Evil Dead Remake Return From the Grave

Well this news felt like a point blank shot to my chest by Ash's Boomstick. I had really hoped this was just a rumor or maybe a sick joke but apparently it's not. Sony Pictures Worldwide Acquisitions and FilmDistrict are partnering with Ghost House Pictures to do a remake of the classic 1981 horror film The Evil Dead.

Filmed on a shoe string budget, the movie that launched Spiderman director Sam Raimi's career, starred B-movie star and current Burn Notice sidekick Sam, as lead hero Ash. When Ash and his friends discover the Necronomicon (Book of the Dead) while vacationing at a cabin in the woods, the group unleashes the deadites, ruthless demons who attack at will. The film consisted largely of claymation, animatronics, and a healthy dose of gore. It was heavy on camp, with some ridiculous dialogue and even stranger scenes. (Tree rape anyone? It's actually a comical scene and demented at the same time.)

When the film was actually released in the United States in April 1983 (a year and a half after it's premiere) initial reviews were harsh but it's gained quite the cult following over the years. It currently holds a 100% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes with the consensus being that it "combines just the right amount of gore and humor" providing "an equal amount of thrills and laughs." Well known horror writer Stephen King called it "the most ferociously original horror film of the year" and it was actually selected by the American Film Institute as one of the top 100 horror films for its 100 Years...100 Thrills episode. It also spawned two sequels; 1987's Evil Dead 2 and 1992's Army of Darkness, countless video games, and even--yes--a stage musical. Pretty impressive resume for a film based largely on a guy destroying demons with a half arm half chainsaw limb.

Why dear God then would they remake this film??? It is completely unnecessary. I can understand doing maybe another sequel but a remake? Even though Raimi and Campbell will be producers, I predict this film will be an unmitigated disaster for two reasons:

1. There will be no Ash character in this movie. WTF? Ash was the main driving person behind the whole franchise. Without Ash there is no Evil Dead. Look I understand that any portrayal of Ash wouldn't be nearly as good as Bruce Campbell but if this is a straight remake how can you not have Ash? It's like cake with no frosting. They will probably eff this up even more and cast Taylor Lautner or Ashton Kutcher in the lead role. Pathetic.

2. The screenwriter is going to be Diablo Cody. Diablo-f**king Cody??!! Are you f**king kidding me? Listen I liked Juno but Jennifer's Body was god-awful. I just don't understand the choice at all. My only comparison would be if Adam Sandler penned a remake to Schindler's List. Again, pathetic.

Well for better or worse (probably worse) an Evil Dead remake is coming. It's a nightmare that not even the shotgun toting, chainsaw cutting, wisecracking Bruce Campbell can save us from.

SIDE NOTE--My favorite line from the Evil Dead movies is in Army of Darkness when Ash talks to Duke Henry:

Duke Henry: "I am Henry the Red. Duke of Shale, Lord of the Northlands and leader of its peoples."

Ash: "Well hello Mister Fancypants. Well, I've got news for you pal, you a'int leadin' but two things, right now: Jack and shit...and Jack left town."

Star Trek 2 gets release date; beams up a hot Star Fleet officer

Shields up and lock your photon torpedoes for May 17, 2013. That's the date when director J.J. Abrams will bring the world the sequel to his 2009 reboot of Star Trek. Chis Pine (Kirk), Zachary Quinto (Spock), and Karl Urban (Bones) will return along with the rest of the crew. Currently Alex Kurtzman, Robert Orci, (more sci-fi for the two writers!), Abrams, and LOST cohort Damon Lindelof are working on the script with filming set to begin next year. Abrams will once again be directing and the movie will (sigh) be shot in 3D.

Speculation has been running rampant on the plot. Benicio Del Toro is being actively sought for the film's main villain. His resemblance to Recardo Maltaban have many fans believing that Khan will return in the next Trek. The other persistent theory is that Kirk's nemesis the Klingons will be involved. However, Abrams and crew are more tight lipped about the story than Bernie Fine's babysitter. (Too soon?)

In a side note, straight men of the world can set their phasers on boner, as Abrams has cast Alice Eve (see picture above) to be part of the ensemble cast. The 29 year old English actress garnered attention for her lead role of Molly in 2010's She's out of My League and can be seen next year opposite John Cusack as Edgar Allan Poe's wife Virginia in The Raven and as a young Agent O in Men in Black III. Eve has been cast in an undisclosed role. Let's all hope it involves form fitting Star Fleet uniforms and/or a naked Pon-Far Amok Time-esque fight between her and Spock. (If you don't get that last reference it means two things: that I'm a bigger dork than Professor Frink on The Simpsons and two that you don't know enough about Star Trek.)

In the meantime Star Trek fans can enjoy the new documentary Trek Nation on the Discovery Science channel.*

*It took a decade for the director to finish. Talk about your attention to detail. Although would you expect anything less from a die hard Trek fan?*

Ford could be dealt into "ENDER'S GAME"

Wow first a return to the world of Indiana Jones and now this! Just over a day or so after confirming his return to the screen as the globe trotting archaeologist, now comes the news that Harrison Ford may be joining the film adaptation of one of the most beloved science fiction novels of all time: Ender's Game. Here's a brief plot synopsis of the book:

In order to develop a secure defense against a hostile alien race's next attack, government agencies breed child geniuses and train them as soldiers. A brilliant young boy, Andrew "Ender" Wiggin lives with his kind but distant parents, his sadistic brother Peter, and the person he loves more than anyone else, his sister Valentine. Peter and Valentine were candidates for the soldier-training program but didn't make the cut—young Ender is the Wiggin drafted to the orbiting Battle School for rigorous military training. Ender's skills make him a leader in school and respected in the Battle Room, where children play at mock battles in zero gravity. Yet growing up in an artificial community of young soldiers Ender suffers greatly from isolation, rivalry from his peers, pressure from the adult teachers, and an unsettling fear of the alien invaders. His psychological battles include loneliness, fear that he is becoming like the cruel brother he remembers, and fanning the flames of devotion to his beloved sister. Is Ender the general Earth needs? But Ender is not the only result of the genetic experiments. The war with the Buggers has been raging for a hundred years, and the quest for the perfect general has been underway for almost as long. Ender's two older siblings are every bit as unusual as he is, but in very different ways. Between the three of them lie the abilities to remake a world. If, that is, the world survives.

