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
12
Should the Joker Retire?
Filed Under Blockbusters, Culture, Fanwank, Movies | Leave a Comment
I think if the Joker retires from feature films, he should also begin a hip-hop career. Now there’s an album I’d buy. Anyway, some Joker fans have created a web site called TheUltimateJoker.com where there’s an online petition you can sign that demands Warner Bros. retire the Joker character from any future Bat-films. The yahoos who created the site apparently think that Heath Ledger’s performance was so good, no actor should ever be allowed to play the role again…forever and ever.
I imagine Borat would describe these fans as having a “very funny retardation.” I know I would. I think Ledger’s performance as the Joker is great, but I also dig Jack Nicholson in the role. What’s interesting about the two performances is how different they are. Both actors bring their own bag of tricks to the character, which is kind of what good actors do. It’s pretty short-sighted to imagine that another actor years from now won’t have a completely fresh approach to the character when the franchise is restarted for the umpteenth time.
That said, I don’t think I’d like to see the Joker return in “Batman 3,” and I’m pretty sure Chris Nolan wouldn’t recast the role for all the tea in China. Besides, he should bring back Liam Neeson’s character from “Batman Begins;” we never saw Ra’s Al Ghul’s body, and what’s more, the character’s an immortal in the comics. But I digress.
At any rate, online petitions are just short of screaming in the wind. I seriously doubt Warner Bros. will retire the character from the silver screen for good. It doesn’t seem like the right way to honor Ledger’s performance for one thing. To that end, a $500 million domestic gross for “The Dark Knight” and an Best Supporting Actor Oscar nomination are a much better tribute to the actor’s turn as the Joker.
-Brad Lohan
Feb
4
There, I said it. In the 30+ years since “Star Wars” undeservedly became the zeitgeist movie of the latter half of the 20th century, it has more than overstayed its welcome. I’m frankly so sick of the film, its sequels, its prequels, its spinoffs, its imitators and its parodies, I could puke blue milk. The movie is a product of its time, and as such, it’s aged as badly as the hordes of thirtysomething fanboys who still oversell its greatness. It’s awkwardly paced, blandly directed, laughably acted, and the art direction and special effects are so clunky, writer-director George Lucas has spent the past decade endlessly tinkering with the film and churning out theatrical and DVD special editions that simply pile on more imperfections.
“Back to the Future,” on the other hand, was released in the mid-’80s at the height of the blockbuster era that “Star Wars” ushered in. It’s a film that spawned two sequels, not unlike “Star Wars,” but director Robert Zemeckis knew when to quit. There was never a “Back to the Future: Special Edition” released some twenty years later that attempted to smooth over any dodgy special effects. In fact, for a science fiction film (as well as an extremely Freudian rom-com), “Back to the Future” is surprisingly light on FX. The emphasis of the film isn’t money shots like “Star Wars,” which ceaselessly wants to impress you with space battles and clumsy lightsaber dueling. Simply put, “Back to the Future” tells a story. “Star Wars” goes through the motions.
That said, here’s an easy-to-read list of examples which supports my thesis that “Back to the Future” is better than “Star Wars:”
“Star Wars” isn’t even the best film in the Original Trilogy. This is a biggie. No one will suggest that “Back to the Future Part II” is better than the first film, but “The Empire Strikes Back” is widely acknowledged as being superior to “Star Wars.” So “Star Wars” is already stumbling right out of the gate.
The DeLorean is cooler than the Millennium Falcon. Even Han Solo acknowledges that “[the Millennium Falcon] may not look like much.” But the DeLorean time vehicle has gullwing doors, runs on plutonium and is retrofitted with VTOL capabilities by film’s end. She won’t outpace the Falcon, which can “make point five past lightspeed,” but when you can travel through time, 88 mph is fast enough.
Marty McFly is a composite of Luke Skywalker and Han Solo. Skywalker might be the hero of “Star Wars,” but he’s overshadowed by the badassery of Solo. “Back to the Future” wisely gives the young inexperienced hero archetype a rebellious streak, making Marty McFly a more contemporary protag, one who can handle himself in a fight and isn’t above punching a guy when he’s not looking.
