This Movie Needs a TOON Up?

Okay, this is a new one. Actually, it’s an old one. With a twist.

Isn’t that how it usually seems to go?

However, this time, it really is a “new” one.

It’s fascinatingly wrong... and therefore maybe a good idea.

Hollywood is producing yet another remake. But again, there’s a twist. Not in semantics this time, as in “reboot” or “reimagining” or “revisionist” or “retooled” or anything of the sort. The “rub” is who’s starring in it.

The movie being retackled is The Stooge. It starred Dean Martin and Jerry Lewis. Who on earth could re-do those two, right? Oh, probably in Hollywood-ese that likely works out to George Clooney and Jim Carrey, yes? No. Ready for the twist? Martin will be portrayed by Mickey Mouse and Lewis by Roger Rabbit in an animation & live-action hybrid film. Whoa.

With any luck it will be an entertainment classic. But regardless of how good a movie it turns out to be, it has earned a place as a truly original take on a hackneyed “genre.”

And despite all the rest of it I, for one, would love to see Roger frustrate Mickey. Could be fun.

Oh yes - there’s one other “twist” as it were. Also ‘starring’ are Walt Disney and the great Orson Welles. Ah, what CGI and the 21st Century can’t do, eh? I do find this idea unnerving. I just hope they creatively use their previous utterances to shape ‘new’ dialogue for them. In other words (ha!) there’d been talk MANY moons ago about being able to feed all of a person’s voice recordings into a computer and then have it interpolate and extract and configure it into an entirely new set of words, the result of which is [supposedly] how said person would have sounded when speaking it. For instance, in theory it’s possible to have John Lennon sing a NEW song. In my opinion, this is creepy and wrong. So, yeah, I hope they never perfected this practice...

But anyway, here's to it coming out well and we pray it doesn’t make stooges of them, the cartoons, Hollywood and us.

For Those Who Care...

Seems the movie adaptation of Peter and the Starcatchers is moving forward at Disney.  Just reporting it, as it's Peter Pan related.

As you either know (or as can be inferred from my posts and such), I am not fond of this book/series outside of it being a fun adventure tale on its own.  A prequel to Peter Pan?  To Disney's, perhaps.  To Barrie?  No.  I often wonder if the authors even read Peter and Wendy.

I hope that all who like the book are satisfied with the movie... for I know how upsetting that can be otherwise.  I also hope all who like this book actually read Peter and Wendy and discover the truth about the depth, psychology and magnitude of Barrie's genius as opposed to the watered down, erroneous presentation of Pan past.

(Find the staggering list of differences [aka blatant disregard] to Barrie's novels here.)

Non-HEINOUS NEWS!

Most triumphant!

Whaddya say, babes n' dudes?

Are you ready for more of the time-traveling doofus duo?

Way back on September 3 2010, I mentioned that they've been kicking around ideas for a third installment into their wacky escapades. Well, it now seems as if it really is going to arrive from within the Circuits of History. The four of them (that being Alex Winter [Bill], Keanu Reeves [Ted], Chris Matheson and Ed Solomon [the writers]) have finalized not only the premise with which they wish to go, but the script for the next chapter of Bill & Ted. Not Bad!

If you're a little worried about the prospect of squeezing another movie out of these two... I say don't be. After all, it's not like they just picked it up on a whim, said "What the hell, why not?" and cranked something out. Far from it. All along they've been wondering what Bill & Ted would be like in "middle age." And the way I see it - if the creators want to explore it with full gusto, then I certainly do, too. Thus, they've (as mentioned) had a bunch of concepts they've toyed with...and came up the one they all agreed upon. Chris & Ed took a crack at the story on paper and it went through many years of tweaking. Well, now, as said, they have it hammered out. And they assure us it's excellent. I mean, hey, if the authors/actors of the creation are happy with their venture and full-on want to produce it for us... who are we to kibosh it?

I do, however, have a few cents I'd like to throw in!

First off... it's likely best that it include Lil' Bill & Lil' Ted (their kids - sorry if I spoiled the tail end of Bill & Ted's Bogus Journey for you) somehow. I imagine they'd either want to follow in their father's footsteps or land themselves in some sort of "need saving" trouble.

Second, I still would like it to have time travel. I mean, come on, it had been central to the first two films. There's no reason to throw it out now. (And it's what attracted me to the original film in the first place!) I'm not sure how it would factor in exactly...especially since I've got an idea as to where/what the next installment should tackle. I just think it should remain a key element in the third movie.

Thirdly, where to take the dudes? Well... I say outer space. Yes, really. Sound a bit far fetched? No, not when we look at the facts. They've been all around the globe. They've been around Time. They've been through the Afterlife and visited both Heaven & Hell. Where ELSE can they venture? If that's not enough to convince, consider this: Their music is supposed to align the planets. They have two Martians (or one big, depedning!) in their band. See it now? Wyld Stallyns needs to be traveling through the vast oddities of the universe!

