O produtor Ryan Kavanaugh falou ao Latino Review sobre o remake de O Corvo e confirmou que o filme não será uma refilmagem e sim um reinício na franquia.

O roteiro está atualmente sendo revisado e  Kavanaugh está esperando receber o sinal verde, mas disse que tem certeza que o projeto vai acontecer. O produtor ainda falou sobre quem será o novo intérprete do personagem principal, que ficou famoso na pele do ator Brandon Lee :

“Será um ator conhecido. Estamos com as opções abertas. Podemos ir tanto para o lado do ator conhecido quanto para o lado do ator talentoso mas que ainda não seja conhecido”, impressão minha ou  Kavanaugh foi meio contraditório nessa resposta.

O produtor também falou sobre o famoso visual do personagem e como ele será nesse recomeço, Kavanaugh revelou que a maquiagem será diferente e comparou com as diferenças entre o primeiro filme do Batman e Batman Begins e acrescentou que o personagem terá o mesmo estilo dark, só que para o público atual.

Já perdi as contas de quantas vezes assisti ao filme original, gosto bastante do longa e principalmente do visual dele, que marcou a geração dos anos 90. Kavanaugh para variar fez uma triste comparação com Batman, o filme da moda e que todo mundo quer copiar, mas a história original de O Corvo já é sombria e qualquer mudança nela só a estragaria.

Stephen Norrington é o responsável pelo roteiro e direção do filme.

On December 4, Lionsgate will release a film called Brothers, described as a “drama/war” film on Wikipedia. The movie stars Natalie Portman, Jake Gyllenhaal, and Tobey Maguire, and is directed by Irish filmmaker, Jim Sheridan. It’s an American remake of a Danish movie by the same title, directed by Susanne Bier (After the Wedding, Things We Lost in the Fire), written by Anders Thomas Jensen, and released in 2004.

Now why is a film that not many people have heard of from just five years ago being remade? Well, I have some thoughts on that.

On April 26, 2007, Zach Braff made the following announcement on his official blog:

What else? My dream-first choice- hero of mine – actor wants to do the next film I’m set to direct, “Open Hearts”, but I don’t think I’m gonna be able to direct it this summer as I had hoped since I’m due to be back at Scrubs on August 1st.

Open Hearts will also be an American remake of a Danish film of the same name, this one released in 2002…and also directed by Susanne Bier and written by Anders Thomas Jensen. It’s a Dogme 95 film, which in brief means that it’s devoid of all the “fancy” tricks and methods of conventional filmmaking. (You can read more details about it in another post from a few weeks ago.) Essentially, Bier’s Open Hearts is a story of a woman who cheats on her paralyzed husband…with the husband of the woman who caused the tragic accident.

The tone of Bier’s film is uncomfortable, primarily, with a stroke of raw heartbreak. It sounds like a melodrama, but it feels more like a couple’s home videos you were never, ever supposed to see.

What will Zach Braff do with this story? I honestly don’t think I want to know. But I’ll take a guess anyway – I think he’ll ruin it. I think he’ll try to capture the same effect, but while playing a Thievery Corporation song on top of it. I think he’ll cast well-known “indie” actors, and I think the film will look nice and pretty, with well-composed shots throughout. But hey, maybe he’ll prove me wrong. We’ll have to see in 2011, which is currently the estimated release of Braff’s remake.

But back to the more timely matter. Bier and Jensen’s film from 2004, Brothers (Brødre), is not a Dogme 95 film, but it still retains a candid and uncomfortably honest spirit such as in Open Hearts. The plot – again – sounds like a melodrama: When the older brother is declared dead while fighting in Afghanistan, the younger brother starts to take care of the widowed wife and her kids. Within time, the younger brother and the widow fall for each other. However, everyone’s lives get turned upside down when they find out the older brother is actually still alive.

It sounds like a soap opera, but it doesn’t feel like one when you watch it. This is the best trailer I found for the original Brothers, which might give you little insight into the tone of the movie.

What sparked this post was this trailer (Trailer 1) for the remake. No, you can’t always judge a movie by its trailer, but something already seems off about it. The scenes look almost identical to the original, but it feels like a sensational love story that turns into a thriller. “This is not right,” my mind keeps saying as I watch the preview. Hearing Natalie Portman murmur apathetically, “I thought you were dead” doesn’t help matters much either. This is how the film could turn out: forced emotion with bland, uninterested acting and not-so-subtle writing. (One of the reasons these stories worked in Bier’s films is because Jensen wrote them with the philosophy that not everything needs to be said.)

You could easily argue that these are remakes, and given that alone, they are supposed to different. They are supposed to be reinterpreted based on whatever style or mood the filmmakers are trying to achieve. This is true. But I believe these remakes are completely pointless. For one, these are not classic films. Instead, they are relatively unknown, foreign, contemporary films. They were both released less than ten years ago.

But I think Hollywood executives and directors like Zach Braff see these films and are merely struck by their brutal honesty. Then they say, “Hey, that was pretty good…I’m going to tell that story myself!” But the thing is – you’re stripping that story of the rawness and grittiness that made it good in the first place. Without these things, it just becomes another adulterous melodrama, and all you’re left with is the soap opera plotline played out by some well-known actors.

This is not about elitism, or liking something just because it’s smaller and lesser-known.  It’s about the essence of something. And when you change the essence of something unique and specifically good, it just looks like anything else.

In a few sentences? These Danish movies work because they aren‘t Hollywood. Taking something that’s great because it’s not Hollywood and then making it Hollywood? That might be the definition of “counterproductive.”

EDITOR’S NOTE: I will give Sheridan’s Brothers a fair chance and see it when it comes out in theaters. I will also try to be as unbiased as possible when analyzing the film’s quality in a review. This, however, is just a rant/observation.