Pretty awesome huh? Believe me even that synopsis does not do the book justice.

If cast, Ford would be playing the role of Colonel Hyrum Graff, Ender's Commander for Training at the International Fleet. Previously, veteran actor Viggo Mortensen had been tapped to play the role but it didn't work out. I could completely see Ford in this role as his natural gruffness would be perfect for Graff.

Ender's Game has already cast it's lead, as the role of Andrew "Ender" Wiggin will be played by Asa Butterfield, who stars in Martin Scorcese's current film Hugo. (Amazingly, this film has been in development hell for so long that at one time Haley Joel Osmet from The Sixth Sense was once considered for the role.)

Screenwriters Orci and Alex Kurtzman as well as author Orson Scott Card are adapting the story. I always believe it bodes well when the author of the source material is part of the development process.

What I'm not sold on is that Gavin Hood is the director. He's directed only two features one being X-Men Origins: Wolverine which was so bad it made Ben Affleck's Daredevil look like Ben-Hur by comparison. I honestly wish that the studio would have gone with a tenured director who could give this book its due respect. An obvious choice would have been Steven Spielberg but I think Gus Van Sant or Sam Mendes could have done just as well.

To be perfectly blunt Ender's Game is not only my favorite science fiction novel of all time, I also think it is the best science fiction novel of all time. As such I really hope the producers don't mess this one up. For every Lord of the Rings and Blade Runner there's an Eragon or a Sahara. Casting Ford as Graff would be a step in the right direction and lend some credibility to the film.

There are three things you need to know about the significance of Ender's Game:

1. Read the book

2. Read the book

3. READ...THE...BOOK!

Ender's Game is all in March 15, 2013.

INDY 5 IS ALIVE!!!

Love or hate the idea your favorite globe-trotting, whip cracking, adventurerer Indiana Jones will be manbagging (I'm sorry I mean satcheling) his way into theaters before too long.


After months of speculation whether or not a fifth installment would happen, Harrison Ford, who first portrayed the titular hero in 1981's Raiders of the Lost Ark, revealed to Entertainment Tonight that Indy 5 is going forward and plans to start shooting late next year. Steven Spielberg also confirmed that George Lucas is currently writing the story though the screenplay is still in the early stages.


For those of you who can't count, this means that Mr. Ford will in fact be 70 when principal photography begins late next year. Many people think that at this point in his life Ford is way too old to play the role of Indiana Jones. What's the movie going to be titled, Indiana Jones and the Colostemy Bag of Doom? But I say that those nay saying ageists can suck it. Look at the facts: Indy's character in the last movie was 58 and my thinking is that the film will probably be set in 1959 making Jones's character 60. Somehow I think a man who looks like he could pass for 50 can play a character who is 60 even at the age of 70. Secondly, Ford did most of his own stunts in the last film and by all accounts is a fitness nut. Lastly, if Sly Stallone can still be an action film star and be ripped besides at the age of 65, I think Ford can still don the Fedora for one last go around.


Many people unfortunately are going to see this film as completely unnecessary. After Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was lampooned by many Indy fans who felt that George Lucas once again raped their childhoods (although to be fair Rotten Tomatoes has the approval rating at 77%) most would probably prefer the series just die. I'll admit that when I first saw Skull I was so upset that I gave it a 1. However, my friend Andy said to take another look. I did and I changed my mind. There are lot of things wrong with Skull but there are a lot of good things too. I'm planning on doing a followup review on Skull soon.


But I digress.


The truth is I feel the complete opposite. As much as I've come around on the last film, I'd like it if my memory of Indy's last adventure wasn't about inter-dimensional space beings. So I am fully on board with this even if George Lucas is writing the script. Spielberg, Lucas, and Ford have already said that the next film will not involve aliens. (To quote Ford, "I ain't goin' to Mars!") Furthermore, Spielberg freely admitted that he and Lucas butted heads and did not want to go with an alien angle. CGI is also rumored to be less of a factor in the fifth installment as well. For these reasons I fully believe that Indy 5 is going to be a return to form for our snake phobic hero.


The real question on everyone's mind is what will be the plot for Indy 5? A little over a year ago a rumor leaked out of New Zealand that the next edition would involve The Bermuda Triangle. Others have suggested the so-called "Spear of Destiny," the spear that pierced Jesus Christ while he was on the cross. Speaking of Jesus, another website suggests the story will revolve around Dr. Jones searching for the actual cross Christ was crucified on. Legend has it that soldiers used to carry the cross into battle during the Crusades and it was lost during that time frame. The same website maps out a story where Indy begins the movie looking for the tomb of Genghis Kahn and then winds up in Jerusalem and eventually Eastern Europe. This premise sounds amazing only because with China and the Middle East involved fan favorite characters Short Round and Salah could come back.


My guess however is that the plot will involve none of these MacGuffins (i.e the requisite artifact that Dr. Jones always goes looking for) but involve something entirely different. I would suggest to Mr. Lucas that the item should be a religious in the Judeo-Christian sense. Not because I'm a Christian but because out of the four films the two most popular involved the Ark of the Covenant and the Holy Grail. Just sayin'.


Either way my guess is that since filming won't begin until late 2012, I highly doubt that we will see Ford flicking his whip until late 2013 at the earliest and more than likely it will be summer 2014. Fans of the archaeologist will just have to content themselves with the original trilogy due out on Blu-Ray next year. Here's hoping the next movie dodges the giant boulder and is a return to form for Indy fans everywhere.

Bane and the Big Black Bat

With principal photography just wrapping on The Dark Knight Rises last week, the movie community is just now starting to get some plot scraps from usually close-mouthed director Christopher Nolan. In a recent interview with Empire magazine Nolan revealed some intriguing aspects about the conclusion to the Dark Knight trilogy.

