The L.A. film critics group has made their choice for the BEST MOVIE OF THE YEAR. And the movie they chose was... the animated hit, WALL-E.
Seriously? That was the best they could come up with? Really? I saw WALL-E, I thought it was okay for kids. But to single it out as the BEST MOVIE OF THE YEAR?!! Did the year in movies really suck so much that an overrated cartoon beats all other movies, hands down?
Sheesh. Makes me wonder what the L.A. film critics are smoking.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Britney Spears’ new song, "Womanizer" -- worst song of the year
I have heard Britney Spears' new song, "Womanizer" -- and is easily the worst song of the year. (She also had the worst song of the year in 2001 with "I'm A Slave 4 u" and the worst song in 2006 with "Gimme More.")
I can't stand a song where the chorus is just the same word repeated over and over again. Let's look at the chorus for this masterpiece:
Womanizer, woman-womanizer, you're a womanizer, Oh womanizer, oh you're a womanizer, baby You you you are, you you you are Womanizer, womanizer, womanizer (womanizer)
How long did it take to write that? They couldn't find any words to rhyme with Womanizer? How about Paralyzer? Hypnotyizer? Analyzer? I just came up with that in 2 seconds and I'm not even trying! Let's face it, she hasn't had a good song since "Toxic."
At least she gets naked in the video, so it's not a total loss. But when it comes to recording crappy songs, I guess you could say, "Oops, she did it again!"
I can't stand a song where the chorus is just the same word repeated over and over again. Let's look at the chorus for this masterpiece:
Womanizer, woman-womanizer, you're a womanizer, Oh womanizer, oh you're a womanizer, baby You you you are, you you you are Womanizer, womanizer, womanizer (womanizer)
How long did it take to write that? They couldn't find any words to rhyme with Womanizer? How about Paralyzer? Hypnotyizer? Analyzer? I just came up with that in 2 seconds and I'm not even trying! Let's face it, she hasn't had a good song since "Toxic."
At least she gets naked in the video, so it's not a total loss. But when it comes to recording crappy songs, I guess you could say, "Oops, she did it again!"
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Another crappy Dane Cook movie
I see Dane Cook has a new movie out. He just keeps making one crappy movie after another. Is anyone seeing these things? I can't picture him ever making a good one.
They all have ridiculous plots with no basis in reality. He's either the guy who women want to sleep with because it means they will magically get married afterward, or the jerky guy who men want to hire to date their girlfriends... stupid stuff.
Dane Cook might be a good stand-up comic, but after GOOD LUCK CHUCK and MY BEST FRIEND'S GIRL, he should not be allowed to make any more movies.
They all have ridiculous plots with no basis in reality. He's either the guy who women want to sleep with because it means they will magically get married afterward, or the jerky guy who men want to hire to date their girlfriends... stupid stuff.
Dane Cook might be a good stand-up comic, but after GOOD LUCK CHUCK and MY BEST FRIEND'S GIRL, he should not be allowed to make any more movies.
Friday, August 22, 2008
TROPIC THUNDER VS. PINEAPPLE EXPRESS
TROPIC THUNDER is funnier. I was a big fan of Ben Stiller's old TV show in the 90s, and this movie is the closest thing he's done to his old show. It gets a little weak at the end, where Ben Stiller and Robert Downey Jr.'s characters each faces an identity crisis, and Matthew McConaughey shows up in Viet Nam from out of nowhere, but other than that, TT delivers.
PINEAPPLE EXPRESS is kind of lightweight. It's mildly entertaining, but seems lazily written. It gets by on the likability of the two lead actors.
But for sheer laughs, I have to go with TROPIC THUNDER.
PINEAPPLE EXPRESS is kind of lightweight. It's mildly entertaining, but seems lazily written. It gets by on the likability of the two lead actors.
But for sheer laughs, I have to go with TROPIC THUNDER.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
AMERICA'S BIGGEST ASSHOLE!
Yesterday I auditioned for a new reality TV show where they are looking for guys who can be funny and act like jerks.The show is tentatively called called AMERICA'S BIGGEST ASSHOLE!
It is a comedy show where the guys play mean pranks on each other until finally one guy gets voted the biggest asshole in America.I don't really think I am the biggest a-hole in the USA, but it sounds like a funny show, anyway.
I doubt they will get to use that title, though.Too bad.It is a great one!
It is a comedy show where the guys play mean pranks on each other until finally one guy gets voted the biggest asshole in America.I don't really think I am the biggest a-hole in the USA, but it sounds like a funny show, anyway.
I doubt they will get to use that title, though.Too bad.It is a great one!
Thursday, August 7, 2008
No More Super-Hero Movies!
A Longtime Comics Fan Pleads: No More Super-Hero Movies!
By Barry Dutter
I thought the Dark Knight would be different. I thought this would be the one where Hollywood finally gets it right.