Lastly, the title. Alex Winter has made it know that there is one. Oh dear lordy my how I wish I knew it!  But I have one of my own. Not that I'll be at all disappointed if it's not the one they pick. And it's actually not too far a stretch that they might have!

You see, I just re-watched both films.  (I've lost count of the amount of times I've seen Excellent Adventure, but it definitely exceeds 30) For my buddy Gil it had been a long time. Gil never saw the sequel though, so he and I watched that one as well. Needless to say, Gil found it excellent. Well, you see, in that movie, Bill says, "I have a feeling we are about to embark on a most unprecedented expedition." And boom. Title. Bill & Ted's Unprecedented Expedition. I love it. Or else Bill & Ted's Outstanding Odyssey. But I'd prefer it to be directly derived from the previous movie.

And the final thing to say is something concrete from Winter. Reportedly the story will still have Rock n' Roll as part of its structure. He says it had always been about Rock n' Roll. And given that a full quarter of a century of it has happened since Bill & Ted thought they needed Eddie Van Halen in order to be a super band, the creators are exploring how Rock n' Roll has developed or changed over the years. How does it affect Wyld Stallyns...or how can Wyld Stallyns affect IT?

Maybe a little shout out to Rufus and an explanation of what became of his character, too?  [Rest in Peace, Mr. Carlin!  We love & miss you!]

My best friend Laughter texted me saying he "needs" to see it with me.  Excellent!  And I think it's only fitting that Gil come with us if he's able.  Not bad!

Of course, the guys are "shopping it around" right now and it needs a 'Green Light.'  But at least we're one step closer!  STATION!

To all of this, I say:
PARTY ON, DUDES!

A Little Too Far East?

Can you believe?


No, I’m not talking about belief in fairies, rather how much “everyone” seems to want to play with Barrie’s classic characters.

Once again, reader/fan ZZ has sent news my way.  [Thanks again ZZ!]

There’s an independent Peter Pan movie in the works. Sadly, it’s not an adaptation of the play or novel. No, once again, it’s a variant tale. Also once again, it seems to contradict Barrie right from the description. Why do people do this? How can they just ignore what’s in the original?

It's called East of Kensington.

Here’s the blurb:

Years after Peter Pan and the Lost Boys have overthrown the pirates, Peter visits London to return Wendy to Neverland when he is kidnapped by a mysterious Stranger who dwells in the dark decaying remains of the Darling house.

Okay, granted, it COULD be in accordance if we assume that Pan comes back MANY years, as in generations upon generations, as it is in my novel. But given that Wendy seems to be a character in it (which I learned from poking around online) there’s little room for anything to fit within Barrie. Sorry, Jane and Margaret... your adventures have been negated.

What I can respect is that this grew out of a Senior Thesis, much like my novel had. It’s not entirely the same, since my became a senior Honors Project from an Independent Study for college credit. However, I wish that whomever oversaw their thesis had raised some questions about it and wanted the project to remain true to the source material.

I’m also curious about this “Stranger” - I, of course, fear that they’re using brother Michael. But then, unless a ‘device’ is used like my own, Michael would be a wrinkly old man or dead. Could be cool, I think, to have a spry elderly fellow thwarting Pan. But then, that wouldn’t be how Barrie envisioned Michael. Andrea Hook & Jill Jones speculates that it’s a variant of Hook. Perhaps, but then, as I might have said before, why use Hook again? Besides having to get around the fact that he’d been eaten by the crocodile, it would only rehash rather than advance the themes of Barrie. No way of knowing just yet who this Stranger is, but why do I fear that it’s something incongruous? Maybe because every other Pan-related tale has failed to be anything close to Barrie’s. (Hook & Jill is the only one that is both an exception and a following of this rule - that story is MEANT to veer away from the original tale but at the same time upholds the might behind the myth in more ways than one. In other words, H&J is not a sequel.)

Apparently, though, the filmmakers claim it is a retelling and not a sequel. A dark (Barrie IS dark, people!) re-imagining of what we know of the story. I don’t see how it can’t be a sequel given the premise and how they talk about it. Also, a tagline reads When Peter Pan returns to London he is kidnapped by a Stranger far worse than Captain Hook. which would mean it’s not Hook as Jones thought - or is she right about a variant? (I joked about a CrocoHook hybrid!)

I am also worried because in the sketches, Pan is shown sporting pointed ears. No. Just no. See here.

Also troublesome: The “donor titles” have such monikers as Captain Codfish, Loyal Lost Boy (as dollar amounts raise) but among them is Prideful Pixie. Really? REALLY??

And yet, they claim to want to dispel the Disney version that most people know by being more faithful to Barrie.  Doesn't appear that way to me.

