list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Spider-Man on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/Spider_Man/205724/default.aspx Title: Spider-Man
Year: 2002
Director: Sam Raimi
Plot: After incorporating elements of comic book style and design into many of his films, director Sam Raimi helms this straight-ahead, big-budget comic book adaptation, which also marks acclaimed young actor Tobey Maguire's first dip into live-action blockbuster filmmaking. Spider-Man follows the template of the original Stan Lee/Steve Ditko source material, with hero Peter Parker an orphaned, intellectual teen loner living in Queens with his aunt (Rosemary Harris) and uncle (Cliff Robertson), and dreaming of the girl next door, Mary Jane (Kirsten Dunst). On a field trip to a Columbia University lab, Peter is bitten by a genetically altered spider and overnight he gains superhuman strength, agility, and perception. At first, Peter uses his powers for material gain, winning a wrestling match with a purportedly lucrative prize. But when Peter apathetically fails to stop a burglar from robbing the wrestling arena, a tragedy follows that compels him to devote his powers to fighting crime -- as the superhero Spider-Man. When he's not busy fighting crime in a spider suit, Peter moves into an apartment with his best friend, Harry (James Franco), and begins work as a photographer at the Daily Bugle. Meanwhile, his do-gooder alter ego finds a nemesis in the form of the Green Goblin (Willem Dafoe), a super-powered, megalomaniacal villain who happens to be the alter ego of Harry's father, weapons-manufacturing mogul Norman Osborn. Spider-Man was written by the prolific blockbuster scribe David Koepp (Jurassic Park, Panic Room). ~ Michael Hastings, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 68
Number of Lists: 127
Number of blog posts: 15
Number of discussion threads: 11
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Tue, 12 May 2009 02:37:19 GMTSpider-Man2002Sam RaimiAfter incorporating elements of comic book style and design into many of his films, director <a href="http://www.spout.com/players/P___107427/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Sam Raimi</a> helms this straight-ahead, big-budget comic book adaptation, which also marks acclaimed young actor <a href="http://www.spout.com/players/P___196872/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Tobey Maguire</a>'s first dip into live-action blockbuster filmmaking. Spider-Man follows the template of the original <a href="http://www.spout.com/players/P____99176/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Stan Lee</a>/Steve Ditko source material, with hero Peter Parker an orphaned, intellectual teen loner living in Queens with his aunt (<a href="http://www.spout.com/players/P____30676/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Rosemary Harris</a>) and uncle (<a href="http://www.spout.com/players/P___108502/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Cliff Robertson</a>), and dreaming of the girl next door, Mary Jane (<a href="http://www.spout.com/players/P____20669/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Kirsten Dunst</a>). On a field trip to a Columbia University lab, Peter is bitten by a genetically altered spider and overnight he gains superhuman strength, agility, and perception. At first, Peter uses his powers for material gain, winning a wrestling match with a purportedly lucrative prize. But when Peter apathetically fails to stop a burglar from robbing the wrestling arena, a tragedy follows that compels him to devote his powers to fighting crime -- as the superhero Spider-Man. When he's not busy fighting crime in a spider suit, Peter moves into an apartment with his best friend, Harry (<a href="http://www.spout.com/players/P___299361/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>James Franco</a>), and begins work as a photographer at the Daily Bugle. Meanwhile, his do-gooder alter ego finds a nemesis in the form of the Green Goblin (<a href="http://www.spout.com/players/P____16547/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Willem Dafoe</a>), a super-powered, megalomaniacal villain who happens to be the alter ego of Harry's father, weapons-manufacturing mogul Norman Osborn. Spider-Man was written by the prolific blockbuster scribe <a href="http://www.spout.com/players/P____97774/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>David Koepp</a> (<a href="http://www.spout.com/films/18496/detail.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Jurassic Park</a>, <a href="http://www.spout.com/films/204905/detail.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Panic Room</a>). ~ Michael Hastings, All Movie Guide68Tag Target (>10)12715113http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t21304hxdrb.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Spider_Man/205724/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2009/3/10/40945.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 3/10/2009 6:01:08 PM
Body: If you buy the kids only one new video release this week, make it Pinocchio. Obviously. But if you have enough spending money to buy two, pick up Howard the Duck as well. Finally on DVD in America (with a Special Edition no less), the infamous flop is anything but a great film. Yet it is hardly one of the worst films of the 1980s, despite its reputation. For the past 23 years, I’ve stood by my childhood love for Howard the Duck, constantly acknowledging that I even owned Ellis Weiner’s novelization of the film. Technically, the best reason to defend the movie’s existence is that it directly led to the creation of Pixar. But this reason doesn’t influence anyone to watch the thing. So, in order to defend the movie’s onscreen worth, I’ve come up with ten points for why you should pick up the new Howard the Duck disc and not feel at all guilty about doing so. 1. It’s No Longer the Worst Lucasfilm Production Take your pick — there’s The Phantom Menace or there’s Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, either of which could certainly take the prize for being the worst movie to come from George Lucas in his 40 years producing films. Well, maybe not worse than More American Graffiti. But both films were far bigger creative and franchise disappointments than Howard the Duck (financial success is another story, of course), and so they have a relative sort of wretchedness that places them in the bottom of Lucas’ Sarlacc pit of a career. Even if you’re one of those defend-to-the-end Star Wars fanboys who will argue the pros of Menace, at least then consider Willow to be worse than Howard the Duck. The blatant Lord of the Rings rip-off has its historical relevance, but looking back on it now, it’s even more dated than Howard. And regardless of how groundbreaking it was, Willow’s visual effects don’t hold up quite as well as Howard’s old-fashioned, and oft-celebrated craftsmanship. But that’s another point… 2.  The Special Effects Are Technically Brilliant Those of us who prefer go-motion and other non-CGI effects work will always pay respect to ILM’s achievements on Howard the Duck, particularly their efforts with the Dark Overlord creature in the movie’s final act. People unfortunately tend to focus on the $2 million duck suit (see point #3), but even then Howard didn’t deserve its Razzie for Worst Visual Effects. To compare it to digital creatures, the monster would fit in just fine in either of the Men in Black movies. And for its own time, it was a magnificent creation. So it existed alongside a silly costumed creature in an overpriced B-movie, it still deserved an Oscar nomination for F/X in 1987, a year the Academy recognized Little Shop of Horrors and Poltergeist II: The Other Side (and incomparable winner Aliens). 3. The Duck Suit is Still Better Than Most CGI Those of us who grew up with Muppets, Chewbacca and other non-computer-generated fantasy creatures had no problem with Howard the Duck’s titular fowl being represented as a dwarf in a duck suit. The issue with the effect, though, is that allegedly Lucas had wanted Howard to be a CG creation, but the technology just wasn’t there yet. So, costumes and robotics, all of which reportedly cost $2 million, were viewed as a relative disappointment. But think of how few great CG characters there have been in the past 20 years, and then seriously attempt to argue that Howard would have been any better if made in the years of CGI supremacy. Now, also remember that 1986 was a year that gave us fine puppetry, costumed dwarfs and robotics like that found in Labyrinth (also a Lucasfilm production), Little Shop of Horrors, Legend, Short Circuit, Flight of the Navigator, Troll (sure, why not?) and, yes, Howard the Duck. So really, the only thing disappointing about the duck suit is that it doesn’t really look like the comic book character upon which it’s based. Of course, it’s not likely that a CG version of Howard would have been any more faithful. 4. Parallels, Puns and Playful Philosophy Some fans of the original Howard the Duck comics could argue that the duck suit is hardly the worst offense of unfaithfulness. Other complaints might be the alteration of Beverly’s career or the occasional sacrifice of the comic’s tone in order to pander to younger audiences. But real sticklers may take issue with Howard’s origin, the inclusion of Duckworld (which did come from the comics but wasn’t Howard creator Steve Gerber’s idea of what the character’s home world was like) and the punny parallels that came with it. Yet for those of us who love corny jokes and puns, the idea of an alternate world where everything’s the same, just with descendants of ducks rather than apes, is a lot of fun. It’s the same appreciation that allowed me to enjoy the ska scene and the similarly parallel worlds of The Flintstones and Dinosaurs and the parodies in MAD Magazine. In the first few minutes, we get treated to the following cheesy but delicious sight and audio gags: a Rolling Egg magazine, a Playduck magazine, movie posters for “Splahsdance,” “Breeders of the Lost Stork” and My Little Chickadee (starring W.C. Fowls and Mae Nest), and commercials for feather fungus treatment and the Crazy Eddie spoof “Crazy Webby.” This, plus the opening credit narration and theory of Duckworld evolution were enjoyable to a kid in the midst of learning about Darwin and pondering the existence of alternate worlds. 5. Jeffrey Jones as Dr. Jenning/Dark Overlord Between Howard the Duck and Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, Jeffrey Jones was one of the biggest and best villains of the summer of ‘86. For kids, anyway. But even adults recognized the quality of Jones’ performance in Howard, as Dr. Jenning, the scientist who becomes possessed by the Dark Overlord. To cult audiences, he may have seemed like just another Dr. Lizardo/Lord Worfin (of The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension), but while John Lithgow was fine and nutty, Jones is much creepier and much, much more evil, even when he finds time to be deadpan hilarious during the greatest scene in the film, in the “cajun sushi” diner. 6. The Diner Scene Although it’s mostly thanks to Jones that this scene is so memorable, it’s not just his performance alone that makes it so terrific. Every time I watch the movie, I look forward to the entire episode, from Jones/Jenning/Dark Overlord’s exposition to the waitress’ interactions with the “family” to Howard’s pie and quack-fu fight with a bunch of rednecks. And I will always recommend the movie for this scene alone. It includes a lot of disturbing elements, such as Beverly’s claim that she’s Howard’s girlfriend and the angry mob’s desire to kill and cook a talking duck man, that might have worked better had Howard been represented as an animated character rather than a guy in a suit (bestiality and homicide is just fine in Who Framed Roger Rabbit? and Looney Tunes cartoons), but it’s also one of the weirdest and funniest scenes from any comic book adaptation ever. 7. Lea Thompson as Beverly Switzler I would go so far as to argue that Lea Thompson’s crimped-haired Beverly is the hottest female comic book character come to (cinematic) life, but that is certainly subjective. Plenty of people probably prefer Kirsten Dunst, Halle Berry, Jennifer Garner, Michelle Pfeiffer, Pamela Anderson or even Margot Kidder. But Thompson is definitely in there as one of the greatest physical incarnations of a comic book femme d’ fantasy, and the scene where she goes to bed with Howard wearing barely a bit of lingerie (as creepy as the scene is infamous for being) is up there with Dunst’s wet tshirt/upside-down kiss in Spider-Man and any of Pfeiffer’s bondage-bound Catwoman scenes in Batman Returns as one of the hottest moments from any comic book adaptation ever. 8. Cherry Bomb and the Howard the Duck soundtrack Beverly may not have been a rocker in the comics, but this was the 1980s, and you had to have a great synthpop soundtrack, so the character was given a change in career as the leader of a Runaways-inspired band called Cherry Bomb. And for having beaten out more musical contenders for the role, including The Go-Go’s Belinda Carlisle and Tori Amos (then of Y Can’t Tori Read), Lea Thompson does quite well singing such catchy tunes as “Howard the Duck” and “Hunger City.” Cherry Bomb’s music also had some help from Thomas Dolby, George Clinton, Joe Walsh and Stevie Wonder. As for the rest of the soundtrack, Oscar-winning composer John Barry (Out of Africa; the James Bond films) contributes a very fine score. 9. It’s For Kids Because everyone always defends the Star Wars prequels as being for kids, as if that’s really an excuse for faulty filmmaking, I’m going to do the same here. But to do that, I guess I have to also defend the idea that it is indeed a movie for kids. Watching the thing, it’s hard to tell, because there is a lot of content and humor that only adults can or should appreciate, and certainly one of the biggest criticisms with the movie is it’s fluctuations between wanting to be a biting, sarcastic comic book adaptation for older audiences and fans of the source and needing to be a silly movie for kids. But for all the duck nudity, sexuality and other material better suited to mature audiences, there’s not really anything harmful to a kid, and there’s millions of us ‘80s children who grew up okay to prove it. So, while you adults may not be able to enjoy Howard the Duck anymore, even as a nostalgic artifact, your kids will probably like it as much as you used to. 10. It’s Not Redundant Unlike some comic book adaptations, Howard the Duck isn’t a straight lift from the pages of the source material, and it’s better off for it. Some fans of the comic may be annoyed with Howard’s appearance or Beverly’s occupation or the absence of any of Howard’s usual foes, but those of us who saw the movie first can appreciate the differences, because these allow for a better introduction to and curiosity about the comic. In a way, it’s to the original Marvel series as The Incredibles is to the graphic novel of Watchmen (though it’s certainly not anywhere near as smart nor well-crafted as The Incredibles). Now, if you still aren’t sure whether or not you should get the DVD, watch some (or all) of the movie on Hulu: Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 22:01:08 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com3/10/2009 6:01:08 PMIf you buy the kids only one new video release this week, make it Pinocchio. Obviously. But if you have enough spending money to buy two, pick up Howard the Duck as well. Finally on DVD in America (with a Special Edition no less), the infamous flop is anything but a great film. Yet it is hardly one of the worst films of the 1980s, despite its reputation. For the past 23 years, I’ve stood by my childhood love for Howard the Duck, constantly acknowledging that I even owned Ellis Weiner’s novelization of the film. Technically, the best reason to defend the movie’s existence is that it directly led to the creation of Pixar. But this reason doesn’t influence anyone to watch the thing. So, in order to defend the movie’s onscreen worth, I’ve come up with ten points for why you should pick up the new Howard the Duck disc and not feel at all guilty about doing so. 1. It’s No Longer the Worst Lucasfilm Production Take your pick — there’s The Phantom Menace or there’s Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, either of which could certainly take the prize for being the worst movie to come from George Lucas in his 40 years producing films. Well, maybe not worse than More American Graffiti. But both films were far bigger creative and franchise disappointments than Howard the Duck (financial success is another story, of course), and so they have a relative sort of wretchedness that places them in the bottom of Lucas’ Sarlacc pit of a career. Even if you’re one of those defend-to-the-end Star Wars fanboys who will argue the pros of Menace, at least then consider Willow to be worse than Howard the Duck. The blatant Lord of the Rings rip-off has its historical relevance, but looking back on it now, it’s even more dated than Howard. And regardless of how groundbreaking it was, Willow’s visual effects don’t hold up quite as well as Howard’s old-fashioned, and oft-celebrated craftsmanship. But that’s another point… 2.  