Blu Ray and DVD releases for the week of May 27th!

Here are your Blu-Ray and DVD releases for Tuesday May 28th:

Life is Sweet, Rolling Thunder*, Cleopatra*, Dark Skies, The Numbers Station, Airheads*, Bedazzled*, Father Goose*, Beetlejuice The Complete Series**, Doctor Who Series 7 Part II, Covert Affairs Season 2**, Suits Season 2**, Longmire Season 1**

*Blu Ray only
**DVD only

Joachim Ronning and Espen Sandberg to direct Pirates of the Caribbean 5

     Since Hollywood's motto has always been, "keep making sequels until they stop making money" and the fact that On Stranger Tides was a commercial, if not critical, success, a fifth Pirates of the Caribbean film was inevitable.
     Well it appears the fifth installment finally has a director.  Or should I say directors?
     According to "Deadline" directors Joachim Ronning and Espen Sandberg (Kon-Tiki) will helm the ship of the fourth sequel and both producer Jerry Bruckheimer and actor Johnny Depp have signed off on the pair. 
     While I have no desire to see another Pirates film, I will point out that Kon-Tiki was nominated for a Best Foreign Language Film Oscar.  Perhaps the two will produce an actual good sequel.  But I have my doubts.
     Pirates of the Caribbean: The Quest for Keith Richards' Prostate Exam Results, begins filming later this year or early 2014 with a planned release date of summer 2015.

Actor Tom Hardy to play Elton John?

     I am a huge fan of Tom Hardy.  Personally I think his best role was Tommy Riorden in Warrior but I'm biased.  There's no denying this guy's talent or his diversity.  You don't do Bane, Mad Max (upcoming), an MMA fighter, a bootlegger, a Romulan, and England's most violent inmate without having talent.
     You may have to add the role of iconic singer to Hardy's resume very soon.
     According to "HitFix" Tom Hardy may play the role of musician Sir Elton John in the upcoming film Rocketman, based on a script from Lee Hall (Billy Elliot).  Michael Gracey is already attached to direct.  The story will be:

"told in a non-linear and hyper-visual manner that will transport people through the many intense experiences, some wonderful, some not, that helped define Elton as an artist, musician and man."

     A few months ago I reported that Justin Timberlake was circling this project but apparently he's fallen off the radar.  It's important to note that the part hasn't officially been offered to Hardy and rumors also have Ben Foster attached to the role.  More updates on this story as it becomes available.
    

Viggo Mortensen turned down a chance to pay Aragorn again???

     So people have been bitching about Peter Jackson stretching Tolkien's "The Hobbit" into three books for almost a year.  Whatever.  I'm over it.  If Jackson wants to backfill the third film with writing from other Tolkien works I say have at it--as long as it is entertaining.  With the return of actors Cate Blanchett, Christopher Lee, and Orlando Bloom to the world of Middle-Earth, many wondered if Viggo Mortensen would return as Aragorn.
     Turns out Mortensen was offered a chance to return as far back as 2008:

Before they started shooting, back in 2008, one of the producers did ask if I would be interested. I said, 'You do know, don't you, that Aragorn isn't in The Hobbit? That there is a 60-year gap between the books?'

     Interesting.  Now before you go all "Um how could the character return when he barely looks forty in LOTR?" let me drop some nerd knowledge on you.  Aragorn's ancestry actually dates back to the blood of Numenor, a destroyed land occupied by a group of humans that had extremely long lives, up to 500 years in fact.  If you watch the extended edition of The Two Towers you actually find out that Aragorn is in fact 87 at the time the LOTR takes place.  This would have made his character in The Hobbit (had he appeared) 27 years old. 
     However, while it is feasible that Aragorn's character could have returned I don't see how it would have been feasible for Mortensen to return.  The man is his mid fifties after all.  He's not gonna pass for twenty-seven.
     Now even though Mortensen declined to return I wouldn't rule out the character of Aragorn returning.  It may just be a younger version of him and obviously a different actor.*  Jackson has an additional ten weeks of shooting this summer and he plays things pretty close to the vest, so it is not out of the realm of possibility. 
     Mortensen is currently working on adapting Mari Sandoz's novel "The Horsecatcher" into a screenplay which he also hopes to direct.  Meanwhile The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug opens December 13th of this year.

