You know, I tend to rail against sequels and remakes all the time (and just for the case of symmetry, a rather dastardly one of the latter will be showing up at the end today), but occasionally you hear of one that's just screaming out to be made.
To give all credit to where it's due, I read about this amazing bit of news/gossip on the fantastic blog The Playlist. It seems that on Adam Carolla's podcast recently (I really can't imagine any way I'd be listening to that), he was apparently interviewing Jules Asner, who used to be a host on E! but is now, among other things I suppose, the wife of Steven Soderbergh.
Well, as they were discussing Soderbergh's movies, she let fly this juicy bit about what just happens to be my co-favorite (along with the sublime "Out of Sight") Soderbergh flick, "The Limey": "He wants to do a sequel to The Limey and Terence wants to do it. Terence and Michael Caine."
Take a minute to envision just how cool that could be. Now, I know that "The Limey" has a very definite ending, but I'd still certainly welcome the chance to see Terrence Stamp reprising his role as one of the baddest asses of all time, especially along with Michael Caine. Perhaps Soderbergh is up for a revenge flick after being burned so bad on "Moneyball," but whatever his motivation might be here, I can only say bring it on!
And, before I get to today's "Friday Night Lights" main course, and then two wickedly entertaining videos, comes easily the funniest bit of news I could find in the last couple of days.
When I first heard they were gonna make a live-action movie of "Hong Kong Phooey," I was perfectly happy to simply shrug it off as yet another movie I'll never, ever see. But then I saw who's producing it. It seems that Brett Ratner, who just made my eyes bleed with what he did to the "X-Men" saga, has nothing better to do than produce this mess. Sheesh.
OK, now on to the main event, which comes courtesy of the seriously TV-obsessed Michael Ausiello of Entertainment Weekly.
Anyone who tuned in to the third season of "Friday Night Lights" on either DirecTV or later on NBC (like me and most of the world) watched what I think has turned into easily the best drama on television right now. And if you didn't, why the heck not?
As you may well remember, season three ended at a definite crossroads, with Coach Taylor (Kyle Chandler) being ousted as coach of the Dillon Panthers and shipped off to coach at a brand new school, East Dillon High. It sets up all kinds of crosstown rivalry possibilities, especially since Dillon's QB1 JD McCoy (Jeremy Sumpter) was at the center of Taylor's ouster.
Anyways, it's gonna be hard to wait until February or so to get to see this again on regular TV, but Ausiello has four sketches of the new characters to fill the void a little. And please, as you read them, remember that one of the real pleasures of watching "FNL" (at least for me) is that it takes what truly is soap opera material and turns it into fairly high art, so the characters are gonna sound even more tawdry on paper. Per Ausiello, here goes:
Vince: A charming yet dangerous East Dillon junior. He's African-American and, when we first meet him, he's running from the cops. Look for Coach Taylor to put his speed to better use as a member of the Lions. Series regular.
Luke: Vince's classmate and arch nemesis. He's Caucasian, cocky, and charming. Reminds some of a young Paul Newman. Dillon's new geographical breakdown has him playing for the Lions, and he's not happy about it. Series regular.
Jess: The super-energetic daughter of a onetime NFL hopeful, she knows the game inside and out. When she's not busy coaching her younger brothers, this sophomore/junior is getting crushed on by every guy in Dillon, East and West. Series regular.
Becky: A freshman beauty queen whose family is purebred trailer trash. Think Blair Waldorf with lousy genes. She finds Riggins in bed with her mother and reacts by trying to seduce him herself. My new favorite character is listed as recurring.
That last bit is key, because I can only assume that means that, although regulars Minka Kelly, Adrianne Palicki and Zach Gilford have all been lost to graduation, Taylor Kitsch will take time out from his new life as Gambit to return to the role that made him semi-famous, Tim Riggins. Man, with this and "Chuck" returning, TV's second season is gonna easily be better than the first.
OK, enough of that. Before I go, I've got two videos that certainly made me smile. I've stated here before that I have almost unconditional love for what Zack Snyder did with "Watchmen." One of my only beefs, in fact, was that he omitted a key scene from Alan Moore's and Dave Gibbons' funny book, the death of Hollis Mason.
