"The Dark Knight Rises" arrives in theaters July 20th.
Apr 30, 2012
Brand new trailer for "The Dark Knight Rises"
Hot on the heels of the latest installment in TDKR viral campaign we have the new trailer. There are a couple of shots we've seen before but also a lot of new footage. Get ready for heaviosity on a Gothamic scale! Here it is. Enjoy.
"The Dark Knight Rises" arrives in theaters July 20th.
"The Dark Knight Rises" arrives in theaters July 20th.
"Dark Knight Rises" viral campaign: "Wanted - Batman"
Click your way through and you find yourself knee deep in "official" police documents outlining the case against "John Doe aka Batman" including a nifty wanted poster.
I'm sure the folks at Warner Bros hope this new campaign helps to locate some of the attention that has eluded them lately. Perhaps it never would have slipped away in the first place if they hadn't chosen a villain who generates more snores than web searches.
"The Avengers" - 2012 - movie review
"The Avengers" is one of the best superhero movies I've ever seen. Arguably the best. Towering above most of the competition it's an action packed, superbly written and directed superhero epic with a top-notch cast that never forgets to be fun.
If the movie has a weakness it's that you need to go in with an understanding of not only of who these characters are but what they've been up to in previous films. There's no time for backstories (that's what the individual films were for) and director Joss Whedon doesn't pretend otherwise. If you have that understanding, or are okay with simply accepting what's put in front of you regardless, you're in for nearly 2 and 1/2 hours of comic book movie making the way it should be.
The story is basically this: Loki, last seen plummeting to oblivion at the end of "Thor", conspires with the Chitauri to bring the pain down on earth, his brother's beloved adopted planet. Loki wants revenge, the Chitauri want the tesseract, a cube of unimaginable power that will help them spread death and destruction across the galaxy. (Certainly we've seen that storyline before in the first "Transformers" film but The Avengers is so well done I'm not of a mind to take the writers to task for that narrative transgression.) Loki's plan discombobulates S.H.I.E.L.D. forcing Nick Fury and company to take the extraordinary step of recruiting all the superheroes in their stable to form a team to take on the threat. Problem is, the kids don't necessarily play well together. Being the alpha dogs in their respective neighborhoods they've never really needed to cooperate and when they're thrown together here sparks fly. Loki is aware of this and does his level best to drive wedges between them. This strategy culminates in a bitch session of mythic proportions as the various players take turns tearing into one another while at the same time questioning the motives of Nick Fury. Needless to say though when push comes to shove they band together and shove back, hard.
The danger in a film like this is that the "Shakespeare in the park" elements (to borrow Iron Man's toss-off assessment of the conflict between Thor and Loki) will weigh down what should be a roaring good smackdown flick (see "The Dark Knight") but fear not, for the Avengers have within their midst ready made comic relief in the form of the aforementioned Tony "Iron Man" Stark. At one point stodgy old Captain America attempts to dress him down by asking "Is everything a joke to you?" Thank goodness the answer to that is mostly yes because his razor sharp quips continually work to balance the mood. The other characters are given their own opportunities as well and I must say that nothing in recent cinema has caused me to laugh louder than a brief but priceless interaction between the Hulk and Loki late in the film. This short scene is a perfect example of a device director Joss Whedon sprinkles throughout the movie where interactions occur that could go either way. Sometimes he breaks left, sometimes he breaks right but, since effort was taken to create both dread and levity you never really know which way things will go. Whedon understands that the element of surprise requires the coin have two sides; a seemingly simple but oft-forgotten element in storytelling.
Another big plus of the storyline is that it isn't cluttered with numerous baddies. Loki is the focus throughout. All you need to know about the evil army he employs is that they have their own agenda. Though Loki's plan exposes a dark side to the people who ostensibly 'control' S.H.I.E.L.D. that fact simply sticks in your craw as potential fodder for subsequent installments in the franchise. And they are coming sure as dawn follows dusk.