*I wonder if they'd consider Stuart Townsend for the role, the guy who was replaced by Viggo Mortensen for the part of Aragorn in the original trilogy?

Review: The Hangover Part III

Plot:  The Wolfpack is back.  The third (and supposedly last) edition to the comedy franchise finds friends Phil (Bradley Cooper), Stu (Ed Helms), and Doug (Justin Bartha) intervening on behalf of  forty-something Daddy's boy Alan (Zach Galifianakis).  Alan's been off his meds for six months and the death of his father Sid (Jeffrey Tambor) only makes things worse.  However, on a road trip to a rehabilitation center in Phoenix, the four run afoul of gangster Marshall (John Goodman).  It appears their old friend Leslie Chow (Ken Jeong) stole twenty-one million dollars from Marshall and now the Wolfpack has three days to find Chow or Doug dies.  Along the way the group will travel from L.A. to Tijuana and back to where it all started--Las Vegas.  And when the Wolfpack is on the prowl, all bets are off.

Review:  There's a line Bradley Cooper's Phil says late in The Hangover Part III:  "I've got an idea...but you're not gonna like it."  After watching the absolute debacle that was Hangover III, I thought Phil's line was apt.  The studio execs had an idea to do a third Hangover movie.  Turns out however that there's not a lot to like.
     Whereas the original Hangover film was one of the better comedies of the last twenty years, the third installment is the polar opposite of the first.  Cliche, often boring, and lacking in virtually any humor, director Todd Phillips' film fails on almost every level and rarely elicits a smile let alone a laugh.
     The Hangover Part III clues you in very early that it is going to be a bad film.  Within the first five minutes the movie managed to rip off both The Shawshank Redemption and The Fugitive.  The fact that this occurs before the opening credits end, shows you how lazy the movie intends to be...and it delivers on the sloth believe me.  Todd Phillips and Craig Mazin's script all goes downhill from there.  Ridiculous dialogue, belabored jokes, convenient plot devices--it's all here in this turd pile.  It's as if they took the characters from the first two films and decided to put them in a crime caper/heist film.  It failed miserably.  Phillips' pacing is clunky and labored, somehow turning a one  hour and forty minute film into something that felt like Titanic. 
     The most glaring flaw with The Hangover Part III is simple:  IT'S NOT FUNNY!  I mean I barely smiled.  The "funniest" part of the film involved a post-movie sight gag involving Ed Helms' character Stu.  But by then I was so disgusted with the rest of the film that it evoked only a chuckle from me.  If I didn't know better I would have thought that the producers of the film were INTENTIONALLY trying to not be funny. 
     All three of the major actors--Galifianakis, Cooper, and Helms--received a reported $15 million apiece to reprise their roles.  To say the three were cashing in a paycheck is like saying Bill Bellicheck likes hoodies.  It's an understatement of massive proportions.  Going through the motions?  These guys moved like snails!  The reluctance these three had to do a third film leapt off the screen.  With the exception of Melissa McCarthy's Cassie (a pawn shop owner who plays Alan's love interest) everyone's acting performance was abysmal.  Even Ken Jeong's Mr. Chow became annoying after awhile.  (And of course Todd Phillips just had to show us his dong again.  Unnecessary Mr. Phillips.)
     About the only redeeming quality from The Hangover Part III was Lawrence Sher's cinematography which brought the Mexican countryside and Las Vegas to vibrant life.  But when the best aspect of a comedy is the cinematography, you know you're in a bad spot.
     In short, The Hangover Part III is the absolute nadir of the franchise.  For the love of God Hollywood put The Wolfpack out to pasture and never let them return.

My rating:  2/10 
       

More Ghostbusters 3 plot details from Dan Aykroyd

    While Ghostbusters 3 remains mired in development hell, Dan Aykroyd remains more optimistic than a Chicago Cubs fan on opening day.  Recently Aykroyd was on the television show "Larry King Now" and offered up the following plot details on the possible third installment:

We’re going to have to cast. We need four new ghostbusters. We need four new Columbia students. It’s based upon new research that’s being done in particle physics by the young men and women at Columbia University. Basically there’s research being done that…I can say that the world or our dimension that we live in, our four planes of existence, length, height, width, and time, become threatened by some of the research that is being done. And Ghostbusters, new Ghostbusters have to come and some the problem.