Instead, the movie was overlong, sloppily plotted and a huge disappointment – just like every other super-hero movie from the past 30 years.
Theoretically, we are in a Golden Age of movies based on comic book characters. Every year sees at least three or four major new releases, with dozens more announced as being on the way.
This past summer alone saw Iron Man, the Hulk, and Batman all duking it out for box office supremacy, with the Spirit, Watchmen and Wolverine on the way. When I was growing up in the 1970s, comic fans were stuck with lame live-action offerings like Shazam! on Saturday mornings and the cheesy Amazing Spider-Man live-action show. We dreamed of seeing our heroes translated to the big screen in blockbuster movies. For most of the 70s and 80s, there were rumors of a big-budget Batman film that would return the hero to his grim and gritty roots.
But the technology did not exist to do live-action super-heroes the right way.
Special effects have now reached the point where any superhero, no matter how powerful, can be portrayed on the big screen. It is now possible to feature dozens, if not hundreds of super-beings in a single movie.
As a comics fan for over 30 years, I should be thrilled. Yet every time I see a movie based on a super-hero comic, I end up disappointed. Inevitably, the filmmakers make changes that tamper with the source material. Inevitably, the stories are lazy, disjointed and uninspired. Inevitably, the characters come across as being not as “real” as they seem in the comics.
Every time a new super-hero movie is announced, I get my hopes up. “Maybe this is the time Hollywood will finally get it right,” I think to myself. And every time, I am let down.
Oh, there have been some near misses along the way. The Spider-Man films probably come closest to capturing the look and the feel of the comics they are based on. But the films are not flawless. The first film comes very close to doing a straight adaptation of the hero’s origin, and then deviates with some new ideas that, as a longtime Spidey-Fan, left me cold.
Instead of getting his powers from a radioactive spider, as he did in the comics, the movie’s Peter Parker receives his bite from a genetic super-spider – one of many, which happens to escape from its cage.
And the movie skips a very important part of the Spidey’s origin – the part where the newly created Spider-Man selfishly tries to become a TV star instead of using his powers responsibly.
The Spidey sequels had equally disturbing changes to the mythos, like Doc Ock inexplicably reverting from bad guy to good at the conclusion of Spider-Man 2, and the Sandman being revealed as the killer of Uncle Ben in Spider-Man 3. It’s enough to make a true Spidey fan want to climb the walls in frustration.
The current superhero movie boom started in 1978 with the release of Superman: The Movie. Most comics fans agree that the first 2/3 of the movie got pretty much everything right (though long-time fans bristled at the depiction of Krypton as a cold, desolate place, instead of the warm and inviting world that was seen in the comics). But the climax of the movie, with Superman using his super-powers to spin the Earth backwards to turn back time, is one of the most hated endings in movie history.
Yes, the Man of Steel did have the power to travel through time in the comics, but it was never portrayed in that Earth-spinning manner before.
Superman 2 stood as the definitive super-hero movie for many years, but it, too, was marred by a climax that was weak, to say the least: Superman uses his “Super-Amnesia Kiss” to make Lois Lane forget his secret identity.
It’s funny how screenwriters can get so much right, but then leave a bad taste in your mouth at the end by throwing in some contrived bit where the hero uses some lame new powers he never had in the comics.
The biggest problem I have with super-hero movies is that inevitably, at some point in the movie, the filmmakers show a lack of respect for the characters. Thus, we get Spidey using his super-powers to deliver pizzas in Spider-Man 2, and the Thing getting pooped on by a pigeon in the first Fantastic Four movie.
1991’s Batman and Robin showed Batman whipping out a credit card with the Bat-symbol on it and saying, “Never leave the cave without it” – surely a low point in campy movie history.
The problem to me is that the screenwriters are constantly trying to add their own contributions to the source material. But I have never seen any change in any super-hero movie that improved on the original.
In the 1989 Batman movie, the Caped Crusader’s continuity was revised so that the Joker was responsible for killing Bruce Wayne’s parents. But did that really make Batman a more interesting character? Or was it just a typical Hollywood contrivance where the origins of the hero and villain must be inextricably linked together?
In the first Spider-Man movie, the decision was made to give Peter Parker “natural” webbing instead of him having to create his own. To me, this had the effect of making Peter Parker seem less intelligent. Part of the charm of the Peter Parker character is that he is so smart that he is able to create his own webbing (and other paraphernalia, like his portable Spidey tracers) after becoming a super-hero. Lose the artificial webbing and you’ve lost an opportunity to show part of what makes Peter Parker unique.
Don’t get me wrong – I’m not saying super-hero movies are a waste of time. Most of them some have entertaining moments. Some of them have fine performances, like Robert Downey Jr. as Iron Man or Heath Ledger as the Joker.
But inevitably, the story trips up the movie every time.