“Back to the Future” is a better story about fathers and sons. Darth friggin’ Vader was not originally scripted to be Luke Skywalker’s father. Vader’s having fathered Luke (and Leia) is a gimmicky retcon. As such, “Star Wars” lacks the father/son dynamic that is at the heart of “Back to the Future.”
The stakes in “Star Wars” are pretty blah. Can you name the planet that Luke Skywalker prevents the Death Star from blowing up at the end of the film? No? I can. It’s Yavin IV. But who the hell cares, right? It’s just a plot device, and not even a very good one. It would’ve been more exciting to have the fate of the planet Earth hang in the balance rather than some anonymous planetoid. “Back to the Future,” on the other hand, has Marty playing cupid for his own parents. Failing to spark a romance between them will cause him (and his siblings) to cease to exist. The stakes are more personal, but easier for the audience to invest themselves in. Who hasn’t wondered what it would’ve been like if their parents had never met?
“Star Wars” takes forever and a day to get moving. “Star Wars” opens with an epic shot of a Star Destroyer shooting randomly at a Republic cruiser. Then, not a whole hell of a lot happens for like 40 minutes. Instead we follow a couple of goofy androids around the desert for what seems like an eternity. The hero doesn’t even bother showing up until the first act’s almost over. “Back to the Future” introduces Marty in the opening scene, establishes his interest in rock ‘n roll and suggests that Doc Brown is onto something big in a matter of minutes. In the next few scenes, we discover Marty’s also an experienced skateboarder, he has beautiful girlfriend and he’s determined to change people’s perceptions about the McFly clan. The movie actually moves.
So there are half-dozen reasons why “Back to the Future” pwns “Star Wars.” I think I might revisit this blog in another week or so with a fresh batch of examples. Until then, feel free to post your thoughts in the Comments section below.
-Brad Lohan
Jan
29
So I Finally Saw “The Dark Knight” in IMAX
Filed Under Blockbusters, Comics, Movies | 3 Comments
It’s been over 6 months since “The Dark Knight” was released. The movie’s now available on DVD, but it’s also been given a limited theatrical re-release for Oscar season. Although I saw the movie four times in the theater during its original run, I never did catch it in IMAX. I kept meaning to. I mean, I saw “Kung Fu Panda” in IMAX. And I’m a bigger fan of Batman than I am of pandas. Unfortunately, there were only two IMAX auditoriums in the L.A.-area that were showing the film last summer, and pretty much every screening was sold out for weeks on end.
The Burbank 16, an old familiar haunt of mine, has since refitted one of their auditoriums so that it can now present films in the IMAX format. Last night I decided that I should boogie across town and finally catch “The Dark Knight” on their Godzilla-sized screen. What’s more, AMC MovieWatcher members get free popcorn on Wednesdays, and I still had a coupon for a free large drink (thanks, Aaron!) left over from Christmas. Not having to pay for concessions lessened the sting of the inflated ticket price: $14.50(!). Also, there were a total of a half-dozen people in the auditorium — another big plus.
So how is the IMAX presentation of “The Dark Knight” different from seeing it in your average movie house? For one thing, the picture quality is pristine. I’ve seen a lot of movies in the Dome at the ArcLight, and always thought their digital projection was a little blown out, just a touch too bright. The best looking movies shown in the digital format are ones that are filmed digitally. Converting film to digital ever so slightly robs the picture of its brilliance. That being said, “The Dark Knight” nonetheless looks gorgeous in IMAX. Even the actors’ warts, pockmarks and bad teeth are a visual feast.
There were some scenes in the film that were shot specifically for IMAX. IMAX cameras are a right bastard to make a movie with. For one thing, they’re incredibly loud, so all the dialogue has to be re-recorded in post. The film magazines hold significantly less celluloid, so you constantly have to keep changing them out. They’re also quite cumbersome. An IMAX camera can’t exactly be mounted on a Steadicam and lugged around by some burly camera operator. As such, only the opening bank robbery sequence was shot entirely with IMAX cameras, but most of the bits that take full advantage of the format are establishing shots or specific moments during the action sequences. It’s not terribly noticeable, the shifting aspect ratios; the bulk of the film is shot in an aspect ratio of 2.40:1, giving it the widescreen look that’s the bane of philistines who obsess over black bars.
