Peter Weller beamed up to Star Trek while Benicio Del Toro Torpedoed into Space and Is Khan the Villain?

KHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAANNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!!

Sorry I just needed to get that out of the way.

Well it's been a big week on the Star Trek sequel front. Academy Award winner Benicio Del Toro is out as the main villain. According to Vulture, negotiations broke down over (surprise!) monetary issues. So long Mr. Del Toro. Trekkies hardly new ye.

But with every cloud comes a silver lining and for Trek fans it is in the form of actor Peter Weller. Robocop himself has signed on the dotted line to play an undisclosed villain. My guess is he is not a main villain as Weller joined the cast before Del Toro exited. All that is known at this point is that Weller will not be a half man/half machine and will not be spouting lines like "Stay out of trouble" and "Dead or alive you're coming with me."

As for the villain, speculation is still running rampant as to who it could be, but all indications seem to point to fan favorite Khan.* Latino Review originally reported that Del Toro would in fact be playing Khan in the Star Trek sequel but the next day director J.J. Abrams came out and told Hitflix "Not true."

Personally I don't have an opinion either way. I was always a big fan of Khan and if Abrams decides to bring him back that's ok. If decides to go with a completely original villain I'm ok with that too. Let's just hope there are some Klingons in the next film. I would love to see Chang (Christopher Plummer) quoting Shakespeare in Klingon like he did in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, which incidentally was released twenty years ago this week.

I saw it in the theater.

God I'm old.

*I tried to find a picture of Ricardo Montalban exposing more chest but it just wasn't out there.

Kermit is a Commie...According to Fox News

Twins separated at birth???

And here I thought Miss Piggy was always a "capitalist pig."

Just when you thought Fox News couldn't lose any more credibility as a "news" station they release this latest gem of journalistic triumph.

In a move that probably left even Glenn Beck scratching his head in confusion, Fox News recently ran a story alleging that recently released The Muppet Movie is a liberal plot (natch) to "brainwash kids against capitalism."* Fox's argument is that the villain of the story "Tex Richman" (Chris Cooper) promotes an anti-capitalist agenda because Richman wants to destroy the old Muppet theater and drill for oil. So this is apparently anti-oil and a "class warfare" issue. Riiiiggghhhttt... I see the logic. Oh wait no I don't. Fox News acts like this is the first time in the history of cinema that a greedy businessman was a villain.

I usually don't make broad sweeping statements and I have never seen the movie (although I plan to) but I can guarantee Fox's notion is categorically false. I'd no more believe that the Muppets are anti-capitalist than that the Swedish chef is a Nazi.

It's important to note that this is not the first time Fox has done this. In 2005 Fox ran a story stating that the quote from Star Wars Revenge of the Sith where Anakin Skywalker said, "You're either with me or you're my enemy" was a veiled indictment of George W. Bush's foreign policy. IT'S EFFING STAR WARS!! Also when The Dark Knight came out three years ago Glenn Beck stated that the film represented the war on terror.

It's the MUPPETS Fox News. Get a grip.

I feel like Stan from South Park shaking my head after his father dropped the n-bomb on Wheel of Fortune.

Normally I don't like to comment on politics because I really don't care. Most politicans are crooks who are out for themselves and guess what kiddies? I have a mortgage to pay, a wife to hang out with, books to read, and of course movies to see. Essentially I have more important things to do than freeze my ass off occupying Wall Street.

Fox News ought to be ashamed of themselves. How can you call yourselves a credible "news" station when you run garbage like this? This is a bigger reach than the person who said Hurricane Katrina was caused by the Japanese Yakuza's weather machine. Not for nothing, but for a film that is anti-capitalism The Muppet Movie has been number one at the box office two weeks in a row. This just in: studios make movies hoping the film will make money.

I'd like to think that this won't happen again, but I'm sure that before long Fox will run a story about how Shrek is secretly Chairman Mao.

Congratulations Fox News. Along with the Kardashians you get my vote for Asshats of the Year.