Sometimes you get some good fight scenes in a super-hero movie, such as any time the Hulk fights the army in the Hulk films. But often, the fight scenes are the worst parts of the movies. There have been six Batman movies since 1989, and not one of them has had a fight scene as good as the ones from the 1966-68 TV series.
The battle sequences in the Spider-Man movies have so much computer animation, they look like you are watching a video game.
The average comic book is meant to be read in ten minutes or less. As such, it doesn’t need a huge amount of story. But when you take that same comic and try to stretch it out to a two-hour length, you usually wind up with a loud, bloated, plotless mess.
Overall, I think Hollywood does far better when it creates original films that have the same tone as a comic book without ruining fans’ memories of their beloved super-hero comics. In this category I would put such films as Aliens, Total Recall, Robocop, Terminator 2, Army of Darkness, and the better entries in the James Bond and Star Wars series. Each of the films listed above have action, likable (if one-dimensional) characters, and humor.
Every time some hotshot Hollywood director spends $150 million on some over-hyped super-hero movie, all I can think of is, “They could have spent a fraction of that money to make a 22-page comic and it would have been far more entertaining, and it wouldn’t have wasted two hours of my life.”
And every time some A-list superstar signs on to play a super-villain like the Green Goblin, all I can think of is, “Does it really take an Academy-Award winning actor to say, “I’ll get you, Spider-Man?!”
Writer Alan Moore has long been against comic book-inspired movies. He has often railed against what he calls “the fallacious modern notion that making a movie of something somehow validates it,” and I can see his point. Comic books are a viable and powerful medium, on their own. Comics do not need to be validated by Hollywood in order to achieve greatness.
And so my plea to Hollywood is this: please stop making movies based on comic books. Stick to doing what you do best: ruining novels instead!
Because when it comes to super-hero movies, my response is always going to be the same: “The comic book was better.”
By Barry Dutter
I thought the Dark Knight would be different. I thought this would be the one where Hollywood finally gets it right.
Instead, the movie was overlong, sloppily plotted and a huge disappointment – just like every other super-hero movie from the past 30 years.
Theoretically, we are in a Golden Age of movies based on comic book characters. Every year sees at least three or four major new releases, with dozens more announced as being on the way.
This past summer alone saw Iron Man, the Hulk, and Batman all duking it out for box office supremacy, with the Spirit, Watchmen and Wolverine on the way. When I was growing up in the 1970s, comic fans were stuck with lame live-action offerings like Shazam! on Saturday mornings and the cheesy Amazing Spider-Man live-action show. We dreamed of seeing our heroes translated to the big screen in blockbuster movies. For most of the 70s and 80s, there were rumors of a big-budget Batman film that would return the hero to his grim and gritty roots.
But the technology did not exist to do live-action super-heroes the right way.
Special effects have now reached the point where any superhero, no matter how powerful, can be portrayed on the big screen. It is now possible to feature dozens, if not hundreds of super-beings in a single movie.
As a comics fan for over 30 years, I should be thrilled. Yet every time I see a movie based on a super-hero comic, I end up disappointed. Inevitably, the filmmakers make changes that tamper with the source material. Inevitably, the stories are lazy, disjointed and uninspired. Inevitably, the characters come across as being not as “real” as they seem in the comics.
Every time a new super-hero movie is announced, I get my hopes up. “Maybe this is the time Hollywood will finally get it right,” I think to myself. And every time, I am let down.
Oh, there have been some near misses along the way. The Spider-Man films probably come closest to capturing the look and the feel of the comics they are based on. But the films are not flawless. The first film comes very close to doing a straight adaptation of the hero’s origin, and then deviates with some new ideas that, as a longtime Spidey-Fan, left me cold.
Instead of getting his powers from a radioactive spider, as he did in the comics, the movie’s Peter Parker receives his bite from a genetic super-spider – one of many, which happens to escape from its cage.
And the movie skips a very important part of the Spidey’s origin – the part where the newly created Spider-Man selfishly tries to become a TV star instead of using his powers responsibly.
The Spidey sequels had equally disturbing changes to the mythos, like Doc Ock inexplicably reverting from bad guy to good at the conclusion of Spider-Man 2, and the Sandman being revealed as the killer of Uncle Ben in Spider-Man 3. It’s enough to make a true Spidey fan want to climb the walls in frustration.
The current superhero movie boom started in 1978 with the release of Superman: The Movie. Most comics fans agree that the first 2/3 of the movie got pretty much everything right (though long-time fans bristled at the depiction of Krypton as a cold, desolate place, instead of the warm and inviting world that was seen in the comics). But the climax of the movie, with Superman using his super-powers to spin the Earth backwards to turn back time, is one of the most hated endings in movie history.
Yes, the Man of Steel did have the power to travel through time in the comics, but it was never portrayed in that Earth-spinning manner before.