The Special Effects Are Technically Brilliant Those of us who prefer go-motion and other non-CGI effects work will always pay respect to ILM’s achievements on Howard the Duck, particularly their efforts with the Dark Overlord creature in the movie’s final act. People unfortunately tend to focus on the $2 million duck suit (see point #3), but even then Howard didn’t deserve its Razzie for Worst Visual Effects. To compare it to digital creatures, the monster would fit in just fine in either of the Men in Black movies. And for its own time, it was a magnificent creation. So it existed alongside a silly costumed creature in an overpriced B-movie, it still deserved an Oscar nomination for F/X in 1987, a year the Academy recognized Little Shop of Horrors and Poltergeist II: The Other Side (and incomparable winner Aliens). 3. The Duck Suit is Still Better Than Most CGI Those of us who grew up with Muppets, Chewbacca and other non-computer-generated fantasy creatures had no problem with Howard the Duck’s titular fowl being represented as a dwarf in a duck suit. The issue with the effect, though, is that allegedly Lucas had wanted Howard to be a CG creation, but the technology just wasn’t there yet. So, costumes and robotics, all of which reportedly cost $2 million, were viewed as a relative disappointment. But think of how few great CG characters there have been in the past 20 years, and then seriously attempt to argue that Howard would have been any better if made in the years of CGI supremacy. Now, also remember that 1986 was a year that gave us fine puppetry, costumed dwarfs and robotics like that found in Labyrinth (also a Lucasfilm production), Little Shop of Horrors, Legend, Short Circuit, Flight of the Navigator, Troll (sure, why not?) and, yes, Howard the Duck. So really, the only thing disappointing about the duck suit is that it doesn’t really look like the comic book character upon which it’s based. Of course, it’s not likely that a CG version of Howard would have been any more faithful. 4. Parallels, Puns and Playful Philosophy Some fans of the original Howard the Duck comics could argue that the duck suit is hardly the worst offense of unfaithfulness. Other complaints might be the alteration of Beverly’s career or the occasional sacrifice of the comic’s tone in order to pander to younger audiences. But real sticklers may take issue with Howard’s origin, the inclusion of Duckworld (which did come from the comics but wasn’t Howard creator Steve Gerber’s idea of what the character’s home world was like) and the punny parallels that came with it. Yet for those of us who love corny jokes and puns, the idea of an alternate world where everything’s the same, just with descendants of ducks rather than apes, is a lot of fun. It’s the same appreciation that allowed me to enjoy the ska scene and the similarly parallel worlds of The Flintstones and Dinosaurs and the parodies in MAD Magazine. In the first few minutes, we get treated to the following cheesy but delicious sight and audio gags: a Rolling Egg magazine, a Playduck magazine, movie posters for “Splahsdance,” “Breeders of the Lost Stork” and My Little Chickadee (starring W.C. Fowls and Mae Nest), and commercials for feather fungus treatment and the Crazy Eddie spoof “Crazy Webby.” This, plus the opening credit narration and theory of Duckworld evolution were enjoyable to a kid in the midst of learning about Darwin and pondering the existence of alternate worlds. 5. Jeffrey Jones as Dr. Jenning/Dark Overlord Between Howard the Duck and Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, Jeffrey Jones was one of the biggest and best villains of the summer of ‘86. For kids, anyway. But even adults recognized the quality of Jones’ performance in Howard, as Dr. Jenning, the scientist who becomes possessed by the Dark Overlord. To cult audiences, he may have seemed like just another Dr. Lizardo/Lord Worfin (of The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension), but while John Lithgow was fine and nutty, Jones is much creepier and much, much more evil, even when he finds time to be deadpan hilarious during the greatest scene in the film, in the “cajun sushi” diner. 6. The Diner Scene Although it’s mostly thanks to Jones that this scene is so memorable, it’s not just his performance alone that makes it so terrific. Every time I watch the movie, I look forward to the entire episode, from Jones/Jenning/Dark Overlord’s exposition to the waitress’ interactions with the “family” to Howard’s pie and quack-fu fight with a bunch of rednecks. And I will always recommend the movie for this scene alone. It includes a lot of disturbing elements, such as Beverly’s claim that she’s Howard’s girlfriend and the angry mob’s desire to kill and cook a talking duck man, that might have worked better had Howard been represented as an animated character rather than a guy in a suit (bestiality and homicide is just fine in Who Framed Roger Rabbit? and Looney Tunes cartoons), but it’s also one of the weirdest and funniest scenes from any comic book adaptation ever. 7. Lea Thompson as Beverly Switzler I would go so far as to argue that Lea Thompson’s crimped-haired Beverly is the hottest female comic book character come to (cinematic) life, but that is certainly subjective. Plenty of people probably prefer Kirsten Dunst, Halle Berry, Jennifer Garner, Michelle Pfeiffer, Pamela Anderson or even Margot Kidder. But Thompson is definitely in there as one of the greatest physical incarnations of a comic book femme d’ fantasy, and the scene where she goes to bed with Howard wearing barely a bit of lingerie (as creepy as the scene is infamous for being) is up there with Dunst’s wet tshirt/upside-down kiss in Spider-Man and any of Pfeiffer’s bondage-bound Catwoman scenes in Batman Returns as one of the hottest moments from any comic book adaptation ever. 8. Cherry Bomb and the Howard the Duck soundtrack Beverly may not have been a rocker in the comics, but this was the 1980s, and you had to have a great synthpop soundtrack, so the character was given a change in career as the leader of a Runaways-inspired band called Cherry Bomb. And for having beaten out more musical contenders for the role, including The Go-Go’s Belinda Carlisle and Tori Amos (then of Y Can’t Tori Read), Lea Thompson does quite well singing such catchy tunes as “Howard the Duck” and “Hunger City.” Cherry Bomb’s music also had some help from Thomas Dolby, George Clinton, Joe Walsh and Stevie Wonder. As for the rest of the soundtrack, Oscar-winning composer John Barry (Out of Africa; the James Bond films) contributes a very fine score. 9. It’s For Kids Because everyone always defends the Star Wars prequels as being for kids, as if that’s really an excuse for faulty filmmaking, I’m going to do the same here. But to do that, I guess I have to also defend the idea that it is indeed a movie for kids. Watching the thing, it’s hard to tell, because there is a lot of content and humor that only adults can or should appreciate, and certainly one of the biggest criticisms with the movie is it’s fluctuations between wanting to be a biting, sarcastic comic book adaptation for older audiences and fans of the source and needing to be a silly movie for kids. But for all the duck nudity, sexuality and other material better suited to mature audiences, there’s not really anything harmful to a kid, and there’s millions of us ‘80s children who grew up okay to prove it. So, while you adults may not be able to enjoy Howard the Duck anymore, even as a nostalgic artifact, your kids will probably like it as much as you used to. 10. It’s Not Redundant Unlike some comic book adaptations, Howard the Duck isn’t a straight lift from the pages of the source material, and it’s better off for it. Some fans of the comic may be annoyed with Howard’s appearance or Beverly’s occupation or the absence of any of Howard’s usual foes, but those of us who saw the movie first can appreciate the differences, because these allow for a better introduction to and curiosity about the comic. In a way, it’s to the original Marvel series as The Incredibles is to the graphic novel of Watchmen (though it’s certainly not anywhere near as smart nor well-crafted as The Incredibles). Now, if you still aren’t sure whether or not you should get the DVD, watch some (or all) of the movie on Hulu: Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/12/1/37801.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 12/1/2008 4:03:57 PM
Body: Is it that odd to imagine a Waterworld musical on Broadway? After all, Xanadu made it to the big stage, so anything is possible for infamous turkeys like this one. Sure, it looks rather silly in the video below, the way Patrick Warburton and company have made it, but with the right creative team Waterworld could really work as a kitchy cult attraction. Maybe team up two randoms, the way Marvel has with the upcoming Spider-Man show directed by Julie Taymor and featuring music by Bono. Honestly, there seems to be nothing that Broadway producers could announce that’s any more ridiculous than what’s already been done there. So, terrible movie-turned-musical ideas may continue to be easy gags, and they’re possibly even going to make me laugh, but ultimately I would like to go see Con Air: The Musical (from 30 Rock) and Planet of the Apes: The Musical (from The Simpsons) and musicals made out of Waterworld, The Postman, Battlefield Earth and especially Ishtar. Who would love you, Mariner? I would. Check out the commercial for Waterworld: The Musical after the jump. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Mon, 01 Dec 2008 21:03:57 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com12/1/2008 4:03:57 PMIs it that odd to imagine a Waterworld musical on Broadway? After all, Xanadu made it to the big stage, so anything is possible for infamous turkeys like this one. Sure, it looks rather silly in the video below, the way Patrick Warburton and company have made it, but with the right creative team Waterworld could really work as a kitchy cult attraction. Maybe team up two randoms, the way Marvel has with the upcoming Spider-Man show directed by Julie Taymor and featuring music by Bono. Honestly, there seems to be nothing that Broadway producers could announce that’s any more ridiculous than what’s already been done there. So, terrible movie-turned-musical ideas may continue to be easy gags, and they’re possibly even going to make me laugh, but ultimately I would like to go see Con Air: The Musical (from 30 Rock) and Planet of the Apes: The Musical (from The Simpsons) and musicals made out of Waterworld, The Postman, Battlefield Earth and especially Ishtar. Who would love you, Mariner? I would. Check out the commercial for Waterworld: The Musical after the jump. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/10/10/36147.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 10/10/2008 2:01:25 PM
Body: I knew from the recent Hollywood Reporter feature on Twilight that Summit Entertainment planned to release a new trailer more geared toward a male audience, but I never would have guessed they’d do such a damn good job of it. I’ve been hating on this movie from the beginning, but now part of me is actually thinking I’d like to see it. And I bet a lot of teenage boys will be thinking the same, only more so. This is pure genius marketing, and it would have been in Summit’s favor to have gone this route all along. What with superheroes so huge right now, why hadn’t they already tried to sell this thing as being like a comic book movie rather than a sappy adaptation of goth chick lit? Wasn’t that bit of dialogue referencing Spider-Man and Superman in the film the whole time? Such a line needs to be exploited, and it’s a shame the fledgling studio took so long to employ it. This trailer is seriously what Summit should have shown at Comic-Con. Well, better late than never, right? Considering there’s more than a month left before Twilight hits theaters, it’s not too late. But since the young Stephenie Meyer fans are already sold on the film and its romantic elements, Summit should definitely concentrate on this trailer and possible TV spots cut from it. Air commercials during Smallville and Heroes (if anyone is still watching that confused and redundant mess they’ll certainly be turned on by how much cooler Twilight looks than Season 3 so far). Run the trailer ahead of male-friendly movies like Max Payne, Quantum of Solace and maybe even a football movie like The Express. Young girls are still going to be the majority of the audience for this film, and they may even be the only ones who come away satisfied with it, but don’t be surprised if you see a lot of boys in the audience (myself included), too. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Fri, 10 Oct 2008 18:01:25 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com10/10/2008 2:01:25 PM I knew from the recent Hollywood Reporter feature on Twilight that Summit Entertainment planned to release a new trailer more geared toward a male audience, but I never would have guessed they’d do such a damn good job of it. I’ve been hating on this movie from the beginning, but now part of me is actually thinking I’d like to see it. And I bet a lot of teenage boys will be thinking the same, only more so. This is pure genius marketing, and it would have been in Summit’s favor to have gone this route all along. What with superheroes so huge right now, why hadn’t they already tried to sell this thing as being like a comic book movie rather than a sappy adaptation of goth chick lit? Wasn’t that bit of dialogue referencing Spider-Man and Superman in the film the whole time? Such a line needs to be exploited, and it’s a shame the fledgling studio took so long to employ it. This trailer is seriously what Summit should have shown at Comic-Con. Well, better late than never, right? Considering there’s more than a month left before Twilight hits theaters, it’s not too late. But since the young Stephenie Meyer fans are already sold on the film and its romantic elements, Summit should definitely concentrate on this trailer and possible TV spots cut from it. Air commercials during Smallville and Heroes (if anyone is still watching that confused and redundant mess they’ll certainly be turned on by how much cooler Twilight looks than Season 3 so far). Run the trailer ahead of male-friendly movies like Max Payne, Quantum of Solace and maybe even a football movie like The Express. Young girls are still going to be the majority of the audience for this film, and they may even be the only ones who come away satisfied with it, but don’t be surprised if you see a lot of boys in the audience (myself included), too. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/shaunhuston/archive/2008/7/15/32561.aspx Post By: ShaunHuston