*To see the video go to http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201112020036

Play Some Phil Collins and Split My Head with An Axe Amerian Psycho getting a Remake

This news made me want to go Uncle Leo from Seinfeld and scream "STOP THE SHOW!"

Since it is the season of giving, Hollywood has decided to shove a Michael Moore sized piece of coal right up American moviegoers collective asses. In a move more inexplicable than Herman Cain quoting from The Pokemon Movie, the geniuses in LALA land are going to remake (reboot? repent? repuke? who knows what the terminology is anymore?) the 2000 classic American Psycho.

Now granted this is nothing new for movie studios. Hollywood subjects cinema fans to remakes on a yearly basis. I'm not one to lament and say "there are no original ideas in Hollywood anymore" because the whole sentiment is played out. Anybody who's a real movie fanatic knows this, so why bemoan it?

Well at the risk of being hypocritical I'm going to bemoan this decision. Let me be very clear: THERE IS NO REASON TO REMAKE THIS FILM. The only films that should ever be remade are movies that were marginal or had little success at the box office; i.e. Inglorious Basterds. American Psycho was the film that catapulted Christian Bale into the public eye. Before his epic portrayal of psychopath Patrick Bateman in the 2000 film, Bale was known as the guy in Newsies or Laure from Little Women. After that the floodgates opened for Bale and today he is one of the biggest moviestars in Hollywood.

Putting aside the iconic role of Bale, American Psycho is an excellent dark comedy that captures the greed and "me generation" of the 1980s. Many thought the Bret Easton Ellis novel* could never be converted to the big screen, but director Mary Harron (Pet Semetary) did a masterful job of bringing Ellis's work to life. After American Psycho I've never been able to listen Huey Lewis and the News's "Hip to be Square" or Phil Collins "Pseuseudeo" in the same way.

Noble Jones, an apparent protege of David Fincher, is set to write and direct the remake. Look I love Fincher and his films, however this film inevitably sets up Jones for failure. Recreating iconic movie characters, especially ones where the original portrayal was amazing, is damn near impossible. Instances such as Jeff Bridges portrayal of Rooster Cogburn in True Grit (the original film starred John Wayne in an Oscar winning performance) are rarer than an honest politician. Bottom line: NO ONE will top Bale's portrayal of Patrick Bateman.

The only consolation that I can take away from this is that the film is still in the early stages. That means the film could be nixed. No studio is attached right now and no one has been cast. Although I won't be surprised if the brain trust in Hollywood decides to have Zac Efron or Robert Pattinson take the role. That would just be the feces coated cherry on this movie manure sundae.

*Incidentally the American Psycho novel is the only book I've liked that I actually thought about not finishing. It was THAT disturbing.

Review: Conan The Barbarian

Plot: Based on the classic pulp fiction stories of the 1930s by author Robert E. Howard, the 2011 edition follows the story of Conan (Jason Mamoa) a skilled and violent warrior. Born on the battlefield, Conan is raised by his clan chief father Corin (Ron Pearlman) and taught in the art of swordplay and war. When warlord Khalar Zym (Stephen Lang) attacks Conan's people in search of a mask fragment that will allow him to subjugate the world, Conan's village and father are both destroyed. Thus begins a 20 year quest where only the death of Khalar Zym can satiate Conan's lust for revenge.

Review: The tag line for the 2011 reboot of Conan reads "Enter An Age Undreamed Of." Unfortunately for viewers Conan is a nightmare from start to finish. Noisy, loud, and perpetually bloody, the film holds none of the charm or epic nature of the 1982 Arnold Schwarzenegger masterpiece directed by John Milius and written by Oliver Stone.

Conan begins badly with Morgan Freeman (yes the Morgan Freeman) performing the voiceover for a back story involving sorcerers from Acheron, who once constructed a mask made of the skulls of dead kings. Rather than sounding malevolent and evil, as I'm sure director Marcus Nispel intended, it comes off as corny and laughable. And if Morgan Freeman doing the initial voice over for this film sounds awkward its because it is. The sequence was more out of place than the Pope at the Adult Film Awards in Las Vegas.

