Feb
27
Yes, “Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun Li” Opens Today!
Filed Under Movies, Video Games | 1 Comment
A friend of mine, one who doesn’t read my blog regularly, used to be in Kristin Kreuk’s orbit. She was unhealthily obsessed with the TV show “Smallville,” and Allison Mack’s character, Chloe, in particular. She wasn’t as a big fan of Kreuk’s Lana Lang, but in a bizarre turn of events, she ultimately ended up working on a project with both actresses. It was every creepy uber-fan’s dream come true. At any rate, when she told me a year or so ago that Kristin Kreuk had been cast as Chun-Li in a reboot of the “Street Fighter” film franchise, one that never really took off to begin with, I thought she was just pulling my chain.
I had no idea any studio would actually throw money at a remake of “Street Fighter.” This isn’t the Sonny Chiba “Street Fighter” we’re talking about, either. No, this is a film adaptation of the video game. Movies based on video games are unique in that none of them ever come anywhere close to being good. You’d think that one might be good by accident. I’ve seen more of them than I should have, and they all suck. Some are watchable. But watchability is far from quality.
There’s a puzzling dichotomy between video games and their movie adaptations. Most video games are loaded with cutscenes that play like movie clips; I usually skip that horseshit so I can continue annihilating zombies. As such, video games have ironically become more cinematic than their film adaptations, which always come up short on story and scope. Although movies are now more like video games and video games are now more like movies, there remains some disconnect between the two media. Much of that has to do with the “talent” video game adaptations attract: Paul W.S. Anderson, Uwe Boll and Uwe Boll and Uwe Boll.
Andrzej Bartkowiak directed “Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun Li,” and if you can pronounce his name, you have my undying admiration. I thought for a moment that he had also been the DP on “Pulp Fiction,” but that was Andrzej Sekula. They are in fact — ahem — opposite Poles.
I hope this film does something positive for Kristin Kreuk’s career, like convince her that peddling autographs on the convention circuit is actually less reprehensible than being in a movie based on a Super Nintendo game. A friend of mine would very likely attend one of those signings.
-Brad Lohan
Feb
26
“Watchmen” Pre-Release Jitters
Filed Under Comics, Movies | Leave a Comment
Warner Bros. has lifted their embargo, and the reviews of “Watchmen” are pouring in. Harry’s seen it; Devin’s seen it; Moriarty’s seen it twice! I’m going to see it a week from today. I think the general consensus among the reviewers on the geek sites is positive. Yes, the ending’s different. I’ve already spoiled it for myself. I mean, hell, I know how the graphic novel ends. You can hardly “spoil” an adaptation of something if you’ve already experienced it in another medium. What’s crucial for the film version of “Watchmen,” like with any adaptation, is that it lives up to source material.
I’m fairly confident that “Watchmen” will impress me. Sometimes I get nervous when I read glowing reviews of a film. I’ll go in with astronomical expectations and invariably be disappointed. Take “Friday the 13th.” Negative reviews, however, keep my expectations low, making them much easier to be exceeded. Still, with “Watchmen,” I know that it’s largely faithful to the graphic novel, and nothing that’s been omitted sounds like it’ll completely ruin the film for me.
The reviews I’ve read all hail the Dr. Manhattan on Mars sequence, where he reflects on his origins in an extended flashback, as the best part of the movie. It’s a great chapter in the book, but not my favorite. No, that’d be the section with Rorschach in prison. I’ve read that that’s still in the film. In fact, Nite-Owl and Silk Spectre’s attempt to spring Rorschach during that part of the movie has been expanded. I always dig costumed weirdoes beating the stuffing out of nogoodniks. So it’s quite possible my favorite part of the graphic novel will be even more glorious on-screen.
I’ll see for myself in a week.