Post To: ShaunHuston filmblog
Post Date: 7/15/2008 12:00:47 AM
Body: In Hellboy (2004), writer-director Guillermo del Toro developed his adaptation by stitching together a story from two major arcs in the comics (those collected in Seed of Destruction and The Conqueror Worm)*, and re-imagining the characters (Liz and Hellboy in love, Abe Sapien as a mystical brain-y guy), but without changing their basic qualities (Liz's biography is more or less intact up to the point we meet her, as is Hellboy's, Abe is still a fishman of unclear origin; Bruttenholm dies differently, but is essentially the guy you meet in the books). With Hellboy II: The Golden Army (2008), del Toro takes Hellboy and the BPRD and transports them into a world almost entirely of his own making, which is not only within the spirit of the texts, but also produces something unique and special for comic book adaptations: an original story. Most of the time these projects end up being created in the manner of the first Hellboy, that is, built largely from elements taken from the books. There is nothing wrong with this, and when done well (see also, for examples, Iron Man, 2008, and Spider-Man, 2002) the approach can produce entertaining and thoughtful interpretations of the source material, but in addition to being safe and conventional, also has the taint of interference from corporate rights holders. However, in the case of the latest Hellboy film, the use of a new story intensifies questions that I have about del Toro's handling of Mike Mignola's characters. Spoilers for Hellboy II to come. First off, it needs to be emphasized that any questions or ambivalence I might have about the choices that del Toro has made are offset by his obvious love for the books and, particularly in the case of the new film, the imagination he brings to his work on these adaptations. I don't think that there is a single wasted frame in Hellboy II. del Toro does everything with care and creativity, putting thought into details that lesser film makers would just gloss over (consider, as examples, the fact that he gives the tooth fairies personalities instead of just treating them as a horde of interchangeable pieces, or the way the death of the forest elemental is envisioned; in most cases the creature would have just gone splat, and that would be the end of it. Here, the death actually becomes a meaningful part of the narrative). del Toro also bothers to create a moral universe where the nature of the characters and the choices they make are rarely clear cut. Indeed, it is probably fair to say that the writer-director has a certain amount of sympathy with Nuada (Luke Goss), even though he is the putative villain. As with Sam Raimi and Bryan Singer, del Toro further demonstrates the value of hiring real artists to handle comic book material. Of course, one of the risks of hiring auteurist directors is that they may make choices that don't sit well with the already existing fandom for a set of books or characters. And, so here I am to prove that point, but I don't want to overstate my objections. I don't hate any of the choices I comment on below, but I am unsure about them. Liz and Hellboy. In the books, there is no Liz and Hellboy. Hellboy is, I think, best described as asexual. His friendship with Liz is no more romantic or intense than is his friendship with Abe or Roger or Kate, who is, it should be noted, more likely to be his field partner than is Liz. Liz's sexuality isn't much of an issue in the texts either. Indeed, in the hands of Mignola and Guy Davis, Liz is about as far from the stereotypical comic book babe as you can get without making her “ugly” – she dresses sensibly, and looks like a normally proportioned woman. Of course, "normal" here is pretty relative. Mignola's work is often described as expressionist for a reason, while I would describe Davis' work on BPRD as a sort of cartoonish realism with characters drawn on a very human, as opposed to super human, scale. Even given the “canonical” treatment of these characters, as evident in the Weird Tales books, del Toro is hardly the first guest artist to show a fascination with Hellboy's and Liz's sexualities, although their relationship is unique to the movies. And re-imaginings of both that seek to explore or invent such dimensions of the characters are entirely understandable, if predictable where Liz is concerned (the whole fear-attraction dynamic of girl “firestarters” lends itself to sexual/romantic imaginings, for both better and worse). del Toro takes Liz and Hellboy's relationship to another level in The Golden Army not only by having Hellboy (Ron Perlman) and Liz (Selma Blair) living together as a couple, but also by making Liz pregnant. Making a central female character either pregnant or having them be raped is a cliché in the superhero world. The effect, or maybe explicit purpose, of these devices is to mark the character as irreducibly different from the real, that is, male, heroes. No matter what her skills or powers, rape and/or pregnancy emphasizes that she is ultimately, “just a chick”, and as a chick, she is inherently limited by her body. These are tools which maintain male supremacy in the comics by rendering women as always more vulnerable and less capable than men (and, just to be clear, I'm not saying that women actually are inherently more vulnerable and less capable than men; I'm saying that rape and pregnancy are often used so as to affirm that impression, at least in comics, and in fantasy and science fiction more broadly. They are narrative tools which ensure that female characters remain within the predominant comfort zones of the presumptively hetero-male audience/readership). I'm not sure that these purposes necessarily hold on a conscious level in Hellboy II. There isn't a single moment in the film where Liz is sidelined by some male authority figure because of her pregnancy. Hellboy doesn't even make a special point of facing down Nuada and the Golden Army for his unborn children (yes, he is motivated to “get up” by Liz's love and the prospect of being a father, but there is no big moment where he overtly tries to protect Liz from harm due to the pregnancy, nor does he issue his challenge to Nuada with some declaration about his woman or his children; he pretty much just does what he always does, which is to take on the big bad with fearlessness and wise-cracks). And, arguably, it even pays off in a nice scene where Liz literally stands by her man and outs herself as a “freak” when she doesn't need to (unlike the other BPRD “freaks” she can pass as normal, at least until she loses control of her power and burns a city block down or some such thing). But the fact remains that there is a certain predictability to moving from Hellboy and Liz being romantically involved to Liz being pregnant. In del Toro's favor is that fact that, despite the actual suggestion of sex, he doesn't tart Liz up. While her BPRD uniform is hardly a sack, it is entirely functional, the best index of which is her military-styled boots; not a stiletto in sight. Even with the two “lingerie shots” in the new film, Liz is wearing underwear that seems entirely appropriate to how she dresses for field missions; sexy, yes, but only insofar as anything relatively slight and formfitting is going to look good on Blair (think the undergarments that the pilots on Battlestar Galactica wear). And, to be fair, both Abe and Hellboy are shown walking around in nothing more than their boxers, or, at least, shorts than might as well be boxers. On balance, the influence of the “male gaze” on Liz is pretty muted, especially alongside most comparable characters in other superhero comic book films and TV. This is true even as compared to the Liz in the animated movies where she is visualized as much more of a “hottie”, pun not intended. In that regard, it also should be noted that she is very much an active field agent, and not a victim, especially in the new film (you can argue about the extent to which she doesn't get to be in on the action, but I don't think she's any less marginal relative to Hellboy than any other agent. She's a strong, assertive personality with a power that is only dwarfed by what Hellboy reputedly contains within him). I think that the gender dynamics broached by the Hellboy-Liz relationship in the movies is complicated. What Liz's pregnancy actually portends for the films will probably have to wait for Hellboy III (should it come to be). I think it would be interesting to see a comic book or comic book movie take seriously the question of pregnancy, instead of simply using it to render a character as vulnerable or passive. Probably more than anything, my current ambivalence about making these two characters romantically involved is that it sets this relationship apart from Hellboy's other friendships at the BPRD. In the books, Hellboy is everyone's good friend and is a defender of all of the agency's freaks (a key reason why he leaves the BPRD). I'm also sure that one reason why Kate Corrigan is not in the films is to keep things simple with regards to Liz and Hellboy, which is a pity, because Kate's a good character (I also have to say that the BPRD is generally a very male operation in the films, which it isn't necessarily in the books). Characterization of Abe. In the books, Abe Sapien is just an expert field agent. The only thing supernatural about him is, well, him. In the movies, as played by Doug Jones and voiced by David Hyde Pierce in the first movie, he's more of a researcher and mystic than an action-oriented agent. If I had to choose, which, of course, I don't, I'd probably pick the Abe of the books over the Abe of the films, but that's only because I feel I know the guy in the comics better than I know the guy in the movies, or maybe I'm just sticking with the familiar. In any case, the changes that del Toro has made are perfectly understandable. As a narrative medium, film is more intensive than comics are or can be, and making Abe the “brains” of the operation probably gives him more to do than if he was largely another action man like Hellboy. In the comics, there is more time and opportunity to show Abe in the field, and even given that, it was likely necessary to split Hellboy from the BPRD to give the other characters more room to breathe. Most importantly, nothing that del Toro has done with the character changes anything basic about him. However, the introduction of Johann Krauss (voiced by Seth MacFarlane) puts the initial characterization of Abe in a different light. So ... Characterization of Johann Krauss. I would argue that del Toro takes more liberties with Krauss than he does with any of the other core characters. This starts with his look. In both cases he remains an ectoplasmic man, but the suit for containing his essence is radically different between the books and the movie. In the comics, his containment suit is fairly simple and modern in design, and, indeed, he often is able to dress in standard BPRD wear on top of it when he needs to. By contrast, del Toro has outfitted in him in what looks like a Victorian era diving suit with an insectoid head. I warmed up to the new look over time, or maybe just to the character, but it does imply a very different timeline for Johann. In the comics, he finds himself bereft of his body in 2003, well past when you would come up with a get-up like in the movie. Of course, given that Bruttenholm (John Hurt) is supposed to have created the suit, maybe del Toro just likes the way the suit looks. To be sure, it is not the only evidence of a steam punk aesthetic in Hellboy II, nor is Victoriana unseen in the Hellboy/BPRD universe. The look aside, the officious German team leader in the film is pretty different from the more introverted medium in the comics. In fact, in the books, I would characterize Johann as being more heart than head, very different from the rationalistic bureaucrat in the new movie. del Toro comes back around to this characterization by the end of Hellboy II, but by that point he had already fundamentally changed the nature of the character. In relation to Abe, what Johann does, which is to animate and speak to the spirits of the dead, is similar to the former's mystical sensory powers. One way of distinguishing between the two is through the decision to ramp up Johann's power, making him into a kind of self-willed poltergeist as well as a medium. As a result, he and not Abe, or Liz, gets to fight the Golden Army next to Hellboy, not to mention smacking the big red guy around a little in an earlier scene. As with Liz's pregnancy, it will take another film to see how Johann pans out, and what his presence portends for Abe's role. The secrecy of the BPRD. While not strictly speaking a character issue, it is also the case that one of the major differences between the books and the films is Manning's (Jeffrey Tambor) emphasis on the team operating on the QT. It isn't so much that the BPRD of the books is operating out in the open, but that the issue of secrecy just doesn't come up. We rarely see them interacting with people who haven't already seen some pretty weird things that, I suppose, make Abe, Johann, Liz et al seem fairly believable. In other words, in the comics Hellboy and the BPRD are both firmly in and of the world, whereas in the films the conceit is that they are in the world, but not quite of it. Where this focus on secrecy is most problematic for me is in how it is treated as a fixation of Hellboy's. I don't actually feel his desire to be embraced by the world, nor do I think it adds much to the character to give him that desire. I prefer the way that the Hellboy in the comics simply acts without much regard to such questions. Either people accept him in the same honest way he does them or they don't. There's a charming innocence to the paper character that is at least diminished by the movie character's celebrity desire, however slight and fundamentally about acceptance it is. And while there are some good tabloid jokes in the first movie that come from this premise, I'm actually more intrigued by the idea of the BPRD operating in a world where they may be unique, but not entirely alien. Aside from these adaptation questions, the one additional nit I would pick about Hellboy II is that its underlying mythology can't quite be contained by a single film. As the beautifully rendered prologue/bedtime story indicates, del Toro certainly understands this and takes steps to address the problem, but I don't think he quite manages to convey the depth of the world that must exist in his head and notes, and probably in Mignola's as well. At the end of the film, I felt like I had only grazed the surface of the deep mythic structure of the narrative. Of course, this problem also points to enormity of del Toro's imagination, and I'd much rather see a film maker of his intelligence and skill managing the cinematic Hellboy than some hack who slavishly hews to the print canon of a beloved character. (For another take on the differences between the comics and the movies, see Mike Russell's latest CulturePulp comic). *He also plays around with elements from smaller stories, such as this. Belated post-script: I was ever so slightly bummed that the scene with young Hellboy watching TV wasn't taken as an opportunity to sneak in a reference to Lobster Johnson (maybe Dark Horse is saving him for his own film. Hmmm. Doubtful, but still ...). Originally posted on:Short-Circuit Signs