Sherryl Vint sent out the following CFP for the journal Science Fiction Film and Television. I have a BSG essay that I’m definitely going to send to SFFTV. You should send them something, too!

Science Fiction Film and Television is a biannual, peer-reviewed journal published by Liverpool University Press. Edited by Mark Bould (UWE) and Sherryl Vint (Brock University), with an international board of advisory editors, it encourages dialogue among the scholarly and intellectual communities of film studies, sf studies and television studies.

We invite submissions on all areas of sf film and television. We publish articles, book and DVD reviews and review essays, as well as archive entries on theorists (which introduce the work of key and emergent figures in sf studies, television or film studies) and texts (which describe and analyse little-known or unduly neglected films or television series).

We invite submissions in particular for two special issues:

REMAKES, REVISIONS, REBOOTS: Why is the 21^st century fascinated by returning to previous sf franchises? Is this nostalgia? Archive fever? Retrofuturism? What economic and cultural forces inform this recent fascination with return and renewal?

BIOPOLITICS: How do biopolitial theories of theorists such as Foucault, Hardt and Negri, Esposito and Agamben inform readings of sf? What can sf contribute to ongoing discussions of biopolitial governance? What can sf visions of posthumanism tell us about life under biopolitical capitalism?

Submissions should be made via our website at http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/lup-sfftv. If you have an idea for a contribution to the archives section, please contact the editors to discuss your proposal.

Advisory Editorial Board: Jonathan Bignell (University of Reading), Catherine Constable (University of Warwick), Susan A. George (University of California, Berkeley), Elyce Rae Helford (Middle Tennessee State University), Matt Hills (Cardiff University), Brooks Landon (University of Iowa), Rob Latham (UC-Riverside), Susan Napier (Tufts University), Sharalyn Orbaugh (University of British Columbia), Wendy Pearson (University of Western Ontario), David Seed (University of Liverpool), Steve Shaviro (Wayne State University), Vivian Sobchack (University of California, Los Angeles) and JP Telotte (Georgia Institute of Technology)

 

A black comedy, “Head Above Water” tells the story about a young misguided girl named Natalie that has married a Supreme Court Judge–first mistake.

Head Above Water

In this dark comedy, a supreme court judge George, played by Harvey Keitel,   and his very young wife Natalie, played by Cameron Diaz, are on vacation at her family’s summer home on an isolated island.

When the caretaker, her childhood pal, Lance–played by Craig Sheffer, takes George on a fishing trip an old flame named Kent–played by Billy Zane– shows up to surprise Nathalie while she’s alone.

After a night of drinking and dancing Nathalie wakes up to find Kent, naked and dead in her bed, just as her husband and Lance are arriving from their overnight fishing trip. Panicked, confused and shocked, Nathalie hides the body in the cellar, but like every other comedy everyone finds out it and it  just leads to more trouble as they try to dispose of the body and eventually discover what really happened to her ex.

This movie is a laughable comedy because this is something that can happen to anyone. I mean who hasn’t had an ex show up and create drama, however that ex probably doesn’t die but hey that what makes it a comedy.The acting was good for the material that was provided. I mean the tag-line ‘A comedy about keeping your ex-lover a secret, your husband in the dark and your head above water’. Under the direction of Jim Wilson the film is a remake of the Norwegian Film “Hodet over vannet” directed by Nils Gaup. 

The movie concludes with the truth behind the whole ordeal.  Finally revealing that he was in actuality behind the whole ordeal, George explains that he knew Kent was coming that night from Kent’s postcard he purposefully placed in Lance’s mailbox to frame Lance and keep Nathalie from knowing about Kent’s visit. He spiked the liquor before the trip, knowing Kent would drink it and die. Afterwards, George starts to have trouble walking and says that he can’t see. Nathalie realizes that George had unknowingly drank the spiked liquor, that Lance had borrowed it earlier and that Kent really did die of a heart attack. George then falls off the high-rise veranda and is killed when the top of it falls down and pierces his body straight through.

With an ending like that who can’t laugh or giggle. I love this movie for its off-beat humor and plot and because it’s just the type of movie that will make you sit back and say, “Well thank goodness this didn’t happen to me!” Can you ever really go wrong with that?

Friday the 13th is a 2009 American horror film directed by Marcus Nispel, and written by Damian Shannon and Mark Swift. It is a reboot of the Friday the 13th film series, which began in 1980 and previously released the 2003 crossover Freddy vs. Jason. Nispel also helmed the 2003 remake of Tobe Hooper’s The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974), while Shannon and Swift wrote the screenplay for Freddy vs. Jason. The film stars Derek Mears as Jason Voorhees, with Jared Padalecki, Amanda Righetti, and Danielle Panabaker portraying the male and female leads. Friday the 13th follows Clay Miller (Padalecki) as he searches for his missing sister, Whitney (Righetti), who is taken by Jason while camping in the woods at Crystal Lake.

The concept for the 2009 film originally started as an origin story, but the film evolved into a reimagining of the first four Friday the 13th films. Along with bringing the film back to its tonal roots, Jason was designed as a leaner and faster killer, with a backstory that could provide a little sympathy for the character, but not enough that he would lose his menace. Although this film reboots the continuity, Jason’s iconic hockey mask, which was not introduced until the third film in the series, is acquired through the progression of the film. In keeping with the tone of the film, Jason’s mask was also brought back to its roots, created from a mold of the original mask used for Part III; though, subtle changes were made to keep it unique to the new film. Friday the 13th also incorporated some of Harry Manfredini’s music score from the original Friday the 13th film series, as the producers recognized the iconic status it held.

The film was released on Friday, February 13, 2009 to the most theaters of any of the Friday the 13th films. Although the film was met with primarily negative reviews, it earned approximately $19 million in its opening night and $40 million for its opening weekend. With its opening weekend, Friday the 13th broke two records, having the largest opening day for the film series, and the largest opening weekend for any horror film. It currently sits as the second highest grossing film in the Friday the 13th franchise with $65 million, and has earned just over $91.3 million worldwide.