Most surprising I thought was the timeline for the third film. I figured the third installment Rises would pick up shortly after the second film. At the most maybe a year or two later. Nope. Rises actually picks up eight years after The Dark Knight with Batman absent from the face of Gotham. That's quite a gap and one speculates about what Bruce Wayne's been doing since then. Nolan offered no clues except to say that Bruce is in a "bad state."

Additionally, Nolan hints that main villain Bane (Tom Hardy) will be a challenge both physically and mentally. Hopefully this means that Batman will be able to use some of the detective skills that aren't often highlighted in the Batman film universe. This makes sense because in the comic books Bane is not only an imposing physical figure but also a skilled tactician with almost genius level intelligence. Bane could quite literally be Batman's most formidable opponent yet.

Lest you think Bane will be some namby pamby smartypants, Nolan also revealed that Bane will be a much more sinister and violent villain than in the past. The director described Bane as "heavy-handed" and "nasty" where "crushing skulls" and "ripping out spinal columns" will rule the day. Can I get an AWESOME?! This portrayal sounds a lot better than the incredibly campy performance of Bane in 1997's Batman and Robin.

The six minute teaser scene before Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol will also reveal more of Bane's back story. Apparently the steroid Venom from the comics is out whereas gas (see above picture) is needed to keep him alive.

Man this stuff just gets me excited. July 20, 2012 can't come quick enough.

Extra tidbit: Apparently a full trailer for The Dark Knight Rises will debut with Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows.

Review: Cowboys and Aliens

Plot: Based on the graphic novel (isn't everything nowadays?) by Scott Mitchell Rosenberg, Cowboys and Aliens takes place in the 1873 Arizona territory. When outlaw Jake Lonergan (Daniel Craig) wakes up in the desert with a strange metallic device on his wrist and absolutely no clue how he go there, Jake tries to unravel what exactly happened to him. Along the way Jake aligns with the mysterious Ella Swesnson (Olivia Wilde) and confronts the rich and powerful cattleman Colonel Woodrow Dolarhyde (Harrison Ford). Beside a ragtag team of followers from the town of Absolution, this group must stand up against a dangerous alien threat before they take over the entire planet.

Review: Despite the fact that the title sounds laughable you'd think that with quality actors like Craig, Ford, Wilde, Sam Rockwell, Paul Dano, and Keith Carradine and a script from LOST co-creator Damon Lindelof, that Cowboys and Aliens somehow might succeed.

Unfortunately director John Favreau's latest film is as ludicrous as the title.

Let's begin with the "plot." Although the story starts out somewhat plausible, with Jake riding into the town of Absolution, subduing Dolarhyde's drunk son, and then being thrown in jail for previously stealing his gold, the film then degenerates into a schlock fest of epic proportions. The attack on Absolution is reminiscent of Independence Day though not as exciting. The aliens kidnap some of the townsfolk, including Dolarhyde's son Percy (Paul Dano) for the cliched reason of experiments. The reason for the experiments is never revealed. Also the aliens have apparently come to Earth to steal its gold. Intergalactic leprechauns. Yeah that makes sense.

Inexplicably the townsfolk think they are being attacked by demons. Listen I understand that it is 1873 but since when do demons attack with giant metal vehicles? Furthermore, in a contrived bit of plot stupidity Jake suddenly remembers where the aliens' hideout is when the group is taken prisoner by Apache Indians and he ingests mescaline. Really?

Jon Favreau's film is shoddy at best with choppy pacing and sloppy editing that makes me wonder how this could be the same director that brought us Elf and Iron Man. The scenes that are cowboy/western-centric are pretty well done, especially the encounter between Jake and his former gang. Unfortunately, the alien story makes the film awkward and confusing. Favreau has a difficult time deciding what he wants Cowboys and Aliens to be. Maybe that's because these are two different genres and they should stay that way. The fact that there were five screenwriters who developed this mess probably contributed to the problem as well. Cowboys and Aliens feels like the writers threw darts at a wall with various ideas on it, through it in a Slap Chop, and hoped that what came out was a good film. Unlike the Slap-Chop where the inventor says "you're gonna love my nuts" you're not going to even like this movie.

Thankfully, Daniel Craig saves the movie from being completely unwatchable. His portrayal of outlaw Jake Lonergan was one of the highlights of the film. I only hope he's in a real western someday. Sadly Oliva Wilde's character of Ella is completely transparent you can see her secret from a mile away. As for Harrison Ford. Poor poor Harrison. That you would stoop so low as to be in this film either means you need the money or you've lost all artistic integrity. His portrayal of Dolarhyde is more vacuous than Kim Kardashian's personality. Ford comes across as a one dimensional gruff character whose only function in the film is to be surly. The days of movies like The Fugitive are long in the past. At least Roger Guyett from ILM did a decent job with the visual effects and Harry Gregson-Williams' score was passable.

The best I can say for Cowboys and Aliens is that it wasn't as bad as Transformers: Dark of the Moon.

My rating: 4/10

Review: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part II

Plot: Picking up where Part I left off, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part II is the concluding chapter to the decade long billion dollar franchise. Harry (Daniel Radcliffe), Ron (Rupert Grint), and Hermione (Emma Watson) must finally confront the evil Lord Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes) and end his reign of terror. The race to discover and destroy Voldemort's remaining horcruxes finds the trio breaking into a magical bank, confronting a ghost with key information, and an epic battle at Hogwarts. But will the destruction of Lord Voldemort cost Harry the ultimate sacrifice? Even more importantly will Ron and Hermione finally kiss?

Review: Well here we are. A decade later and J.K. Rowling's epic fantasy series about a boy wizard, his friends, and the battle between good and evil is finally over. For fans of the series, many of whom grew up alongside the actors, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part II, is probably a bittersweet conclusion to the franchise. The real question however is, is it a satisfying conclusion?

For the most part the answer is yes.