]]>Tue, 15 Jul 2008 04:00:47 GMTShaunHustonShaunHuston filmblog7/15/2008 12:00:47 AMIn Hellboy (2004), writer-director Guillermo del Toro developed his adaptation by stitching together a story from two major arcs in the comics (those collected in Seed of Destruction and The Conqueror Worm)*, and re-imagining the characters (Liz and Hellboy in love, Abe Sapien as a mystical brain-y guy), but without changing their basic qualities (Liz's biography is more or less intact up to the point we meet her, as is Hellboy's, Abe is still a fishman of unclear origin; Bruttenholm dies differently, but is essentially the guy you meet in the books). With Hellboy II: The Golden Army (2008), del Toro takes Hellboy and the BPRD and transports them into a world almost entirely of his own making, which is not only within the spirit of the texts, but also produces something unique and special for comic book adaptations: an original story. Most of the time these projects end up being created in the manner of the first Hellboy, that is, built largely from elements taken from the books. There is nothing wrong with this, and when done well (see also, for examples, Iron Man, 2008, and Spider-Man, 2002) the approach can produce entertaining and thoughtful interpretations of the source material, but in addition to being safe and conventional, also has the taint of interference from corporate rights holders. However, in the case of the latest Hellboy film, the use of a new story intensifies questions that I have about del Toro's handling of Mike Mignola's characters. Spoilers for Hellboy II to come. First off, it needs to be emphasized that any questions or ambivalence I might have about the choices that del Toro has made are offset by his obvious love for the books and, particularly in the case of the new film, the imagination he brings to his work on these adaptations. I don't think that there is a single wasted frame in Hellboy II. del Toro does everything with care and creativity, putting thought into details that lesser film makers would just gloss over (consider, as examples, the fact that he gives the tooth fairies personalities instead of just treating them as a horde of interchangeable pieces, or the way the death of the forest elemental is envisioned; in most cases the creature would have just gone splat, and that would be the end of it. Here, the death actually becomes a meaningful part of the narrative). del Toro also bothers to create a moral universe where the nature of the characters and the choices they make are rarely clear cut. Indeed, it is probably fair to say that the writer-director has a certain amount of sympathy with Nuada (Luke Goss), even though he is the putative villain. As with Sam Raimi and Bryan Singer, del Toro further demonstrates the value of hiring real artists to handle comic book material. Of course, one of the risks of hiring auteurist directors is that they may make choices that don't sit well with the already existing fandom for a set of books or characters. And, so here I am to prove that point, but I don't want to overstate my objections. I don't hate any of the choices I comment on below, but I am unsure about them. Liz and Hellboy. In the books, there is no Liz and Hellboy. Hellboy is, I think, best described as asexual. His friendship with Liz is no more romantic or intense than is his friendship with Abe or Roger or Kate, who is, it should be noted, more likely to be his field partner than is Liz. Liz's sexuality isn't much of an issue in the texts either. Indeed, in the hands of Mignola and Guy Davis, Liz is about as far from the stereotypical comic book babe as you can get without making her &ldquo;ugly&rdquo; &ndash; she dresses sensibly, and looks like a normally proportioned woman. Of course, "normal" here is pretty relative. Mignola's work is often described as expressionist for a reason, while I would describe Davis' work on BPRD as a sort of cartoonish realism with characters drawn on a very human, as opposed to super human, scale. Even given the &ldquo;canonical&rdquo; treatment of these characters, as evident in the Weird Tales books, del Toro is hardly the first guest artist to show a fascination with Hellboy's and Liz's sexualities, although their relationship is unique to the movies. And re-imaginings of both that seek to explore or invent such dimensions of the characters are entirely understandable, if predictable where Liz is concerned (the whole fear-attraction dynamic of girl &ldquo;firestarters&rdquo; lends itself to sexual/romantic imaginings, for both better and worse). del Toro takes Liz and Hellboy's relationship to another level in The Golden Army not only by having Hellboy (Ron Perlman) and Liz (Selma Blair) living together as a couple, but also by making Liz pregnant. Making a central female character either pregnant or having them be raped is a clich&eacute; in the superhero world. The effect, or maybe explicit purpose, of these devices is to mark the character as irreducibly different from the real, that is, male, heroes. No matter what her skills or powers, rape and/or pregnancy emphasizes that she is ultimately, &ldquo;just a chick&rdquo;, and as a chick, she is inherently limited by her body. These are tools which maintain male supremacy in the comics by rendering women as always more vulnerable and less capable than men (and, just to be clear, I'm not saying that women actually are inherently more vulnerable and less capable than men; I'm saying that rape and pregnancy are often used so as to affirm that impression, at least in comics, and in fantasy and science fiction more broadly. They are narrative tools which ensure that female characters remain within the predominant comfort zones of the presumptively hetero-male audience/readership). I'm not sure that these purposes necessarily hold on a conscious level in Hellboy II. There isn't a single moment in the film where Liz is sidelined by some male authority figure because of her pregnancy. Hellboy doesn't even make a special point of facing down Nuada and the Golden Army for his unborn children (yes, he is motivated to &ldquo;get up&rdquo; by Liz's love and the prospect of being a father, but there is no big moment where he overtly tries to protect Liz from harm due to the pregnancy, nor does he issue his challenge to Nuada with some declaration about his woman or his children; he pretty much just does what he always does, which is to take on the big bad with fearlessness and wise-cracks). And, arguably, it even pays off in a nice scene where Liz literally stands by her man and outs herself as a &ldquo;freak&rdquo; when she doesn't need to (unlike the other BPRD &ldquo;freaks&rdquo; she can pass as normal, at least until she loses control of her power and burns a city block down or some such thing). But the fact remains that there is a certain predictability to moving from Hellboy and Liz being romantically involved to Liz being pregnant. In del Toro's favor is that fact that, despite the actual suggestion of sex, he doesn't tart Liz up. While her BPRD uniform is hardly a sack, it is entirely functional, the best index of which is her military-styled boots; not a stiletto in sight. Even with the two &ldquo;lingerie shots&rdquo; in the new film, Liz is wearing underwear that seems entirely appropriate to how she dresses for field missions; sexy, yes, but only insofar as anything relatively slight and formfitting is going to look good on Blair (think the undergarments that the pilots on Battlestar Galactica wear). And, to be fair, both Abe and Hellboy are shown walking around in nothing more than their boxers, or, at least, shorts than might as well be boxers. On balance, the influence of the &ldquo;male gaze&rdquo; on Liz is pretty muted, especially alongside most comparable characters in other superhero comic book films and TV. This is true even as compared to the Liz in the animated movies where she is visualized as much more of a &ldquo;hottie&rdquo;, pun not intended. In that regard, it also should be noted that she is very much an active field agent, and not a victim, especially in the new film (you can argue about the extent to which she doesn't get to be in on the action, but I don't think she's any less marginal relative to Hellboy than any other agent. She's a strong, assertive personality with a power that is only dwarfed by what Hellboy reputedly contains within him). I think that the gender dynamics broached by the Hellboy-Liz relationship in the movies is complicated. What Liz's pregnancy actually portends for the films will probably have to wait for Hellboy III (should it come to be). I think it would be interesting to see a comic book or comic book movie take seriously the question of pregnancy, instead of simply using it to render a character as vulnerable or passive. Probably more than anything, my current ambivalence about making these two characters romantically involved is that it sets this relationship apart from Hellboy's other friendships at the BPRD. In the books, Hellboy is everyone's good friend and is a defender of all of the agency's freaks (a key reason why he leaves the BPRD). I'm also sure that one reason why Kate Corrigan is not in the films is to keep things simple with regards to Liz and Hellboy, which is a pity, because Kate's a good character (I also have to say that the BPRD is generally a very male operation in the films, which it isn't necessarily in the books). Characterization of Abe. In the books, Abe Sapien is just an expert field agent. The only thing supernatural about him is, well, him. In the movies, as played by Doug Jones and voiced by David Hyde Pierce in the first movie, he's more of a researcher and mystic than an action-oriented agent. If I had to choose, which, of course, I don't, I'd probably pick the Abe of the books over the Abe of the films, but that's only because I feel I know the guy in the comics better than I know the guy in the movies, or maybe I'm just sticking with the familiar. In any case, the changes that del Toro has made are perfectly understandable. As a narrative medium, film is more intensive than comics are or can be, and making Abe the &ldquo;brains&rdquo; of the operation probably gives him more to do than if he was largely another action man like Hellboy. In the comics, there is more time and opportunity to show Abe in the field, and even given that, it was likely necessary to split Hellboy from the BPRD to give the other characters more room to breathe. Most importantly, nothing that del Toro has done with the character changes anything basic about him. However, the introduction of Johann Krauss (voiced by Seth MacFarlane) puts the initial characterization of Abe in a different light. So ... Characterization of Johann Krauss. I would argue that del Toro takes more liberties with Krauss than he does with any of the other core characters. This starts with his look. In both cases he remains an ectoplasmic man, but the suit for containing his essence is radically different between the books and the movie. In the comics, his containment suit is fairly simple and modern in design, and, indeed, he often is able to dress in standard BPRD wear on top of it when he needs to. By contrast, del Toro has outfitted in him in what looks like a Victorian era diving suit with an insectoid head. I warmed up to the new look over time, or maybe just to the character, but it does imply a very different timeline for Johann. In the comics, he finds himself bereft of his body in 2003, well past when you would come up with a get-up like in the movie. Of course, given that Bruttenholm (John Hurt) is supposed to have created the suit, maybe del Toro just likes the way the suit looks. To be sure, it is not the only evidence of a steam punk aesthetic in Hellboy II, nor is Victoriana unseen in the Hellboy/BPRD universe. The look aside, the officious German team leader in the film is pretty different from the more introverted medium in the comics. In fact, in the books, I would characterize Johann as being more heart than head, very different from the rationalistic bureaucrat in the new movie. del Toro comes back around to this characterization by the end of Hellboy II, but by that point he had already fundamentally changed the nature of the character. In relation to Abe, what Johann does, which is to animate and speak to the spirits of the dead, is similar to the former's mystical sensory powers. One way of distinguishing between the two is through the decision to ramp up Johann's power, making him into a kind of self-willed poltergeist as well as a medium. As a result, he and not Abe, or Liz, gets to fight the Golden Army next to Hellboy, not to mention smacking the big red guy around a little in an earlier scene. As with Liz's pregnancy, it will take another film to see how Johann pans out, and what his presence portends for Abe's role. The secrecy of the BPRD. While not strictly speaking a character issue, it is also the case that one of the major differences between the books and the films is Manning's (Jeffrey Tambor) emphasis on the team operating on the QT. It isn't so much that the BPRD of the books is operating out in the open, but that the issue of secrecy just doesn't come up. We rarely see them interacting with people who haven't already seen some pretty weird things that, I suppose, make Abe, Johann, Liz et al seem fairly believable. In other words, in the comics Hellboy and the BPRD are both firmly in and of the world, whereas in the films the conceit is that they are in the world, but not quite of it. Where this focus on secrecy is most problematic for me is in how it is treated as a fixation of Hellboy's. I don't actually feel his desire to be embraced by the world, nor do I think it adds much to the character to give him that desire. I prefer the way that the Hellboy in the comics simply acts without much regard to such questions. Either people accept him in the same honest way he does them or they don't. There's a charming innocence to the paper character that is at least diminished by the movie character's celebrity desire, however slight and fundamentally about acceptance it is. And while there are some good tabloid jokes in the first movie that come from this premise, I'm actually more intrigued by the idea of the BPRD operating in a world where they may be unique, but not entirely alien. Aside from these adaptation questions, the one additional nit I would pick about Hellboy II is that its underlying mythology can't quite be contained by a single film. As the beautifully rendered prologue/bedtime story indicates, del Toro certainly understands this and takes steps to address the problem, but I don't think he quite manages to convey the depth of the world that must exist in his head and notes, and probably in Mignola's as well. At the end of the film, I felt like I had only grazed the surface of the deep mythic structure of the narrative. Of course, this problem also points to enormity of del Toro's imagination, and I'd much rather see a film maker of his intelligence and skill managing the cinematic Hellboy than some hack who slavishly hews to the print canon of a beloved character. (For another take on the differences between the comics and the movies, see Mike Russell's latest CulturePulp comic). *He also plays around with elements from smaller stories, such as this. Belated post-script: I was ever so slightly bummed that the scene with young Hellboy watching TV wasn't taken as an opportunity to sneak in a reference to Lobster Johnson (maybe Dark Horse is saving him for his own film. Hmmm. Doubtful, but still ...). Originally posted on:Short-Circuit Signs http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/7/2/32031.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 7/2/2008 2:01:03 PM