Like so many other films, Conan suffers from having too many writers at the computer. Scriptwriters Thomas Dean Donnelly, Joshua Oppenheimer, and Sean Hood, rather than create an original story, opt instead for a revenge tale involving deadly sand phantoms (really?) and a half shaved Rose McGowan. This is a shame because Robert E. Howard's source material is rife with adventures that make the 2011 reboot incredibly juvenile by comparison.

Director Marcus Nispel displays an inherent lack pace and tone in Conan, as the film's action, while enjoyable, almost never lets up. Consequently, the viewer has little or no time to recover before it's onto the next fight scene. And don't get me wrong I have nothing against violence in films, but why have violence for violence sake? Somehow Nispel felt that if five minutes had passed without a dismembering or a beheading he was doing the audience an injustice.

Ken Blackwell's editing leaves something to be desired as well. So many scenes are choppy and jarring it creates a Crom sized headache. Also Tyler Bates's score seems severely understated for sword and sandal "epic." He's got nothing on Basil Poledouris, who did the music for the 1982 film. It still gets me pumped every time I hear it.

The acting isn't awful in Conan although it is by no means good. Although Arnie will forever be Conan in my mind, Jason Momoa manages a decent Conan. While he captures the spirit of the Hyborian warrior, too much of his dialogue sounds like a junior high bully making threats. When he tells a soldier at one point in the film, "I will follow you to Hell!" I had to restrain myself from peals of laughter.

Stephen Lang displays the requisite amount of malice and evil in Kahlar Zim, although his performance pales in comparison to James Earl Jones's Thulsa Doom. Conan's love interest Tamara (Rachel Nichols) is nothing more than a one dimensional damsel in distress. The chemistry was non-existent between her and Momoa and her passive portrayal is insulting to women everywhere. However, when it comes to horrific acting Rose McGowan's Marique takes the cake. It's so terrible I think the guys from Mystery Science Theater 3000 might reject it. The only thing more ludicrous than McGowan's acting was her makeup. It looks like somebody applied it with one of those t-shirt guns you see at sporting events. The best of the bunch was actually Leo Howard. Too bad his role as the young Conan only lasted for about 15 minutes.

Lionsgate and the producers of Conan the Barbarian attempted to make a film that was as sharp, sleek, and penetrating as the original. Sadly, the 2011 version is duller and less appealing than a rusty broadsword.

My rating: 3/10

HOOO--RAHH! Starship Troopers is getting a reboot

Another week another reboot.

Sony Pictures announced this week their plans to reboot 1997's Starship Troopers. Now in an era where Hollywood feels like they have to reboot every film ever made, this news actually comes as a pleasant surprise. Why? Because the original starred Casper Van Dien, Denise Richards, and Neil Patrick Harris. Do I really need to say more than that? The movie was a convoluted, special effects saturated, vapid dialogue nightmare that was essentially the visual equivalent of receiving oral sex from a piranha for two hours.

Starship Troopers is actually based on the 1959 Hugo Award winning novel by Robert A. Heinlein who, along with Frank Herbert and Arthur C. Clarke, is regarded one of the three best science fiction writers of all time. Next to Stranger in a Strange Land it's Heinlein's most well regarded and recognized work, and I might offer his best. Heinlein received a firestorm of criticism regarding the novel. Politicians, professors, and literary critics alike bombarded Heinlein with allegations of militarism, racism, fascism, and utopianism. (If you can figure out how those last two are supposed to co-exist in the same novel you are a more intelligent person than I.)

The original novel was a first person narrative told through the eyes of Juan "Johnnie" Rico, a soldier from the Phillipines who joins the Mobile Infantry to fight Earth's alien enemies, a spider-like species referred to only as "Bugs." Starship Troopers examined everything from civic virtue to capital punishment, as well as the moral aspects of war.