I’m glad I got to watch the movie in IMAX. “The Dark Knight” is a film I really enjoy. I count myself as one of those chronically single oddballs who’s disappointed the movie didn’t get a Best Picture nom. At the very least, I got to see the biggest movie of 2008 in the largest format imaginable.
-Brad Lohan
Jan
26
“Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles” at the Nuart
Filed Under Blockbusters, Comics, Indies, Movies, TV, Toys | 1 Comment
It’s the 25th anniversary of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. The first issue of Kevin Eastman and Peter Laird’s self-published comic first hit stands in 1984. It was another four years before the cartoon debuted. New Line Cinema then released a live-action film in 1990, which became the highest-grossing independently produced movie at the time.
When I was a kid, I was a colossal fan of the Ninja Turtles. The concept is at once hilarious and ingenious. Four turtles are exposed to radioactive mutagen that turns them into anthropomorphic reptilian teenagers. They’re trained in the art of ninjitsu by a humanoid rat, and with the help of a TV news reporter, they battle a crime ring headed up by a masked nogoodnik with a fetish for sharp objects. Named after Renaissance painters, the turtles are nonetheless impetuous adolescents, who love pizza and pop cultural references. Each has wields his own particular ninja weapon and wears a color-coded bandanna, so you can tell them apart.
I remember seeing “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles” in the theater four times during its original release and probably north of a hundred times on home video. Watching it again last Friday at the Nuart, I was struck by how well it still plays. The turtle costumes — created by Jim Henson’s Creature Shop — look great; I even noticed a scar on Raphael’s nose. The martial artists inside the bulky outfits also manage to pull off some pretty spectacular moves during the fight sequences. This film was made back when action was coherently shot and edited.
Miraculously, the script does not short-change the characters or the story. The film cherry-picks elements of the comics and the cartoon, which have slightly different approaches to the material, and the finished product is something that fans of one or the other (or both) can enjoy. The movie’s also endlessly quotable. I learned that the hard way the other night, when I found myself sitting in front of an entire row of assholes who were saying every line of dialogue along with the characters. After about ten minutes of that horseshit, I moved.
I think the original 1990 movie represents the apex of the franchise. To celebrate the Turtles’ 25th anniversary, in the coming weeks I’ll blog about the comics, the cartoon, the movie sequels and the 2007 all-CGI film. Cowabunga.
-Brad Lohan
Jan
9
Spider-Man vs. Morbius
Filed Under Blockbusters, Comics, Movies | Leave a Comment
I’ve had the full run of the “Morbius: The Living Vampire” Marvel Comics series from the early-’90s on my eBay Watch List for a few weeks now. I still have 22 days.
Michael Morbius debuted in the 1970s when horror comics experienced a resurgence in popularity. Because of the damn stupid Comics Code Authority, he’s a “living” vampire, whatever the hell that means. At any rate, Spider-Man got to fight a vampire, which is just badass. According to Chud.com, director Sam Raimi also thinks the concept of Spidey throwing down with a suckhead is pretty damn cool. Does this mean Morbius will be in “Spider-Man 4?” One can only hope.
Morbius was originally going to be the villain in “Blade II.” And what little I’ve heard about “Spider-Man 4″ has indicated that the Lizard is more than likely going to be the big bad. I’d love for Raimi to go whole hog and make a full-on creature feature, pitting Spider-Man against the Lizard and Morbius, while moving away from the tech-heavy freakshows who’ve populated the first three films.
-Brad Lohan
Jan
7
Iron Man vs. The Wrestler
Filed Under Blockbusters, Comics, Movies | Leave a Comment
Crimson Dynamo was originally slated to be the villain in “Iron Man 1.” His name comes up a couple of times in the special features on the DVD, which I sort of watched while assembling some IKEA furniture a couple months ago. At any rate, the filmmakers settled on the lesser known Iron Monger as the big bad. Fans complained that the showdown at the end of the film isn’t more epic. I think it gets the job done. It’s better than the meh-worthy Batman vs. The Joker brawl at the climax of “The Dark Knight.” Still, “Iron Man 2″ will doubtless have more action. And it also sounds like Crimson Dynamo will be the one trading blows with Shellhead.
What’s more, Mickey Rourke is in talks to play him, according to Chud.com.