-Brad Lohan
Feb
25
The Latest Buzz on “The Green Hornet”
Filed Under Comics, Movies, Radio | 2 Comments
“The Green Hornet” has been in development hell for over a decade. Since the mid-’90s, I’ve been reading about the vapor-film. Actors such as Greg Kinnear and George Clooney orbited the role at one point or another. Kevin Smith labored on the script in the mid-’00s before departing from the project under the immense pressure of having to satisfy the half-dozen hardcore fans of the character. More recently, Seth Rogen’s been attached to the film as both co-writer and star. Stephen Chow was also at one point rumored to direct and play the Green Hornet’s martial arts sidekick, Kato. But Chow dropped out as director, and for a couple weeks, it seemed the film was once again unlikely to ever see the light of day.
However, as weird as it may sound, Michel Gondry of all people has begun negotiations with Columbia Pictures and might actually assume the director’s chair, according to Coming Soon. Gondry’s output doesn’t necessarily suggest he’s the obvious choice to helm a comic book movie. His most successful film to date is the headtrip “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.” Still, I like when studios made bold choices. And if the movie blows, it’s “The Green Hornet.” So who gives a dump?
The Green Hornet is a Depression-era masked avenger. Also known as newspaper publisher Brit Reid, the Hornet and his Chinese-American driver Kato battle underworld figures in New York City. The character reached his pop cultural apex in the late-’60s when “The Green Hornet” television series ran for one season and launched Bruce Lee’s career. Unfortunately, the show lacked the campy appeal of TV’s “Batman,” not to mention the Caped Crusader’s colorful rogues gallery. I think I’ve only seen one episode in its entirety. Apart from Lee’s star-making turn as Kato, the show is probably best known for its buzzing bee theme song, something you may have also heard in “Kill Bill: Volume 1.”
It’ll be interesting to see how the film version turns out. The casting of Rogen in the lead and the hiring of Gondry as director definitely indicates the studio wants to try something new and different with the material. I hope they give us something to buzz about.
-Brad Lohan
Feb
24
I finally saw “Coraline” last weekend. I thought it was okayish. It’s a movie for emo kids, a little too dark for tots and a little too “meh” for parents. Stop-motion animated films are few and far between. They have a certain magic that even hand-drawn cartoons lack. I’ve always found the sub-genre fascinating. “Tim Burton’s Corpse Bride” is a recent favorite of mine.
Computer-animated films, on the other hand, are not in short supply. Of the eleventeen trailers shown before “Coraline,” I think all but one were for CGI ‘toons. As long as I’m lamenting the dearth of stop-motion animated films, I should also bemoan the lack of pencil-drawn cartoons, which can be just as visually breathtaking as a computer-animated film.
At any rate, the only trailer that left me cold was the one for Disney-Pixar’s “Up.” I’ll see “Monsters vs. Aliens,” and “Ice Age 3″ and “Tim Burton’s 9.” But I have absolutely no interest in Pixar’s latest film. It’ll be the fourth Disney-Pixar movie in a row I skip, coming on the heels of “Wall*E,” “Ratatouille” and “Cars.” The last Pixar movie I saw theatrically was “The Incredibles,” which I don’t really like all that much anymore because it’s so unrepentantly dour.
The geek community salivates over all things Pixar. I think there’s a bit of a backlash directed at “A Bug’s Life” and “Cars,” but for the most part, geeks think the animation house can do no wrong. I wholly disagree. I think Pixar’s forgotten how to have fun. They don’t make movies like “Toy Story” or “Finding Nemo” anymore, films that appeal to kids and grown-ups. “Cars” is a toy commercial. “Ratatouille” is a clever idea for a short. “Wall*E” is another clever idea for a short. “Up” looks like more of the same.
I wish Pixar would tackle something more Disney-like, more magical. I’d like to see them try their hand at adapting a literary classic. That said, I’d also like to see Disney characters like Mickey and Donald and Goofy return to the big screen. Why not shoehorn them into an all-CGI retelling of “The Three Musketeers?” I can imagine the geek outcry against such a project would be deafening, but Pixar’s made more than enough geek-centric movies already. It’s time Disney-Pixar went back to making movies I get excited about again.