As always, I am not trying to be a jerk about all this... I just don’t understand the misuse and blatant disregard. That goes for anything, not just works of Peter Pan and Barrie.

I certainly hope it's not as it seems and we get a fresh perspective.  As Ms. Jones always says - at least it just goes to show that Barrie is so rich and deep that we never tire of tinkering with it.  What an enduring masterpiece, eh?  "Everyone" wants a part of it.  Like me, though, she wishes people would pay more attention to their craftings.

I guess Time will tell. And don’t get me wrong. I’m always willing to re-invent this story. Retool it all you wish - just don’t try and make it connect to the original story and contradict it, please?

More if you wish to venture further:

East of Kensington


East of Kensington- Indiegogo Promo from Kellen Moore on Vimeo.

Here's THE THING

You might recall I've been anticipating the new movie of The Thing.  I'd been interested for another reason beyond the desire to see more of a good (cough) thing.  What really attracted me is the attitude, promises and vision of the man who brought it to the screen, Matthijs van Heijningen, Jr.  In a nutshell:  When the time came that they wanted to remake the property, he came along saying 'Not, a remake... a prequel.'  It would be the same premise, so in essence, a remake, but it would tie into the famous and beloved version by John Carpenter by showing the events of the Norwegian base that the Carpenter characters come across.  And then, end as the other movie began.  All done with utter respect and accuracy out of love.

I'm happy to say that Matthijs van Heijningen, Jr. delivered.  Exactly what he professed to do.

Funnily enough, I longed to see how that axe would get lodged in the door.  And when it finally happened, I wanted to applaud.  I wouldn't have guessed that to be the scenario.  Such clever use of a cherished aspect of the original film to achieve it, too.  And a wee bit of a joke made out of it to boot.  But so much more made me love it than inventive axe usage.

Is it a remake?  Well, yes, but decidedly NO.  The idea of being trapped/isolated in a harsh frozen environment and not able to trust anyone because they might be the Thing remains.  So in that sense, it's the same movie over again.  But other elements make it new and fresh.

For one (cough) thing, it is in fact the prequel.  We're treated to finding the Thing and the joys and eventual horror that come with such a discovery.  Most importantly, though, it enabled the incorporaton of a classic storyline.  The monster movie!  It worked very well.  Since it deals with previous events, it only makes sense that the creature would run around "out in the open."  After all, it's a potentinally giant contorted beastie with huge set (or sets!) of jaws with the ability to grab victims with tentacles or claws.  I mean, really, who would challenge it?  As you probably know from the first movie, a flamethrower is the humans' friend.  Torching the hell out of the Thing happens a lot (again, in both movies.)  If YOU were the Thing, you'd eventually learn that being burned up in this place is a fact of life.  Thus, it would adapt.  Safer to remain hidden and hide AS other beings.  Don't get me wrong, it does that as well in this movie.  The "could be anyone of us" theme is core.  But again, the Thing tries running amok as a monster, chasing the humans through halls and such.  A welcome dimension to the film/concept/story and a terrific delight.

Matching up all the visuals, both sets and items (like the burnt up twisted mass of human and monster that the Carpenter folk found) all were executed beautifully.  When we entered the room that had the giant block of ice, yeah, I got the chills.  And it all felt like the original film.

And when they also began to rehash (more like homage) a part of the original story/movie, namely the "test" for how to determine who the monster is... they then took it away.  Something happens resulting that they are unable to proceed.  But the scene remains.  How?  A believable alternative solution as to how to expose the monster arises.  However, it again adds another dimension to the familiar tale.  The new method is not foolproof.  All it can say is this person might be the monster.  What a great extra level of psychological torture, no?

It had been great not just to see the reason for the axe, but how other key incidents/objects in Carpenter's played out.  Yet it didn't answer all the questions.  I'm glad.  I don't think it should.  Mystery and the unknown is essential to this story.  We also don't have a clear picture of what the Thing looked like when they found it.  It's in ice, remember?  So it's not all that easy to see.  And when it escape, boy howdy!, is it quick.  Quick enough to make me use the words "boy howdy!"

Reportedly this new movie would utilize the same type of special effects as the Carpenter movie.  The tendency nowadays is to just CGI it.  But van Heijningen, Jr. didn't want that.  It had to have the same look as the original if it were to be accepted as on par and part of it.  So they went with animatronics and laytex and all the old school wizardry.  A little CGI, yes, but only when it couldn't be done otherwise or to "clean up" an existing effect.  And it's truly, for my money, exactly that.  It has the same beautiful ickiness of the original.