The Avengers manages to pull off the rare feat of giving everyone in a loaded cast of characters relevance. The only characters that could be seen as perhaps being out of place among the gods, uber-mutants and flying 22nd century war machines are Black Widow and Hawkeye. But even they are given their own parallel plot points which serve to give the audience someone in the superhero pantheon to relate to. It would have been nice to give them a more meaningful role in the ultimate victory like the Hobbits had with the victory over Sauron, but that's a small quibble indeed when the entirety of the film is considered. And while I'm quibbling I'd just like to state for the record that Thor is a god, not a demi-god as is stated in the film. A demi-god is the offspring of a god and a human. Thor is a pure blood Asgardian. Methinks his demotion here has little to do with simple error and everything to do with Marvel and Disney not wishing to alienate potential audience members who might subscribe to the one-and-only god myth. This is illustrated in an exchange between Black Widow and Captain America when Black Widow states; "You should probably sit this one out. Those guys (Thor and Loki) are from legend. They're basically gods." and CA replies "There's only one god and I doubt he dresses like that."
Quibbles aside The Avengers fires on all cylinders right from the get-go. Though it's undoubtedly a special effects film the effects serve to inform the story rather than becoming it. It never drags at any point during it's 2+ hours. It's exciting, funny and engaging and should more than satisfy fans of the comic books, (as well as the previous 'setup' films), while wetting their appetites for future installments. I'm seeing it more than once. You should too.
If the movie has a weakness it's that you need to go in with an understanding of not only of who these characters are but what they've been up to in previous films. There's no time for backstories (that's what the individual films were for) and director Joss Whedon doesn't pretend otherwise. If you have that understanding, or are okay with simply accepting what's put in front of you regardless, you're in for nearly 2 and 1/2 hours of comic book movie making the way it should be.
The story is basically this: Loki, last seen plummeting to oblivion at the end of "Thor", conspires with the Chitauri to bring the pain down on earth, his brother's beloved adopted planet. Loki wants revenge, the Chitauri want the tesseract, a cube of unimaginable power that will help them spread death and destruction across the galaxy. (Certainly we've seen that storyline before in the first "Transformers" film but The Avengers is so well done I'm not of a mind to take the writers to task for that narrative transgression.) Loki's plan discombobulates S.H.I.E.L.D. forcing Nick Fury and company to take the extraordinary step of recruiting all the superheroes in their stable to form a team to take on the threat. Problem is, the kids don't necessarily play well together. Being the alpha dogs in their respective neighborhoods they've never really needed to cooperate and when they're thrown together here sparks fly. Loki is aware of this and does his level best to drive wedges between them. This strategy culminates in a bitch session of mythic proportions as the various players take turns tearing into one another while at the same time questioning the motives of Nick Fury. Needless to say though when push comes to shove they band together and shove back, hard.
The danger in a film like this is that the "Shakespeare in the park" elements (to borrow Iron Man's toss-off assessment of the conflict between Thor and Loki) will weigh down what should be a roaring good smackdown flick (see "The Dark Knight") but fear not, for the Avengers have within their midst ready made comic relief in the form of the aforementioned Tony "Iron Man" Stark. At one point stodgy old Captain America attempts to dress him down by asking "Is everything a joke to you?" Thank goodness the answer to that is mostly yes because his razor sharp quips continually work to balance the mood. The other characters are given their own opportunities as well and I must say that nothing in recent cinema has caused me to laugh louder than a brief but priceless interaction between the Hulk and Loki late in the film. This short scene is a perfect example of a device director Joss Whedon sprinkles throughout the movie where interactions occur that could go either way. Sometimes he breaks left, sometimes he breaks right but, since effort was taken to create both dread and levity you never really know which way things will go. Whedon understands that the element of surprise requires the coin have two sides; a seemingly simple but oft-forgotten element in storytelling.
Another big plus of the storyline is that it isn't cluttered with numerous baddies. Loki is the focus throughout. All you need to know about the evil army he employs is that they have their own agenda. Though Loki's plan exposes a dark side to the people who ostensibly 'control' S.H.I.E.L.D. that fact simply sticks in your craw as potential fodder for subsequent installments in the franchise. And they are coming sure as dawn follows dusk.