Unlike Part I which is a more esoteric and emotionally driven film, Part II is an action packed thrill ride that rarely pauses for breath. Once again director David Yates does a fantastic job of bringing Rowling's fantasy to life, drawing the maximum effort out of his young and talented actors. Rupert Grint in particular shines as Ron Weasley whose character, motivated by his deep affection for Hermione and his staunch friendship with Harry, discovers a fountain of energy and courage even more powerful than his previous heroic acts. In some ways he outshines Radcliffe as Harry, who while still good in Part II, clearly demonstrates signs that he's grown weary with the character. Scenes such as a coda at the film's conclusion or his discussion with ghost Rowena Ravenclaw ring hallow. (No pun intended.) However, the final showdown between Harry and Voldemort is as good as advertised. Thankfully, so is Fiennes portrayal of Voldemort. Fiennes brings equal measures of malevolence, menace, and sadness to the character, something he's maintained in the previous four films. Despite the inherent evil nature of Voldemort in some ways I came to pity him too.

Kudos to Yates for keeping the pace of Part II quick and exciting. This film has action in spades, whether it is the harrowing break-in of Gringott's bank to recover Helga Hufflepuff's cup and escaping on a fire breathing dragon, the battle between the Deatheaters and students at Hogwarts, or the amazing final wizard duel between Harry and Voldemort. Alexandre Desplat's score compliments the action nicely. Rarely does the action slow down to take a pause which could sometimes be exhausting. However, a tearful scene between Harry and Snape (Alan Rickman) and a powerful moment between the trio and Headmaster Albus Dumbledore's (Michael Gambon) brother Aberforth (Ciaran Hinds) does help.

Framestore, Moving Picture Company, and Double Negative do an excellent job of bringing Rowling's world to life. The visual effects are stunning and are sure to gain an Academy Award nomination. Production designer Stuart Craig should also take a bow as the set design for both Gringott's Bank and Hogworts were spectacular.

All in all, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part II is, with a few minor points, a satisfactory conclusion to the Harry Potter series. Unlike the Twilight franchise where one film seems too much, Harry Potter's eight movies almost seem too few. So long Harry.

My rating: 8/10

Review: Transformers: Dark of the Moon

Plot: The latest edition in the popular billion dollar Transformers franchise, Dark of the Moon continues the story of the war between the Autobots and their evil counterparts the Decepticons. In this go round, returning protagonist Sam Witwicky (Shia LaBeouf) uncovers that the entire space race was predicated on a Transformers spaceship, called the Ark, that crash landed on the moon in 1961, and that the crew of Apollo 11's main mission was to investigate the crash. Meanwhile in 2011 while on a mission at Chernobyl, Autobot leader Optimus Prime (Peter Cullen) discovers a fuel cell that could could only have come from The Ark. The discovery ignites another confrontation between the Autobots and the Decepticons, led by Megatron (Hugo Weaving), that could have disastrous consequences to Earth and the human race.

Review: If the above description of Transformers: Dark of the Moon reads as ridiculous and convoluted, it's because it is. Once again director Michael Bay brings the world another loud, obnoxious, overly long, explosion filled extravaganza that is devoid of logic and almost completely unwatchable. Granted the main premise of all the Transformers movies involves alien robots fighting each other so it's not going to be Shakespeare, but you'd hope the movie would at least make some kind of sense.

No. Not at all.

But then again why should I expect anything different from Michael Bay, whose life credo might as well be "boom goes the dynamite." That's because Dark of the Moon is filled with enough explosions to eliminate a small rain forest. Ehren Kruger's story is long on action and short on dialogue, logic, empathy, and suspense. So yeah pretty much everything a script should have. Subplots such as Sam's inability to work with the Autobots and his frustration in not finding job detract from the main "story." Also how he managed to score his amazingly hot girlfriend Carly Spencer (Rosie Huntington-Whitely) is never fully explained. Even the Decepticons main plan to bring their home planet of Cybertron to Earth makes no sense. Apparently they've completely ignored science which dictates that gravity would cause both planets to collide and result in mutual destruction. Additionally, why the government would give in to the Deceptions demands that the Autobots leave Earth is beyond me. After all if we give into the demands of the Decepticons doesn't that mean the terrorists win??!!! Whatever. I guess we should be thankful that unlike Revenge of the Fallen, Dark of the Moon contains no racist robots or giant Decepticon testicles.

The acting in this movie also makes Taylor Lautner's work in the Twilight films look Oscar worthy by comparison. John Turturro reprises his role as Agent Seymour Simmons, whose only purpose in this film seems to be acting batshit crazy insane. Patrick Dempsey (yes McDreamy from "Grey's Anatomy") somehow also plays Dylan Gould, Carly's boss and one of Dark of the Moon's human antagonists. He's more out of place as a villain than Charlie Sheen at a monastery. I won't even go into John Malkovich's role as Sam's boss whose name Bruce Brazos is only surpassed by Ken Jeong's ludicrous handle of Jerry "Deep" Wang. Good to know Michael Bay had 8th grade boys picking the characters names. Even Academy Award winner Frances McDormand can't save this film. McDormand only projects cold bureaucracy while playing the Director of National Intelligence Charlotte Mearing. Hell somehow the producers even convinced Buzz effing Aldrin to be in this film. Who was the casting director a meth addict? At least Steve Jablonsky's score was decent.

LaBeouf wasn't too bad in Dark of the Moon. Once again the young actor manages to do well in a bad movie. His scenes were some of the very few in Dark of the Moon that were in any way believable and empathetic. And surprisingly, Huntington-Whiteley was strong as Sam's girlfriend Carly, although her role did involve a fair amount of running and little dialogue. Leonard Nimoy manages to entertain as Sentinel Prime, Optimus Prime's pseudo-father. Nimoy's involvement lends a slight amount of legitimacy to Dark of the Moon. He even managed to work in a classic line from Star Trek. How they got him to be in this movie is a mystery though. Guess Vulcans need cash too.

Thankfully, the special effects in Dark of the Moon were excellent, although I've come to expect nothing less from Industrial Light and Magic. There was one exception though. Someone must have been high one day in the back room at ILM because JFK's face looked like Sloth from The Goonies. Other than that the film was a visual success.