I also must give credit to Mary Elizabeth Winstead.  I knew her as Ramona Flowers in one of my absoulte favorites Scott Pilgrim vs. the World.  But she's not an elusive cute chick in this flick.  She's a downright action hero.  And she looked taller, to be honest.  van Heijningen, Jr. had been right.  Using a woman as the main character to counter balance the inmitable Kurt Russell helped seal the deal.  Winstead played it with gusto.  Showing the character's vulnerability but ability to rise to the occasion and take charge.  Brava! 

Unfortunately, Buttercup didn't like as much as me.  She had trouble articulating her point of view, but she felt there were no new ideas presented.  Not in the sense of newness that' I've already mentioned, but in terms of it seemed "just any old monster movie," or so is my take on what she'd meant from how she expressed herself.  My response is, well, it's meant to be a backwards extension of Carpenter's film.  Thus, it should have been in a "as before" kind of mode. 'Tis a shame she didn't love it, too, as Buttercup and I usually agree.  But she didn't hate it.  She said she isn't sorry she went.  And thought the F/X were good and such.

I'm going to see it again.  I texted a college friend of mine that I haven't seen in years.  He's a HUGE fan of Carpenter's The Thing.  He said he's been curious about it... and now I get to go with him and hope that he, too, feels the joy of its horrors.

For me, though:
All in all, a triumph.  It's rare when you receive exactly what you wanted.  Especially from Hollywood.

TIME for a GREAT IDEA

I laughed out loud when I read the description of this upcoming movie.  Loud and LONG.  Think "Evil Villian Laugh" but on a happy, amused level instead.

And no, I don't mean laughing AT the concept.  I mean a sheer boisterous joy and appreciation.

It's currently called Time Zones... and the idea is rather simple but compelling.  AND - it's an ORIGINAL idea in this sea of reboots and remakes.

Imgaine if the world were divided into Time Zones...it already IS you say?  No no... as in fractures in space and time so that one geographical area might be 1750 France, whereas another section is China in 300 B.C. and yet another is the future - New York 2065.  What a great and twisted idea.  Of course, it has a plot of a man's race against time to change the past and save the life of his wife.  He can use the Time Zones to do so, it would seem, but it becomes a race against time within a race against time.

It's being written by Marc Guggenheim and is being produced by Disney.

I'll be keeping an eye on this one!  It's definitely up my alley.

New Old School POOH - The Stuff(ing) of Legends

Perhaps you remember from previous posts that I've been "jazzed" for a long time about seeing the new Winnie-the-Pooh movie.

Fortunately, it's every bit as grand and reverent as I'd gleaned and hoped it would be.

It's the Pooh we remember.  There's nothing but charming scene after charming scene and it's not afraid to slow down.  At so-called "slow" parts the characters' personalities and interactions shine through and we eat it up like Pooh eats up honey.  Truth is it never truly becomes fast paced at all.  Sure, the characters are hurried and bothered, but the story remains at the leisurely comfort of curling up with a stuffed animal.

The animation is glorious.  Not just the production itself, but the re-production of Disney's classic Pooh shorts.  They've really found the niche.  The artwork is a sheer delight, as is the fluidity of the animation.  Bravo to the artists and animators.

There are also a number of musical sequences.  And I bet you can guess... they're delightful.  Each is funny, catchy and moves the story along without feeling out of place, forced or unwelcomed.  They even have the Tigger song.  You know, "The wonderful thing about Tiggers are Tiggers are wonderful things...." - that one.  But it's truncated.  Just a peppering to top off a scene with Tigger.  We didn't need the whole song again, and Disney knew that.  Just as they knew we needed a small smackerel.

I went with Bart and Josiecat, both of whom also adored the film.  Yes, they, too, deem it 'Old School' and just pleasing all around.  Josiecat hit the nail on the head in what they'd done to make this movie.  It's really only one chapter from the A.A. Milne Pooh stories, the one with the note that reads 'Bisy Backson.'  From there it expanded...by which we mean rerouted, heightened or inserted parts to create a new tale without ever losing sight of the origins.  Truly a remarkable feat.  But somehow it felt effortless, guided all the while by the shenanigans of Pooh and his friends.

I'd like to say it had been quite "Goldilocks."  In other words, just right.  It could have gone too far with the slapstick humor, but it does not.  It's stirred in gently and never reaches "too much/far."  It could have been an emotional fest, oozing a sappy feeling or message, especially when intending it to be such a nostalgic piece.  But it's not dripping with too much honey in the least.  (Metaphorically that is!) It would have been easy to push the envelope boundaries what with all the aforementioned 'expansion' but no, it all fits, nay flows nicely together. 

I also want to give a special mention to John Cleese and Craig Ferguson.  They lend their vocal talent as the Narrator and Owl respectively.  You couldn't ask for a better Narrator than Cleese when it comes to Winne-the-Pooh.  Yes, I agree, many people would be great like Stephen Fry, Hugh Laurie or the like.  But there's something about the timbre of Cleese that fits right into the Hundred Acre Wood.  Ferguson is a wonderful Owl.  He's got it down and yet adds his own twist...and keeping suit, in a Goldilocks fashion.