Body: Jonathan Levine’s crowd-pleasing (in terms of audience awards at festivals, not in terms of uplifting Hollywood endings) film The Wackness opens in limited release tomorrow. In case you haven’t noticed from the ads and the soundtrack, it takes place in the New York City of 1994, a special time for the place because Rudy Giuliani had just become mayor and was beginning to clean up the city, Goldie Wilson-stylee (OK, not really Goldie Wilson-stylee, but who doesn’t love a good BTTF reference?). NYC in the ’90s was quite special for me. It’s when I moved here. And moved here a second time (I’ve since moved here a third time), and watching The Wackness made me nostalgic for the decade. It also made me think of some of the other films from or set in that period, a number of which kind of define my experience with the city. 1990: Quick Change - It’s a bit ironic that this comedy, which features Bill Murray putting down the city non-stop, is the movie that really represents NYC on film for me. Actually, considering Tootsie was probably my first exposure to NYC on screen and Ghostbusters was the movie that made me want to visit Manhattan more often (I grew up in nearby Connecticut), I guess Murray was kind of like my ambassador to New York. My current jogging route goes through a neighborhood that’s prominently used in Quick Change, and whenever I pass the spot where I can see the Statue of Liberty across the bay, I think of the movie and have trouble believing anyone could want to get out of here as much as Murray’s character does. 1991: The Fisher King - One of my favorite spots in all of NYC is Grand Central Terminal, partially because it was my gateway to the city but mostly because of this film’s employment of the station for a fantasy waltz number in the main concourse. It’s one of my favorite scenes in film history, though I’m not quite sure if I love the scene because I already loved the station or if I fell in love with the station because of this scene. 1992: Definitely, Maybe - I can’t think of many movies that look back to NYC in the ’90s the way The Wackness does. There’s Austin Chick’s XX/XY, which I haven’t seen, and there’s this recent movie, which flashes back to 1992 and then continues through the decade. Two fun little gags I appreciated as a NYC settler are the bit about cigarettes costing so much more here and the spot-on comment about how one day suddenly everyone in the city had a cell phone, which they haven’t put down since. 1993: Manhattan Murder Mystery - Obviously there has to be a Woody Allen movie on this list. It may not be the best, but it’s Allen’s New York, it’s from 1993, and it’s got that great Cole Porter song at the beginning. 1994: Leon (The Professional) - The Wackness will now take over the 1994 spot, but the previous place holder was this action classic. It’s nice, because it has a sort of outsider’s perspective of the city — thanks to both the lead character and the director hailing from France — that I still had at the time. Much of the movie, though, lacks the strong touristy, landmark-heavy NYC that a lot of movies set here display (you can barely even make out the Twin Towers in the opening montage). And had it been made a few years later, it probably wouldn’t have even been shot here. Fortunately, it was, and I got my first cinematic introduction to the Roosevelt Island tram (years before seeing it in Spider-Man), which I’ll always be afraid of riding. 1995: Kids - I saw Larry Clark’s film a few weeks before moving to Manhattan for school, and I thought it would prepare me for the worst. But aside from seeing Chloe Sevigny around the neighborhood, I actually didn’t come in contact with a lot of kids like those featured in the movie. Of course, I was hanging out with nerdy film students, not local high schoolers. 1996: Girl 6 - I admit, I’ve never seen this, but just as with Woody, this list has to include one film from Spike Lee. And this one is at least appropriate to my experience, because my acting teacher at the time plays an acting teacher in the film. 1997: Escape from New York - Thanks to Giuliani, the NYC of ‘97 didn’t look like it did in John Carpenter’s science fiction film, which came out back in 1981. Of course, some people felt like Giuliani made Manhattan more like a prison than was depicted on screen. 1998: Godzilla - In the same summer, moviegoers saw parts of NYC destroyed in Armageddon, Deep Impact and Godzilla. So why am I including the worst one, which also made the least amount of money — also the one I actually didn’t bother seeing? Because while it was being made, there were tanks all over the part of Manhattan that I frequented, and though I eventually knew what they were there for, I never got over the surreal feeling of being in a city occupied by the U.S. military (on 9/11 the surreal actually became real, with soldiers visible everywhere, making it all the more significant in retrospect). 1999: Eyes Wide Shut - Closing out the decade is Kubrick’s final film, which he shot in England but set in NYC. Despite an attempt to make it look very accurate — I remember reading about the production’s specific import of Village Voice boxes for the occasion — it’s one of the least authentic-looking New York films of the era. At least it doesn’t feature the Rocky Mountains in the background, though. Bonus: Tour - This addition is blatant self-promotion, as the documentary features me and the ska band I was in. But it’s particularly fitting because it shows NYC in the last week of the ’90s, when we departed for a Southeastern U.S. tour, and it ends with us returning to the city mid-January 2000. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Wed, 02 Jul 2008 18:01:03 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com7/2/2008 2:01:03 PM Jonathan Levine’s crowd-pleasing (in terms of audience awards at festivals, not in terms of uplifting Hollywood endings) film The Wackness opens in limited release tomorrow. In case you haven’t noticed from the ads and the soundtrack, it takes place in the New York City of 1994, a special time for the place because Rudy Giuliani had just become mayor and was beginning to clean up the city, Goldie Wilson-stylee (OK, not really Goldie Wilson-stylee, but who doesn’t love a good BTTF reference?). NYC in the ’90s was quite special for me. It’s when I moved here. And moved here a second time (I’ve since moved here a third time), and watching The Wackness made me nostalgic for the decade. It also made me think of some of the other films from or set in that period, a number of which kind of define my experience with the city. 1990: Quick Change - It’s a bit ironic that this comedy, which features Bill Murray putting down the city non-stop, is the movie that really represents NYC on film for me. Actually, considering Tootsie was probably my first exposure to NYC on screen and Ghostbusters was the movie that made me want to visit Manhattan more often (I grew up in nearby Connecticut), I guess Murray was kind of like my ambassador to New York. My current jogging route goes through a neighborhood that’s prominently used in Quick Change, and whenever I pass the spot where I can see the Statue of Liberty across the bay, I think of the movie and have trouble believing anyone could want to get out of here as much as Murray’s character does. 1991: The Fisher King - One of my favorite spots in all of NYC is Grand Central Terminal, partially because it was my gateway to the city but mostly because of this film’s employment of the station for a fantasy waltz number in the main concourse. It’s one of my favorite scenes in film history, though I’m not quite sure if I love the scene because I already loved the station or if I fell in love with the station because of this scene. 1992: Definitely, Maybe - I can’t think of many movies that look back to NYC in the ’90s the way The Wackness does. There’s Austin Chick’s XX/XY, which I haven’t seen, and there’s this recent movie, which flashes back to 1992 and then continues through the decade. Two fun little gags I appreciated as a NYC settler are the bit about cigarettes costing so much more here and the spot-on comment about how one day suddenly everyone in the city had a cell phone, which they haven’t put down since. 1993: Manhattan Murder Mystery - Obviously there has to be a Woody Allen movie on this list. It may not be the best, but it’s Allen’s New York, it’s from 1993, and it’s got that great Cole Porter song at the beginning. 1994: Leon (The Professional) - The Wackness will now take over the 1994 spot, but the previous place holder was this action classic. It’s nice, because it has a sort of outsider’s perspective of the city — thanks to both the lead character and the director hailing from France — that I still had at the time. Much of the movie, though, lacks the strong touristy, landmark-heavy NYC that a lot of movies set here display (you can barely even make out the Twin Towers in the opening montage). And had it been made a few years later, it probably wouldn’t have even been shot here. Fortunately, it was, and I got my first cinematic introduction to the Roosevelt Island tram (years before seeing it in Spider-Man), which I’ll always be afraid of riding. 1995: Kids - I saw Larry Clark’s film a few weeks before moving to Manhattan for school, and I thought it would prepare me for the worst. But aside from seeing Chloe Sevigny around the neighborhood, I actually didn’t come in contact with a lot of kids like those featured in the movie. Of course, I was hanging out with nerdy film students, not local high schoolers. 1996: Girl 6 - I admit, I’ve never seen this, but just as with Woody, this list has to include one film from Spike Lee. And this one is at least appropriate to my experience, because my acting teacher at the time plays an acting teacher in the film. 1997: Escape from New York - Thanks to Giuliani, the NYC of ‘97 didn’t look like it did in John Carpenter’s science fiction film, which came out back in 1981. Of course, some people felt like Giuliani made Manhattan more like a prison than was depicted on screen. 1998: Godzilla - In the same summer, moviegoers saw parts of NYC destroyed in Armageddon, Deep Impact and Godzilla. So why am I including the worst one, which also made the least amount of money — also the one I actually didn’t bother seeing? Because while it was being made, there were tanks all over the part of Manhattan that I frequented, and though I eventually knew what they were there for, I never got over the surreal feeling of being in a city occupied by the U.S. military (on 9/11 the surreal actually became real, with soldiers visible everywhere, making it all the more significant in retrospect). 1999: Eyes Wide Shut - Closing out the decade is Kubrick’s final film, which he shot in England but set in NYC. Despite an attempt to make it look very accurate — I remember reading about the production’s specific import of Village Voice boxes for the occasion — it’s one of the least authentic-looking New York films of the era. At least it doesn’t feature the Rocky Mountains in the background, though. Bonus: Tour - This addition is blatant self-promotion, as the documentary features me and the ska band I was in. But it’s particularly fitting because it shows NYC in the last week of the ’90s, when we departed for a Southeastern U.S. tour, and it ends with us returning to the city mid-January 2000. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/6/26/31749.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 6/26/2008 5:00:43 PM
Body: Over the weekend, Wanted had a 100% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes.com. It’s since gone down to 81% (at the time of this writing — and with top critics it’s down to 67%), though that’s still pretty good for a movie that initially looked like just another Matrix knockoff. But will the good reviews make for great box office? Last night, while viewing the latest trailer in a theater with some friends, I mentioned that Wanted was receiving great reviews. Nobody believed me at first, and then they didn’t care; they still thought it looked terrible. Good reviews rarely help an action movie, and bad reviews rarely deter audiences from seeing them. However, if we look at the top 5 most critically acclaimed action movies, it’s clear that people do often prefer a good action film to a bad one. The next 5, on the other hand… The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King (2003) Rotten Tomatoes’ “T-Meter” score: 94% (top critics: 98%) All Time Domestic Box Office Rank: #9 ($377 million) Sample Critic Quote: “The film event of the millennium.” (Richard Corliss, Time) My Analysis: In terms of both reviews and gross, it is possible that, yes, this final LOTR film was the film event of the millennium only three years in. It even won the Oscar for Best Picture, as well as ten other Academy Awards. However, we do have a few hundred years left, and Corliss’ assessment is likely to be challenged one of these centuries. Casino Royale (2006) Rotten Tomatoes’ “T-Meter” score: 94% (top critics: 95%) All Time Domestic Box Office Rank: #133 ($167.5 million) Sample Critic Quote: “This is the best James Bond film in at least 17 years, and Daniel Craig might be the best 007 … ever.” (Eric D. Snider, EricDSnider.com) My Analysis: Most critics and audiences agreed that this was one of the best 007 films ever and that Craig was at least the best Bond since Connery. Still, it only grossed a mere $7 million more than Die Another Day, which was certified rotten by RT. The Bourne Ultimatum (2007) Rotten Tomatoes’ “T-Meter” score: 93% (top critics: 97%) All Time Domestic Box Office Rank: #62 ($227.5 million) Sample Critic Quote: “It is probably the best action films to date that doesn’t involved so much special effects.” (Wilson Morales, BlackFilm.com) My Analysis: I agree that it’s the best of the series and one of the best action movies in years, maybe even best to date not involving special effects, as Morales says. But really the only reason that Ultimatum is higher up on the b.o. charts than The Bourne Identity and The Bourne Supremacy is because people took awhile to get into the series, with many of Ultimatum’s audience having seen the previous two for the first time on DVD. Still, along with both Return of the King and Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, it’s one of the rare threequels that earned the highest gross of its series. Considering Return, that says one thing, while considering Indy, that says something else. Spider-Man 2 (2004) Rotten Tomatoes’ “T-Meter” score: 93% (top critics: 95%) All Time Domestic Box Office Rank: #10 ($373.6 million) Sample Critic Quote: “[It's sure to] join the upper echelons of action movies like Raiders of the Lost Ark, The Empire Strikes Back, and Die Hard.” (Jeffrey Overstreet, Looking Closer) My Analysis: If this sequel were switched in ranking with its predecessor (see below), it might say something more about reviews equaling revenue, but otherwise between the two installments, there is evidence that good superhero movies will perform better than bad ones. Just don’t pay any attention to Spider-Man 3, which is also pretty close on the b.o. charts, but which is pretty far below in RT ranking (62%, whole; 44%, top critics). Iron Man (2008) Rotten Tomatoes’ “T-Meter” score: 93% (top critics: 92%) All Time Domestic Box Office Rank: #26 ($305.9 million and counting) Sample Critic Quote: “It’s the best movie of its kind since the second Spider-Man movie four years ago.” (Mick LaSalle, San Francisco Chronicle) My Analysis: Fitting to LaSalle’s quote that Iron Man is just behind Spider-Man 2, and with only another $70 million to go in order