The Avengers manages to pull off the rare feat of giving everyone in a loaded cast of characters relevance. The only characters that could be seen as perhaps being out of place among the gods, uber-mutants and flying 22nd century war machines are Black Widow and Hawkeye. But even they are given their own parallel plot points which serve to give the audience someone in the superhero pantheon to relate to. It would have been nice to give them a more meaningful role in the ultimate victory like the Hobbits had with the victory over Sauron, but that's a small quibble indeed when the entirety of the film is considered. And while I'm quibbling I'd just like to state for the record that Thor is a god, not a demi-god as is stated in the film. A demi-god is the offspring of a god and a human. Thor is a pure blood Asgardian. Methinks his demotion here has little to do with simple error and everything to do with Marvel and Disney not wishing to alienate potential audience members who might subscribe to the one-and-only god myth. This is illustrated in an exchange between Black Widow and Captain America when Black Widow states; "You should probably sit this one out. Those guys (Thor and Loki) are from legend. They're basically gods." and CA replies "There's only one god and I doubt he dresses like that."
Quibbles aside The Avengers fires on all cylinders right from the get-go. Though it's undoubtedly a special effects film the effects serve to inform the story rather than becoming it. It never drags at any point during it's 2+ hours. It's exciting, funny and engaging and should more than satisfy fans of the comic books, (as well as the previous 'setup' films), while wetting their appetites for future installments. I'm seeing it more than once. You should too.
Apr 29, 2012
"The Avengers" kick butt around the world
Marvel's long-anticipated superhero epic opened at #1 in every market it entered and while the $178 million 5 day total is certainly impressive it has to be mentioned that the movie has yet to debut in the potentially huge markets of Russia, Japan and Communist China.
The Avengers opens stateside on May 4th and with presale tickets going through the roof looks to become the years first real blockbuster.
New 3 minute international trailer for "Prometheus"
After a series of teasers and slightly longer trailers that upped the tease Ridley Scott and Co have finally released a full length trailer for "Prometheus". This one is nearly 3 minutes long and while it does include footage from the earlier trailers it also contains a lot of stuff never seen before, including some nasty little buggers that look like they're up to absolutely no good.
Prometheus begins its overseas rollout May 30th, opens June 1 in the UK (as seen at the end of this trailer) and June 8th in the US. Can't wait.
Prometheus begins its overseas rollout May 30th, opens June 1 in the UK (as seen at the end of this trailer) and June 8th in the US. Can't wait.
Apr 28, 2012
Fox promises not to "compromise" Prometheus
During a Q&A at cimenacon Fox CEO Tom Rothman was asked about what MPAA rating Ridley Scott's "Prometheus" may wind up with. Scott himself has expressed disdain for the rating agency stating flatly that they need to "get their house in order". He's also said that he believes that using recent history as a guideline he thinks his new sci-fi film would probably receive an "R" rating. But because big studios are hell bent on the bottom line and an R rating could potentially cut into overall profit there's been some speculation that Fox could force Scott to edit his feature in order to receive the more box office friendly rating.
When Rothman was asked about the issue though he implied that Fox will not be hacking up the movie just to procure a PG-13 tag.
“I can assure the fans—I’m very aware of their concern—absolutely they can take it that the film will not be compromised either way. So if that means that the film is R, then it’ll be an R. If it’s PG-13, then it’ll be a PG-13, but it will not be compromised.
[For] Prometheus, it would have been very easy—in fact probably in Chapter One of the Executive Handbook, if I ever read such a thing, it would say, ‘Go ahead, make a straightforward prequel to Alien.’ That would have been the easy thing to do. Prometheus is the more challenging thing to do. It’s bolder, it’s original, it’s in the universe, but it’s not a literal story-based prequel to Alien, it’s a wholly new science-fiction entry from Ridley Scott, who hasn’t made a science-fiction film in 30 years.”
Only time will tell if Rothman is a man of his word and the film we see is the film Ridley Scott wants us to see. In the meantime Mr Rothman be warned: the head is watching...
When Rothman was asked about the issue though he implied that Fox will not be hacking up the movie just to procure a PG-13 tag.
“I can assure the fans—I’m very aware of their concern—absolutely they can take it that the film will not be compromised either way. So if that means that the film is R, then it’ll be an R. If it’s PG-13, then it’ll be a PG-13, but it will not be compromised.