-Brad Lohan
Feb
23
I love going to the art house and seeing a movie you’ve never heard of. It’s like going to the movies in an alternate universe, an arty-farty universe. The theaters are a little shabby, but charmingly so. They don’t have stadium seating, digital projectors, or jingoistic National Guard recruitment videos starring rednecks like Kid Rock and Dale Earnhardt Jr before the movie. The posters on the walls are for foreign films, documentaries, and ultra-low-budget fare. There’s a vibe in an art house you won’t feel at a multiplex, which has begun to feel like the airport. No, the art house is for cineastes, people who live and breathe film.
And apparently our economic crisis is forcing studios to move away from distributing art house movies, according to the AP.
Despite the overwhelming success of “Slumdog Millionaire,” a film that’s earned $130 million to date and 8 Oscars, major movie studios are shuttering their indie shingles. The majors are more interested in gambling on $100 million tentpoles rather than indies that cost a small fraction of that and could presumably have a much higher return on investment if they’re a hit. Ironically, this means we’ll see more superhero movies, although the comic book industry is also experiencing a dramatic decline in sales. It seems this economic crisis is laying waste to everything I like — art movies and funnybooks — but I’ll bet you a shiny quarter that “Hancock 2: Hancockier” is in development.
The AP article also points out is that we’d never have had “The Dark Knight” if writer-director Chris Nolan hadn’t burst onto the scene in 2001 with “Memento,” an indie that came out of nowhere and blew everyone away. If it weren’t for indies, we also wouldn’t have filmmakers like Steven Soderbergh, Quentin Tarantino, Robert Rodriguez, Kevin Smith, and this year’s Best Director winner Danny Boyle. The list goes on.
Even if you don’t make it a point to visit the art house, the influence of independent cinema can be felt even in the biggest blockbusters. Indie sensibilities keep formulaic movies interesting. A dearth of independent films means we’ll be denied a new batch of fresh talent, and the movie-going experience — whether you’re at the multiplex or the art house — will be less exciting.
-Brad Lohan
Feb
20
Oscars Winners Leaked (Updated)
Filed Under Culture, Movies, Spoilers | Leave a Comment
Update: This list is hogwash.
If you don’t want to know who’s going to win until Oscar night, you probably shouldn’t read any further. Of course, I can’t vouch for the authenticity of this list, but it looks like it’s been signed by Sid Ganis, the President of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. On a side note, I don’t really see how movies are all that science-y.
There are no real surprises here. “Slumdog” wins. Mickey wins. Kate wins. Heath wins. “Dark Knight” wins some boring technical awards. “Benjamin Button” is shut out of all the major categories and deservedly so. It’s a movie that’s worth watching, but all the noms it got really demonstrated how weak 2008 was.
I plan on skipping the Oscar broadcast altogether. Anything interesting that happens on the show will doubtless end up on YouTube: the fashion faux pas, the flubs, the few moments that hardly make the 4-hour event worth watching. Even if I were nominated for something (Best Blog?), I doubt I’d attend. Well, maybe I would if I knew in advance I was going to win.
-Brad Lohan
Feb
20
Conservatives Pretend to Know Something About Movies
Filed Under Blockbusters, Culture, Movies, Political Films | Leave a Comment
One thing I like about movies is how subjective they are. It’s the reason why I usually don’t really jump on someone’s case if they feel differently about a film than I do. People bring their own sensibilities with them when they walk into an auditorium, and once the lights go down, the experience is unique to each audience member. Sure, we’ll laugh together, we’ll scream together, we’ll cry together, but in the end, we’ll leave the theater with individual interpretations of what just happened.
And if you’re a Conservative, well, you’ll probably not get it at all.
This evening I stumbled upon a list of the “25 Best Conservative Movies” on National Review Online. I’ll admit that I didn’t read all the reviews, but boy, do they love war movies. “Forrest Gump,” “300,” “The Lord of the Rings,” “Braveheart,” “Red Dawn,” “Master and Commander,” “We Were Soldiers,” and “Heartbreak Ridge” are all on the list. The Cons have a real hard-on for war, so long as someone else is doing all the fighting, not them! Heavens, no!