to be just behind it on the b.o. chart. Unfortunately, as far as ticket sales show, it’s really only the best movie of its kind since the third Spider-Man movie one year ago. Spy Kids (2001) Rotten Tomatoes’ “T-Meter” score: 92% (top critics: 96%) All Time Domestic Box Office Rank: #309 ($112.7 million) Sample Critic Quote: “To sum up, if you want your children to someday appreciate the true art of cinema, Spy Kids is a terrific movie to start with.” (Bob Strauss, Los Angeles Daily News) My Analysis: If by “true art of cinema” Strauss means the kind of action movies that receive good reviews, then he’s right. Film critics love the well-directed spy movies (see #2 and #3). As for kids, they don’t care about reviews, which explains why Alvin and the Chipmunks made almost double what Spy Kids grossed. Out of Sight (1998) Rotten Tomatoes’ “T-Meter” score: 92% (top critics: 90%) All Time Domestic Box Office Rank: #1,395 ($37.6 million) Sample Critic Quote: “In a summer filled with mega-hyped disappointments, Out of Sight proves the undeniable value of story, characterization, and — most of all — intelligence.” (Mike McGranaghan, Aisle Seat) My Analysis: The mega-hyped disappointments of that summer include Godzilla, which made about $100 million more than this film. Of course, Out of Sight isn’t really an action-packed action movie, and it only starred George Clooney, who despite being a huge movie star has never really been that big a box office draw. Meanwhile, 1998’s biggest box office winner, the more-action-packed Saving Private Ryan (which RT apparently doesn’t consider to be an action movie), was also one of the five best-reviewed films of the year. Hot Fuzz (2007) Rotten Tomatoes’ “T-Meter” score: 90% (top critics: 92%) All Time Domestic Box Office Rank: #2,029 ($23.6 million) Sample Critic Quote: “Hot Fuzz is everything an action-comedy should be. It achieves through parody what most films in the genre can’t accomplish straight.” (Nathan Rabin, The Onion A.V. Club) My Analysis: The best action buddy comedy in ten years, yet it’s gross is hardly comparable to the box office success of the Rush Hour movies, Bad Boys II, Lethal Weapon 4 and … Starsky & Hutch? Even Jimmy Fallon’s Taxi performed better domestically. Rescue Dawn (2006) Rotten Tomatoes’ “T-Meter” score: 90% (top critics: 88%) All Time Domestic Box Office Rank: #3,970 ($5.5 million) Sample Critic Quote: “A potentially commercial audience-pleaser that retains all of the characteristic Herzog complexity and nuance, Rescue Dawn is an electrifying action adventure that clamps your nerves with jaws of steel.” (Rex Reed, New York Observer) My Analysis: Too bad more moviegoers don’t read Rex Reed, because that’s a mighty good sell. Unfortunately, Rescue Dawn suffered a double blow because of who directed it. Critics certainly overpraised it, just because it’s an Herzog film; audiences likely avoided it because of the same reason (not by name, but had it opened bigger right away, audiences wouldn’t have even noticed the art house connection and might have gone to see the new action movie starring “Batman”). Spider-Man (2002) Rotten Tomatoes’ “T-Meter” score: 90% (top critics: 85%) All Time Domestic Box Office Rank: #7 ($403.7 million) Sample Critic Quote: “Let the gauntlet be thrown: Spider-Man may be the best comic adaptation of all time.” (Todd Gilchrest, FilmStew.com) My Analysis: In terms of box office receipts, it is indeed the best comic adaptation of all time. But as we see by two titles above, it’s since been beat in terms of critical acclaim, just in this decade alone (and from earlier, at least Superman: The Movie has a better RT score). Still, it would almost be evidence that critics and box office can sometimes go hand in hand if it weren’t for that certified rotten movie that ranks just above it on the box office chart: Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Thu, 26 Jun 2008 21:00:43 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com6/26/2008 5:00:43 PMOver the weekend, Wanted had a 100% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes.com. It’s since gone down to 81% (at the time of this writing — and with top critics it’s down to 67%), though that’s still pretty good for a movie that initially looked like just another Matrix knockoff. But will the good reviews make for great box office? Last night, while viewing the latest trailer in a theater with some friends, I mentioned that Wanted was receiving great reviews. Nobody believed me at first, and then they didn’t care; they still thought it looked terrible. Good reviews rarely help an action movie, and bad reviews rarely deter audiences from seeing them. However, if we look at the top 5 most critically acclaimed action movies, it’s clear that people do often prefer a good action film to a bad one. The next 5, on the other hand… The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King (2003) Rotten Tomatoes’ “T-Meter” score: 94% (top critics: 98%) All Time Domestic Box Office Rank: #9 ($377 million) Sample Critic Quote: “The film event of the millennium.” (Richard Corliss, Time) My Analysis: In terms of both reviews and gross, it is possible that, yes, this final LOTR film was the film event of the millennium only three years in. It even won the Oscar for Best Picture, as well as ten other Academy Awards. However, we do have a few hundred years left, and Corliss’ assessment is likely to be challenged one of these centuries. Casino Royale (2006) Rotten Tomatoes’ “T-Meter” score: 94% (top critics: 95%) All Time Domestic Box Office Rank: #133 ($167.5 million) Sample Critic Quote: “This is the best James Bond film in at least 17 years, and Daniel Craig might be the best 007 … ever.” (Eric D. Snider, EricDSnider.com) My Analysis: Most critics and audiences agreed that this was one of the best 007 films ever and that Craig was at least the best Bond since Connery. Still, it only grossed a mere $7 million more than Die Another Day, which was certified rotten by RT. The Bourne Ultimatum (2007) Rotten Tomatoes’ “T-Meter” score: 93% (top critics: 97%) All Time Domestic Box Office Rank: #62 ($227.5 million) Sample Critic Quote: “It is probably the best action films to date that doesn’t involved so much special effects.” (Wilson Morales, BlackFilm.com) My Analysis: I agree that it’s the best of the series and one of the best action movies in years, maybe even best to date not involving special effects, as Morales says. But really the only reason that Ultimatum is higher up on the b.o. charts than The Bourne Identity and The Bourne Supremacy is because people took awhile to get into the series, with many of Ultimatum’s audience having seen the previous two for the first time on DVD. Still, along with both Return of the King and Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, it’s one of the rare threequels that earned the highest gross of its series. Considering Return, that says one thing, while considering Indy, that says something else. Spider-Man 2 (2004) Rotten Tomatoes’ “T-Meter” score: 93% (top critics: 95%) All Time Domestic Box Office Rank: #10 ($373.6 million) Sample Critic Quote: “[It's sure to] join the upper echelons of action movies like Raiders of the Lost Ark, The Empire Strikes Back, and Die Hard.” (Jeffrey Overstreet, Looking Closer) My Analysis: If this sequel were switched in ranking with its predecessor (see below), it might say something more about reviews equaling revenue, but otherwise between the two installments, there is evidence that good superhero movies will perform better than bad ones. Just don’t pay any attention to Spider-Man 3, which is also pretty close on the b.o. charts, but which is pretty far below in RT ranking (62%, whole; 44%, top critics). Iron Man (2008) Rotten Tomatoes’ “T-Meter” score: 93% (top critics: 92%) All Time Domestic Box Office Rank: #26 ($305.9 million and counting) Sample Critic Quote: “It’s the best movie of its kind since the second Spider-Man movie four years ago.” (Mick LaSalle, San Francisco Chronicle) My Analysis: Fitting to LaSalle’s quote that Iron Man is just behind Spider-Man 2, and with only another $70 million to go in order to be just behind it on the b.o. chart. Unfortunately, as far as ticket sales show, it’s really only the best movie of its kind since the third Spider-Man movie one year ago. Spy Kids (2001) Rotten Tomatoes’ “T-Meter” score: 92% (top critics: 96%) All Time Domestic Box Office Rank: #309 ($112.7 million) Sample Critic Quote: “To sum up, if you want your children to someday appreciate the true art of cinema, Spy Kids is a terrific movie to start with.” (Bob Strauss, Los Angeles Daily News) My Analysis: If by “true art of cinema” Strauss means the kind of action movies that receive good reviews, then he’s right. Film critics love the well-directed spy movies (see #2 and #3). As for kids, they don’t care about reviews, which explains why Alvin and the Chipmunks made almost double what Spy Kids grossed. Out of Sight (1998) Rotten Tomatoes’ “T-Meter” score: 92% (top critics: 90%) All Time Domestic Box Office Rank: #1,395 ($37.6 million) Sample Critic Quote: “In a summer filled with mega-hyped disappointments, Out of Sight proves the undeniable value of story, characterization, and — most of all — intelligence.” (Mike McGranaghan, Aisle Seat) My Analysis: The mega-hyped disappointments of that summer include Godzilla, which made about $100 million more than this film. Of course, Out of Sight isn’t really an action-packed action movie, and it only starred George Clooney, who despite being a huge movie star has never really been that big a box office draw. Meanwhile, 1998’s biggest box office winner, the more-action-packed Saving Private Ryan (which RT apparently doesn’t consider to be an action movie), was also one of the five best-reviewed films of the year. Hot Fuzz (2007) Rotten Tomatoes’ “T-Meter” score: 90% (top critics: 92%) All Time Domestic Box Office Rank: #2,029 ($23.6 million) Sample Critic Quote: “Hot Fuzz is everything an action-comedy should be. It achieves through parody what most films in the genre can’t accomplish straight.” (Nathan Rabin, The Onion A.V. Club) My Analysis: The best action buddy comedy in ten years, yet it’s gross is hardly comparable to the box office success of the Rush Hour movies, Bad Boys II, Lethal Weapon 4 and … Starsky & Hutch? Even Jimmy Fallon’s Taxi performed better domestically. Rescue Dawn (2006) Rotten Tomatoes’ “T-Meter” score: 90% (top critics: 88%) All Time Domestic Box Office Rank: #3,970 ($5.5 million) Sample Critic Quote: “A potentially commercial audience-pleaser that retains all of the characteristic Herzog complexity and nuance, Rescue Dawn is an electrifying action adventure that clamps your nerves with jaws of steel.” (Rex Reed, New York Observer) My Analysis: Too bad more moviegoers don’t read Rex Reed, because that’s a mighty good sell. Unfortunately, Rescue Dawn suffered a double blow because of who directed it. Critics certainly overpraised it, just because it’s an Herzog film; audiences likely avoided it because of the same reason (not by name, but had it opened bigger right away, audiences wouldn’t have even noticed the art house connection and might have gone to see the new action movie starring “Batman”). Spider-Man (2002) Rotten Tomatoes’ “T-Meter” score: 90% (top critics: 85%) All Time Domestic Box Office Rank: #7 ($403.7 million) Sample Critic Quote: “Let the gauntlet be thrown: Spider-Man may be the best comic adaptation of all time.” (Todd Gilchrest, FilmStew.com) My Analysis: In terms of box office receipts, it is indeed the best comic adaptation of all time. But as we see by two titles above, it’s since been beat in terms of critical acclaim, just in this decade alone (and from earlier, at least Superman: The Movie has a better RT score). Still, it would almost be evidence that critics and box office can sometimes go hand in hand if it weren’t for that certified rotten movie that ranks just above it on the box office chart: Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/usesoap/archive/2008/5/23/29825.aspx Post By: usesoap
Post To: usesoap Blog
Post Date: 5/23/2008 1:17:59 PM
Body: This is not going to be one of those columns that goes into a lengthy diatribe about the influence on Dr. Indiana Jones had on this reviewer’s life as a child. I refuse to prattle on about owning a fedora and a bullwhip used to scare the bejeezus out of the family dog, or the backyard films created as homage to “Raiders of the Lost Ark” and the countless scars and bruises that serve as a testament to my inexperience and/or stupidity in attempts to replicate the adventures of the intrepid archeologist. It seems that the prerequisite in reviewing this latest installment in the Indiana Jones canon, “Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” has almost every critic launching into some wistful rant on its impact of his/her life. And while I am certainly one to appreciate the personal power of cinematic experiences, I think this self-indulgent therapy session approach is a tad tiresome now. Let’s take “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” for what it is, without the nostalgic mist clouding my eyes. I will begin with stating that, as slavish as my devotion was, I do not consider the entire trilogy of Indiana Jones films as the be-all, end-all of adventure films. “Raiders” was, and remains, a masterwork of cinema – thrilling, thoughtful and thorough. Its sequels – “Temple of Doom” and “The Last Crusade” – had their strengths, but rose to levels nowhere near their source. So the thought of another entry two decades later held only slight promise. And there is much wish fulfillment to be found, but there are several critical elements that drag the tale into the catacombs of many Indy Come Lateleys, such as “The Mummy” and “National Treasure.” The film picks up 20 years after “The Last Crusade” in 1957, where Dr. Jones (played by Harrison Ford, duh!) finds himself in New Mexico searching for the eponymous object located in a government storage warehouse (keep your eyes peeled for flashes of his previous conquests located within). From here, he tangles with old-fashioned cinematic Russkies (headed by a Cate Blanchett, acting as though she stepped out of a “Rocky and Bullwinkle” cartoon), survives a point-blank impact of an atomic bomb, floats down not one, but three, waterfalls, eludes countless natives and soldiers who have apparently all been trained at the Keystone Kops Weaponry Training Academy, killer mutant ants, various auto and motorcycle chases and takes more punches than a speed bag. Honestly, were Wile E. Coyote and Road Runner out of budget range to make a cameo? I know Indy has survived many things – rolling boulders, a pit full of snakes, airplane crashes, Kate Capshaw – but by layering on so many narrow escapes, there was never a moment that felt as though he was honestly in any danger. The problem lies predominately in the script. In these last two decades, there have been countless attempts to jumpstart the series again from names like Chris Columbus (“Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone”), Jeb Stuart (“Die Hard” and “The Fugitive”), Frank Darabont (“The Shawshank Redemption”), George Lucas. Even M. Night Shyamalan is to have reported to take a stab at the legend. David Koepp (“Spider Man,” Jurassic Park”) was eventually hired to cobble together what feels like the “greatest hits” of all the previous drafts (and trust me, they are all available on the internet for those who snoop hard enough). There are elements, plot devices and characters that pop up for several scenes only to disappear for gaping sections of the film or are never heard from again (what’s up with those groundhogs?). Most notable of these slights is the character of Marion Ravenwood (played by Karen Allen). Looking game for adventure, Allen makes a grand entrance, only to serve as a getaway driver for the majority of her screen time. When Indy professes a still-burning flame for her, we want it to give us chills, but director Steven Spielberg has far too many hoops for his hero to jump through to get bogged down with emotional development of any sort. Shia LaBeouf, here playing a Indy’s young greaser sidekick by the name of Mutt, has been the source of much debate from fans who have not cozied up to the actor’s snarky style (but they were completely content with the whiny musings of Short Round in “Temple of Doom”?). Frankly, it was all for naught, as he is easily one of the few new elements in a film that has many other problems with which to deal. With all that said, there is still a level of comfort that can be found in “Skull,” but it is not in the Rube Goldberg archeological sites set up for the characters. It is more in the iconic shots of Indiana once again picking up his weathered fedora and placing it on his head; or when he and his college’s dean (played by a criminally underused Jim Broadbendt) briefly ruminate over their accelerated age; or the old-school motorcycle chase scene through campus involving more stunt work than pixels. Too often, the film succumbs to its bombastic tendencies, though, that severely diminish Indiana’s humanity and vulnerability that made him so accessible in the first place. He is now no more defenseless than any other CGI-enhanced superhero at the box office. Ironically, it’s all these attempts to stay “new” is what ages “Crystal Skull” the most. For in its seemingly relentless pursuit to appease the current box office action appetites, what true Indiana Jones fans want is less breakneck pace, more of the same old “hat.”