1997's film adaptation was heavy on camp and as deep as Kim Kardashian's personality. It is my sincere wish that the producers of the reboot will do this novel justice and do a straight adaptation. While no director or actors have been attached to the film thus far, Zack Stentz and Edward Miller who wrote X-Men: First Class and Thor will be penning the script. Since both of those films were not only box offices hits but well reviewed, it bodes well for the future of Starship Troopers. HOO-RAH!

"True Grit" to Deep Space? Hailee Steinfeld in talks to join Ender's Game

Man seems like all I'm talking about this week is Ender's Game and Indiana Jones.

After a breakout Academy Award nominated performance as Mattie Ross in 2010's True Grit, Hailee Steinfeld is now in talks to join the film adaptation of Orson Scott Card's Ender's Game. If Steinfeld joins the cast (which currently only consists of Asa Butterfield in the lead role) she's set to play Petra Arkanian, Ender's confidante and right hand girl.

For those of you not familiar with the story, Petra acts as a surrogate sister to Ender. However, she is also an incredibly aggressive almost cutthroat character and a skilled tactician. Additionally, Petra represents one of the few females at Battle School.

Personally I think Steinfeld is a perfect match for this role. She's already proven that she can be tough and determined as evidenced by her role in True Grit. It will be interesting to see if she can bring the required viciousness and eventually softening to the role of Petra. Steinfeld is clearly an amazing young talent and far above some veteran adult actors working in Hollywood. Truth be told I'm surprised she hasn't been in anything since True Grit.

In order for Ender's Game to be successful the casting (which consists mostly of children) needs to be damn near perfect. Casting Steinfeld would be a huge step in the right direction. Hopefully director Gavin Hood will take a look at some of the child actors from Super 8 as several of them would be welcome additions as well.

Ender's Game hits theaters March 15, 2013.

Crackin' Skulls: A Breakdown of Indy 4

Indiana Jones is an iconic movie hero and to say that the fan reaction to 2008's Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was tempestuous, is probably the understatement of the millennium. Millions of Indy fans will say the film is an unmitigated pile of feces. Others thoroughly enjoyed it. In fact to say that Indy 4 was universally hated is not only the height of hyperbole, it is patently untrue. Rotten Tomatoes shows Skull as having 194 "fresh" reviews against 58 "rotten" reviews, for an approval rating of 77%. Obviously some people liked the film. Don't mean to go all sabermetrics here, but the stats bare this out.

As for myself I will honestly admit that when I first saw Skull three years ago I absolutely loathed it. Thanks to a suggestion by my friend Andy that I watch it again, I've done a complete 180 on the film. I've only had that happen one other time, with the movie Blade Runner; ironically another Harrison Ford film. That's not to say that Skull is by any means a perfect film--it's not. However, I actually like it better than Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. For those of you gasping in outrage right now think about this: Doom consisted of two hours of Cate Capshaw screaming, a less than likable sidekick in Short Round, and to be perfectly honest it was an incredibly dark film. (Child slavery? Hearts being ripped out of chests? Blood cocktail hallucinations? Sheesh.)

I believe the reason I hated Skull initially was that my expectations were way too high. Compared to films like Raiders of the Lost Ark and Last Crusade how could the fourth film possibly measure up? It couldn't. Part of the reason was the era the fourth film was set in. The 50s was a different time than the 30s. Spielberg really played up the nuclear era and Communism aspects which for the most part I thought worked pretty well. Russian mind control and psychic powers, as ridiculous as they may have appeared to the average moviegoer, was not an uncommon thing under Stalin. Alien invasion and UFOs, especially in film, were a huge aspect of the 1950s especially in cinema. It's no wonder that, for better or for worse, Lucas and Spielberg decided to include an alien slant to Skull. Once I really sat down and examined this information I realized that I didn't hate Indy 4, I was pissed at it for not being Raiders of the Lost Ark. That's like being pissed at Derek Rose for not being Michael Jordan.

What with the announcement this past week that Harrison Ford was once again going to don the Fedora for a fifth go round, it got me to thinking about the last film--what worked, what didn't, and what needs to change to make the fifth installment better. With that being said, here's a complete breakdown of Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, the good, the bad, and what needs to happen going forward. First the bad....