Cons bring a lot of interesting baggage with them when the go to the movies. They openly hate “liberal Hollywood,” and by extension, any movie that’s challenging or doesn’t have a happy ending. This is the crowd that says they want to be “entertained” by movies. As such, their definition of entertainment is extremely narrow. Basically, they want their belief system to be reinforced by orgiastic violence and phony sentimentality — the only two things in this world they get a kick out of. That mentality has caused them to misread several films on their list. So let’s have a little fun at their expense. God knows they’ve been having lots of fun at ours.
Cons have latched on to “The Dark Knight” as some sort of pro-Bush treatise. This is a bit of nonsense I’ve been reading for months now, and I’m finally going to kill this theory once and for all. For one thing, Batman captures the Joker at the end of the movie. Batman does not use the Joker as a boogeyman to literally scare up enough votes to get himself reelected so he can try to privatize Social Security. Yes, Batman invents some weird sonar thingie that taps into every Gothamite’s cell phone and probably violates a civil liberty or two. But he does not decide that the real threat to Gotham City is actually Lex Luthor and invade Metropolis. I’m frankly sick of neocons equating Batman with Bush. It’s a glaring misinterpretation of the film. Batman’s a much more heroic fascist and sociopath than the former president could ever wish to be.
Seeing “Juno” on the list is also quite hysterical. Indeed, the title character chooses to bring her unborn child to term, but she still leaves her newborn baby in the care of Jennifer Garner’s character at the end. Oh, and this is after she inadvertently breaks up the marriage between Jennifer Garner and Jason Bateman’s characters, leaving the former to raise the child alone. And Cons are supposed to be all about two-parent households! Juno’s not only irresponsible, she’s a homewrecker. What’s more, Juno gets her life back — consequence-free — having only been inconvenienced for about 9 months by the whole pregnancy thing. I was definitely surprised to see this movie win the Best Original Screenplay Oscar last year. It’s a pretty dark film with nothing redeeming to say about today’s youth other than they talk funny.
What the stink is “Ghostbusters” doing on this list? Oh, right, there’s a guy from the EPA in the flick. He represents the intrusion of Big Government into private enterprise and is apparently mistaken for the central villain of the piece. The critic must’ve fallen asleep before Gozer shows up at the film’s climax. Walter Peck is simply a functionary character, designed to bring about the film’s “apparent defeat” when all the ghosts are released from the containment unit. Never mind that the Ghostbusters later ask the New York City mayor — a somewhat more powerful governmental official than an EPA stooge — for help in saving his constituents from “a disaster of biblical proprotions.” The Ghostbusters essentially prevent the Rapture! They even do it by putting all their faith in a scientific theory (“crossing the streams”). How could Cons possibly find anything to like about this movie?!
Ah, “Team America: World Police” is also on the list. They’ve really gone off the deep end. The movie does satirize left-wing celebrities who came out against the war in Iraq. But it doesn’t pull any punches when taking shots at the neocons’ approach to foreign policy, either. The heroes are part of a jingoistic paramilitary unit that’s not bound by any sort of rules of engagement. Team America blithely brings the War on Terror to the terrorists’ doorstep — in Paris, Cairo and Pyongyang — leaving nothing but destruction in their wake, and only exacerbating the threat of international terrorism. They even fail to capture the terrorist leader, Kim Jong Il, at the end! This movie doesn’t take a side in the foreign policy debate. As far as it’s concerned, both sides are wrong. That all the characters are puppets only enhances the phoniness of pro- and anti-war activists alike, whose strings are clearly being pulled by someone else.
“Gran Torino” is the last one I’ll go after. It’s no wonder why Cons would absolutely fall in love with this film. The hero is outspokenly bigoted. Cons are nothing if not hateful of people of other ethnicities. So Clint Eastwood’s character Walt Kowalski doubtless filled their little heads with all sorts of racial slurs that they can direct at folks who don’t look like them. In adding new epithets to their vocabularies, the Cons missed the point of the film: characters like Walt are a dying breed, completely dislocated in contemporary society. What’s more, Walt can only bring about positive change in his community (i.e. making it liveable for his Hmong neighbors) by becoming the victim of violent crime himself. The film is in stark contrast to Eastwood’s “Dirty Harry” movies, in which violence has to be met by more violence; even I found this to be jarring when I first saw the film. But I can’t see Walt’s solution as anything the Cons would find remotely acceptable.