Rourke’s currently enjoying the critical success of “The Wrestler” and potentially looking at a well-deserved Oscar nomination. He’s also an excellent choice for an Iron Man villain, particularly one with a thick Russian accent; Crimson Dynamo’s a Russkie. I’d love to see Rourke go toe-to-toe with Robert Downey Jr. and maybe even Don Cheadle, depending on whether or not Tony Stark’s battle with the bottle is part of the plot and Jim Rhodes has to be the designated superhero.
“Iron Man 2″ is still a year and a half away. Let the fan speculation begin!
-Brad Lohan
Dec
15
Making Christmas: “Batman Returns” & “Nightmare Before Christmas”
Filed Under Blockbusters, Comics, Cult Films, Culture, Movies | 1 Comment
Tim Burton movies are practically their own genre. I’m a fan of the bulk of his output. He’s criticized, perhaps fairly, for not challenging himself or growing as an artist. He’s unfortunately sort of become the go-to guy for needless remakes: “Planet of the Apes,” “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” and the upcoming “Alice in Wonderland.” That said, I still wish his approach to “Superman Lives” would’ve seen the light of day. It would’ve been something else.
For this installment of “Making Christmas,” I’m reviewing two of Burton’s earlier films — “Batman Returns” and “Nightmare Before Christmas” — which are both set around the holidays and blend his unique sensibilities with Jesus’ birthday in bizarro ways.
“Batman Returns”
It took me a long time to warm up to Tim Burton’s follow-up to “Batman.” The sequel is a mixed bag, filling the void left by the Joker’s death in the previous film with three rogues — The Penguin, Catwoman and Max Schreck — when any one of them would’ve been a sufficient big bad. Clearly, Burton was not enthusiastic about Penguin or Catwoman and almost relegates them to subordinate roles in the film. Christopher Walken’s Max Schreck — a shady businessman looking to extend his reach into Gotham City politics — seems to have more screen time than the other two villains. He’s the one pulling all the strings. Schreck not only plays a role in Catwoman’s origin, but also goads Penguin into running for mayor. Interestingly enough, Schreck is not a villain from the comics. Rather, he was created specifically for the film.
In a movie with three villains, everyone’s working at cross-purposes. Schreck wants a mayor — in the form of The Penguin — who will sign off on some sort of nefarious power plant he wants to build; along with his mayoral bid, The Penguin wants to take revenge on Gotham’s elite because his rich parents tossed him in the sewer as an infant; and Catwoman wants to kill Schreck, since he tried to kill her for finding out about the power plant thing. What’s more, The Penguin joins forces with Catwoman to kill Batman. Killing Batman is always high on a supervillain’s priority list. At any rate, there’s just a hell of a lot going in on the span of two hours.
The complicated plot is definitely not what’s to like about the film. However, it is a fantastic looking movie, one of Burton’s most stylistically brilliant, which is saying something. Where the series became a bit of a Las Vegas fever dream once Joel Schumacher took over the directorial reigns in movie three, “Batman Returns” has a very Tim Burton-y production design: dark, claustrophobic, oppressive and more than a little screwy. That it’s also Christmastime blends the grimness of Gotham with a holiday season festiveness that intentionally feels out of place.
And dislocation is a common theme in Tim Burton films. Batman, The Penguin and Catwoman are all weirdos who don’t fit in with the mainstream. I like how Burton casts Batman as a revenge-driven borderline psychopath, and Michael Keaton plays the character as such. The Penguin is a gruesome aristocrat with an arsenal of trick umbrellas, and Catwoman’s a kung-fu fighting secretary in a patchwork costume. Burton has fun with their quirks and comic book roots. I’m not absolutely thrilled with his take on Penguin; I think the film would be 100x better had his character and Schreck’s been composited. But, I love how Michelle Pfeiffer’s Catwoman starts grooming herself in one scene.
“Batman Returns” isn’t the best Batman movie. It’s not even Burton’s best Batman movie. It’s still a great double-bill, though, with another Christmas-themed Tim Burton flick, “Nightmare Before Christmas.”
“Nightmare Before Christmas”
I love when Disneyland dresses up the Haunted Mansion ride with a “Nightmare Before Christmas” theme around this time of year. It’s an infinitely more successful rehab than all movie-related crap that Disney shoehorned into the “Pirates of the Caribbean” ride. What’s more, “Nightmare Before Christmas” is just a fantastic story world, one that deserves its own ride. Hell, I say demolish Toontown and make it Halloweentown.
