The third part in Universal’s rebooted Mummyfranchise takes the series in a new direction. Rather than set in Egypt and dealing again with the same old villain, Imhotep, The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperorbrings us to China and gives us a different sort of preserved corpse baddie. And it looks like the change could actually add some freshness to the franchise.
Of course, history would hint that such a move for the Mummy movies is a bad idea. While it seems beneficial in theory to redirect the focus of a series with the third installment, especially if the first sequel was too much a repetition of the original (a la The Mummy Returns), in practice many threequels mistakenly alter things for the worse. These aren’t necessarily the worst threequels ever made (*cough* X-Men: The Last Stand); they’re just some movies that took their series in a completely wrong turn.
Halloween III: Season of the Witch- Now viewed as an unfortunate detour in a long series involving the slasher Michael Myers, this misstep can apparently be blamed on John Carpenter and co-writer/producer Debra Hill, who agreed to a second sequel to Halloweenonly if it didn’t involve Myers. But what was the point? Sure, a franchise can work with unrelated sequels, but after two movies dealing with the same villain, it seems odd to switch it up so late in the game. Still, if this wasn’t such a terrible movie in general, it’s possible Halloween III could have worked as an intended beginning to an anthology franchise. …Read more
I’ve been on the fence about Hancock from the beginning. Sure, it’s a Will Smith blockbuster and it co-stars Jason Bateman, both typically prime selling points for me, but it also seems a bit one-note and silly. Upon first hearing about the concept of a drunken has-been superhero, I immediately thought about drunken Superman in Superman III. After seeing the teaser trailer, I felt the exaggerated special effects (including the rather funny whale toss) were a little too over the top.
Now comes a full trailer (Quicktime version here) that reveals a lot more action and a lot more plot points. The former seems to have everyone on the Internet suddenly more excited about the movie. But what about those new story reveals? Aside from the usual problem of giving too much away, the trailer exposes the overdone concept of a world without its under-appreciated hero(es) — think Ghostbusters, any one of a thousand comic book titles (the hero is in jail, or half-defeated, or in an alternate state such as in Superman III) — and makes it seem as though screenwriters Vincent Ngo and Vince Gilligan based the rest of the movie around that single, simple recycled idea.
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.
I’d like to still say that I’ll watch Will Smith in anything, but as I still haven’t gotten around to seeing I Am Legend (and because of friends’ responses, I may not anytime soon), such a statement would be erroneous. Besides, after watching the new tweaked trailer for Hancock(courtesy of Chris at Movie Marketing Madness, who points out that it’s pretty much the same as the first Hancock trailer), Smith’s summer blockbuster for 2008 , I don’t know if I’m going to see that one either.
As if there aren’t enough worthy comic books to adapt, Hollywood has been giving us way too many gimmicky superhero movies — superheroes in a high school! superhero who’s your ex-girlfriend! superhero who has fallen out of favor and drinks his life away! — and the superhero concept has become the easiest pitch since that whole Die Hardin a ____ thing. The thing is, the idea behind Hancock, that of a public that’s pissed off about heroes that are more destructive than helpful,has already been alluded to enough in Watchmen (the graphic novel, which is also on its way to the big screen) and The Incredibles, which will never be equalled as far as non-adaptation superhero movies go. I guess Hancock is kind of like evil, drunk Superman in Superman III. But it’s Will Smith, so it’s … funnier?
We’ve had a bit of trouble getting this episode to go through the iTunes feed, so we hope this re-post will fix the problem. The original post, with episode description and embedded player, is here.
filmcouch-114