Directed by Marcus Nispel
Produced by Michael Bay
Andrew Form
Brad Fuller
Written by Screenplay:
Damian Shannon
Mark Swift
Story:
Damian Shannon
Mark Swift
Mark Wheaton
Characters:
Victor Miller
Starring Jared Padalecki
Danielle Panabaker
Aaron Yoo
Amanda Righetti
Travis Van Winkle
Derek Mears
Music by Steve Jablonsky
Cinematography Daniel Pearl
Editing by Ken Blackwell
Studio Platinum Dunes
Distributed by North America:
New Line Cinema
International:
Paramount Pictures
Release date(s) February 13, 2009
Running time 97 min.
Country United States
Language English
Budget $19,000,000
Gross revenue $91,379,051
Preceded by Freddy vs. Jason

The Seamstress 2009

Director: Jesse James Miller

Writers: Mark Garbett, Bob Hume and David Andrew Lloyd

Starring Lance Henriksen, Kailin See, David Kopp, James Kirk, Lara Gilchrist, Sarah Mutch, Richard Stroh, Kevin Mcnulty and Andee Frizzell

    I had seeked this film out mainly due to Henriksen being in the film and I am glad I did.  It is a original and tense horror film that I think more people should see.  It has a very cool monster that is very original and creative.  The film has some great kills in it and it also makes great use of the isolationist location of using a island.  It is a film that works on many levels>  As a revenge film, as a supernatural horror film and finally as a suspense film.  What is best about it is how all these things combine to make it a solid film that is well worth repeated viewings.  It has a great cast that is anchored by Henriksen and I also dug Frizzell as the Seamstress, her voice was really quite freaky and was used for excellent effect.  This is a great alternative horror film to fans who are sick of the remakes and the sequels.  It uses the classic archetype of a horror film.  A bunch of people in a isolated area that discovers something horrible is happening to all of them.

    The plot basics are this, Allie (See) is searching for her father who has disappeared after delving into a story.  Allie investigates and talks to a local sheriff (Henriksen) and discovers where her father went too and decides to investigate the island where he disappeared too.  She brings a bunch of friends to help her and things begin to get strange.  It seems a vigilante mob cruelly killed a seamstress (Frizzell) who they thought had killed some local people and now she has risen from the grave to exact revenge on the members of the mob.  This is bad for Allie and her friends because they have ended in the middle of all this and are all potential victims for the Seamstress.  The 2 remaining members of the mob show up on the island and Allie learns the truth and the question is will she preserve her innocence or enact her own bloody vengeance?

    This is a great film.  Miller’s direction is great.  He makes excellent use of shadows and lights and you never know what to expect from scene to scene.  He slowly unravels the films, so the more you get into it the deeper the mystery gets.  He sets up the attack scenes of The Seamstress effortlessly.  The script is good too, it really gives you a well rounded look at all the characters of the film.  No one seems to be a stereotype and all have reasons for what they do in the film.  The cast is very good too, Henriksen steals every scene he is in as usual.  I also really liked Frizzell as The Seamstress, she had a real ethereal and spectral quality to her scenes and it really sent chills down your spine.  See was a good lead protagonist who had her own weaknesses which made her character much more than the “white hat” of the piece.  The SFX and effects in the film were phenomenal, the kills by the Seamstress were gory and macabre and definitely a highlight of the film.  The scene where the one guy has his eyes and mouth sewn up and hung upon a tree like a crucifixion scene was really amazing.  This one gets a high recommendation just for being a original piece of horror cinema.

This one gets 5 out of 5

<object width=”425″ height=”344″><param name=”movie” value=”http://www.youtube.com/v/TB-AS5K898k&hl=en_US&fs=1&”></param><param name=”allowFullScreen” value=”true”></param><param name=”allowscriptaccess” value=”always”></param><embed src=”http://www.youtube.com/v/TB-AS5K898k&hl=en_US&fs=1&” type=”application/x-shockwave-flash” allowscriptaccess=”always” allowfullscreen=”true” width=”425″ height=”344″></embed></object>

I love a good remix, especially when the original was good but not quite the best it could be. I also love it when an artist who’s perceived to be on top of the world releases a hit and another up and coming artist takes a leap of faith and remixes that hit and succeeds.

Remember this song? Of course you do…

Yes, New Edition was at the pinnacle of R&B back in the day but if this wasn’t evidence that these brothers were performers/entertainers – not singers – then maybe this will help.

Boyz II Men even remixed their ad-libs and those sounded better.

But the reason for this blog is to actually plug an artist I’d love to hear more from by the name of Novel. One of my favorites from Novel is actually a remake of Gary Jules’ Mad World.

Here’s the original (which is actually very very good):

And here’s Novel’s version:

It’s a very bold statement to open up a door using someone else’s salutation but if you can pull it off and sound good doing it – like Novel did with his version – then more power to you. By the way, no one – and I mean NO ONE – will ever succeed at doing this when it comes to Stevie Wonder.

What say you? Do you have any?

Well if you’re into old school music and how it has influenced some of the new stuff we enjoy today take a listen to “Sample Junkies” mixed by DJ Matt Cali, beats and breaks compiled by Russel Fong.

Download the link here.

We’re living in the land of the re-make. Movies, TV, music…where did all the original ideas go? Variety recently announced that ABC is extremely close to green-lighting a pilot for a modern version of “Charlie’s Angels.” Original 70’s series producer Leonard Goldberg is on board with Drew Barrymore, who produced and starred in the motion picture version of the show.

I have to admit, I’m a sucker for remakes. “90210” and “Melrose Place” take up significant space on my DVR. The new old series “V” premiered to a huge audience. However, there have been a few bombs. (Did anyone watch “Knight Rider” or “The Bionic Woman?” Yikes.)