     You know I actually kind of like Aykroyd's ideas here.  The only thing that bothers me is that the original ghostbusters will be pushed to the background.  Then again it would be kind of ridiculous for them to be chasing ghosts in their 60s so maybe a mentor role is the right way to go.  In any case I wonder who they would cast as the four new ghostbusters?  I definitely think one of them needs to be a woman. 
     Aykroyd went on to say that the chances of Bill Murray's involvement are practically none.  Maybe he'll relent and do a cameo though.
     Now can we please get Ghostbusters II out on blu-ray already???

Stephen King's "The Dark Tower" project is back? Could Maximus play the role of Roland Deschain?

     It's back baby!!
     After seemingly being derailed almost a year ago, Ron Howard and Brian Grazer's attempt to bring Stephen King's sprawling epic The Dark Tower to the big screen is once again back on track.  Several days ago Media Rights Capital agreed to produce a single movie based on the first book in the seven volume series, "The Gunslinger."  The idea was that if that movie was successful others would follow.  Furthermore, Russell Crowe would be the likely choice to play Roland Deschain.
     However, a new curveball has been thrown which has upped the ante on the film(s).  According to "Deadline" a "mysterious Silicon Valley investor"  has offered to finance the full original project that Howard and Grazer intended.  In their plan the complete series would be three films with a television mini-series airing between each.
     I have to say I love the pick for Roland.  I can envision Crowe playing Roland much more than Javier Bardem, who was originally supposed to play the character.  Plus he was awesome in the Western 3:10 to Yuma.  That being said this is a tough choice for all involved.  If you make one film and it bombs, that's it for the franchise.  But if you go with the original project, the characters are going to be committed for five years or more.  It's a tough situation.
     I don't envy Ron Howard or Brian Grazer at all. 
     Russell Crowe can next be seen as Jor-El, Superman's father, in Man of Steel out June 14th.

Review: Star Trek Into Darkness

Plot:  Picking up after the events of the 2009 original, Captain James T. Kirk (Chris Pine) finds himself stripped of his command after violating the Prime Directive, turned in by his own first officer Spock (Zachary Quinto).  However, when a mysterious former Starfleet commander named John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch) goes rogue and destroys a Starfleet archive in London and then attacks Starfleet Academy itself in San Francisco, Kirk is pegged by Admiral Alexander Marcus (Peter Weller) to track Harrison down and kill him.  Yet on this mission, the crew of the starship Enterprise will discover nothing is as it seems and that a threat can come from anywhere.

Review:  Move over Wrath of Khan there's a new dog in town!  To say I went into Star Trek Into Darkness with high expectations is an understatement the size of William Shatner's ego.  Aside from Man of Steel it was my most anticipated movie of the summer.  Well I'm happy to say that director J.J. Abrams and crew not only met my expectations but surpassed them. 
     From the opening scene where Kirk and McCoy (Karl Urban) are escaping a planet about to be engulfed by a volcano, to the final epic showdown in Earth's orbit, Star Trek Into Darkness grabs you by the throat and never lets go.  Punctuated by Michael Giacchino's awesome score,  Robert Orci, Alex Kurtzman, and Damon Lindelof have crafted a phenomenal script that's worthy of the Star Trek franchise.  Darkness packs more action punch than a Romulan ale yet it is also surprisingly intimate.  Two relationships in particular stand out, the one between Kirk and Spock and the one between Kirk and mentor Admiral Christopher Pike (Bruce Greenwood).  Star Trek Into Darkness made a concerted effort to expand the relationship between Spock and Kirk.  It explores the questions of what does friendship actually mean?  Who can we rely on in a crisis?  What is the nature of sacrifice?  Pine is the perfect foil to Quinto's logical mind, while Quinto is the perfect foil to Pine's ego.  As for the relationship between Kirk and Pike it is definitely a father/son dynamic.  Despite Kirk's brashness and tendency to impulse, Pike is constantly trying to reign in Kirk's antics.  Kirk clearly looks up to Pike and it makes Kirk's pursuit for Harrison that much more personal.
     In many ways, Star Trek Into Darkness is not just the actual physical darkness of a violent act, but the darkness within each of the crew.  Kirk and Spock especially are wrestling with their own personal scars.  Darkness addresses what it means to confront those scars and rise above them.
     Pine eats up the screen as the cocky self assured Captain Kirk, finally coming into his own and owning the character fully.  Chief engineer Montgomery "Scotty" Scott's character (Simon Pegg) is heavily expanded here, supplying most of the comic relief.  However, there is a strong moral fiber to Scotty that shows itself early on in the film and is quite poignant.  Unfortunately, the rest of the crew kind of gets shortchanged in this film especially Karl Urban's "Bones" McCoy who I really liked in the first movie.  However, John Cho's Sulu does have a memorable moment where he gets to sit in the captain's chair for a bit.  Alive Eve was sexy as Dr. Carol Marcus, however she was used sparingly in the film.  Her scenes did have significant impact however and I'm excited to see where her character progresses in the next edition.  And at this point I wish they would just drop the whole relationship between Spock and Uhura (Zoe Saldana).  It's just annoying.
     And what can I say about Benedict Cumberbatch as John Harrison?  His real "identity" is probably something you can intuit early on or even if you have a passing association with the Internet.  However, I won't spoil it for anyone here. Suffice it to say he blew me away.  His physical prowess is only surpassed by his cleverness and heightened intelligence and cruelty.  In many ways he is the ultimate dark version of Kirk and the byplay between Cumberbatch and Pine is a thing of beauty.  Some of the scenes are just dripping with tension.  If anything I wish there was MORE of Cumberbatch in the film.
     In the end Star Trek Into Darkness proves to be a phenomenal film and one of those rare instances where the sequel is actually better than the original.