Lastly, the title.  It's simply Winnie-the-Pooh.  It's direct, it's simple.  It's not some attention grabbing headline like Pooh: The NEW Movie or a story-informant such as Pooh and the Backson.  No, just a plain ol' Pooh movie for you.

I'm convinced.  The people who made this movie are the ones who, like me, waited all year for the Pooh TV special to come on, and when it did you can be sure the Footie Pajamas embroided with Pooh were on and the world stopped.  Joy radiated for who knows how long after.

If you have a Pooh bear (that's ours in the picture) give him a hug.  But go see this movie.  On the big screen.  When will you have the chance again to see a Pooh of this calibre on the big screen?  Go!  Relive the days when if you missed something when it aired, you missed it entirely!

Folks, Winnie-the-Pooh won't be in theaters forever.  Take this opportunity to see Pooh at LARGE.

HOWL if You Want More!

More werewolves!

Oddly, it comes at a strange price, of sorts.  But hey, I'm willing to ignore the "status" of it and cheer it on...

What am I talking about?

The now ever-prevalent "reboot."

This time it's for Universal Studio's The Wolf Man.  You'll probably remember the recent remake, The Wolfman.  Naturally, being a werewolf fan, I went to see it.  My review is here.  However, not everyone had a warm reception to it.  So the prospect of a sequel is apparently out.  Thus, the reboot plan.  Word is that it will this time be called Werewolf.  Who knows how much of the original story they'll keep.  Frankly, I'm okay with either lots or none.

You see, I just want more werewolves.
I'm also looking forward to the remake (closer to the book, allegedly) of The Howling.

Vampires have had their day in the sun... I mean.. oh never mind.

Plundered to Death

Well, we went and saw Pirates of the Caribean: On Stranger Tides.

Did I like it? Yes. Did I love it? No.

I’d not been too crazy about more “Pirates” movies to begin with, to be honest. But the fact is that I love Jack Sparrow to pieces [of eight]. He’s one of the best characters to come along in quite some time, in my opinion.  I figured if they’re going to send more of him our way, then I’d welcome it.

But the truth is my apprehension proved correct. All the time I’d been watching the movie I’d been wondering why I’d been there. Again, it’s not that the movie is bad in the least. Just that enough is enough. It felt nearly forced. I mean, I’d not been entirely keen on the last two. It’s also true that I didn’t dislike nor like them. It felt forced then. So to go on and give us yet another tale... well, I just couldn’t be excited about it.

And the general consensus is that they’ll be bringing two more films. I think I’m going to wait until home video for those.

For the record, I did not see it in 3-D. I had sort of wanted to, just to give it that extra edge since the first three movies had not been. But then, there’s these two factors: When 3-D is post production [a la not filmed/shot in 3-D] it shows. Second, some of the people I went with don’t like 3-D at all. I thought perhaps if I loved the movie I’d go check it out again with the enhancement. But sadly, that’s not going to happen.

It has some great F/X and such I’ll give it that.  The mermaids are very cool!  Although I had to roll my eyes at an aspect of them (hint: teeth) but that's just my personal bias - yet it didn't swim right with Bart either, who adores mermaids.

I’d just not been “on board” - and I had desired to be.

Let this, then, serve as a reminder that it’s entirely possible to push a story too far. Sequels must be done when and only when the story is worth telling for sure. And no, that is not a slam against Tim Powers, whose book they plundered to create this movie. Admittedly I have not read his book, but I’m pretty confident that it has its own flair, not mucked up by the nearly-not-quite-rehashed characters in the Disney movies. For it’s a fine story, to be fair. But coupled with MORE of the SAME, well, it ceases to be a treasure.

THOR is MIGHTY Indeed!

Another movie review that I just haven’t typed in yet until now...

THOR

I’d mentioned an interest in the film a few times before. A little recap: Despite my now “dislike” of superheroes (due to over-saturation in the film industry for my tastes) I wanted to see THOR on account of its connection to Norse mythology. I think Norse myths are way underused in cinema. Thus, again despite the fact that it’s the Marvel Comics version of the mythos, my starving for those characters and places on screen brought me to the theater.

I’m quite glad, too. If you know me or read a lot of my posts, you’ll know that I usually have a bone or two to pick with something even if I like it. Well, not this time. I loved all of it, as is. I bet there are die-hard Marvel THOR fans out there put off by this or that change and I certainly do sympathize with them. But two factors must be considered:  First, I’m not a Marvel THOR fan. As in, I didn’t know terribly much about their recreation of him. Second, comic book heroes are a special case, in many ways. Their origins and storyline details (unlike original screen characters and novels/stories) are reconfigured, reinvented and tweaked all the time, it seems. Especially when changing the medium from the comic pages to the screen.