Aaron Spelling (RIP), Angels producer extraordinaire and Hollywood icon, attempted to revive the show for Fox in 1988, calling it “Angels 88.” It never took off. He did, however, produce “90210″ in its place. Thank you, Aaron! In 2000, Barrymore, Cameron Diaz, and Lucy Liu donned leather bodysuits for the big screen version, which became a box office smash and spawned a sequel.

I was a Television & Film Production major at Syracuse, and spent hours in the classroom dissecting old TV shows. “Mary Tyler Moore,” “The Love Boat,” “St. Elsewhere,” “Hill Street Blues”… where are those remakes? So bring it on ABC… you never fail to impress. (Well, except with “Commander and Chief” and “Emily’s Reasons Why Not” … but I digress.) The new version of “Charlie’s Angels” is expected to pay homage to the past series while also being geared towards the new generation of TV-watchers. Perhaps they can sign Eliza Dushku, Lindsay Price or Rebecca Romijn? (Note: “Dollhouse” and “Eastwick” were both recently cancelled.) Whatever ABC decides, I hope they got Farrah’s blessing.

Posted by Julie

I love science fiction and I was very excited to hear that an intelligent and thought-provoking director like Steven Soderbergh was going to tackle outer space with the man who spawned the Terminator, James Cameron. With juggernauts like that and a very likeable leading man in George Clooney, what could this film not have going for it?

Soderbergh’s first journey into science fiction is a remake of a 1972 Russian film entitled, Solyaris. The original was dubbed “the Russian 2001″ and found a cosmonaut getting reacquainted with his long dead wife while orbiting the planet Solaris. It was deep, sensitive and even echoed some of the Russian ideals and thoughts of its time.

In the remake Clooney is Chris Kelvin (same name from the original film) an astronaut who comes to a nearly deserted space station to uncover a mystery. While investigating, Kelvin begins being haunted by his dead wife, Rheya (played by Natasha McElhone). Kelvin finds himself drifting away from reality as he comes face to face with why he maybe lost his wife.

The set-up and sentiment is sound in the remake but this isn’t a 1970s science fiction film that uses its characters to reflect on Russian morals and ideals during the Cold War. Instead we are stuck with Clooney and McElhone who seem like too oddest of couples because there is little or no chemistry between these fateful lovers.

The love between these actors is so forced I felt like I had just switched on a re-run of “Days of Our Lives”. Then the film’s photography finds itself panning and zooming into McElhone’s face as it tries to show her through Clooney’s eyes.

Well if it were me I think he would be thinking, “Hmmm, did I brush today?” or “Boy, is my butt cold!”

As the film drifted from the importance of solving the space station’s mystery and problems and focused on Clooney dealing with a distraught McElhone. I so wanted there to be some sort of space station disaster that would at least ignite some sort of release from the film’s continuous mediocrity. I have seen snails with more gusto than this film.

There has been a lot of talk about the film’s scenes involving Clooney’s naked posterior. If it were McElhone’s posterior the film would probably get a “PG-13″ rating but since it’s a “man’s” butt it has to get an “R”. They show more on NYPD Blue for cryin’ out loud.

I believe that Soderbergh’s sentiment for the subject matter is sound and that he did his best to bring forth passion in the space of the film’s waterlogged 90 minutes. Next time, Steve, I suggest you cast someone Clooney enjoys kissing.

1 out of 5

So Says the Soothsayer.

Written: November 29, 2002

Charlie's Angels...

This week tv land has been all-a-twitter with news of a Charlie’s Angels remake (anyone else starting to HATE that word?) by ABC, who recently had good ratings with their remake of V (which I watched, found mediocre, and felt no compulsion to either review or keep watching – sorry).

First reaction: HELL NO.

The more measured reaction: I’m actually a fan of the original 70s version, ever since I got a VHS boxset for my 14th or 15th birthday. It’s good fun and mostly hilarious in a camp, 70s way. However, there’s no denying that it’s very much of its age – as much as I love the stories where the Angels go undercover as convict prostitutes, underwear models or beauty pageant contestants (BOJEST!), they’re enjoyable in the sense that we can shake our heads and say ‘ah, those crazy exploitative 70s!’. As it happens, my favourite character was always Sabrina, the girl who played the journalist/photographer/lawyer and usually got to keep her clothes on.

So what could we expect from a modern version? The recent films tried to parody the exploitative nature of the Angels’ investigations, but I can’t help but feel like they also fell into the trap themselves.

Let’s take a look at this clip, where the Angels (played by Drew Barrymore, Cameron Diaz and Lucy Liu), dress as German girls to help them in their mission:

It’s funny, sure, if you like laughing at outdated national stereotypes. And it’s also an (admittedly slight) exaggeration of the situations the original Angels were put in (apart from the one where they pretended to be alien abductees in the sex cult). On the other hand, isn’t a large part of its appeal the fact that Cameron  is wearing hotpants and Drew slaps an arse cheek? Or, if that’s not blatant enough, try this:

We all love seeing girls kick butt. I’m not going to complain that a tv studio wants to make a show with three female leads, because that’s a rare thing in this day and age. I’m not even going to complain about the saturated procedurals market, because this one won’t star a middle aged white guy with issues, unless they bump up Bosley’s part.

The main question is – where do you draw the line between parodying exploitation and becoming exploitation yourself? Where do you find the balance between allowing your kick ass heroines to look good, and making them unfeasibly sexy? How do you downplay the ick factor of a creepy, middle aged man using young women’s sexuality to his advantage?

Call me cynical, but I’m doubtful that a modern tv remake will actually be able to walk that line without seriously ovrhauling the concept of the show. Even Joss Whedon’s Dollhouse, his latest canned project, didn’t always manage to overcome the difficulties of focusing a series on hot action babes – many would-be fans, particularly women, were put off by the show’s dodgy sexual politics. This wasn’t really helped by Fox’s promo department (because all men want their women soulless, but smart).