My rating:  9.5/10

DVD and Blu Ray Releases for Tuesday May 21st!!!

Here are your Blu-ray and DVD releases for Tuesday May 21st:

The Last Stand, Stand Up Guys, Parker, Side Effects, Beautiful Creatures, The Rolling Stones:  Crossfire Hurricane, Ultimate Gangsters Collection Classics*, Ultimate Gangsters Collection Contemporary*, Medium Cool, National Lampoon's Vacation*, National Lampoon's Vegas Vacation*, My Neighbor Totoro*, Howl's Moving Castle*, Captain America (1990)*, The Burning*, The Town That Dreaded Sundown*, The Public Enemy*, True Blood Season 5, Teen Wolf**, Perception Season 1**

*Blu Ray only
**DVD only

Blu Ray and DVD releases for the is week!!!

Here are your Blu Ray and DVD releases for Tuesday May 14th:

Cloud Atlas, Texas Chainsaw, A Glimpse Inside the Mind of Charles Swan III, Frankie Go Boom, Tomorrow You're Gone, Back to 1942, Liz and Dick**, 3:10 to Yuma, Jubal, Dexter Season 7, Roseanne The Complete Series**, 3rd Rock from the Sun The Complete Series**, UFC 156:  Aldo Vs. Edgar**, GrindHouse Galore:  Guns, Babes, and Gore**

**DVD only

Do movies really have the ability to change people's lives???

      I've never doubted the ability to be inspired, whether it's a poem, a song, a book, a sunrise...or a movie. Additionally, I've always believed that movies have the ability to change people's lives.

      Until today. Now I'm not so sure.

      I engaged in a very dynamic conversation today with a fellow movie enthusiast who argued that movies don't have the ability to change people's lives. His argument was that if a movie actually changes your life you were already looking to change it in the first place, you may just not have realized it. The movie (or song, book, etc) was just a catalyst.

      This argument does and does not make sense to me. On the one hand it seems rather silly that someone would see a film and completely restructure their lives. At the same time however, I've seen it in my own life where a friend saw The Hunger Games and decided to get fit for life. He referred to it as life changing. Yet was it really life changing or was the movie just a catalyst for a change he already wanted to make? I guess it depends on perspective. If he'd never seen the movie would he have eventually got in shape? I don't know.  I think so though. 

          Perhaps maybe the better phrase might be that a movie can "inspire" change rather than be life changing. At the same time that also seems like half a dozen of one, six of the other. It's a matter of perspective I suppose. If a person says a film is life changing and you can patently observe a fundamental change in that person's life then does it really matter what you call it? From that person's perspective the film IS life changing.