“Nightmare Before Christmas” is a gift that keeps on giving for the Mouse. A modest success during its original theatrical run, film has since gained a huge cult following. You can blame the emo movement. Or, you can just attribute it to the movie’s awesomeness finally capturing the imagination of the masses. Now, it’s re-released theatrically (in 3-D!) every year, and you’d be hard pressed to stop into a gift shop on the Disney property that isn’t overflowing with “Nightmare Before Christmas” merch.
The film sort of inverts the story of “How the Grinch Stole Christmas,” as the Pumpkin King of Halloweentown, Jack Skellington, stumbles upon neighboring Christmastown, where he falls in love with the holiday. He abducts Santa Claus and hijacks the following Christmas season, going from rooftop to rooftop, delivering Halloween-themed presents to horrified girls and boys. It’s a wonderful marriage of the festive with the freakish, something Tim Burton had explored in my other pick for this week, “Batman Returns.”
But is it a Christmas movie? I think it works just as well this time of year as it does in late October. It’s a very rare holiday movie that encompasses two holidays, and the cross-pollination is a synergistic punch in the chops that this vanilla holiday season deserves.
Next week: “Die Hard” and “Die Hard 2: Die Harder.”
-Brad Lohan
Dec
8
No “Forrest Gump II?”
Filed Under Blockbusters, Books, Movies | Leave a Comment
9/11 changed things, doncha know? I mean, I grew gills and can now breathe underwater. How are things different for you? If your name’s Forrest Gump, well, your sequel got killed.
Eric Roth, writer of “Forrest Gump” and the upcoming “Benjamin Button,” is doing press for the latter film and probably still fielding more questions about the former. “Gump” is a movie that’s taken a lot of flack in recent years for being a biting satire of the boomer generation with a uniquely conservative bent. I was oblivious to the subtext when I originally saw it in ‘94 but now can understand why people don’t like it. What bothers me about the film more than anything is its overwhelming schmaltz. It’s a movie that coasts on nostalgia and sentimentality, and as such, it’s exactly the kind of film that captures the imaginations of people who like the turn their brains off at the movies. Hell, the film’s titular hero can’t turn his brian on!
At any rate, according to Slash Film, after September 11th it was decided that an adaptation of Winston Groom’s novel “Gump and Co.” would not go forward. The world had changed!
To be perfectly honest, I think a “Forrest Gump” sequel would be more relevant now than ever. Skipping over the ’80s and ’90s, we should plug Forrest into the 21st Century. Make this an alternate universe and have him win the Presidency in 2000. With a hawkish Lt. Dan as his Veep, Gump could then launch his own War on Terror in the wake of 9/11. Why not have him invade the wrong country for starters? Then throw in some highly-evolved dinosaur commandos, and you’ll have the movie of the decade. The script practically writes itself.
That’s all I have to say about that.
-Brad Lohan
Dec
8
No “Jurassic Park IV?”
Filed Under Blockbusters, Books, Movies | 1 Comment
The death of author Michael Crichton seems to have also killed the dormant “Jurassic Park” franchise. According to CHUD.com, producer Kathleen Kennedy said that Crichton’s death is a “sign” that the film series should remain extinct. Balls.
I remember reading a few years ago that John Sayles had turned in a script for “Jurassic Park IV” that sounded sick. It was about a platoon of highly-evolved dinos that go on secret missions or somesuch. The story pretty much abandoned the approach of the first three films that was becoming a little redundant. How many times can people find themselves stuck on an island that’s teeming with prehistoric beasties?
Still, I love dinosaurs, particularly man-eating dinosaurs, and there is a dearth of movies about dinosaurs eating men at the multiplex. I heard rumblings about a “Turok: Dinosaur Hunter” movie being in development. For a property that’s both a comic book and a video game, it’s incredible that Hollywood hasn’t fast-tracked that one.
At any rate, for now I guess I’ll have to get my dino fix at Universal Studios Hollywood. Maybe someday the anamatronic thunder lizards will go haywire while I’m on Jurassic Park: The Ride. One can only hope.
-Brad Lohan