Charlie’s Angels was probably groundbreaking in its time, like Bionic Woman, but today such concepts are creaky throwbacks to the early days of feminism. Jill, Sabrina, Kelly et. al. forged a path for strong women on tv – however, what we need now are more rounded female characters, characters who may be kick ass, but not necessarily in high heels and a corset.

Or they could bypass these problems and go with the idea suggested by a poster at ONTD of having a gender swapped version where male Angels skateboard in tiny shorts.  You’d attract two minority audiences, subvert gender stereotypes and could probably get a neat sideline in tacky merchandise to boot!

No, seriously, let’s leave this stuff in the 70s where it belongs.

The wisdom of the market has determined originality is overrated.

Which is the only original feature film to make it into the the top 20 grossing films of this decade (so far)?

Finding Nemo, which lands at #15 with $864.6 million.

If you take a look at the top 30 films from this decade, there is only one other original film property among the bunch, that being…

DreamWorks Animation’s Kung Fu Panda, #30 spot with $631.7 million.

In fact, out of the top 50 grossing films of this decade, there are only 9 movies based on original properties. And five of those nine films were created by Pixar Animation Studios.

This is my surprised face.

The Game Eye has uploaded the official video review of God Of War Collection. Here’s the direct link:

The Game Eye/God Of War Collection – Review

6 days!!!

New Moon Quote-of-the-day: “Here’s to responsibility twice a week, and recklessness every day in between.” –Jake, Chapter 7

If you missed Stephenie Meyer on Oprah today, you can watch it here. On Monday (Nov 16), don’t miss Kristen Stewart on The Tonight Show, Taylor Lautner on The Jay Leno Show and Dakota Fanning on Ellen!

Hollywood believes that the masses prefer familiar plots and characters, so that they can get easy entertainment without putting too much effort into it. This theory does have some sense to it – this is the generation of instant gratification. God forbid we read a book when we can get a quick shot of entertainment in the form of a 30 minute TV show or two-hour movie. This same mindset appears to go into the production of the plethora of remakes and book adaptations that fill the silver screen year-round. One is hard pressed to find a movie today that isn’t a remake, sequel or book adaption – or sometimes a combination of all three – and it can be argued that this methodology has gotten out of control. The number of sequels in certain franchises has reached astronomical levels. Sam Raimi has signed on to direct the fourth and fifth installments of the Spiderman franchise. Saw 6 came out in October, Rambo 5 is in the works for 2011, with the possibility of a Rambo 6 to follow at a later date. DenOfGeek.com also speculates that, following the success of Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, there will certainly be a fifth installment in the franchise. A fourth and fifth Shrek film have also been confirmed. Virtually every successful movie produced today is followed by at least one sequel. Even movies that were really intended to be a holiday one-hit-wonder and weren’t created with a sequel in mind, such as the Christmas event film Alvin and the Chipmunks, have fallen prey to Hollywood’s penchant for recycling. Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel hits theatres Christmas 2009.

Furthermore, it seems no film is off-limits, no matter how long it has been since the original was released. According to DenOfGeek.com, the 80’s cult classic Heathers has a sequel in the works, though no release date has been set. For series based on books or comic books that have a set number of installments and thus a finite potential for sequels, Hollywood has resorted to making prequels, such as The Hobbit, which precedes the enormously successful Lord of the Rings trilogy, and X-Men Origins: Wolverine, prequel to the successful X-Men franchise.

The decision to adapt The Hobbit for the silver screen points to another trend: Book adaptations have run rampant. According to ChasingTheFrog.com, 30 novels a year are adapted for the big screen. In recent years, the number has far exceeded the average. About.com reports that in 2006, 50 books were made into movies, and in 2007 that number rose to 70. Some of the better-known adaptations include the Harry Potter series, The Lord of the Rings trilogy, and, more recently, the Twilight Saga. These adaptations prove what the movie industry is only just beginning to realize – fantasy novels, an underappreciated genre in written form, make excellent movie fodder. The appeal of book adaptations is understandable – books already have preexisting fan bases that are certain to turn out at theatres to support the movie version of their favorite book. Plus, many action or fantasy novels are geared toward special effects and sequels, which are two key ingredients in the Hollywood formula for success.

However, it is often the case that movie incarnations of popular novels are inferior to the print version, which serves to outrage loyal fans rather than win them over, but incensed fans are not enough to stop the Hollywood’s production machine if they think they can make a buck or two. In what EW.com has dubbed the “Twilight Effect,” a slew of similar book-to-film adaptations are on deck for upcoming years, such as James Patterson’s teen-oriented Maximum Ride series, because the Twilight film, based on author Stephenie Meyer’s bestselling novel of the same name, has done for the fantasy genre what Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey did for science fiction. The teen hit also proved to Hollywood what, deep down, they’ve known for years: If a movie can draw in a teenage audience, the demographic with the most free time and disposable income, it’s sure to be a smash hit.

However, Hollywood has recently started to dip into genres and books less appealing to the teenage crowd, as well as less well-suited to franchises, action thrillers, and special effects. The film incarnation of Jodi Picoult’s popular novel My Sister’s Keeper premiered last June. While the film featured a blockbuster cast of Cameron Diaz, Abigail Breslin, Alec Baldwin and Joan Cusack, the story of a young girl battling cancer and her sister’s fight for the control of her own body is not typical summer blockbuster fare. Hollywood has even gone so far as to turn a children’s bedtime story book into a film set for released in October: Where the Wild Things Are by Maurice Sendak. This is not the first time this particular book has been adapted for the big screen; another version was released in 1973. Nor is this a record for remakes. Many films have been remade multiple times, most frequently films who have their origin in classic novels. For example, IMDb.com shows that Wuthering Heights by Emily Bronte has been adapted as a movie four times, not counting multiple made-for-TV versions, and is set for yet another remake in 2010. The same is true of Charlotte Bronte’s Jane Eyre, which is set for an eighth remake in 2011.