Superman 2 stood as the definitive super-hero movie for many years, but it, too, was marred by a climax that was weak, to say the least: Superman uses his “Super-Amnesia Kiss” to make Lois Lane forget his secret identity.
It’s funny how screenwriters can get so much right, but then leave a bad taste in your mouth at the end by throwing in some contrived bit where the hero uses some lame new powers he never had in the comics.
The biggest problem I have with super-hero movies is that inevitably, at some point in the movie, the filmmakers show a lack of respect for the characters. Thus, we get Spidey using his super-powers to deliver pizzas in Spider-Man 2, and the Thing getting pooped on by a pigeon in the first Fantastic Four movie.
1991’s Batman and Robin showed Batman whipping out a credit card with the Bat-symbol on it and saying, “Never leave the cave without it” – surely a low point in campy movie history.
The problem to me is that the screenwriters are constantly trying to add their own contributions to the source material. But I have never seen any change in any super-hero movie that improved on the original.
In the 1989 Batman movie, the Caped Crusader’s continuity was revised so that the Joker was responsible for killing Bruce Wayne’s parents. But did that really make Batman a more interesting character? Or was it just a typical Hollywood contrivance where the origins of the hero and villain must be inextricably linked together?
In the first Spider-Man movie, the decision was made to give Peter Parker “natural” webbing instead of him having to create his own. To me, this had the effect of making Peter Parker seem less intelligent. Part of the charm of the Peter Parker character is that he is so smart that he is able to create his own webbing (and other paraphernalia, like his portable Spidey tracers) after becoming a super-hero. Lose the artificial webbing and you’ve lost an opportunity to show part of what makes Peter Parker unique.
Don’t get me wrong – I’m not saying super-hero movies are a waste of time. Most of them some have entertaining moments. Some of them have fine performances, like Robert Downey Jr. as Iron Man or Heath Ledger as the Joker.
But inevitably, the story trips up the movie every time.
Sometimes you get some good fight scenes in a super-hero movie, such as any time the Hulk fights the army in the Hulk films. But often, the fight scenes are the worst parts of the movies. There have been six Batman movies since 1989, and not one of them has had a fight scene as good as the ones from the 1966-68 TV series.
The battle sequences in the Spider-Man movies have so much computer animation, they look like you are watching a video game.
The average comic book is meant to be read in ten minutes or less. As such, it doesn’t need a huge amount of story. But when you take that same comic and try to stretch it out to a two-hour length, you usually wind up with a loud, bloated, plotless mess.
Overall, I think Hollywood does far better when it creates original films that have the same tone as a comic book without ruining fans’ memories of their beloved super-hero comics. In this category I would put such films as Aliens, Total Recall, Robocop, Terminator 2, Army of Darkness, and the better entries in the James Bond and Star Wars series. Each of the films listed above have action, likable (if one-dimensional) characters, and humor.
Every time some hotshot Hollywood director spends $150 million on some over-hyped super-hero movie, all I can think of is, “They could have spent a fraction of that money to make a 22-page comic and it would have been far more entertaining, and it wouldn’t have wasted two hours of my life.”
And every time some A-list superstar signs on to play a super-villain like the Green Goblin, all I can think of is, “Does it really take an Academy-Award winning actor to say, “I’ll get you, Spider-Man?!”
Writer Alan Moore has long been against comic book-inspired movies. He has often railed against what he calls “the fallacious modern notion that making a movie of something somehow validates it,” and I can see his point. Comic books are a viable and powerful medium, on their own. Comics do not need to be validated by Hollywood in order to achieve greatness.
And so my plea to Hollywood is this: please stop making movies based on comic books. Stick to doing what you do best: ruining novels instead!
Because when it comes to super-hero movies, my response is always going to be the same: “The comic book was better.”
Saturday, August 2, 2008
EDDIE MURPHY TO RETIRE?!
EDDIE MURPHY has announced that he is thinking about retiring from movies! This proves that there is a God!
Murphy became a star in his movie, 48 Hrs., and followed it up with two other big hits that were very well-liked: TRADING PLACES and BEVERLY HILLS COP. Since then, his career has mostly been one craptacular crap-fest after another.
The list is endless: HARLEM NIGHTS, GOLDEN CHILD, BEVERLY HILLS COP 2 & 3, BEST DEFENSE, ANOTHER 48 HRS., THE HOLY MAN, NORBIT, LIFE, THE HAUNTED MANSION, DR. DOLITTLE 1 & 2, METRO, VAMPIRE IN BROOKLYN, etc etc.
No Hollywood star has made more sucky movies and squandered so much of his talent as Eddie Murphy. I haven't seen his new movie, MEET DAVE, yet, but I don't need to see it to know it sucks! It will really be a dream come true if Murphy would stop forcing his schlocky cinema on us. Since he made the move from edgy R-rated films to to family fare, his output has only gotten worse.