]]>Fri, 23 May 2008 17:17:59 GMTusesoapusesoap Blog5/23/2008 1:17:59 PMThis is not going to be one of those columns that goes into a lengthy diatribe about the influence on Dr. Indiana Jones had on this reviewer&rsquo;s life as a child. I refuse to prattle on about owning a fedora and a bullwhip used to scare the bejeezus out of the family dog, or the backyard films created as homage to &ldquo;Raiders of the Lost Ark&rdquo; and the countless scars and bruises that serve as a testament to my inexperience and/or stupidity in attempts to replicate the adventures of the intrepid archeologist. It seems that the prerequisite in reviewing this latest installment in the Indiana Jones canon, &ldquo;Kingdom of the Crystal Skull&rdquo; has almost every critic launching into some wistful rant on its impact of his/her life. And while I am certainly one to appreciate the personal power of cinematic experiences, I think this self-indulgent therapy session approach is a tad tiresome now. Let&rsquo;s take &ldquo;Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull&rdquo; for what it is, without the nostalgic mist clouding my eyes. I will begin with stating that, as slavish as my devotion was, I do not consider the entire trilogy of Indiana Jones films as the be-all, end-all of adventure films. &ldquo;Raiders&rdquo; was, and remains, a masterwork of cinema &ndash; thrilling, thoughtful and thorough. Its sequels &ndash; &ldquo;Temple of Doom&rdquo; and &ldquo;The Last Crusade&rdquo; &ndash; had their strengths, but rose to levels nowhere near their source. So the thought of another entry two decades later held only slight promise. And there is much wish fulfillment to be found, but there are several critical elements that drag the tale into the catacombs of many Indy Come Lateleys, such as &ldquo;The Mummy&rdquo; and &ldquo;National Treasure.&rdquo; The film picks up 20 years after &ldquo;The Last Crusade&rdquo; in 1957, where Dr. Jones (played by Harrison Ford, duh!) finds himself in New Mexico searching for the eponymous object located in a government storage warehouse (keep your eyes peeled for flashes of his previous conquests located within). From here, he tangles with old-fashioned cinematic Russkies (headed by a Cate Blanchett, acting as though she stepped out of a &ldquo;Rocky and Bullwinkle&rdquo; cartoon), survives a point-blank impact of an atomic bomb, floats down not one, but three, waterfalls, eludes countless natives and soldiers who have apparently all been trained at the Keystone Kops Weaponry Training Academy, killer mutant ants, various auto and motorcycle chases and takes more punches than a speed bag. Honestly, were Wile E. Coyote and Road Runner out of budget range to make a cameo? I know Indy has survived many things &ndash; rolling boulders, a pit full of snakes, airplane crashes, Kate Capshaw &ndash; but by layering on so many narrow escapes, there was never a moment that felt as though he was honestly in any danger. The problem lies predominately in the script. In these last two decades, there have been countless attempts to jumpstart the series again from names like Chris Columbus (&ldquo;Harry Potter and the Sorcerer&rsquo;s Stone&rdquo;), Jeb Stuart (&ldquo;Die Hard&rdquo; and &ldquo;The Fugitive&rdquo;), Frank Darabont (&ldquo;The Shawshank Redemption&rdquo;), George Lucas. Even M. Night Shyamalan is to have reported to take a stab at the legend. David Koepp (&ldquo;Spider Man,&rdquo; Jurassic Park&rdquo;) was eventually hired to cobble together what feels like the &ldquo;greatest hits&rdquo; of all the previous drafts (and trust me, they are all available on the internet for those who snoop hard enough). There are elements, plot devices and characters that pop up for several scenes only to disappear for gaping sections of the film or are never heard from again (what&rsquo;s up with those groundhogs?). Most notable of these slights is the character of Marion Ravenwood (played by Karen Allen). Looking game for adventure, Allen makes a grand entrance, only to serve as a getaway driver for the majority of her screen time. When Indy professes a still-burning flame for her, we want it to give us chills, but director Steven Spielberg has far too many hoops for his hero to jump through to get bogged down with emotional development of any sort. Shia LaBeouf, here playing a Indy&rsquo;s young greaser sidekick by the name of Mutt, has been the source of much debate from fans who have not cozied up to the actor&rsquo;s snarky style (but they were completely content with the whiny musings of Short Round in &ldquo;Temple of Doom&rdquo;?). Frankly, it was all for naught, as he is easily one of the few new elements in a film that has many other problems with which to deal. With all that said, there is still a level of comfort that can be found in &ldquo;Skull,&rdquo; but it is not in the Rube Goldberg archeological sites set up for the characters. It is more in the iconic shots of Indiana once again picking up his weathered fedora and placing it on his head; or when he and his college&rsquo;s dean (played by a criminally underused Jim Broadbendt) briefly ruminate over their accelerated age; or the old-school motorcycle chase scene through campus involving more stunt work than pixels. Too often, the film succumbs to its bombastic tendencies, though, that severely diminish Indiana&rsquo;s humanity and vulnerability that made him so accessible in the first place. He is now no more defenseless than any other CGI-enhanced superhero at the box office. Ironically, it&rsquo;s all these attempts to stay &ldquo;new&rdquo; is what ages &ldquo;Crystal Skull&rdquo; the most. For in its seemingly relentless pursuit to appease the current box office action appetites, what true Indiana Jones fans want is less breakneck pace, more of the same old &ldquo;hat.&rdquo; http://www.spout.com/blogs/kizmar/archive/2008/5/5/28186.aspx Post By: kizmar
Post To: iBlog
Post Date: 5/5/2008 10:34:22 AM
Body: I haven't looked forward to a movie coming out this much since The Matrix 2 was coming to theaters. I was pleasantly surprised by Iron Man and how well they told the story to someone that knew nothing about the comic book (me). I thought it was better then SpiderMan... better then any of the super hero/comic book movies I've seen so far actually. I would put it on par with Transformers - I loved that movie as well. Like all movies that will become the beginning of a series, there was a lot of story telling in this one - making room for more action in sequals. Speaking of that, make sure you stay through the end of the credits... ;)
]]>Mon, 05 May 2008 14:34:22 GMTkizmariBlog5/5/2008 10:34:22 AMI haven't looked forward to a movie coming out this much since The Matrix 2 was coming to theaters. I was pleasantly surprised by Iron Man and how well they told the story to someone that knew nothing about the comic book (me). I thought it was better then SpiderMan... better then any of the super hero/comic book movies I've seen so far actually. I would put it on par with Transformers - I loved that movie as well. Like all movies that will become the beginning of a series, there was a lot of story telling in this one - making room for more action in sequals. Speaking of that, make sure you stay through the end of the credits... ;) http://www.spout.com/groups/B_Movies/Re_7_Champagne/588/27860/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: SkyPilot
Post To: B Movies
Post Date: 4/26/2008 5:24:06 PM
Body: [quote user="porcupine"] What about former low-budget directors taking the helm of super hero mega-movies? I'm think particualrly of Sam Rami doing the Spider-Man movies and Christopher Nolan doing Batman Begins. You could accuse them of "selling out," but I think that phrase is pretty much meaningless. It's just a different phase of their careers. Personally I think that Nolan is moving into that phase waaaaaay better than Rami. [/quote] Kevin, Nolan may be an example of somebody who got better after getting money. I think the low-budget Following is weaker than all of his later films, but I wonder if that has more to do with experience than money. In other words, maybe his later movies don't seem indulgent and bloated (like Spiderman 2 and 3) because his skill is growing in equal proportion to the budget? [quote user="porcupine"] Speilberg got too big? Speilberg just became Speilberg. [/quote] RISSELADA: "Well I've still always wondered what Spielberg might do with a challenge to make a movie now on an extremely limited budget. I think the result might be something I would prefer to what he's able to make with his seemingly unlimited wealth." Kevin, I believe that when Rizzo says Spielberg "got too big" he's saying that Spielberg's later movies lack the energy of Duel and Jaws. What do you think about that, anyone? More generally though this seems to be a question about what gives a movie its verve: is it the filmmaker's youth? Is it the filmmaker's conviction in the subject? And how does the movie's budget play into this? This isn't just a question about movies, because every time we say of a musical act that we "like their earlier stuff better" I feel like we're getting at a similar issue.
]]>Sat, 26 Apr 2008 21:24:06 GMTSkyPilotB Movies4/26/2008 5:24:06 PM[quote user="porcupine"] What about former low-budget directors taking the helm of super hero mega-movies? I'm think particualrly of Sam Rami doing the Spider-Man movies and Christopher Nolan doing Batman Begins. You could accuse them of "selling out," but I think that phrase is pretty much meaningless. It's just a different phase of their careers. Personally I think that Nolan is moving into that phase waaaaaay better than Rami. [/quote] Kevin, Nolan may be an example of somebody who got better after getting money. I think the low-budget Following is weaker than all of his later films, but I wonder if that has more to do with experience than money. In other words, maybe his later movies don't seem indulgent and bloated (like Spiderman 2 and 3) because his skill is growing in equal proportion to the budget? [quote user="porcupine"] Speilberg got too big? Speilberg just became Speilberg. [/quote] RISSELADA: "Well I've still always wondered what Spielberg might do with a challenge to make a movie now on an extremely limited budget. I think the result might be something I would prefer to what he's able to make with his seemingly unlimited wealth." Kevin, I believe that when Rizzo says Spielberg "got too big" he's saying that Spielberg's later movies lack the energy of Duel and Jaws. What do you think about that, anyone? More generally though this seems to be a question about what gives a movie its verve: is it the filmmaker's youth? Is it the filmmaker's conviction in the subject? And how does the movie's budget play into this? This isn't just a question about movies, because every time we say of a musical act that we "like their earlier stuff better" I feel like we're getting at a similar issue. http://www.spout.com/groups/B_Movies/Re_7_Champagne/588/27758/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Risselada
Post To: B Movies
Post Date: 4/24/2008 1:05:27 PM
Body: [quote user="porcupine"] Speilberg got too big? Speilberg just became Speilberg. What about former low-budget directors taking the helm of super hero mega-movies? I'm think particualrly of Sam Rami doing the Spider-Man movies and Christopher Nolan doing Batman Begins. You could accuse them of "selling out," but I think that phrase is pretty much meaningless. It's just a different phase of their careers. Personally I think that Nolan is moving into that phase waaaaaay better than Rami. I just watched the first Spider-Man the other day, man that is a bad movie. You talked about Star Wars Episode I, go back and watch Spider-Man, the dialogue is just as bad. [/quote] Well I've still always wondered what Spielberg might do with a challenge to make a movie now on an extremely limited budget. I think the result might be something I would prefer to what he's able to make with his seemingly unlimited wealth. I wonder if sometimes we are more forgiving to a movie when we know it had to work with limitations, which makes it more impressive. I actually thought about mentioning Raimi as well. Sometimes he still seems to use B-movie techniques in his huge budget Spider-man films. Which leads me to believe he might almost still feel more comfortable in that role. And I agree with you that the first Spider-man ain't THAT great. And I heard the third was was the worst.
]]>Thu, 24 Apr 2008 17:05:27 GMTRisseladaB Movies4/24/2008 1:05:27 PM[quote user="porcupine"] Speilberg got too big? Speilberg just became Speilberg. What about former low-budget directors taking the helm of super hero mega-movies? I'm think particualrly of Sam Rami doing the Spider-Man movies and Christopher Nolan doing Batman Begins. You could accuse them of "selling out," but I think that phrase is pretty much meaningless. It's just a different phase of their careers. Personally I think that Nolan is moving into that phase waaaaaay better than Rami. I just watched the first Spider-Man the other day, man that is a bad movie. You talked about Star Wars Episode I, go back and watch Spider-Man, the dialogue is just as bad. [/quote] Well I've still always wondered what Spielberg might do with a challenge to make a movie now on an extremely limited budget. I think the result might be something I would prefer to what he's able to make with his seemingly unlimited wealth. I wonder if sometimes we are more forgiving to a movie when we know it had to work with limitations, which makes it more impressive. I actually thought about mentioning Raimi as well. Sometimes he still seems to use B-movie techniques in his huge budget Spider-man films. Which leads me to believe he might almost still feel more comfortable in that role. And I agree with you that the first Spider-man ain't THAT great. And I heard the third was was the worst. http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/love/MemberTagFilms.aspxlove
Number of films tagged: 12477