Films based on classic books are not the only genre in danger of being remade these days. Hollywood has now turned its eye towards cult classic films, such as Footloose, Fame, Dirty Dancing and even The Rocky Horror Picture Show, which all beg the question: Is nothing sacred? One would be hard-pressed to find a film that doesn’t have roots in a novel or previous film, or sometimes both. It was once said that there is nothing new under the sun, and in today’s Hollywood it rings truer than ever. In fact, the only original cinematic attractions in modern Hollywood are the movies full of gross or ridiculous humor, such as You Don’t Mess With the Zohan, and the movies that mock other films, such as the Scary Movie franchise. However, even these movies draw upon the films they parody.

In short, Hollywood today isn’t producing anything that’s going to last. Hollywood’s Golden Age seems to be over – the age of stars like Humphrey Bogart and Audrey Hepburn, whose films are still favorites with modern audiences. But this phenomenon isn’t isolated to just the film industry. The modern age also isn’t producing lasting literature comparable to that of Charles Dickens and Jane Austen, or revolutionary music like the Beatles, who still have die-hard fans, even though two of the band members are dead. Perhaps Hollywood is not the only problem; perhaps modern audiences are demanding less by repeatedly shelling out 10 bucks to see the same film they’ve seen a hundred times before, packaged under a different title. Nevertheless, Hollywood cannot be completely absolved. Film studios, producers and directors have found a formula that works and don’t want to risk their financial security in these uncertain times by generating radical or revolutionary films that have the potential of shocking or alienating audiences. But it’s been proven a hundred times before – the only way to make progress is to push boundaries and move into new territories that have never been charted before. Audiences will love it or hate it, but hey – at least they tried it.

What do you guys think of the “Twilight Effect”? Is it getting out of hand? I’m really starting to wish they’d leave my favorite series alone! They’re turning all my favorite books into sure-to-be-substandard adaptations. The Uglies series by Scott Westerfeld and the A Great and Terrible Beauty series by Libba Bray (both of which I highly recommend) are set to be adapted in 2011 and 2010, respectively. How do you guys feel about this recycling-gone-amok?  Discuss in the comments! Plus, don’t forget to follow on Twitter!

6 days!!!

My Never

PS – Click on the image to buy this hott American Library Association poster (that sounds strange, I know lol):

Gaw blimey, love a duck and blow me daahn wiv a fevva! The brand new episode of Bullshit Bingo is brought to you in the mockney style, and I tell you what my love, seeing as the BSB team is feeling generous, you can have it for the knock-down price of twenty pence a paahnd!

Bullshit Bingo Episode 21

Yes, Episode 21 sees us discuss which pearly queens we would like to “do the Lambeth Walk” with. For example

We also have a good old chin-wag over a cup of Gypsy Rose Lee about 80s films we think should be re-made, and which hot topics the twuts on Twotter should twit about (or something like that), including not-so-magic moments of TV racism like this one.

We even find time to discuss the All-Time Best Sex Scandals of All Time in the History of the World Ever, after this surprising on-screen confession from David Letterman, which just goes to show that The Larry Sanders Show had it right all along.

But we’ll leave you with our comedy moment of the, er, moment, namely the unparalleled genius of Danny Dyer, as discovered by a very observant James fan in the DVD extras for this already forgotten Brit gangster flick.

I hate to admit it, but this actually looks quite fantastic.  I can’t wait to see what the Kraken looks like.

They have remade so many of my favorite movies but not Willow. WHY NOT??? doesn’t everyone like Willow? When I was little I did have nightmares of me being chased by him and his big hands but that didn’t stop me from watching it every day.

I’m ready for Leprechaun 7 though.

Today is more about trains and planes than automobiles, so I didn’t have my usual commute soundtrack to rely on. But as I waited on the train platform this morning to go into the city, a too-perky businessman behind me kept whistling to himself. Just bits and pieces, nothing identifiable, until suddenly it was: “I’ll Be There.”

Something about his whistling led me to believe it was the Mariah version, and it’s only just occurred to me, seven hours later, that it could well have been the Jackson Five version. Of course, I knew her version long before I ever knew there was an original — a fact that was a source of much merriment for my sister and brother-in-law when they discovered it.

Anyhow, I’ve been thinking about Mariah off and on all day. Mostly off, I’ll admit. But occasionally her curls and her teeth and her boobs have wandered through my brain. I seem to have a grudging respect for her, I’m realizing. I wrote her off in the late ’80s and early ’90s as a vapid pop star whose voice not only shattered glass but near about shattered my eardrums. But here she still is, surviving one career disaster after another, always resurfacing, and by all appearances (aka random commercials where she allows people to say they made out with her) having a pretty good sense of humor about it all too.

Just look over your shoulder. She’ll be there.

Better to use the flyer than the title screen that everyone else uses

There are many arcade games out there which have been ported to a console or two but not many games can claim to have been ported to at least 16 different platforms (if you count compilations like Midway Arcade Treasures). Smash TV is one of those games and with dual-stick games like Geometry Wars being a popular item on consoles today, it only seems natural that someone at the company-formely-known-as-Midway would want to bring Smash TV back from the dead again.

And it appears that they were working on a new console port of the game not long ago, right before Midway went completely down the tubes. According to the news about the SmashTV update, it looks like the idea is still on the table but I would count the possibility of a return of the game coming to arcades being a minimal one (I actually mentioned that to Eugene Jarvis at AMOA 08 but it wasn’t something they were considering) although it would be very cool to see the game coming back to it’s “natural habitat” once again.