[For] Prometheus, it would have been very easy—in fact probably in Chapter One of the Executive Handbook, if I ever read such a thing, it would say, ‘Go ahead, make a straightforward prequel to Alien.’ That would have been the easy thing to do. Prometheus is the more challenging thing to do. It’s bolder, it’s original, it’s in the universe, but it’s not a literal story-based prequel to Alien, it’s a wholly new science-fiction entry from Ridley Scott, who hasn’t made a science-fiction film in 30 years.”
Only time will tell if Rothman is a man of his word and the film we see is the film Ridley Scott wants us to see. In the meantime Mr Rothman be warned: the head is watching...
2 new "Avengers" clips
Though "The Avengers" has already launched in a slew of non-US markets Marvel continues to press forward with their publicity campaign for the May 4th US rollout. At this point it seems kind of unnecessary since presale tickets for the comic book blockbuster have already been greater than presale demand for all of Marvels previous efforts combined. Still, if the studio wants to keep leaking clips we'll keep posting them. These 2 are called "Together" and "Balance". Enjoy.
Apr 27, 2012
"Battleship" - 2012 - movie review
The good folks at NASA, having nothing better to do since their budget was decimated by Congress and the Space Shuttle fleet retired, decide to send a friendly "how do you do" signal to what they determine is a planet far out in space capable of sustaining life. 5 years later they get a response in the form of an alien armada hell bent on destruction. As it happens the bulk of the alien force lands within spitting distance of a slew of naval ships conducting war games in the Pacific.
On board one of these ships is a rebel without a cause named Alex Hopper, dragged into the navy by his militaristic brother in an effort to straighten him out. The aliens set up a magnetic field around a portion of the battle group and set about to decimate it. They nearly succeed but for the fact that their carnage has resulted in young Alex finding himself in command of the last remaining ship. Can he rise to the occasion and save mankind?
That's the basic premise of Peter Berg's "Battleship". It doesn't get any more complicated than that and that's probably a good thing. It's probably also a good thing if one doesn't enter the theater to see a movie like this expecting logic because you're not going to find it here. For instance; how is it that NASA gets a physical response to their friendly invite in a scant 5 years? Unless there has been some radical re-writing of the laws of physics that I missed the speed of light is pretty much the universal speed limit. Given that and given that the closest possible habitable planet that we currently know about is some 40 or more light years away, and given that physical beings can't travel at the speed of light, it would take centuries (at the very least) for anyone, even a highly advanced civilization, to receive our signal and then physically travel the distance back to us.
But I digress because I'm not here to simply trash this movie. You can't trash trash (can you?) and that's exactly what Battleship is, though I mean that in a good way, sort of. It's a big, loud, silly piece of Hollywood trash-ertainment that, to its credit, doesn't pretend to be anything else. It should be noted too that it bears no relationship to the boring board game that lent it its name. Oh sure there's the alien ordnance that's hilariously shaped like those little pegs you stick into the board while playing the game and there's a (way too long) sequence about 2/3 of the way through where a pathetic contrivance results in everyone staring at an electronic grid with battleships on it while the principals call out co-ordinates in an attempt to 'sink' their enemy, but that's it. And those elements are so over the top as to be almost self parody.
Battleship is strictly here to feed the shark in all of us that wants to see blood in the water and to that end its a fairly successful piece of work. It's not science fiction, it's not even particularly good fiction as there's nothing in the screenplay that isn't taken from some other source. From the robotic 'balls of death' that could have come straight out of "Transformers" to the "Iron Man" suits the aliens wear to the whole "ne'er-do-well finds himself when the chips are down" theme and the hackneyed love story Battleship is an amalgam of pop culture cliches wrapped in a thick, warm blanket of professionally done CGI. It's better than Transformers II or III and that's basically because the script, as mentioned above, was kept simple. My one beef was they way they handled the aliens. All we discover about them is that they're here, they resemble humans and they're bad. I found myself wondering why they are so pissed off. (Maybe it's because they've been picking up our trashy tv shows for several decades and decided enough was enough when they learned Britney Spears is going to be a judge on next season's X-factor.)