Unfortunately Tranformers: Dark of the Moon doesn't succeed on any other level.

My rating: 2/10

Review: Rise of the Planet of the Apes

Plot: A reboot of the popular franchise that began in the late 1960s, Rise of the Planet of the Apes follows Will Rodman (James Franco) a scientist at the pharmaceutical company Gen-Sys. His research uses gene therapy in an effort to develop a drug to cure Alzheimer's disease. Just when Will reaches a major breakthrough, a disastrous lab accident derails his research resulting in the liquidation of his test chimps. However, Will rescues one chimp, Caesar (Andy Serkis) and continues the research on his own. But when Caesar displays signs of extremely heightened intelligence, evolution may lead to revolution.

Review: After the unmitigated disaster that was Tim Burton's 2001 film, I have to admit I was leery of Rise of the Planet of the Apes. Was yet another reboot of a classic science fiction franchise really necessary? Rise renders the question moot because it is the surprise hit of the year. Full of fast action, cutting edge and believable science, and eerily realistic apes, Rise succeeds on almost every level, and is the perfect popcorn flick.

Rather than doing a straight remake of the 1968 classic, director Rupert Wyatt started fresh with an intriguing origin story. (It bears mentioning that there are numerous homages to the original however, including a famous quote from the first film.) Wyatt and screenwriters Rick Jaffa and Amanda Silver approach Rise in a fresh and dynamic way, centering the film on hard science. The research involving the cure for Alzheimer's balances the personal with the practical. Will's father Charles (John Lithgow) has the disease but Will's greedy boss Steven, played by David Oyelowo, cares only about how much money the drug can make the company. The push-pull relationship is a central theme throughout the film.

This dichotomy plays out in Rise through the character of Caesar. While Will, Will's girlfriend Caroline (Freida Pinto), and Charles see Caesar as a thinking feeling entity, others like animal control agent John Landon (Brian Cox) and his son Dodge (Tom Felton from the Harry Potter series) see Caesar as less than an animal. To them he's a non-entity. And like so many oppressed groups throughout history, eventually they're going to get mad enough to...well...rise up. The tension elevates Rise from a mere monkey movie to a tale about the inherent rights of living creatures and what it means to be an intelligent being possessing real thoughts and emotions.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes also benefits from an epic score by Patrick Doyle. It serves as a great backdrop to Andrew Lesnie's excellent cinematography and Conrad Buff and Mark Goldblatt's quality editing. And I'd be remiss if I didn't mention the excellent job done by Weta Digital in bringing the apes to life. Unlike the CGI from my previous review of The Thing, the special effects were flawless.

Without question the real star of the show is Andy Serkis as Caesar. The man who will forever be known as Gollum from The Lord of the Rings series, once again puts on an epic motion capture/CGI display. Since Caesar doesn't speak, Serkis is forced to rely on facial expressions and gestures to display emotions. Serkis successfully pulls that off, as Caesar's expressions of happiness and rage are equally believable. Kudos to Serkis. It's too bad the Academy won't recognize him with an Oscar nod. Oh well.

My one and only complaint with Rise is James Franco. After a masterful performance in 27 Hours, Franco completely phones this role in. Sad to say that Serkis evoked more emotion as a chimp than Franco did as a human.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes was a thoroughly enjoyable film and moreover one of the best of 2011. Here's to the sequel swinging into theaters as quickly as possible. All hail our simian overlords!

My Rating: 9/10

Review: Super 8

Plot: It's the summer of 1979 in Lillian, Ohio and junior high student Joe Lamb (Joel Courtney) is helping his friend Charles (Riley Griffiths) make a low budget zombie movie to enter into a local film festival. With the help of fellow cohorts Cary (Ryan Lee), Preston (Zach Mills), and Martin (Gabriel Basso), Joe and Charles convince Alice (Elle Fanning) to be in the film. But when the group witnesses and barely survives a train crash, and mysterious disappearances and deaths begin happening in Lillian, the group comes to realize that a dangerous, perhaps otherworldly threat has been unleashed on their town.

Review: Maybe it is because I grew up in the decade, but I have a soft spot in my heart for 80s films. Ghostbusters, The Empire Strikes Back, Raiders of the Lost Ark; I love them all. My deep passion for 80s movies probably explains why I loved Super 8. Filled with fantastic acting performances, a suspenseful and engaging plot, and excellent special effects, Super 8 is E.T. meets The Goonies meets Close Encounters of the Third Kind.

The heart of Super 8 lies in its young cast. It's movies like this that make me sincerely wish the Oscars had an award for best ensemble cast. In spite of the youth of the characters the performances are phenomenal. Part of the credit goes to director J.J. Abrams in being able to extract the best from this group, but for the most part it's all them.

Newcomer Joel Courtney is perfect as Joe, a kid who's still grieving the loss of his mother and at odds with his distant father Jack, played brilliantly by Emmy winner Kyle Chandler. Joel manages to convey the right amount of wonder, angst, and adolescent longing that we all went through at 14. He also possesses a strong streak of leadership and courage that plays out in Super 8 right up until the climactic closing scenes.

Elle Fanning steals the show as Alice though. I'm amazed that someone so young (she's only 13!) could give such an emotional performance. Fanning (yes it isDakota's younger sister) demonstrates a pathos and energy not seen in many adult actors. The scene where she plays the zombie protagonist's wife is particularly memorable and, like Joe and his friends, left my jaw firmly dropped. Even better are the scenes where Alice confronts her alcoholic father Louis (Ron Eldard), who has an integral connection to the death of Joe's mother.

J.J. Abrams script does an excellent job of balancing suspense with real human interactions. The sudden occupation of the town by the Air Force and the heightened paranoia of the townspeople creates distinct and palpable tension. Abrams also makes a difficult and bold choice, and delays the showing of the titular monster until the end of the film. Just like Jaws the decision worked and made scenes such as the one where a mini mart clerk is killed or when an Air Force officer is violently ripped out of a bus that much more harrowing.