Well, as you can see from this video courtesy of Trailer Addict, it will be in the director's cut set to hit DVD July 21 (and though I've severely curtailed my DVD buying of late, that is a must-have for me.) I especially like how poor Hollis flashes back to the baddies of yore as his demise nears. Enjoy.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
What kinds of kids will appear next under "Friday Night Lights"?
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
The best movie of 2009 (so far, at least) .... flippin' sweet!
Before I get into all that, it's hard to tell who's the bigger winner with what's clearly the news of the day, Darren Aronofsky or us.
If I had to pick one, I'd say us, because along with being news that he's onto what should be a fascinating project, it hopefully means he's NOT making a remake of "Robocop." And if that's the first you're ever hearing of that, just pretend you never did, because hopefully now it will never happen.
Instead, the director of "The Wrestler" (one of my five favorite movies of 2008, along with "Let the Right One In," "Tell No One," "Slumdog Millionaire" and "Milk") is turning to competition of a different sort with something appropriately twisted called "Black Swan."
Actually, as I type this, it doesn't seem real, which seems just right: Natalie Portman is (almost) set to star in "a supernatural thriller set in the world of New York City ballet." Specifically, she'll play a veteran ballerina who finds herself locked in an intense rivalry with a fellow dancer who may or may not be just a figment of her imagination. Bring it on!
Here today, however, it's all about what I can firmly call, after stewing with it for a day or so, the best movie of 2009 (so far, at least.) Sure, "Star Trek" was as thoroughly fun as it was refreshing, and unlike many people, I thought "Watchmen" was a nearly flawless adaptation of Alan Moore's oddly great graphic novel, but the best flick I've seen so far is something on a far different scale, Anna Boden and Ryan Fleck's sublime baseball movie "Sugar."
Actually, what makes "Sugar" work so well is that it starts with baseball as a backdrop but then tackles something much more compelling: Life in modern America, and what it must look like to someone who's just arrived in our often bizarro world.
"Sugar" tells the story of Miguel "Sugar" Santos, a 19- (I think, but with Dominican players, of course, who knows?) year-old Dominican pitching prospect who's owned by a fictional Kansas City team and toiling with other prospects at what seems alternately like a summer camp or a prison yard - or maybe something in between, a summer camp that just happens to have guard towers.
From the outset, you get a strong sense of the movie's two strongest suits, it's natural - I'd go so far as to say "organic" - pacing, and the equally natural banter of the ballplayers and everyone they encounter in their new world.
Sugar, played with raw charm by Algeniz Perez Soto, catches the eye of a scout and eventually gets promoted all the way to AA minor league ball in Bridgeport, Iowa, which might as well have been Mars. At this point, the flick easily could have succumbed to either of two predictable and familiar courses, the fish-out-of-water story or the rah-rah sports flick, but instead it takes the best elements of each and pretty much turns them upside down.
Sugar is taken in by an elderly couple who are freakishly but never quite cartoonishly devoted to minor league baseball, which I sorely wish we still had here in Macon. During this stretch, the movie often finds it grace in quiet moments as Sugar adapts to his odd new world, and the best scene of all comes when he simply learns how to order breakfast in a restaurant.
And the games themselves, while they will seem real to anyone whose had the joy of watching minor league ball, are never pitched as anything more than that. Sure, they're important, but only as we see it through the eyes of Sugar and his fellow ballplayers in how they can advance their fledgling careers.
This game-by-game stretch can get a bit too methodical, but it deftly sets up the knuckle curve that is the third act, when Sugar's tale becomes one of the immigrant experience in America and, more importantly, of the power of rational adults to simply change their minds. I certainly won't spoil it by telling you how, but Sugar eventually ends up at the home of Yankee Stadium, and it just makes a cycle that perfectly fits this movie about baseball and much more.
With "Under the Same Moon," "Frozen River," "Sin Nombre," "The Visitor" and now "Sugar," immigration has quickly become my favorite sub-subject for movies, and it's not hard to see why. No other subject better invokes the peril of the human condition, and Boden and Fleck have captured this just right in a movie that I can't recommend you see soon enough (as to when that might be, however, who knows, because I think it's finished its theatrical run and I can't find a DVD release date in sight yet.)
And with that, I have to get ready for the job that still pays me just enough to get by in this odd place called America. Peace out.