Another thing that’s great about this list is how important it is for the Cons to point out that a particular movie won (or was nominated for) Academy Awards, unless it wasn’t. Then it doesn’t matter because the movie was too good for the Academy to even acknowledge! But what else do you expect from people who honestly think George W. Bush kept our country safe…so long as you don’t count the events of September 11th? After that, we were totally safe. Never mind how they kept reminding us we weren’t. We were!
Noticably absent from the list is “1984,” a movie that I’d imagine Cons would wholeheartedly enjoy. It’s a feel good story about a weak-kneed liberal who ultimately grows to love conservatism after being tortured endlessly. All the ingredients are there for it to be a hit among that crowd: perpetual warfare, chest-thumping jingoism, sexual repression, a permanent underclass, constant government surveillance, and of course, torture, torture, torture. There’s also the Orwellian concept of double-think, a belief system that allows for two wildly divergent ideas to both be true simultaneously, like “freedom isn’t free.”
Double-think certainly informs the Cons’ understanding of cinema. But to their credit, at least the Cons don’t turn their brains off at the movies. No, they only do that in the voting booths.
-Brad Lohan
Feb
19
“Watchmen” has been screened for critics. Some are already breaking embargo and publishing their reviews online. What a bunch of assholes. The whole point of screening the film early for these dingleberries is to give them plenty of time to write a thoughtful review that will be published closer to the film’s release date. But it sounds like the folks who don’t get the whole concept of the embargo don’t get the film, either; I’m getting a mixed-negative vibe from the early reviews.
My excitement for the film is at an all-time high. Last night, I devoured “Watchmen: The Art of the Film” in one sitting. I’m also eagerly anticipating the arrival of my Watchmen action figures, which are taking a ridiculous amount of time to come in the mail. I’ve become a Watchmen addict, looking for my next fix and willing to do very inappropriate things to get it.
And that’s what annoys me about these unscrupulous reviewers, these dickbags who got to see the movie weeks and weeks before me. Not only did they hate it, but they violated whatever journalistic integrity some online critic can claim by posting their review early. Hell, if Warner Bros. had invited me to watch the film early, I’d have sat on my glowing review until whenever the embargo ended.
Please keep that in mind, Warner Bros., when you’re screening “Terminator Salvation” for critics.
-Brad Lohan
Feb
18
Setting Everything Up
Filed Under Culture, Fanwank, Movies | 5 Comments
I’m pretty burned out on origin movies, movies that exist solely to establish the characters, the conflict and the story world, before sending viewers on their merry way with the knowledge that the inevitable sequel will be much more action-oriented. Origin movies are lazy filmmaking. They’re two hours of exposition designed to “set everything up,” as though audiences are too stupid to understand the mechanics of good vs. evil.
I think part of my waning interest in origin movies comes from the fact that I’m already very familiar with many of the properties that are being adapted for the big screen these days. But, that’s not the only reason. Movies should be self-contained, not overlong prologues. They should obviously establish the conflict, but it should be done economically. By the end of the first act, not the first film, the audience should be ready for the story to shift into high gear.
I blame the “Star Wars” prequels for this crap. George Lucas made three goddamn movies about a sentence or two of exposition that Obi-Wan Kenobi rattles off in Episode IV. Obi-Wan Kenobi’s expository dialogue was to establish that Darth Vader was a bad dude. Audiences didn’t really need much more insight beyond that, but instead, we got a trilogy of joyless fanwank that told us more than we’d ever need (or care) to know about Vader.
And worse, prequel-mania has captured the imaginations of filmmakers the world over. Now the prequel is built in to the first film of a trilogy. Never mind that the original 1977 “Star Wars” film begins in media res with the exposition done in a text crawl before viewers are launched into the middle of the action. Now if we don’t see a hero’s birth, his terrible twos, his first day of kindergarten, his awkward teenage years, his high school graduation, and his first hooker who OD’d on him, well, clearly we’ll be ill-equipped as audience members to understand anything about him when he’s bitten by a radioactive platypus and recruited by the general of an undersea kingdom to fight the hordes of shark-zombies that threaten the planet Earth.