That's not to say that Super 8 is a perfect film, it's not. Some of the scenes, like a confrontation between Jack and Louis towards the end of the film come across as sappy and corny. The film was also about ten minutes too long. Even the inevitable confrontation between Joe and the monster, although good, was not as good as it could have been.

Most of my complaints are minor however. After all as much as I loved the 80s film Predator it is far from a perfect movie. None of my grievances in any way ruin Super 8. You don't have to be an 80s film fan to enjoy Super 8, but I dare anyone not over 40 to walk away from this movie with anything but a heartfelt sense of nostalgia and a big grin on your face.

My rating: 8.5/10

Review: In Time

Plot: In 2161 the currency is time not money. Genetic manipulation allows humans to stop aging at 25--but there is a price. After 25 humans have exactly one year left and the only way to accumulate more time is work. While the rich can live virtually forever, the downtrodden try to eek out an existence so they don't "time out." When poor factory worker Will Salas (Justin Timberlake) saves a rich businessman and wakes up the next day with over 100 years on his clock, Will discovers that finally having enough time can still get you killed.

Review: 20th Century Fox's latest science fiction foray In Time is kind of like Occupy Wall Street--interesting concept but poor execution.

I'll admit that director Andrew Nicoll conveys poignantly the disparity between the lower and upper classes in the 22nd century. Everything from coffee to rent is measured out in minutes, with the rich setting loan rates and increasing the cost of living to keep the rich in power, and the poor living day to day. However, the rich are also trapped by their circumstances. Despite having enormous amounts of time, many live sheltered and safe lives, fearing to be killed accidentally.

Often times the best science fiction facilitates excellent social commentary, whether it is the threat of nuclear destruction in The Day the Earth Stood Still or the threat to the environment in Avatar. Like Avatar, In Time's social commentary is about as subtle as a Chuck Norris round house kick to the face, however it didn't severely detract from the film.

What did detract from In Time were some of the odd futuristic features of the film. For example, time is transferred simply by touching another person's arm. This seems ludicrous because wouldn't that make it incredibly easy to steal time? Furthermore, apparently technology has not improved in the mid 22nd century. Cell phones, cars, computers--everything looks exactly the same as it does in 2011. You would think producers Marc Abraham, Amy Israel, Kristel Laiblin, and Eric Newman would make a stronger effort at creating the world of tomorrow. Then there are these ridiculous "Time Fights" that people seem to engage in, sort of like an arm wrestling match. One such fight between Timberlake and gangster Fortis (Alex Pettyfer) late in the film comes across as comical rather than tense.

Additionally, In Time suffers from poor pacing and plot. The first half of the film involves Will running for his life from Timekeepers who believe he stole the time left to him. Once he escapes into a different more affluent time zone, he lives the high life for awhile eventually meeting a wealthy heiress named Sylvia Weis. After kidnapping her to avoid the Timekeepers, one would expect a suspenseful race against time movie. Wrong. Instead the film degenerates into a Bonnie and Clyde-esque bonanza where Will and Sylvia start stealing time and giving it away. Consequently, Niccol never decides exactly what type of film In Time should be. The result is a half baked mess that not even the excellent editing of Zach Staenberg could save.

Acting performances in In Time are hit and miss. Timberlake is strong in his first leading role and brings a sense of desperation and quiet nobility to Will. What impressed me the most was one of the first scenes with Olivia Wilde, who plays Rachel Salas, Will's mother. Despite the fact that in real life the two actors are only a few years apart, Timberlake made the scene believable. After turns in The Social Network and now In Time, I hope Timberlake gets the credit he richly deserves as a good actor. If the public insists on calling Robert Pattinson, Ryan Reynolds, and Rob Schneider "actors" then they need to stop referring to Timberlake as the "Dick In the Box"/Insynch/SNL host guy who dated Cameron Diaz. He's a real actor Hollywood. Deal with it.

Cillian Murphy is also strong as Timekeeper Raymond Leon. (Timekeepers are kind of the cops of the future.) He represents someone who upholds law and order but sympathizes with Sylvia and Will's plight. Pettyfer is also great as a gangster but was severely underused. Sadly Amanda Seyfried was abominable in this film. She fails miserably to evoke any real emotion and her character Sylvia was blander than a two week old rice cake. About the only thing Seyfried did well was look hot.

What's sad about In Time is that it had the potential to be a very good movie. It's a shame that the makers of In Time didn't invest more time (eh-emm) in making this a better movie.

My rating: 5/10

Review: The Thing

Plot: A prequel to the John Carpenter classic of the same name, The Thing follows a group of Norweigan scientists who discover an alien spacecraft and specimen in the middle of Antarctica. When Dr. Sander Halvorson (Ulrich Thomsen) asks paleontologist Kate Lloyd (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) to the frozen continent with the promise of the discovery of a lifetime, she can't resist. But when the alien specimen escapes and begins taking over various members of the scientific team, a fight for survival begins that nobody may walk away from.

Review: Let me preface this review by stating that director John Carpenter's 1982 classic The Thing (a remake of the 1951 film The Thing from Another World which is based on the short story "Who Goes There?" by John W. Campbell) is my all time favorite horror movie and in my mind Carpenter's best work. Therefore I made it my duty to go into the 2011 edition with as little expectations as possible, hoping I'd be pleasantly surprised.

Much to my relief I was.

One of the things that attracted me about the 2011 version was the decision by director Matthijs van Heijningen Jr to make a prequel rather than a straight remake. For those of you who haven't seen the 1982 film I won't ruin the movie for you. I'll only say that the Norwegian aspect of Carpenter's version was the impetus for the entire movie. I've always wondered about the discovery of the alien, which is only referenced in the 1982 film. Thankfully, Heijningen focuses heavily on attention to detail, going so far as to set the movie in 1982 and even using a similar score. Although this time Marco Beltrami waives the conductor's baton rather than the great Ennio Morricone. Heijningen also gives various nods to things depicted but not explained in the earlier film version.