I do realize that this is the third post dealing with the home conversion of an arcade title(which we don’t normally focus on) in the past couple of weeks but don’t blame me – blame the slow arcade news!

[Via Destructoid] [Discuss on the Forums]

I’ve always had myself down as an old fashioned, romantic kinda guy, but I never really thought it was represented in my movie watching habits. I guess because when you think of romance in movies you think of god awful romcoms that no one should watch. But in recent years I have become increasingly aware that actually I love a bit of romance in my movies, generally when it’s mixed in with the main story rather than being the focus of the plot.

Like one example of a movie that made me realise this was War Games, a movie all about a kid hacking into the nuclear defence system, but when I watched it a few years back the thing that made me really enjoy that movie were the scenes were he was trying to impress the cute girl by showing her his computer and the subsequent bond they form. Had the girl not been involved in that movie and it had been his kid brother or something I just wouldn’t have enjoyed it nearly as much.

Now we have all seen movies where they tack on a romance subplot just because that is the thing to do, and of course I’m not suggesting every movie should have a romance element. But I do get a kick out of them when they are done well. In fact quite often the fleeting romance moments are some of the few redeeming moments in an otherwise crappy film. I’ll find myself bored out of my brain, and then you will get a man and a woman on-screen together with a bit of chemistry and suddenly I feel myself smiling against my better judgement. I’ve even caught myself doing an excited clap at two leads kiss in a movie which up until then I have hated with all of my heart. I just can’t help but be made happy by seeing people in lurrrve.

I watched the Friday the 13th remake last night and it was so terrible that aside from a couple of funny death moments that lasted about 3 seconds each, the only remotely interesting part was the estranged attraction between the guy looking for his sister and the brunette girl in another relationship. Sadly this stuff only had a couple of very brief scenes before it went back to the brain-dead awfulness, and it was hardly chemistry leaping off the screen either (I’m talking about real tiny scraps of entertainment here), but during those fleeting moments of romantic tension I suddenly found myself perking up, thinking ‘Maybe this movie won’t be a chore to watch after all’. I’m such a sucker for romance!

Since I have brought up the remake of Friday the 13th…

I’ve long wondered whether I should write a blog about remakes, but there’s not much to say really. We all know the trend is shitty, and is more about money than creating good movies. What is there for me to add? I kinda have a ‘meh’ attitude to the whole thing. Though it does pain me to think about having to prefix all conversations now with which version of a movie we mean. Hopefully 20 years from now everyone will take it for a given you mean the original one and not the remake (because they are so shitty).

The interesting thing about the Friday the 13th remake is the original movie really isn’t that great. It’s not like in the case of Halloween where Rob Zombie took a great movie and turned it into a stinking turd. Friday was always the sucky slasher movie that had a reputation and popularity far outweighing its artistic merit. There was actually a feeling that maybe this Friday the 13th remake might improve upon the original one, but that turned out to be a big fat no.

This movie is pretty much an amalgamation of the first 4 Friday movies (because as everyone hopefully knows, Jason isn’t the killer until the second movie and doesn’t wear the iconic mask until the 3rd, which itself has always intrigued me; imagine if other iconic characters took 3 movies to become fully fleshed out!). You might think that by taking the best bits of the first 4 movies you would have a greatest hits package that is awesome, but you would be wrong.

This movie is such a train wreck in places, and so incredibly dull and generic in others that it makes me wish they had just taken the first movie and used that as a solid basis for this remake. The original had at least the conceit of having an interesting plot interwoven with a murder mystery. I really can’t stress enough how terrible this movie is when it makes you long for them to copy the original Friday the 13th. (And not even the worlds best will they-wont they romance could have saved this turd either.)

But like I say, there is almost no point discussing remakes. This movie made enough at the box office that they will do a sequel and there is nothing we can do about it. I tend to not bother with remakes, and I suggest you do the same.

Psycho

There is perhaps one remake that is interesting to discuss, that would be Psycho. It is interesting to me because they aimed to do a 100% shot for shot copy of the classic. Some might say this is actually the most pointless of all remakes as you already have the original with all the same shots so what is the point… at least Rob Zombie attempted something new when he completely ruined Halloween.

But in terms of an experiment, I think director Gus Van Sant’s idea was pretty interesting.

- Take a movie that old people think is amazing but young people don’t bother to watch because it is black and white and old. Recreate it shot for shot to ensure it is has all the elements that made the original one so critically acclaimed, but do it in colour with recognisable actors so young people will not have any reason not to see it.

As a concept I think that is really interesting, but there was a few problems with Van Sant’s reasoning.

Firstly, Psycho was not a multiplex horror/thriller that was going to appeal to a young audience in the 90s and beyond, no matter whether you do it in colour or not. Just the pacing of it and the character interactions, it is not something to appeal to brain-dead teenagers. In fact, the only people who would go and see this movie where the ones who liked the original.

Secondly, he didn’t actually do it shot for shot – and I’m not even talking about the few little bits he changed when I say that. What I mean is if you compare the two movies side by side he might have the camera plonked in the same place, but often he missed the hidden subtext Hitchcock put in each frame. On a directing course I did a few years back one of the sessions was showing the same scene in different versions of a movie, starting off with different versions of the same speech in Hamlet adaptations, but it ended with the course lecturer showing a side by side between the two Psychos, and even though Van Sant had the camera plonked in the same place he completely missed all the subtle stuff going on, like Bates having an additional reflection whenever he was acting creepy.

Psycho was a worthy experiment, but the results came back negative.

Maybe he should have added more romance?

Why did they have to remake “V”? Is nothing sacred? I hate remakes…. Can’t they come up with any new ideas? Apparently, exploitation is the new imagination.