That all said, I reiterate: I really liked this one. It had a perfect blend of the preposterous and the plausible. They knew when to make fun of the ridiculous set-up and when to be utterly serious. And those serious times didn’t feel as if they were preachy.  Instead they're integrated nicely into the tale. A good example (which is only a minor spoiler - don’t worry, it’s not going to “ruin” the film) of the bridging of comic book-ness and ‘real science’ comes in the way of a bridge, actually. Perhaps (I hope!) you’re aware of the Norse mythology Rainbow Bridge to Asgard, the home of the gods. Well, this movie has that bridge - but they turned it into science’s infamous “wormhole.” [A tube-like gateway shortcut of sorts across two different and vastly far away regions of space.]  And here, when you go through a wormhole it’s all colorfully zipping by...hence, the Rainbow Bridge!  Makes almost too much sense, doesn’t it? That kind of logic and coolness is jam packed into the film.

I also really liked that Thor didn’t come to Earth with amnesia. As I looked into the original Marvel, it turns out that he did forget his identity until he once again found his hammer. Well, let me tell you, if the film had mucked about with “Who/where am I?” on his part it would have become quickly tiresome. Having the other characters fuss about trying to figure out the deal with him proved much more interesting. Since Thor knew himself the whole time, he’d been all that much cooler and “bad ass.” It left more time for the action and the development of situations. Can’t see that happening if we’d spent half the film trying to get to him being Thor again.

It’s paced well, too. It knows when to “slow down” and have tender moments between characters and when to ram into "mega battles." I also have to hand it to the costumes. No offense to anyone, but some of the outfits in the original comics are just...well, they’re pretty awful. The film version managed to keep what is good about them and enhance that into something fabulous without loosing the integrity of the original designs. In that way, it matches the myth/science match-up prevalent in the flick. That also applies to the set designs for Asgard.

Oh - the legendary Stan Lee has the best cameo!

If you need a good escape into a realm of fantasy that packs a punch, treat yourself to THOR. It’s a heck of a ride... and yes, I want the sequel. (Though having perused through the later escapades of the comics, I suspect that it will rise to a level of silly that will put me off...) But for now, it delivered exactly what I wanted.

BRAVO!

A Malady Might Be Magnificent for Maleficent

Over a year ago news (is it now 'news' or is it 'old news' - oxymoron alert!) came out that a turnabout story of Sleeping Beauty focusing on Maleficent would be coming to the silver screen.

Well, it still is... but it's now lost Tim Burton as its visionary and director.  His other projects have him tied up.  I would imagine so!  Sometimes it seems every time you turn around, Depp and Burton are involved with a new project and often together.  It's no wonder he doesn't have time for it.

When I read it, I called out "Oh no!"  But the more I think on it, this turn of events could be good for the bad fairy.  Maleficent is the kind of material that Burton's fun nightmarish style might oversaturate.  Maybe so hot off the heels of Alice in Wonderland he himself would loose steam with the fairy tale genre.  Maybe not.  Either way, I am welcoming another visionary.  The word is that David Yates who helmed the last three famed boy wizard movies will take the reigns.  The spell is not yet cast, though.

I also felt much better when Bart reminded me that the script is still by Linda Woolverton.  And that's what sold me on the movie in the first place.  It's a chance to bring a fantastic fresh look at her work, which I've come to love.  I'm looking forward to seeing her strong, powerful yet feminine touch brought to the Mistress of All Evil.

Pan Through a Spyglass...

More information has come out on one of the slew of Peter Pan films from Hollywood.

It's one of those that doesn't seem like a bad idea.  A re-imagining of the story, looking at it through a different lens.  I'm all for that.  I just gets my goat when it's supposed to be Barrie's tale and it becomes distorted in a "damaging" way or when it's supposed to be a contiguous part of the timeline when it's structurally unsound.

Well, this new info comes for the one where Hook is a modern day troubled former detective, pursuing a childlike kidnapper, yes, Peter Pan.  Here's what we now know in addition:  Wendy is the lone survivor, a victim of Pan, who leaves an asylum to help Hook in the hunt for him.  Smee is the only one Hook can trust on the force.

In terms of the cast and crew, we've got Aaron Eckhart as Hook, Sean Bean  is Smee and AnnaSophia Robb portrays the disturbed Wendy.  Rather interesting note:  She's now starring as the incredibly inspiring Bethany Hamilton in the biopic Soul Surfer, which Jeremy Sumpter, the silver screen's Peter Pan also has a role.  Director Ben Hibon will bring his vision to Ben Magid's script.  It's being brought to us by at New Line/Warner Bros.