THE BAD

NUKING THE FRIDGE: This one is probably the most obvious. After an awesome opening sequence Lucas and Spielberg inexplicably decide to add this cinema gem where Indy hops in a lead lined refrigerator and survives a nuclear blast. Um, yeah. Now granted Indy has survived getting his face burned off by closing his eyes, (Raiders) soaring fifty feet past missing train track on a high speed car and landing perfectly landing on new track, (Doom) and somehow knowing to roll forward to avoid a blade trap (Last Crusade). However this one was just a little bit too much to swallow for me and most other moviegoers. Although it added a nice new phrase to the American lexicon, it was a totally unnecessary scene.

KAREN ALLEN AS MARION RAVENWOOD: Initially I was psyched that Spielberg decided to bring back Marion Ravenwood for the fourth film. I thought Karen Allen's performance in Raiders was amazing. However, she completely phoned in the role in Skull. The performance was blander than a rice cake.

REFERRING TO INDY AS HENRY: This one really annoyed me to no end. We all know that Indy's real name is Henry. There is no reason to brow beat the audience with this fact for two hours. His name is INDIANA JONES. In fact in my Samuel L. Jackson mind he is INDIANA MOTHERFUCKIN' JONES! Show some respect Lucas.

BULL SNAKE SCENE: Again another unnecessary scene. I get that part of the Indiana Jones mythology is that he is deathly afraid of snakes. However the great thing about the previous films is that they naturally worked this into the film. Not so with Skull. Instead we get a contrived sequence where Mutt rescues Indy with a bull snake while Indy pretends it is a rope. Sorry no dice.

CGI MONKEYS: Aside from the "nuke the fridge" scene this one was the most ridiculous. Why all of sudden does Mutt turn into freakin' Tarzan surrounded by hundreds of CGI monkeys sporting pompadours? Your guess is as good as mine. Somehow he manages to catch up to speeding cars while swinging through vines though. Weird.

ALIEN ENDING: Yes I know they are really "inter-dimensional space beings." Shut your cake-hole. The fact is I don't even mind the alien angle. Some have actually speculated that crystal skulls, like the one found by Mitchell-Hedges, were not made by human hand. At least in that instance I can see the alien connection. It's the way it all played out at the end with the ridiculous CGI flying saucer.

BOTTOM LINE: The fact of the matter is that if the creators of Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull had eliminated some of the ridiculous scenes (or at least tweaked them) and cut back on the CGI it would have made for a much better film.

Now the good...

THE GOOD

OPENING SEQUENCE: One of the great things about all of the Indiana Jones movies is that they all have kick ass opening sequences. Skull was no exception. Indy's clash with Communists at Hangar 51, the quick reveal of the Lost Ark, an awesome fight scene with a Commie baddie with a chain, and a dramatic exit via a rocket engine were epic. It immediately set the tone.

THE CHASE SCENES: What's an Indy movie without a good chase scene or two? The two best ones by far were the motorcycle chase near Indy's college campus and the jeep chase in the jungle. I loved seeing Indy hop back and forth between the motorcycle and the Communists' car. Plus the sword fighting scene mid chase between Spalko and Mutt was epic. Nicely done.

SHIA LABEOUF AS MUTT WILLIAMS: This one might earn me the most flak. Tons of fans out there think that Labeouf's performance was dreadful and unnecessary. I am not one of those people. I think LaBeouf nailed the 50s greaser role and was able to bring a measure of toughness and vulnerability to the character. His give and take with Harrison Ford was great and I think the chemistry was even better. Like father like son.

THE MACGUFFIN (CRYSTAL SKULL): Lots of people hated the crystal skull of Akator that Indy went after, but I dug it. First of all the skull looked captivating and sinister at the same time and was much sleeker than the former Macguffins. Additionally, the power that the skull was supposedly imbued with has basis in the real world, as many cultures believe that the crystal skulls do have some kind of innate perhaps even psychic power. It dovetailed nicely into the whole Communist idea of a mind control weapon.