Monday, March 09, 2009
Should you watch the "Watchmen"? A conditional vote for yes
Before I get into any of that, I just wanted to say that it's simply nice to see that Andrés Galarraga, a k a the Big Cat, is still alive and looking very healthy. He was always easily one of my favorite Major League Baseball players, and was diagnosed with cancer way back in 2000, so it was just great to see him on the bench managing the Venezuelan team in the World Baseball Classic (and thank God for baseball of any kind!)
OK, enough of that. Here today, as it has been for much of the past month, it's all about Zack Snyder's "Watchmen." And now, after having sat on this since about 3 p.m. Saturday afternoon and let it stew around in my mind, I'm ready to call it at least a qualified success (despite its rather underwhelming $55 million opening.)
The main complaint I've heard about Snyder's work is that he stuck way too close to the comic book script and really just made a paint-by-numbers version for the big screen, but I don't really buy it. With "300" he certainly took all of Frank Miller's palate and tone to tell the tale of the battle of Thermopylae, but given the revered nature of what he was working with here and the big input of "Watchmen" co-creator Dave Gibbons on the set, I thought he really put his own pop sensibility on this story. AND PLEASE, BE WARNED, I WILL BE UNABLE TO DO THIS WITHOUT MAJOR, MAJOR SPOILERS, SO IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE FLICK YET OR JUST DON'T WANT TO KNOW, DO NOT READ ANY FURTHER.
It starts out right away with the deliriously entertaining opening credits, set to the tune of Bob Dylan's "The Times They Are a Changing." I laughed out loud when Silhouette stole that V-J Day kiss and reeled from the sucker punch of her murder only seconds later. For me at least, this spell lasted throughout the flick, even as the other facet of Snyder's style, the need to spatter as much blood as David Cronenberg at his bloodiest, came to the fore.
And it's certainly true that one of the many directors who have circled this project through the years, Terry Gilliam, probably would have taken more chances with this, but I'd have to imagine that's exactly why he and others failed to follow through on it to the finish. Just as the "Watchmen" comic book was all about the good and bad consequences of compromise, so is the movie itself, and it comes down mostly on the good side of things in my book.
What transferred my love of the comic most directly to the big screen is that the movie handled two of my favorite sequences just about perfectly. The first is Dr. Manhattan's TV interview and subsequent trip to Mars. Snyder doesn't have the space to play all the time games that Moore did in the comic, but he still manages to make it hit hard when Janey Slater pulls off that wig and makes the desolate Mars scape the ultimate spot for Dr. Manhattan's intentional isolation. It certainly helps that, as he tells the hero's tale, Billy Crudup manages to capture all the soul hidden behind that vacant stare (even as he does, be warned, dangle his blue wang-dang-doodle quite a bit.)
The second thing it nailed just about perfectly was also driven by spot-on performances by Jackie Earle Haley as Rorschach and - to a lesser extent - the always-welcome Danny Woodburn as the diminutive Big Figure. Haley just simmers with all the right snarling rage once he's unmasked as Walter Kovacs, and I just had to smile the first time that Woodburn (a k a Kramer's tiny co-conspirator Mickey Abbott on "Seinfeld") came around the corner to confront him in his cell.
So then, what didn't work? Well, for me, it was mainly one scene Snyder left in but botched and two that he almost entirely left out (and in the second case just should have altogether.)
The first, and the single worst scene of the entire movie, was the almost completely passion-free love scene between Nite Owl II (Patrick Wilson) and Silk Specter II (Malin Ackerman.) Given the amount of skin it shows (and yes, as the Comedian might say, it certainly does prove in Ms. Ackerman's case that those are some good genes), it's a curiously joyless affair, made all the worse by the attachment of a version of Leonard Cohen's great song "Hallelujah" to it. Just an all-around travesty.
And the most glaring omission would have to be the death of Hollis Mason, a moving moment in the comic book that's replaced in the flick by a random encounter between Nite Owl II, Silk Spectre II and a street gang. But the most grating of all was the inclusion of the newsstand owner and comic book reader for just a split second before they are obliterated. The two of them offer a running commentary on the end of the world that drives a good portion of Moore's tale, so to waste them in such a way on screen was just a total spit in the face.
So, given all that, what tipped the scales to make this one at least a conditional winner in my book? Well, Alan Moore fans can squawk all they want, but for me it was the ending (AND ONCE AGAIN, IF YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW ABOUT IT, PLEASE DO NOT READ ON AND THEN TRY TO BLAME ME LATER.)