I think it sounds like it could work out well.  What better way to bring out the darkest notions of Barrie than to push the envelope and name what Pan actually does:  Kidnap.  And given Hook's affiliation with good form and respectability in that weird sense of the dual nature of things - ruthless invader or righteous crusader (depends on how the actions are perceived.)  Maybe Hook is the hero?  There's certainly much trauma throughout the tale of Pan, it might be fun to see the depths of it emerge from another angle.

Here's hoping!

Taking Too Much of a Liberty??

I wound up watching the trailer for Rise of the Planet of the Apes. I didn’t really mean to do so. For I had no real interest in the film. But a site I clicked onto started playing it automatically. So I had a gander.

Sorry to anyone involved and to those that liked it, but my reaction: Is this a joke? (And not the funny kind.)

I think it’s a good example of when a prequel doesn’t need to be told. If you’re not aware, the movie tells HOW the planet became dominated and ruled and, well, completely run by apes. The answer given, of course, is some sort of scientific experiment gone horribly awry producing an army of hyper-intelligent and hyper-active big monkeys attacking us.

No thanks. I much preferred the mystery of the situation. It’s much more horrifying and compelling to have the reasons unknown. And that explanation just seems too easy. Okay, no, I hadn’t thought of it myself. But that’s because I don’t think there’s any reason to need to know how it happened.

I mean, really, does this movie end with the apes destroying the Statue of Liberty and leave us with a shot of her head angled on the shore?

Just my opinion, of course...

A Cheer for a Great CHAP

I learned from Google that today is the
122 anniversary
of the date of Charlie Chaplin's birth.

I don't know about you, but I wave my bowler hat (yes, I do have one) at Mr. Chaplin.  Talk about an innovator and a genius! 

Here's a bit of trivia for you...

Chaplin failed to even reach the finals when he entered a Charlie Chaplin look-alike contest.

And here's another... he has ties to the beloved boy antihero.

Yes.

Barrie wanted Charlie Chaplin not only to direct the* screen adaptation of Peter Pan, he wanted Chaplin to star as the eternal boy as well!

Imagine what THAT would have been like, eh?

UPDATE:  Apparently Chaplin had been born on the 16th and Google started celebrating on the 15th.  Go figure.  Sorry for trusting them to use his actual date and not re-looking it up.  Sigh.


*Word "the" used since it would have been the first live-action screen version of the tale of Peter Pan.
That honor didn't get claimed until 82 years later, by P.J. Hogan.

Hollywood is Bad Bandit!

I can't believe I "have to" complain about a remake again.  This one's "idea"  leaves me even more embittered.  They’re remaking the fantastic (both in the senses of story content and quality) Terry Gilliam classic

Time Bandits

Really?

This poor man can’t ever catch a break on getting a NEW film made (he always runs into some sort of snag, there's more about that in one of the posts somewhere here) and now they’re going to re-do one of his best?

What’s more, they’re going to make it more “kid-accessible.” Um, suuuure. I had always considered it a kid movie anyway. Do they really think it’s too intense for younger viewers? I had been 10 when it came out. And yes, I saw it in the theater. And yes, I loved it then (and now [yes, I have seen it recently.]) To say it needs to be more kid-friendly is an insult to Gilliam, storytelling and children.

Unlike some other 80’s F/X, I don’t think this movie needs any help. It even holds up today.

Oh, Hollywood. SO many books and plays and original ideas out there and you still insist on destroying the integrity of a classic.

If only the Evil Genius could point a finger at them.

And does ANYONE want THE MAP to be REMADE?

*SIGH*

Incidentally, I’ve learned that Banky, Clara, Buttercup and Josiecat haven’t seen Time Bandits. Clara quote :
Time traveling midgets!?!?? I’m IN.

Correction:  Buttercup has seen it.  I showed it to her when we had our Gilliam kick.

BRAVE mov(i)e on Pixar's Part

We all know Pixar does amazing work.  Not just in stunning animation and art design, but in terms of storytelling as well.

So I'm really looking forward to the upcoming movie, Brave.

Brave is set in the mystical Scottish Highlands, where Merida is the princess of a kingdom ruled by King Fergus and Queen Elinor.  An unruly daughter and an accomplished archer, Merida one day defies a sacred custom of the land and inadvertently brings turmoil to the kingdom. In an attempt to set things right, Merida seeks out an eccentric old Wise Woman and is granted an ill-fated wish. Also figuring into Merida's quest - and serving as comic relief - are the kingdom's three lords: the enormous Lord MacGuffin the surly Lord Macintosh, and the disagreeable Lord Dingwall.

I really like that it's a girl on the quest and that she is seeking the Wise Woman.  Color me sympathetic to the need for strong female characters in stories, especially films, but it just sounds refreshing.

It will be a while before it arrives [June 22, 2012], but I'm  thinking it will be worth the wait.

That's the concept art scattered about, of course.  Personally, I would love it if it continued to have this painting feel to it.

I'd Been Hoodwinked!

