnenfeld fears that children today will grow up with “no concept of the right to privacy and in fact not understand the need for it. Because the Facebook generation is not concerned with what people know about them . . . they will have no problem with additional governmental supervision, spying and intervention. They will be thrilled that the Internet will be able to follow their every move.

…Read more

Mutant Overload

Christopher Campbell
By Christopher Campbell posted 1 year ago
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • Reddit
  • Ma.gnolia
  • YahooMyWeb
  • Facebook
  • StumbleUpon

Apparently there was no lesson learned from Spider-Man 3. I guess all the criticisms of that movie’s having too many characters didn’t exactly balance negatively enough against its worldwide gross of nearly $900 million. So, prepare for the possibility that other comic book adaptations will make the same attempt for box office gold by saturating their plots with familiar and highly demanded heroes and villains. This week the geek circles have been all abuzz about the all-star casting for X-Men Origins: Wolverine, which has now been confirmed by the trades and so far includes Taylor Kitsch as Gambit, Ryan Reynolds as Deadpool, Black Eyed Peas’ will.i.am as John Wraith/Kestrel, Liev Schrieber as Victor Creed/Sabretooth (I can’t wait to see Schrieber with blond muttonchops), Danny Huston as Col. William Stryker and Lynn Collins as Silver Fox. Also, there’s rumor that the Blob will show up in the film, too.

Some of these characters will only be showing up for minor appearances, and it’s certainly appropriate to have an X-Men spin-off that features a whole slew of characters, but it still seems like an overload. Even the last X-Men movie felt too packed with supporting mutants. As a veteran reader of the comics, I should be as overjoyed as the rest of the fanboys, but I must point out that when I would pick up a copy of Wolverine’s solo title(s), I would do so with the expectation that the loner-by-nature hero would actually be on a solo mission — or maybe on occasion would have no more than a teen-girl sidekick. I understand that this is the origin story, and most of these casted characters figure into that plot (where’s Maverick?), but the additions of Deadpool, Gambit and the Blob, no matter how long they’re on screen, seems to be a desperate attempt at pleasing the fanbase. Doesn’t Fox realize that we’ll all be showing up even if its just Hugh Jackman and a single villain (my choice would have been Omega Red).

Venom and the Disappointing History of the Villain Spin-Off

Christopher Campbell
By Christopher Campbell posted 1 year ago
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • Reddit
  • Ma.gnolia
  • YahooMyWeb
  • Facebook
  • StumbleUpon

Villains are oftentimes more interesting than heroes. So, it isn’t surprising when a villain becomes popular enough to warrant his or her own comic/movie/book/etc. The latest, according to IESB, will be Venom, one of the three villains featured in the horrible superhero sequel Spider-Man 3. For Marvel Comics readers, this isn’t that shocking. Venom received his own comic titles long ago, and disappointingly turned semi-good-guy vigilante. But will the movie spin-off be the same kind of water-down? If we look at the two ways a villain spin-off typically goes, it’s probable.

First, there’s the villain origin piece, which includes movies like Hannibal Rising, The Scorpion King, Wicked, the upcoming X-Men Origins: Magneto and of course the Star Wars prequels. They attempt to show how the evolution of a wronged person who becomes the iconic villain we’re familiar with. They try to make us sympathize, but usually they just come close to ruining the character. Rarely there is an origin storyline that makes us like the character even more, as in the case of The Godfather Part II’s flashbacks. Fortunately, we already witnessed the Venom origin in Spider-Man 3 and won’t be subjected to one in the proposed Venom movie.

…Read more

The Best Mainstream Movies of 2007

Christopher Campbell
By Christopher Campbell posted 1 year ago
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • Reddit
  • Ma.gnolia
  • YahooMyWeb
  • Facebook
  • StumbleUpon

Here is my follow-up to last month’s question of what mainstream movie will feature on the most top ten movie lists. And the winner is … Ratatouille. Oh wait, didn’t I disqualify that one for being too obvious? No? Well, I should have. Yes, according to Movie City News’ Big Ass Chart (aka Scorecard) of critics’ top tens, the Pixar movie made it on to 51 best-of lists, making it the best-grossing best movie of the year. But maybe it wasn’t the most mainstream, if you define mainstream as studio-produced fare. Under that qualification Zodiac was the best mainstream movie of 2007, having been made jointly by Warner Bros. and Paramount and showing up on 70 best-of lists. Other Warner successes include Michael Clayton, which featured on 54 lists, Sweeney Todd, which received 44 mentions, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, which showed up on one list, and Letters From Iwo Jima, which showed up a little late on one list.

As far as those mainstream movies I predicted would feature heavily, Knocked Up (34 lists) ended up defeating Superbad (25 lists) — meanwhile, the third Judd Apatow movie of the year, Walk Hard, managed to get on one critic’s list — though both were actually behind The Bourne Ultimatum (28 lists), when it came to “average vote” (average numerical placement on the list). If we’re going by mainstream appeal (and if Karina is correct in her view of the film), then Juno was the best mainstream comedy of the year with 63 lists. Hairspray (13 lists) beat out its crappy musical siblings Across the Universe (7 lists) and Enchanted (8 lists). In addition to showing up on Richard Corliss’ list, Beowulf managed 3 other mentions. And Transformers not only showed up on a top ten list, it featured on 3! Of course, it’s more surprising that Spider-Man 3 made it on 4 lists. The greatest thing to happen, of course, was Manohla Dargis listing The Kingdom as one of her favorites. Joining her is Don Payne. If I had made a top ten list (instead of this thing), the film could very well have beaten Transformers. Oh well, at least nobody put the shocking blockbuster Alvin and the Chipmunks on their list … yet.