Granted, the plot concept is still the same--a group of explorers trapped out in the wilderness and facing an enemy that can assume any shape. The Thing (both versions) have the trademarks of any good horror film which are isolation, paranoia, and the idea that something could take you over. What made the 1982 version so fantastic is that there was a real slow burn to the film punctuated by truly terrifying scenes. While the 2011 movie doesn't reach that level of success, I was amazed that Heijningen and screenwriters Eric Heisserer were able to recreate some of that feeling of tension throughout the film. They even added a nice twist at the end. It made certain scenes, such as the alien assimilation of Adam (Eric Christian Olsen) that much more macabre.

The Thing falters a little bit in the acting department. Olsen's character of Adam is extremely bland and Thomsen's Dr. Halvorson comes across as chauvinistic and irritating rather than malevolent and imposing. While Joel Edgerton is very good as American helicopter pilot Sam Carter, his character is severely underused. For the life of me I can't understand why Heisserer and Heijningen didn't make him a more central character. They basically wasted the abilities of one of the better actors working today. On a bright note Mary Elizabeth Winstead was excellent as heroine Kate Lloyd. Winstead brought a streak of vulnerability, courage, and toughness to the role, ala Ellen Ripley from the Alien franchise. (She even came up with an ingenious way to do an "alien test.")

The 1982 version of The Thing relied heavily on makeup, gore, and animatronics to facilitate the horror scenes. I only wish the producers of the 2011 edition would have done the same. While an autopsy scene does involve some sophisticated and gross makeup work, the majority of the film relies heavily on CGI. This was a mistake as many of the CGI scenes are of low quality. Perhaps filmgoers have been spoiled by movies like Avatar and The Lord of the Rings but that's no excuse for poor work. Fifteen years ago it might have been cutting edge but in 2011 it just looks shoddy.

The Thing was already in a bad position because it had to contend with Carpenter's beloved classic. It's like the Miami Dolphins trying to find a replacement for Dan Marino at quarterback. It's difficult if not impossible to replace a legend. However, I think this version while flawed is still a good movie and definitely worth a view. At the least I hope it inspires people who have never seen the original to check it out. (FYI--fans of the original be sure to stick around for the credits; I promise you won't be disappointed.)

My rating: 2011 version--7.5/10

1982 version--10/10

Review: Moneyball

Plot: Based on the 2003 Michael Lewis book of the same name, Moneyball relates the story of the 2002 Oakland Athletics and their general manager Billy Beane (Brad Pitt). Facing a MLB system that seems geared toward having only rich teams win, Beane, with the help of assistant GM Peter Brand (Jonah Hill) employs the controversial system of sabermetrics to field a winning team. Along the way Billy battles scouts who believe that mathematical statistics can't create wins, an owner with no money to spare, derisive fans, and the As manager Art Howe (Philip Seymour Hoffman) who thinks Beane's system is ridiculous. Yet when a team of misfits and castoffs starts winning, Beane's approach commands the rest of the baseball world to stand up and take notice.

Review: As a fan of the Evil Empire (a New York Yankees fan for those not in the know) I had some doubts going into Moneyball. If the entire two hours was going to consist solely of denigrating teams like the Yankees and complaining about the unfairness of teams with a lower payroll to be unable to win I wanted no part of it.

Thankfully, I was pleasantly surprised.

While Moneyball does highlight the disparity between rich and poor baseball teams, director Bennett Miller keeps the main focus on Pitt's character Beane. The result is not so much a docudrama as the story of a man trying to challenge the establishment.

As the movie begins the As have just lost to the Yankees in the 2001 divisional playoffs and lose free agents Jason Giambi and Johnny Damon to richer teams. Not surprisingly money is the issue. With a payroll of only about $40 million how can Oakland hope to compete?

Enter assistant GM Peter Brand (Jonah Hill). After Beane snags Brand away from the Indians, Brand convinces Beane that he shouldn't be buying players but buying wins, and in order to buy wins Beane needs to buy runners. Hill is excellent here as Brand. While the young actor is known more for bombastic roles like Superbad, Hill gives an understated performance that works well in Moneyball. Brand believes in sabermetrics and over time gets Beane to believe too.

What's interesting in Moneyball is how new concepts often get derided by detractors of the establishment. Whether it is Darwin's theory of evolution or Galileo's idea that the Earth revolves around the sun, there are always going to be skeptics who will resist change, sometimes violently. Sabermetrics is no different. Another brilliant screenplay by Aaron Sorkin (The Social Network) and Steven Zallian culls drama out of a seemingly boring idea. But just like sabermetrics somehow it works. At one point in the movie Beane's scouts even point out that Bill James (the creator of sabermetrics) was a night watchman. In other words what the hell does he know about baseball? My rebuttal is what the hell did a Swiss patent clerk named Albert Einstein know about physics?

Moneyball is not without flaws however. The film is about fifteen minutes too long and sometimes the scenes are overly talky. However scenes involving a mid season trade and a confrontation between Billy and his head scout more than make up for that. Mychael Danna's score is also underwhelming at best and while Hoffman is decent as manager Howe, his emotions don't move much beyond surliness and grumpiness.

The real gem in Moneyball is Pitt however. Rather than his recent quirky roles in The Curious Case of Benjamin Button and Inglorious Basterds, Pitt returns to one of his everyman roles of the early '90s. The result is a passionate and believable performance that is sure to get him another Oscar nomination.

Overall the return on my investment in Moneyball was more than satisfactory.

My rating: 8/10

A Note On Ratings

I'd like to note one quick thing about my rating system. I've found that sometimes I'm torn between giving a movie one number versus another. For example a movie could be closer to a nine than an eight but I might be hesitant to push it over into the land of nine. Having said that I am now going to do halves (if needed) on my scores. I.E. I may rate a film a 6.5 an 8.5, etc. Of course all ratings will be on a 0 to 10 scale, 0 meaning gouge your eyes out rather than watch this movie and 10 being WHY DON'T YOU OWN THIS MOVIE YET??? This post is probably superfluous but I thought I'd post it anyway.