Number of people who tagged: 336

Number of times used: 1475

]]>Wed, 02 Dec 2009 23:13:41 GMT124773361475Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/funny/MemberTagFilms.aspxfunny
Number of films tagged: 606

Number of people who tagged: 315

Number of times used: 939

]]>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:40:23 GMT606315939Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Loved-It/MemberTagFilms.aspxLoved-It
Number of films tagged: 509

Number of people who tagged: 179

Number of times used: 921

]]>Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:56:35 GMT509179921Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/friendship/MemberTagFilms.aspxfriendship
Number of films tagged: 6791

Number of people who tagged: 154

Number of times used: 978

]]>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 00:50:40 GMT6791154978Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/movie/MemberTagFilms.aspxmovie
Number of films tagged: 363

Number of people who tagged: 114

Number of times used: 187

]]>Wed, 19 Aug 2009 16:09:46 GMT363114187Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/teenagers/MemberTagFilms.aspxteenagers
Number of films tagged: 3025

Number of people who tagged: 97

Number of times used: 398

]]>Wed, 02 Dec 2009 23:13:43 GMT302597398Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/film/MemberTagFilms.aspxfilm
Number of films tagged: 657

Number of people who tagged: 82

Number of times used: 190

]]>Tue, 22 Sep 2009 20:35:41 GMT65782190Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/highschool/MemberTagFilms.aspxhighschool
Number of films tagged: 864

Number of people who tagged: 81

Number of times used: 291

]]>Sun, 15 Nov 2009 12:23:33 GMT86481291Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/remake/MemberTagFilms.aspxremake
Number of films tagged: 155

Number of people who tagged: 71

Number of times used: 203

]]>Thu, 05 Nov 2009 01:13:01 GMT15571203Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/crime/MemberTagFilms.aspxcrime
Number of films tagged: 401

Number of people who tagged: 70

Number of times used: 303

]]>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:51:32 GMT40170303Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/superhero/MemberTagFilms.aspxsuperhero
Number of films tagged: 864

Number of people who tagged: 50

Number of times used: 127

]]>Sun, 19 Jul 2009 02:49:48 GMT86450127Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/hero/MemberTagFilms.aspxhero
Number of films tagged: 638

Number of people who tagged: 43

Number of times used: 141

]]>Wed, 26 Aug 2009 17:55:16 GMT63843141Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/evil/MemberTagFilms.aspxevil
Number of films tagged: 885

Number of people who tagged: 42

Number of times used: 79

]]>Mon, 24 Aug 2009 17:19:10 GMT8854279Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/comic/MemberTagFilms.aspxcomic
Number of films tagged: 44

Number of people who tagged: 35

Number of times used: 67

]]>Sun, 03 May 2009 07:06:48 GMT443567Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/goodvsevil/MemberTagFilms.aspxgoodvsevil
Number of films tagged: 742

Number of people who tagged: 25

Number of times used: 67

]]>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:42:51 GMT7422567Tag