      A good example from the movie world would be director Guillermo Del Toro. When Del Toro was very young he went and saw the classic John Carpenter film The Thing. In subsequent interviews Del Toro has cited that film as changing his life. "As soon as I walked out of that theater I knew my life had changed. I wanted to be a director." Again would Del Toro have become a director if he hadn't seen that film? I don't know. Frankly, it's not something I want to think about because I can't picture a world in which Del Toro isn't a director.

      The reason I explored this topic is because when I really break it down, there's never been a film that's been "life-changing" for me. There's been films that were moving, or inspiring but I can't think of a single film that led to a fundamental change in my life. At least it hasn't happened to me YET. With the exception of maybe Norbit or White Chicks...or Breakin' 2 Electric Bugaloo.

      In all seriousness, the only person whose opinion counts when it comes to "life changing" films is the person whose life the film changes.

Review: The King's Speech

 

Plot: In 1930s England King Edward (Guy Pearce) abdicates the throne to  his brother George VI (Colin Firth).  However, King George suffers from a terrible stammer that prevents him from being a strong public speaker. As WWII looms King George needs to exhibit strong leadership to the British Empire, especially over his weekly radio speeches. With the assistance of speech therapist Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush) and the support of his loving wife Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter), King George overcomes his physical and emotional setbacks to inspire millions.

Review: Bland, tepid, and mind-numbingly boring, The King's Speech is a tired and plodding exploration of subject matter that inspires little if any passion from its audience.

      While The King's Speech contains several strong acting performances, especially Colin Firth and Geoffrey Rush, it suffers from a pacing that moves at a snail's crawl. In fact that is putting it mildly. A snail would tell director Tom Hooper to hurry the hell up.

      On the surface, The King's Speech has all the ingredients for a successful story: physical and emotional impairments, country in the time of war, life long friendships, etc. But instead of a blue ribbon cake we are left with Rachel's pudding/meat dessert from that one episode of "Friends."

Maybe it's because I couldn't muster much sympathy for a historical figure who lived a life of privilege, but for whatever reason this story didn't captivate me like everyone said it would. My main problem is that David Seidler's screenplay and story is the same tired old dry as toast English drama we've seen before. It might as well be Howard's End or The English Patient and the film contains the emotional resonance of a hollow drum.

      The truth of the matter is that this film was nothing but pure Oscar bait in my opinion. Yes I know that the "best" films tend to come out at the end of the year, but some are just blatant formulaic films that are DESIGNED to garner Oscar nominations. And director Tom Hooper ran that playbook to a T for The King's Speech. So much so that I'm completely gobsmacked that he received an Academy Award nomination, let alone won!

      I'll freely admit that some (and I stress SOME) of my prejudice stems from the fact that this film beat out The Social Network for both Best Picture and Best Director. What a joke. The King's Speech is a common film that could have been told in any era. It's one specific man in one specific instance in time. The Social Network was a film about something that literally REVOLUTIONIZED THE WAY HUMANS COMMUNICATE. I'll leave it you.  What do YOU think is the more compelling story?  And as for the director issue? Just wow. Tom Hooper can't carry David Fincher's Twitter account in my opinion.

      Now this isn't to say that The King's Speech doesn't have its merits. As I said the acting is solid, it's funny in some parts, and the costume and set design is impeccable. Additionally, Alexandre Desplat's score is well done.

Where The King's Speech suffers is in it's boring subject matter, horrid pacing, and underwhelming directing. In the end I just wish The King's Speech would have stayed silent.

My rating:  5/10

 

Toxic AH-NOLD?

     Talk about weird casting news. Unbeknownst to me, studios have long been looking to reboot the 1984 cult classic The Toxic Avenger, a campy film about a nerdy highschool student who is transformed into a monster with incredible strength by some toxic waste. Personally I thought the movie was terrible and not nearly the cult classic of say The Evil Dead. However I do recognize that plenty of people have a love for Toxie and Tromaville and apparently there's enough demand out there to warrant a remake.

     Or Hollywood has once again run out of ideas.

      Either way, in an effort to draw a new audience to the toxic superhero, Arnold Schwarzenegger is actively negotiating to play the role of an ex special ops soldier who trains and mentors Toxie according to "Variety."  His character will be known as "The Exterminator" (yes really) and will assist Toxie in using  his new found powers for good and fighting the pollutors who cause his transformation.