Review: Warrior

Plot: When physics teacher and ex-MMA fighter Brendan Conlon (Joel Edgerton) finds himself deeply in debt and in danger of losing his home, he turns to fighting again as a means to make money. With the help of former trainer Frank Campana (Frank Grillo) Brendan hopes to return to form and salvage his life. However, financial concerns aren't Brendan's only issues. Brendan is estranged from an alcoholic and abusive father (Nick Nolte) he can't forgive, his wife Tess (Jennifer Morrison) is dead set against him getting back in the ring, and his high school administrators aren't exactly enthusiastic about Brendan's exploits inside the octagon. Further complicating matters is the return of Brendan's Marine brother Tommy Riordan (Tom Hardy) who he hasn't seen in fourteen years. Unlike Brendan, Tommy's desire to fight is driven purely by rage...and a haunted past. When both brothers enter the first ultimate MMA event, Sparta, with a $5 million payday on the line, Tommy and Brendan are in for a physical and emotional reckoning.

Review: One of the perils of being a film critic is the tendancy to get jaded. Let's be honest Hollywood churns out more crap in one calendar year than all of New Jersey's sewage treatment plants combined. And I'm not evening counting Adam Sandler's latest non-funny cinema foray.

However, what you also live for as a movie critic is what I like to call the GBF; the Goose Bump Factor. Every once an awhile you'll see a trailer that ignites the Goose Bump Factor. The last time it happened to me was in May, when I saw the preview Warrior. Of course there's an ocean of distance between a successful trailer and a successful film as anyone who has seen I Am Legend might attest. There is always the possibility of being crushed by the boulder of disappointment.

I was never even touched by a pebble.

Every major sport seems to have an iconic movie(s) associated with it. Baseball has The Natural (among many others), basketball has Hoosiers, football has North Dallas Forty, and boxing has Rocky. I can easily say that MMA now has Warrior.

However, it would be disingenuous to say that Warrior is merely a sports movie. Granted the fight scenes are excellent at showing not only the violence of the sport but also how out thinking an opponent can often overcome physical restrictions. Brute strength doesn't always win the day. You can credit the success of the fight scenes to cinematographer Masanobu Takayanagi who does a masterful job throughout Warrior.

Warrior at its heart is about the dynamic between father and sons and between brothers. Warrior could have easily degenerated into a fight a minute blood fest but director Gavin O'Connor puts the focus of Warrior exactly where it is supposed to be: on Tommy, Brendan, and Paddy. While the idea of an abusive alcoholic father, a son who was Dad's golden boy, and another son who could never get his father's attention seem like trite and overused plot points, screenwriters Gavin O'Connor, Cliff Dorfman, and Anthony Tambakis breathe new life into old tropes. The result is an engaging and emotional story that satisfies from the opening title to the closing credits.

Despite the superb script and excellent cinematography, Warrior would not work without the high quality of acting in this movie. Tom Hardy is a revelation as the brooding and rage driven Tommy. The Inception star and future Dark Knight Rises villain exhibits a method driven masterpiece Marlon Brando would be proud of. Although Tommy seems to care about nothing but fighting as an outlet for his rage, Warrior eventually reveals that Tommy's real motivation lies with his troubled past involving his Mom's cancer and his exploits in the Marine corps. The scenes with his father Paddy (played brilliantly here by Nick Nolte) are captivating whether it is the opening scene at Paddy's apartment, to an emotional confrontation in Tommy's hotel room at Sparta. Tommy sees Paddy as just a worn down drunk who beat his mother and drove her away, and Brendan as an older brother who bailed on him for Tess.

Equally as good, if not better, is Joel Edgerton as Brendan Conlon. While Tommy can't forgive Paddy for being a drunk and a wife beater, Brendan can't forgive Paddy for loving Tommy more than him. Yet being in his younger brother's shadow doesn't overwhelm Edgerton's performance. The Australian actor's character fights solely for family and money, not rage. Despite his own troubled childhood, Brendan sees family as the most important thing in a man's life...and worth fighting for. Edgerton instills a sense of honor in Brendan's character that is at once recognizable and relateable. Both facets come across most poignantly when Paddy shows up at Brendan's house to tell him that Tommy has come home. The scene is at once riveting, heartbreaking, and brimming with truth.

I've thought a long time about how to sum up my final feelings about Warrior. Although Rocky came out two years before I was even born, I can only think that this must have been what moviegoers felt like when the credits rolled and they finally left the theater after watching the film that made Sylvester Stallone a household name. The final scenes in Warrior were so brimming with emotion that I doubt anyone in the theater had a dry eye, myself included.

Warrior is easily the best film I've seen so far in 2011 and a worthy edition to the lexicon of iconic sports films.

My rating: 10/10

THIS...IS...A NEW BLOG!!!!!

Since so many things have changed for me this year (my job, my house, my total lack of interest in the NBA) I figured why not start things off with an entirely different blog solely devoted to movies. I even decided the blog needed to have a cooler address. www.whydithavetobesnakes.blogspot.com is a quote most avid movie fans will recognize. (And if not, 1--why are you on this site and 2--you really can't call yourself a movie fan.) The fact that I actually have internet in my house again (big thanks to my wonderful wife Megan for that) has inspired me once again to get cracking on this movie blog. You have no idea how annoying it is to go to the local library, be able to only work for an hour at a time and NOT be able to upload images.
One thing I want to note about this site is that it will be completely and totally devoted to movie related items. While my previous blog mostly centered around the cinema I occassionally put in a sports rant or perhaps touched on a political issue. No more. If you want sports news go to espn. Or don't. Actually don't they are bunch of shit starting, non-story money whores whose egos are roughly the size of the Crab Nebula. But I digress. If you want political comments go to Glenn Beck's website where the most accurate and non-biased information about all political topics of the day exist. (Anyone who takes that last sentence seriously needs to go to their respective Oxford English dictionaries and look up the word sarcasm.)
At Flicktastic you get what you pay for. So for all my fan(s)? out there welcome to the new blog, hope you enjoy it, and please please comment as often as you can. I love to read feedback.