But there are rumors that Murphy wants to do BEVERLY HILLS COP 4 before he retires. This proves that yes, there is a God, but he is a vengeful God.
Murphy became a star in his movie, 48 Hrs., and followed it up with two other big hits that were very well-liked: TRADING PLACES and BEVERLY HILLS COP. Since then, his career has mostly been one craptacular crap-fest after another.
The list is endless: HARLEM NIGHTS, GOLDEN CHILD, BEVERLY HILLS COP 2 & 3, BEST DEFENSE, ANOTHER 48 HRS., THE HOLY MAN, NORBIT, LIFE, THE HAUNTED MANSION, DR. DOLITTLE 1 & 2, METRO, VAMPIRE IN BROOKLYN, etc etc.
No Hollywood star has made more sucky movies and squandered so much of his talent as Eddie Murphy. I haven't seen his new movie, MEET DAVE, yet, but I don't need to see it to know it sucks! It will really be a dream come true if Murphy would stop forcing his schlocky cinema on us. Since he made the move from edgy R-rated films to to family fare, his output has only gotten worse.
But there are rumors that Murphy wants to do BEVERLY HILLS COP 4 before he retires. This proves that yes, there is a God, but he is a vengeful God.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
DARK KNIGHT review
This is a movie about a guy in a bat costume who fights a guy who wears clown make-up. I find this movie highly overrated. USA Today gave it four stars. FOUR STARS? Are you kidding me? A four-star review should be for ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST or GOODFELLAS. Not for a movie that is essentially a two-and-a-half hour fight scene.
There has never been a super-hero movie that was as good as or better than the comics it is based on. I think Alan Moore is right when he says that comics are comics and movies are movies, and comic book fans don't need to see their favorite super-heroes "validated" by putting them in big-budget movies.
While it can be interesting to see how the special effects department translates the hero's super-powers to the big screen, I have never seen a super-hero movie where the plot warranted a two-hour (or more) running time.
There is a story running in the Batman comics currently, entitled "Batman R.I.P." The story is written by Grant Morrison, and it involves the Joker unleashing his greatest plot yet against the Batman. It is better than anything I saw in THE DARK KNIGHT.
The DARK KNIGHT movie is too long by at least 30 minutes. As in all super-hero movies, there is no real plot, just a villain causing random chaos and an anguished hero trying to stop him. There is a lot of talk in this movie, and you keep waiting for it to end, but there is one false climax after another. There is one surprising death of a major character, but other than that, the movie has nothing we haven't seen before. The movie follows the premise of the graphic novel The Killing Joke, that Batman and the Joker need each other, that each one would be lost without the other. Christian Bale plays Batman with an annoying raspy voice. Ever since Michael Keaton first donned the bat-mask back in 1989, actors have been doing that hoarse whisper for Batman's voice, and it has always bothered me. A hero should have a voice that is confident and strong, not a whisper.
Maggie Gyllenhall replaces Katie Holmes as the love interest, Rachel Dawes. Gyllenhall bears an uncanny resemblance to a less-good-looking version of Katie Holmes, but ultimately, Gyllenhall is not pretty enough to be the love interest in this movie. She just does not look like the type of comic book heroine that two men would fight over.
Heath Ledger is very good as the Joker – much better than Jack Nicholson hamming it up in the '89 movie. Ledger does a good job conveying the creepiness and sense of menace of the Joker. A couple of times he even laughs just like Caesar Romero from the Batman TV series. I just wish Ledger had a better script to work with.
Maybe I am missing something, but I really didn't see anything in the DARK KNIGHT that impressed me. It is marginally better than BATMAN BEGINS, only because the JOKER is a better villain than the SCARECROW. I guess the one good thing you can say about the new series of BATMAN movies is that they no longer kill off all their best villains at the end of every movie.
To me, the best comic book movies are not the ones adapted from the comic books, but the ones that are inspired by them. I would say the best comic book movies are ROBOCOP, TERMINATOR 2, and ALIENS. Those are movies that have just the right blend of action, originality and humor, with characters that you care about.
I am a lifelong comic book fan, but I actually wish Hollywood would stop spending so much money on super-hero movies and go back to making real movies again.
There has never been a super-hero movie that was as good as or better than the comics it is based on. I think Alan Moore is right when he says that comics are comics and movies are movies, and comic book fans don't need to see their favorite super-heroes "validated" by putting them in big-budget movies.
While it can be interesting to see how the special effects department translates the hero's super-powers to the big screen, I have never seen a super-hero movie where the plot warranted a two-hour (or more) running time.
There is a story running in the Batman comics currently, entitled "Batman R.I.P." The story is written by Grant Morrison, and it involves the Joker unleashing his greatest plot yet against the Batman. It is better than anything I saw in THE DARK KNIGHT.