      Arnie is certainly back into full movie making mode. He just came out with The Last Stand ("Gimmie the damn thing!") in January, has The Tomb with Sylvester Stallone in September, and The Ten next year. Furthermore, he's supposed to start filming The Legend of Conan later this year and possibly another Terminator film and The Expendables 3. While I appreciate his desire to work, I would seriously think about passing on this one. Arnie needs a hit that's going to be released in the summer and this isn't the way to go.

Review: Iron Man 3

Review: Iron Man 3

Plot: It's been several months since the events of The Avengers and things are not going well for Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.). Despite having an amazing girlfriend in the perky and beautiful Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) Tony suffers from insomnia and panic attacks. To make matters worse a deadly new villain known as The Mandarin (Ben Kingsley) has been perpetrating acts of terrorism in the United States. Strangely the explosions leave no trace of bomb residue. When Tony discovers that the attacks may be related to a top secret genetic manipulation experiment called "Extremis" he fears his closest friends might be in grave danger, not to mention the world.  In the end it's up to Iron Man to prevent global disaster.

Review: Although many bashed Iron Man 2 (I wasn't one of them) most would agree that it had it's share of problems. I went into Iron Man 3 with strong expectations. Shane Black, the writer of Lethal Weapon was helming the project, and his original collaboration with Robert Downey Jr. (Kiss, Kiss, Bang, Bang) was a critical success.

     I'm thankful to say that not only did Iron Man 3 meet my expectations, it is the best film Marvel has put out to date.

Iron Man 3 succeeds at virtually every level, from the tight storyline that depicts a flawed superhero struggling with problems audiences can relate to, to the strong action sequences, to the top notch acting from the main and supporting cast.

     Black's script succeeds in major part due to its source material and willingness to focus more on reality rather than aliens. Iron Man 3 is loosely based on the Iron Man graphic novel "Extremis" from several years ago, which involves literally hacking humans at a genetic level in order to modify and repair them. The technology is controlled by Aldrich Killian played here by the impeccable Guy Pearce, whose nefarious intentions range farther than stealing Tony's girlfriend. Combine this with the reality-based threat of terrorism (not to mention a character that looks A LOT like Osama Bin Laden) and you have a recipe for success. I'm sorry but scientific speculation and real life threats play much better than aliens and demigods wielding magic hammers in my opinion. One additional thing about the script: I'd be remiss if I didn't mention the dialogue. It never felt comicbookish or campy. Moreover, there were some hysterical lines that Downey delivers with spot on comedic timing.

     Unlike The Avengers, Iron Man 3 tones down the CGI. Don't get me wrong there's plenty in the film, especially in the climactic sequence, but it seems much more dialed down and not as over-saturated as The Avengers.  This makes the action sequences much more impactful and fun to watch. (I hate to keep comparing this film to The Avengers but it's a good point of reference.) These sequences are nicely complemented by solid score from Brian Tyler, which manages to be heroic but not over the top.

     Marvel makes it a habit to cast the roles well and the same holds true for Iron Man 3. Newcomers Guy Pearce and Ben Kingley rock in their respective roles, Pearce providing the megalomania while Kingsley supplies the malevolence. Paltrow succeeds once again as Pepper Potts who is the perfect foil to Tony's ego and Don Cheadle is good (if underused) in his new role as Col. James "Rhodey" Rhodes/Iron Patriot.

     When it comes to performances, the film (as always) hinges on Robert Downey Jr. who again delivers as Tony Stark/Iron Man. I don't think there has ever been an actor who has embodied a superhero better than Robert Downey Jr. embodies Tony Stark  He delivers witty lines and emotional screams with equal aplomb. Despite his recent comments I seriously hope that he returns as Iron Man in the future. (He should at least for The Avengers sequels.)

     A couple of small complaints.  I saw the "unexpected" plot twist coming a mile away and the film was slightly too long. Also Jon Favreau's character of Happy really annoyed me in this film. Although his dress attire in a flashback scene at the beginning of the film is hilarious. Thankfully, he wasn't in it too much.

     These are minor complaints however and doesn't stop Iron Man 3 from being a compelling and entertaining popcorn flick and the best in the series to date. What a great way to kick off the summer movie season!

My rating: 9/10