DR. JONES'S AGE: I like that the producers didn't shy away from Indiana Jones's age. In the fourth installment he is 58 years old but they didn't shy away from that. Whether it was not being able to judge the distance while swinging from a whip or showing elderly annoyance at Mutt's shenanigans, it made the portrayal much more real.

SIGNATURE INDY: When Indiana cracks that whip, throws a punch, or makes a daring escape I can't help but get goose bumps. Once we see the archaeologist don the Fedora, jacket, whip, and satchel it is on like donkeykong. No modernized Indy for this film.

THE BAD GUYS: I think people were disappointed at having the bad guys be Communists in Skull. Why? In the era that the movie is set in the Soviet Union was America's most feared and hated enemy. Why wouldn't Communists naturally be Indy's foe in the film? Cate Blanchett I thought was excellent as Dr. Spalko and it was a bold choice to have a woman as the main Indy villain. And how could you not like Igor Jijikine as Colonel Dovchenko? Big, hulking, intimidating--he's everything you'd want in an Indy baddie. Fans seemed to be disappointed that there were no Nazis in the film. Sorry guys, the film is set in 1957; most notable Nazis at that time were hiding in South America and had no power.

And the future....

WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN IN THE NEXT INSTALLMENT

LESS CGI: One of things that made the original trilogy so great was that all the special effects were done through miniatures, makeup, set pieces, and other "old-fashioned" movie tricks. The boulder scene in Raiders still holds up 30 years later. No CGI was needed then and I don't think CGI is needed to make a great Indiana Jones film. I'm not saying they should eliminate CGI altogether just dial it down a notch. And no computer generated monkeys please!

JUDEO-CHRISTIAN MACGUFFIN: Again like I said in a previous post this is not because I'm a Christian, it is because the Judeo-Christian MacGuffins of the Ark and the Holy Grail were part of the two best Indiana Jones films. The Hindu Shakra Stones of The Temple of Doom and the crystal skull from the last film didn't have the mass appeal that the Ark and the Holy Grail did. Let's face it more people have heard of the Holy Grail than they have Mayan crystal skulls. That's why I honestly believe that the next movie needs to include a Judeo-Christian MacGuffin. I think the cross of Christ would be perfect. Along with the Coca Cola sign, the Christian cross is the most recognized symbol in the entire world. Do...the...math.

NO MARION RAVENWOOD: Sorry Karen Allen but your presence is not needed in the next film after your shoddy performance in Skull. The fifth installment should focus around Indy and Mutt. Marion Ravenwood would just get in the way and drag the movie down.

SALLAH AND SHORT ROUND NEED TO COME BACK: George, Steven give the people what they want! I know I'm not a big fan of Short Round but setting a story partly in China partly in the Middle East would be perfect. You could bring back both Short Round and Sallah in one swoop. Before he was Gimli the dwarf, John Rhys-Davies played the "best digger in Cairo" in two Indiana Jones films and I loved his character. Bring him back into the fold. And as for Short Round, I'm sure Jonathan Ke Quan could use the work. "No time for love Dr. Jones!"

MORE LOCALES: I know that Spielberg, Lucas, and Ford aren't too thrilled about filming outside the United States but I really think they've got to make an exception on this one. If Indy plans on gallivanting to China, the Middle East, and/or Eastern Europe at least some of the movie needs to be filmed on location. It would definitely improve the film.

Well there you have it. I think I've written enough on this subject. I doubt Lucas or Spielberg will read my article and even if they did I'm not arrogant enough to think they would take my advice. However, I do hope they've learned from the mistakes of the last film and will make a concerted effort to ensure that Indiana Jones goes out with a bang. Or maybe I should say a resounding whip crack.

BONUS--HERE IS MY RANKING AND RATING OF ALL FOUR INDIANA JONES FILMS:

1. Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark: 11/10

2. Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade: 10/10

3. Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull: 8/10

4. Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom: 7/10