I can remember vividly being in the living room at 1320 s. elm grove rd when “V” the original miniseries premiered in 1983. In those days, unless you happened to videotape something on beta, you would never be able to see it again. For much of my childhood I would think about “V” nostalgically and it was only in my memories that I could watch re-runs of tiny memorable highlights of it. You can imagine then how ecstatic I was when out of nowhere in the Summer of 1991, the cable channel WGN decided to re-run “V The Original Miniseries” as well as “V The Final Battle”. My 1991 self was sporting the Edward Furlong “Terminator 2″ sidepart haircut that was popular at the time, and I watched every episode with euphoric amazement. Of course, watching old stuff makes you sad too because it makes you think of things from that time period that are gone, and can only be gotten back artificially. So it’s like you can only bring 75% of the magical feeling back, which is good, but comes with a “glass 25% empty” sensation.

In a side note, The alien lady “Diana” from the original 80s version was one of my first childhood sexual fantasies:

p.s. During my Summer of 1991 viewing, I developed a crush on Faye Grant, who became an early adolescent sexual fantasy.
I need not say anymore than that.

A couple months back, this dork was a bit hard on Rob Zombie. In a blog about his plans to remake The Blob, I guess I was a bit harsh in my criticism about how he keeps remaking things and why the divergence from the original works like House of the 100 Corpses and The Devil’s Rejects. Well, today there was an article on CNN.com that bitch slapped me a bit and put my back in the mood for loving Mr. Zombie. Please read on to learn more!

Truth be told, I am jealous of Rob Zombie! He is doing all the stuff I dream of…he plays metal in a respected and popular metal band. He gets to write and direct horror movies! He even wrote/co-wrote some awesome comic books! And to put the cherry on top of the sundae, he has a super hot wife that digs all the stuff that he is into! I am downright envious.

So in the CNN.com article, Zombie pretty much lays out the movie industry with one hell of an upper cut…but saying “Hollywood’s a scared town!” By this, Rob is referring to the fact that Hollywood always favors the safe bets for releases. To take an obscure idea that does not have some built in street cred is too risky, and in the rough economic times…that equals no show, fo sho!

So to continue his work with movies, he kind a has to take what he can to keep the ball rolling, and preserver until better times that a risky venture might seem like a profitable outcome; or at least a break even. To this, I completely understand and I take back my cuts with no hesitation. I also work for “the man” and “the man” sometimes gets you down. There are a lot of politics out there in every industry and sometimes you have to play along to stay afloat.

So with that, I say Carry on My Wayward Son…Rob! But, please, please…whatever you do, no matter how much they pay you…please don’t remake Halloween 3: The Season of the Witch!

Back in the mythological times of Ancient Greece, many ancient warriors wanted to claim the head of the snake-haired Gorgon sister, Medusa. Medusa was so hard to attack because one look into her eyes would spell your demise.

In “The Ring” a new film from Dreamworks, a mysterious videotape is watched by a pair of teenage girls. The tape drives one girl to end up in a mental institution and the other to mysteriously die. The tape eventually makes it into the hands of Rachel Keller, a single mother (Naomi Watts of “Mulholland Drive“) and her young son, Aidan.

Rachel is a reporter and begins an investigation to what happened to the two girls (one of the girls happens to be Rachel’s niece). Rachel finds herself slipping down a very slippery slope as she soon discovers that others who had seen the tape had only lived for 7 days after seeing the tape. The tape turns out to be the summit of a giant mystery that will bring Rachel and the people she cares about to the brink of death. What kind of power is housed within the tape? What are the secrets surrounding the tape?

“The Ring” is a nail-biter from the opening frame. It is a roller coaster for the mind that doesn’t let go till every pinpointed detail is revealed. I loved the feeling of this movie as it plays with your mind as the cleverly conceived plot unfolds. The film isn’t afraid to slowly release detail after detail very slowly and methodically. A lot of films these days tend to bash us over the head with a shock-ending or gross-fest but this film is too clever for either movie invention.

I loved that the film was multi-layered in that if you guessed a section of the secret you wouldn’t be disappointed when it came to the final frame. There are just so many twists and turns.

The film is a remake of a 1998 Japanese horror film called “Ringu” which I have never seen and I am sure that this version will the first time Western audiences are exposed to this story. If anything it may help Western audiences to look more closely at Japanese horror. Or at least open our eyes to the possibility.

Director Gore Verbinski (“Mouse Hunt” and “The Mexican“) wasn’t afraid to get dark and spooky with this project. Verbinski’s cinematographer Bojan Bazelli photographs the film very gritty but invokes the camera to do some very interesting angles. Bazelli’s dark gritty gift of camera photography was also witnessed in some of his other works like 1993’s “Kalifornia” and “Boxing Helena” as well as 1992’s “Body Snatchers“. Bazelli created a very lush look for 1998’s “Dangerous Beauty” but he seems to have gone back to what he does best with “The Ring“.

I really enjoyed Naomi Watts in her breakthrough role in “Mulholland Drive“. Naomi continues her strong screen presence and knack for being able to soar in experimental projects with grace and acting passion. There was darkness in “Mulholland Drive” which could have been overtaken by a weak actress but Naomi stood her ground. She continues the trend by making Rachel Keller a real and strong female character. I will be interested to see what she does next.

My only slight problem with the film was the strength of Rachel Keller’s romantic interest, Noah (played by relative newcomer Martin Henderson (Windtalkers)). I found that we never got a chance to know Noah except through the eyes of Rachel and Aidan. I also found Henderson’s performance a little lacking. I never felt he contributed much to the feelings in the film and that he was just there. I wonder how he was used in the Japanese version of the film.

What make films like this so draining and an unreal experience are the conversations that tend to awaken when you exit the theatre. You want so badly to debate and discuss what you have just witnessed. There hasn’t been a thriller this clever since the “Sixth Sense” and it surely will be looked at as the thriller of the year. This is one of the best films of the year.

4.5 out of 5

So Says the Soothsayer.