Now if anyone else in this town has a script with that same central concept, I’ll eat my shoe.
At any rate, I prefer movies that get right to it. Look at “The Matrix” or “Pirates of the Caribbean.” They’re both films that “set everything up,” but don’t waste any time, either. They have open-endings, yes, but they weren’t made with sequels in mind. In fact, you’d be hard-pressed to find anyone who prefers the sequels over the originals. Why? Well, the first installments are satisfying in and of themselves. The sequels try too hard to pile on all sorts of additional nonsense, though I do have to admit I like the second and third “Pirates” movies partly because they’re so overstuffed.
But look at a movie like “X-Men.” It’s a 100-minute first act. “X2″ is a vastly superior X-Men film because it doesn’t fart around endlessly, overexplaining a world in which some people are born with unique abilities. Audiences don’t need a dissertation. We’re pretty saavy. We can learn as we go. I can’t believe viewers would feel so terribly alienated by a film that skips over the hero’s early days, as long as they weren’t absolutely essential to the story. And here’s a fun fact: they’re not.
Backstory is best when it’s this anamorphous thing. I don’t need to see Martin Riggs as a sniper in Vietnam to know that he’s a crack shot in “Lethal Weapon.” I don’t need to see John McClane having an argument with his wife in July to understand that the two of them are still pretty angry with each other at Christmas in “Die Hard.” Filmmakers have taken the concept of “show, don’t tell” way too far. It’s like that asinine show “Family Guy,” where someone makes a reference to something that happened in the past (and involved Gary Coleman or Knight Rider for no reason whatsoever), and then the show flashes back to said event. Who gives a dump?
Exposition should taper off drastically at the 30-minute mark. Otherwise, you’re setting up a world I’m rapidly losing interest in.
-Brad Lohan
Feb
17
Don Murphy vs. Alan Moore
Filed Under Comics, Movies | Leave a Comment
When I read Jane Hamsher’s book “Killer Instinct,” a warts-and-all account of the making of “Natural Born Killers,” I thought her producing partner Don Murphy emerged as the hero. Murphy seemed like the kind of no-bullshit producer that a neophyte like myself could look up to. Here was a guy — fresh out of USC Cinema — who found himself working on an Oliver Stone movie written by Quentin Tarantino; and what a perfect storm of egos it was. Murphy and Hamsher somehow survived the experience and co-produced a couple more films together before parting ways.
Murphy’s since become a polarizing figure within the geek community. His message board flame war with Devin Faraci at Chud.com a few years ago was a pretty amazing bit of dick-measuring. The two were butting heads over Murphy’s output, which to be fair, includes two crummy adaptations of Alan Moore properties. In fact, “League of Extraordinary Gentlemen” is so bad, Sean Connery retired from acting after production wrapped.
Personally, I don’t hate Don Murphy. I’ve seen him a couple of times at Meltdown Comics and never given him hell for screwing up the works of Alan Moore. I’m still a little offended by Don Murphy’s comments about the comics creator. According to AV Club, Murphy called Moore a “liar” and a “hypocrite” for his not wanting to be involved with the adaptation of “Watchmen.”
I think Alan Moore has a right to be bitter about his past dealings with the entertainment industry. He’s a brilliant writer, who’s seen some of his best comics adapted into sub-par movies. With “V for Vendetta,” a movie that I think is pretty great, he went so far as to have his name removed from the credits. I believe his name won’t be on the film version of “Watchmen,” either. It’s his prerogative as a creator to decide whether or not he wants to be associated with film adaptations of his material. Murphy couldn’t care less how shitty his movies are and has no problem slapping his name on them. And that’s his prerogative.
I’m rather looking forward to “Watchmen” and somewhat disappointed that Moore has chosen to not even give the film a look once it’s released. The early buzz is that the movie’s amazing. But I’m not going to call the guy names because he’s collecting more royalties from the uptick in sales of the graphic novel. I don’t see where Murphy’s coming from. But he’s no longer the guy I admired when I was in film school.
-Brad Lohan