The DARK KNIGHT movie is too long by at least 30 minutes. As in all super-hero movies, there is no real plot, just a villain causing random chaos and an anguished hero trying to stop him. There is a lot of talk in this movie, and you keep waiting for it to end, but there is one false climax after another. There is one surprising death of a major character, but other than that, the movie has nothing we haven't seen before. The movie follows the premise of the graphic novel The Killing Joke, that Batman and the Joker need each other, that each one would be lost without the other. Christian Bale plays Batman with an annoying raspy voice. Ever since Michael Keaton first donned the bat-mask back in 1989, actors have been doing that hoarse whisper for Batman's voice, and it has always bothered me. A hero should have a voice that is confident and strong, not a whisper.
Maggie Gyllenhall replaces Katie Holmes as the love interest, Rachel Dawes. Gyllenhall bears an uncanny resemblance to a less-good-looking version of Katie Holmes, but ultimately, Gyllenhall is not pretty enough to be the love interest in this movie. She just does not look like the type of comic book heroine that two men would fight over.
Heath Ledger is very good as the Joker – much better than Jack Nicholson hamming it up in the '89 movie. Ledger does a good job conveying the creepiness and sense of menace of the Joker. A couple of times he even laughs just like Caesar Romero from the Batman TV series. I just wish Ledger had a better script to work with.
Maybe I am missing something, but I really didn't see anything in the DARK KNIGHT that impressed me. It is marginally better than BATMAN BEGINS, only because the JOKER is a better villain than the SCARECROW. I guess the one good thing you can say about the new series of BATMAN movies is that they no longer kill off all their best villains at the end of every movie.
To me, the best comic book movies are not the ones adapted from the comic books, but the ones that are inspired by them. I would say the best comic book movies are ROBOCOP, TERMINATOR 2, and ALIENS. Those are movies that have just the right blend of action, originality and humor, with characters that you care about.
I am a lifelong comic book fan, but I actually wish Hollywood would stop spending so much money on super-hero movies and go back to making real movies again.
Sunday, July 20, 2008
WILL FERRELL'S STEPBROTHERS
I haven't seen WILL FERRELL'S STEPBROTHERS but I feel like I have already seen it. It looks exactly like every other comedy ever made about two dumb guys who do dumb things.
The trailer has 1 or 2 funny bits and a few lame ones. Will Ferrell's movies have gotten progressively less funny as he has gone on. ANCHORMAN is still my favorite, but TALLADEGA NIGHTS was only half as good, and BLADES OF GLORY was half as good as that.
The law of diminishing returns states that this will be his least funniest movie yet. I think I'll pass.
The trailer has 1 or 2 funny bits and a few lame ones. Will Ferrell's movies have gotten progressively less funny as he has gone on. ANCHORMAN is still my favorite, but TALLADEGA NIGHTS was only half as good, and BLADES OF GLORY was half as good as that.
The law of diminishing returns states that this will be his least funniest movie yet. I think I'll pass.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
WANTED with ANGELINA JOLIE
I just saw WANTED with ANGELINA JOLIE. It is hard to take your eyes off her when she is on screen. She just might be the most physically perfect woman who ever lived! The only bad thing is she is a little too skinny in this movie. (We've all seen the pics of her in the tabloids, looking anorexic.)
In WANTED, her arms and legs look too frail, and her cheeks look hollowed out. Fortunately, she makes up for it with those luscious lips and those dazzling eyes.
Based on the recent pics of ANGELINA 's pregnancy, it looks like getting knocked up was the best thing that ever happened to her. She developed very healthy curves and looked quite stunning, even carrying twins!
Hopefully she will not lose too much baby weight this time. If she manages to keep a few pounds on, she will go back to looking completely perfect, like she did in the LARA CROFT movies and in MR. & MRS. SMITH.
In WANTED, her arms and legs look too frail, and her cheeks look hollowed out. Fortunately, she makes up for it with those luscious lips and those dazzling eyes.
Based on the recent pics of ANGELINA 's pregnancy, it looks like getting knocked up was the best thing that ever happened to her. She developed very healthy curves and looked quite stunning, even carrying twins!
Hopefully she will not lose too much baby weight this time. If she manages to keep a few pounds on, she will go back to looking completely perfect, like she did in the LARA CROFT movies and in MR. & MRS. SMITH.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
My Top 10 Least Favorite Moments in Super-Hero Movies
My Top 10 Least Favorite Moments in Super-Hero Movies By Barry Dutter
1) Spider-Man using his powers to deliver pizzas in Spider-Man 2.
2) The Thing gets pooped on by a pigeon in the FANTASTIC FOUR movie. In over 40 years in the comics, the Thing has never been pooped on by a pigeon. Hollywood didn’t waste any time.
3) In X-MEN 2, when WOLVERINE sees LADY DEATHSTRIKE unsheathe her claws for the first time, he exclaims, “Oh shit!” The line gets a laugh, but WOLVERINE would NEVER express any kind of fear or hesitation when facing an opponent.