While I'd rather watch a film with a simple, comprehensible storyline any day over one that throws narrative threads around herky-jerky in an attempt to seem like art there's a downside to making things too simple or cliched (as is the case here) and that is that the major players don't have much to do except stand around looking alternately shocked and resolved. That's not the actor's fault though. They pretty much do what they've been paid to do: Liam Neeson appears for a few minutes at the beginning and end and says some words. Taylor Kitsch as Alex Hopper remembers not to look at the camera, Brooklyn Decker is unappealing enough to be a convincing "girl next door" and the luscious Rhianna is, well, she's in the movie.
The bottom line is I didn't go into "Battleship" with any expectations and as a result found myself fairly amused (once the first half hour passed into merciful oblivion). It does what it does pretty well though what it does is neither important or ground breaking or, for that matter, even very interesting. I didn't leave the theater wanting to demand a refund but I doubt I'll be back for a second look any time soon.
On board one of these ships is a rebel without a cause named Alex Hopper, dragged into the navy by his militaristic brother in an effort to straighten him out. The aliens set up a magnetic field around a portion of the battle group and set about to decimate it. They nearly succeed but for the fact that their carnage has resulted in young Alex finding himself in command of the last remaining ship. Can he rise to the occasion and save mankind?
That's the basic premise of Peter Berg's "Battleship". It doesn't get any more complicated than that and that's probably a good thing. It's probably also a good thing if one doesn't enter the theater to see a movie like this expecting logic because you're not going to find it here. For instance; how is it that NASA gets a physical response to their friendly invite in a scant 5 years? Unless there has been some radical re-writing of the laws of physics that I missed the speed of light is pretty much the universal speed limit. Given that and given that the closest possible habitable planet that we currently know about is some 40 or more light years away, and given that physical beings can't travel at the speed of light, it would take centuries (at the very least) for anyone, even a highly advanced civilization, to receive our signal and then physically travel the distance back to us.
But I digress because I'm not here to simply trash this movie. You can't trash trash (can you?) and that's exactly what Battleship is, though I mean that in a good way, sort of. It's a big, loud, silly piece of Hollywood trash-ertainment that, to its credit, doesn't pretend to be anything else. It should be noted too that it bears no relationship to the boring board game that lent it its name. Oh sure there's the alien ordnance that's hilariously shaped like those little pegs you stick into the board while playing the game and there's a (way too long) sequence about 2/3 of the way through where a pathetic contrivance results in everyone staring at an electronic grid with battleships on it while the principals call out co-ordinates in an attempt to 'sink' their enemy, but that's it. And those elements are so over the top as to be almost self parody.
Battleship is strictly here to feed the shark in all of us that wants to see blood in the water and to that end its a fairly successful piece of work. It's not science fiction, it's not even particularly good fiction as there's nothing in the screenplay that isn't taken from some other source. From the robotic 'balls of death' that could have come straight out of "Transformers" to the "Iron Man" suits the aliens wear to the whole "ne'er-do-well finds himself when the chips are down" theme and the hackneyed love story Battleship is an amalgam of pop culture cliches wrapped in a thick, warm blanket of professionally done CGI. It's better than Transformers II or III and that's basically because the script, as mentioned above, was kept simple. My one beef was they way they handled the aliens. All we discover about them is that they're here, they resemble humans and they're bad. I found myself wondering why they are so pissed off. (Maybe it's because they've been picking up our trashy tv shows for several decades and decided enough was enough when they learned Britney Spears is going to be a judge on next season's X-factor.)
While I'd rather watch a film with a simple, comprehensible storyline any day over one that throws narrative threads around herky-jerky in an attempt to seem like art there's a downside to making things too simple or cliched (as is the case here) and that is that the major players don't have much to do except stand around looking alternately shocked and resolved. That's not the actor's fault though. They pretty much do what they've been paid to do: Liam Neeson appears for a few minutes at the beginning and end and says some words. Taylor Kitsch as Alex Hopper remembers not to look at the camera, Brooklyn Decker is unappealing enough to be a convincing "girl next door" and the luscious Rhianna is, well, she's in the movie.