To me, it kept all of Moore's big ideas about compromise vs. absolutism intact while just improving on the overall story. Sure, it would have been fun to see the giant squid appear, but would you really want to add another 45 minutes to the flick while Ozymandias (Matthew Goode) explained just how he managed to cook that up? As it is, having the attacks instead mirror the energy of Dr. Manhattan just perfectly amplifies the God vs. man angle, and makes that fact that it's the good Dr. who finally has to encounter Rorschach all the more compelling.
In the end, I'm glad that in this case Snyder's compromises won out over Moore's absolutism so this movie could be made in the first place, and with my Grand/Amstar Cinemas Mystery Shopper pass in hand I'll probably go see it again this coming weekend (since there seems to just be nothing of any merit at all opening.) And in a rather tangential closing, here's a clip of the only performance of "Hallelujah" that can even come close to rivaling Jeff Buckley's, by the singer/songwriter Allison Crowe. Enjoy, have a perfectly passable Monday, and please let me know if you think I'm just all wrong about Snyder's flick. Peace out.
Monday, February 16, 2009
What's up with the ending to "Watchmen"?
This is just about the farthest thing from news for people who have been following the saga of Zack Snyder's "Watchmen" movie, but I just came across it, so bear with me.
In getting ready for the movie, which in spite of what follows in this post I remain at least cautiously optimistic about, I recently re-read the graphic novel, and can confirm that it's easily as good as I remember. I can also confirm that the ending is just as maddening and simply insane as ever.
Now, if you don't want to know how the graphic novel by Alan Moore and Dave Gibson or - more importantly - the movie coming out March 6 end, READ NO FURTHER. I understand this is easily the worst kind of spoiler imaginable, so please don't read on and then try to claim I didn't warn you. Here goes.
As anyone who has read the graphic novel knows, Adrian Veidt/Ozymandias' plot to change the course of history hinges on creating a giant squid that attacks New York City (yes, again New York City) to fake an alien attack and therefore lead all the nations of Earth to cease their hostilities and unite at the height of the cold war. If you're reading that for the first time, yes it is that crazy.
And Snyder and the folks who came up with the script for the "Watchmen" movie apparently thought this madness was simply too much for casual moviegoers to stomach, and frankly they may be right. I can vividly remember that the first time I read it I had to go over pages two or three times just to make sure I had it right, but that was much of the novel's appeal.
So, what have they changed it to instead? Once again, a final warning, if you don't want to know, DO NOT READ ON FROM THIS POINT.
I have no way of knowing if this is exactly right, but according to
this "Watchmen" site, what Veidt unleashes will actually be a series of attacks designed to mirror the energy beams created by Dr. Manhattan. This may seem a lot more reasonable on the surface, especially if the script keeps Veidt's intent intact, but it raises at least one major question: If Veidt's plan frames Dr. Manhattan (which I can't confirm, mind you), who acts as a weapon for the U.S., how in the world does that work out to an attack from an outside force that can unite the planet?
Snyder certainly didn't do himself any favors when, in the original Dark Horizons interview back in November in which he originally revealed his plan to monkey with the ending, he also added this:
“The fans, god love 'em, they’re all up in arms about the squid,” said Snyder. “What they should be up in arms about are things like shooting the pregnant woman, ‘God is real and he’s American’, whether THAT’S in the movie. That’s my point of view, maybe I’m crazy.”
Well, not crazy, but certainly condescending. How, in the face of all this, can one remain optimistic? It certainly takes a lot of somewhat-blind faith, but there's also visual evidence in the full photo gallery from the film you can view here at Comingsoon.net that things are still mostly on the right track.
There have also been constant video tidbits released along the way, which I've been sharing whenever I find them. The latest is this trailer for the animated "Tales of the Black Freighter" tale that I can only assume winds it way through the "Watchmen" movie on a parallel track as it did in the novel. It will also be released along with Hollis Mason's "Under the Hood" on DVD near the end of March to keep "Watchmen" fever running strong.
Enjoy the trailer, and when it comes to "Watchmen," just try to keep hope alive. Or, if you've now lost any or all of that, please feel free to sound off on what Snyder and co. are up to here. Peace out.