4) DR. OCTOPUS changes his mind at the end of SPIDER-MAN 2 and decides he’s not a bad guy after all. Lame!
5) When Daredevil uses his powers to “see” ELEKTRA in the rain in the DAREDEVIL movie. DD’s eyesight does not work at all, regardless of whether or not it is raining.
6) The scene in the 1997 BATMAN & ROBIN (the one with GEORGE CLOONEY & CHRIS O’DONNELL) where Batman pulls out his Bat-Credit Card and says, “Never leave the cave without it.” This is another example of the of the type of crappy camp humor that helped to put the franchise on ice for the better part of a decade.
7) At the end of SPIDER-MAN 3, Spidey tells the SANDMAN, “I forgive you,” and lets a murderer go free.
8) The scene in SUPERMAN 3 where RICHARD PRYOR skies off the roof of a building and Superman happens to be flying by and catches him. One of the all-time dumbest scenes in an over-all dumb movie.
9) Peter Parker gets possessed by VENOM in SPIDER-MAN 3 – and then goes to a jazz club and does a really evil dance. Because that’s what really bad people do – they dance in jazz clubs. A low point for the Spidey movie franchise.
10) The scene in the BATMAN & ROBIN where the Dynamic Duo click their heels together and make ice skates come out of the bottom of their boots. That was about the gayest scene in any super-hero movie.
1) Spider-Man using his powers to deliver pizzas in Spider-Man 2.
2) The Thing gets pooped on by a pigeon in the FANTASTIC FOUR movie. In over 40 years in the comics, the Thing has never been pooped on by a pigeon. Hollywood didn’t waste any time.
3) In X-MEN 2, when WOLVERINE sees LADY DEATHSTRIKE unsheathe her claws for the first time, he exclaims, “Oh shit!” The line gets a laugh, but WOLVERINE would NEVER express any kind of fear or hesitation when facing an opponent.
4) DR. OCTOPUS changes his mind at the end of SPIDER-MAN 2 and decides he’s not a bad guy after all. Lame!
5) When Daredevil uses his powers to “see” ELEKTRA in the rain in the DAREDEVIL movie. DD’s eyesight does not work at all, regardless of whether or not it is raining.
6) The scene in the 1997 BATMAN & ROBIN (the one with GEORGE CLOONEY & CHRIS O’DONNELL) where Batman pulls out his Bat-Credit Card and says, “Never leave the cave without it.” This is another example of the of the type of crappy camp humor that helped to put the franchise on ice for the better part of a decade.
7) At the end of SPIDER-MAN 3, Spidey tells the SANDMAN, “I forgive you,” and lets a murderer go free.
8) The scene in SUPERMAN 3 where RICHARD PRYOR skies off the roof of a building and Superman happens to be flying by and catches him. One of the all-time dumbest scenes in an over-all dumb movie.
9) Peter Parker gets possessed by VENOM in SPIDER-MAN 3 – and then goes to a jazz club and does a really evil dance. Because that’s what really bad people do – they dance in jazz clubs. A low point for the Spidey movie franchise.
10) The scene in the BATMAN & ROBIN where the Dynamic Duo click their heels together and make ice skates come out of the bottom of their boots. That was about the gayest scene in any super-hero movie.
Saturday, July 12, 2008
Hancock
Hancock is a very strange movie. The first half of the movie is about an alcoholic homeless super-hero trying to rehabilitate his image. The second half is about something else altogether.
In order to discus the movie properly, I will have to issue a SPOILER WARNING! Read no further if you have not seen the movie.
The BIG TWIST in HANCOCK comes when it is revealed that CHARLIZE THERON also has super-powers, and that she is HANCOCK's wife. This is where the movie kind of falls apart. The Charlize Theron thing is brought in from out of nowhere. (Hancock & Theron meet by chance in the movie. He was not looking for her and he does not remember her.)
The movie tries to set up a tragic situation where Hancock and his wife cancel out each other's powers if they are together too long. Their solution is that he moves to New York and she stays in L.A. We're supposed to feel sad that this couple can never be together, but the movie never really establishes any kind of relationship between them. She stares at him with hate in her eyes. He stares at her with a mixture of lust and confusion. That's about it.
This movie really needed a good villain for Hancock to fight. Charlize Theron is not it. They really should have stuck to the original concept for the film. The twist half-way through the film was a mistake. It takes the film off-course and it never really recovers.
And there should be a limit to the number of times you can use the word "asshole" in one film. I think they say it about 100 times in Hancock. Typing the word "asshole" 100 times really doesn't count as writing a script.
All in all I would have to call HANCOCK a disappointment. In the hierarchy of super-hero movies, it is not as good as this summer's IRON MAN or even HULK. For that matter, it is not as good as MY SUPER EX-GIRLFRIEND, the film which it most resembles in tone.