The bottom line is I didn't go into "Battleship" with any expectations and as a result found myself fairly amused (once the first half hour passed into merciful oblivion). It does what it does pretty well though what it does is neither important or ground breaking or, for that matter, even very interesting. I didn't leave the theater wanting to demand a refund but I doubt I'll be back for a second look any time soon.
Apr 25, 2012
New "Prometheus" featurette
This one is hot off the presses and includes not only footage of the Master at work but breathless testimonials to his masterousness (I invented a new word). Best of all there are several new snippets of film from the movie included.
Prometheus opens wide June 8.
Prometheus opens wide June 8.
"Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance" - movie review
"Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance" comes from the "Jaws 2" school of film making. For those of you who missed that (less than) venerable effort that school's motto goes something like this: "Strike while the iron is hot. All other considerations secondary." And boy have the makers of GR2 taken that motto to heart.
The first Ghost Rider film was an unexpected gem of sorts. It was pretty well crafted, fun as hell and rooted firmly in the lore of the desert southwest where the ghost town was practically invented. The film floated on a sea of ready made mythology with the cursed Johnny Blaze roaming the horizonless landscape of the desert night aboard his trusty stead, a chip on his shoulder the likes of which hadn't been seen since The Man with No Name wandered into that little town by the lakeshore.
This new effort eschews any such firm footing. It seems the film makers were confident that the Ghost Rider mythology was a stand-alone affair that could be plopped down anywhere and plugged into the local zeitgeist. In this case somewhere in Eastern Europe.
Well they were wrong. Divorced from the desert landscape and the unspoken mythological underpinnings that made the first film click Ghost Rider 2 stumbles out of the blocks, never gets back on its feet and drags itself across the finish line long after most of the audience has gone home.
Everyone involved needs to take their share of the blame for this one including Cage who mails in his performance to a degree that's startling even for him. As for directors Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor I can only assume they were asleep during most of the production as the film has no momentum, no kick and what passes for 'fun' here is a repeated cut back to JB pissing fire. In a move that smacks of desperation they even try to dredge up some semblance of the chaotic energy of their "Crank" films by having Cage go through a few minutes of Jason Statham-like facial contortions. It's as though they woke up after shooting wrapped, took a look at what they had and panicked.
"What are we gonna do?"
"I know! We'll call Nick back to do some of that facial contortion stuff like Jason did in Crank and then we'll insert a minute of it anytime things get too dismal."
"Hey, good idea!"
Not really. A better idea would have been to admit defeat and shelve the project.
The first Ghost Rider film was an unexpected gem of sorts. It was pretty well crafted, fun as hell and rooted firmly in the lore of the desert southwest where the ghost town was practically invented. The film floated on a sea of ready made mythology with the cursed Johnny Blaze roaming the horizonless landscape of the desert night aboard his trusty stead, a chip on his shoulder the likes of which hadn't been seen since The Man with No Name wandered into that little town by the lakeshore.
This new effort eschews any such firm footing. It seems the film makers were confident that the Ghost Rider mythology was a stand-alone affair that could be plopped down anywhere and plugged into the local zeitgeist. In this case somewhere in Eastern Europe.
Well they were wrong. Divorced from the desert landscape and the unspoken mythological underpinnings that made the first film click Ghost Rider 2 stumbles out of the blocks, never gets back on its feet and drags itself across the finish line long after most of the audience has gone home.
Everyone involved needs to take their share of the blame for this one including Cage who mails in his performance to a degree that's startling even for him. As for directors Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor I can only assume they were asleep during most of the production as the film has no momentum, no kick and what passes for 'fun' here is a repeated cut back to JB pissing fire. In a move that smacks of desperation they even try to dredge up some semblance of the chaotic energy of their "Crank" films by having Cage go through a few minutes of Jason Statham-like facial contortions. It's as though they woke up after shooting wrapped, took a look at what they had and panicked.
"What are we gonna do?"
"I know! We'll call Nick back to do some of that facial contortion stuff like Jason did in Crank and then we'll insert a minute of it anytime things get too dismal."
"Hey, good idea!"
Not really. A better idea would have been to admit defeat and shelve the project.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)