In order to discus the movie properly, I will have to issue a SPOILER WARNING! Read no further if you have not seen the movie.
The BIG TWIST in HANCOCK comes when it is revealed that CHARLIZE THERON also has super-powers, and that she is HANCOCK's wife. This is where the movie kind of falls apart. The Charlize Theron thing is brought in from out of nowhere. (Hancock & Theron meet by chance in the movie. He was not looking for her and he does not remember her.)
The movie tries to set up a tragic situation where Hancock and his wife cancel out each other's powers if they are together too long. Their solution is that he moves to New York and she stays in L.A. We're supposed to feel sad that this couple can never be together, but the movie never really establishes any kind of relationship between them. She stares at him with hate in her eyes. He stares at her with a mixture of lust and confusion. That's about it.
This movie really needed a good villain for Hancock to fight. Charlize Theron is not it. They really should have stuck to the original concept for the film. The twist half-way through the film was a mistake. It takes the film off-course and it never really recovers.
And there should be a limit to the number of times you can use the word "asshole" in one film. I think they say it about 100 times in Hancock. Typing the word "asshole" 100 times really doesn't count as writing a script.
All in all I would have to call HANCOCK a disappointment. In the hierarchy of super-hero movies, it is not as good as this summer's IRON MAN or even HULK. For that matter, it is not as good as MY SUPER EX-GIRLFRIEND, the film which it most resembles in tone.
Friday, July 11, 2008
New GET SMART movie
GET SMART
I saw GET SMART the other night. It reminded me a lot of DRAGNET, the 1988 movie version with TOM HANKS and DAN AYKROYD. Both movies update old TV shows, with none of the charm, wit, or strong performances of the originals.
The new GET SMART movie is a generic action comedy. It has car chases, explosions, a few mildly amusing jokes, and not much else. They could have called this movie BEVERLY HILLS COP 4 or RUSH HOUR 4. It really is indistinguishable from any other action/comedy.
STEVE CARELL has the look of MAXWELL SMART, but I've never liked him as an actor. I've never believed him in any role.
The new GET SMART movie is about a plot to blow up a nuclear bomb in L.A., thus killing the U.S. president and other visiting foreign dignitaries attending a classical music concert. (Wasn't this the same plot to the movie FOUL PLAY, only with the Pope instead of the President?)
As far as GET SMART movies go, this is better than THE NUDE BOMB, the 1978 flick that offered raunchy versions of all the old jokes from the TV series. The new movie has some of the old jokes, but not all of them.
The best part about the movie is the cameos by people like BILL MURRAY, JAMES CAAN as a vicious parody of PRESIDENT BUSH, and even one cast-member from the old TV show: BERNIE KOPELL, who played the arch-villain SIEGFRIED, reprising his German accent here.
PATRICK WARBURTON has a cameo as HYMIE the ROBOT, and that is an inspired casting choice. ANNE HATHAWAY is a decent Agent 99, but she is distracting because you spend most of the movie trying to decide if she is pretty or not. She has a great body, but her face is sometimes hot, sometimes not. Very confusing!
Overall, GET SMART is a harmless time-killer, but not really worth your time. You'd be better off watching a few old episodes of the TV series.
I saw GET SMART the other night. It reminded me a lot of DRAGNET, the 1988 movie version with TOM HANKS and DAN AYKROYD. Both movies update old TV shows, with none of the charm, wit, or strong performances of the originals.
The new GET SMART movie is a generic action comedy. It has car chases, explosions, a few mildly amusing jokes, and not much else. They could have called this movie BEVERLY HILLS COP 4 or RUSH HOUR 4. It really is indistinguishable from any other action/comedy.
STEVE CARELL has the look of MAXWELL SMART, but I've never liked him as an actor. I've never believed him in any role.
The new GET SMART movie is about a plot to blow up a nuclear bomb in L.A., thus killing the U.S. president and other visiting foreign dignitaries attending a classical music concert. (Wasn't this the same plot to the movie FOUL PLAY, only with the Pope instead of the President?)
As far as GET SMART movies go, this is better than THE NUDE BOMB, the 1978 flick that offered raunchy versions of all the old jokes from the TV series. The new movie has some of the old jokes, but not all of them.
The best part about the movie is the cameos by people like BILL MURRAY, JAMES CAAN as a vicious parody of PRESIDENT BUSH, and even one cast-member from the old TV show: BERNIE KOPELL, who played the arch-villain SIEGFRIED, reprising his German accent here.
PATRICK WARBURTON has a cameo as HYMIE the ROBOT, and that is an inspired casting choice. ANNE HATHAWAY is a decent Agent 99, but she is distracting because you spend most of the movie trying to decide if she is pretty or not. She has a great body, but her face is sometimes hot, sometimes not. Very confusing!
Overall, GET SMART is a harmless time-killer, but not really worth your time. You'd be better off watching a few old episodes of the TV series.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)