The other night when Bart and I gathered at Banky’s place for our weekly visit with him, Clara, Buttercup & Josiecat, I discovered once again that the “don’t judge by how it appears” rule applies.

Josiecat brought us a movie to watch. I knew of it. And I had dismissed it as something that I need not see. You know how it goes... it just looked like the type of stuff cranked out with all flash and no substance. Well, obviously the presentational packaging (trailer/ads) didn’t do it justice. To my surprise, Hoodwinked is a gem!

A spin on the well-known tale of Little Red Riding Hood, it had been a welcome change from the recent semi-letdown of Red Riding Hood. There’s a LOT packed into Hoodwinked. And all of it is delightful.

It actually begins with the old adage of not judging a book by its cover, opening up a storybook as it does so. We’re then told that there is more than one side to every story, also very true. We start the tale this time around with Red entering Grandma’s house and encountering the Wolf dressed as Grandma. It’s obvious that Red is not fooled, but plays along in the sense of buying time. Shortly after, Granny bursts out of the closet and then, well, the real fun begins.

Grandma’s house is now a crime scene - yellow “Caution Do Not Cross” strips, cop cars and everything. Each ‘character’ is questioned by the police (the chief is a bear) and gives their side of the story. As such, we are then treated to skipping backward in time to when their “real” story started. For instance, we now see Red leaving her place, getting on her bike and traveling to Granny’s. Along the way we notice various things we do not quite understand, such as the woodcutter looking awfully dejected and follow Red’s soon to be misadventures all the way up until she opens the door to Grandma’s house. Also for instance, in her version, the Wolf is quite intrusive and frightens her with an attack and she runs from him.

Well, then comes the Wolf’s side of the story. His over-inquisitiveness about the contents of Red’s basket and her destination? Oh, he’s really a reporter, you see, trying to crack the case of who has been stealing all the recipes for Goodies across the forest and putting everyone out of business. (Granny’s recipes [the best Goodies of all] are highly prized by whoever the bandit happens to be.) We’re then treated to the Wolf's misadventures. Thus, we now see what really happened in some parts. Like that ‘lunge attack and growl’ upon Red? His squirrel helper’s shenanigans crunches his tail and he’s really crying out and moving in pain. (Red saw it otherwise!)

It goes on... retelling each ‘day’ of each character and we therefore learn the truth about how things really played out. We find out why the woodcutter looked despondent. We find out why Granny had been tied up in the closet (which the Wolf swears had already been the case when he arrived - and my my my is it hilarious how it really goes down.)  [I tend to applaud this type of interlocking 'point of view' story in the first place.  The Simpsons also has a wonderful version of it.]

But it doesn’t stop there. Nope. The telling of the truth by each character only takes up a portion of the movie. From then on, it’s an action adventure as the characters race to find and capture the infamous bandit. And it never loses sight of that crafty wit and great story.

All of it is peppered with humor of the slapstick and pun varieties. And all of it is wonderfully entertaining. I must say the writing is ingenious. Funny lines coupled with tightly knit and unexpected ideas. I suppose one would compare it to the Shrek franchise - a la twisting the land of fairy tale with anachronistic and our-worldly themes. The similarity is there, yes, but the focus is quite different. Hoodwinked stands on its own, reminding me of the old Rocky & Bullwinkle shorts Fractured Fairy Tales. While Shrek is wonderful, it’s does not have the same drive and layers of Hoodwinked.

It has terrific vocal talent, too. Among others you’ll find Anne Hathaway, Patrick Warburton, David Ogden Stiers and Glenn Close.

I enjoyed this one immensely. Thank you, Josiecat, for showing it to us. I’m so very glad that I’d been wrong.

And I must say the title, although ‘cutesy’ is truly apt. The characters are not only hoodwinked, but it’s taking a wink at the story of Hood.

It’s really too bad that this movie, among a slew of other sub-par and quick-buck animated features, got lost in the woods.

P.S. - Hoodwinked Too! Hood vs. Evil will be out April 29. And yes, the way this one ends, the sequel is warranted and welcomed. Guess who will be going!

Yellow Would Have Worked Just as Well

So it turns out Bart wanted to see Red Riding Hood, which just came to theaters this past weekend.  I've posted about it before and admit that I'd been interested in it.  A 'mature' take on the legend going back to its (often but not always) roots in lycanthropy?  Yes, please.

Well, we saw it.  No, thanks.  I didn't dislike the movie exactly.  It's not like I sat there wanting the damned thing to end.  But it's not as if I had been quite entertained, either.

The werewolf, I must say, is quite good.  A nice big beast.  Only drawback is he didn't walk on his hind legs.  I prefer that in a werewolf.  But a great design all the same.  Nice F/X, too.  Didn't look CGI to me at all (if it had been, which, in this day and age, one can assume.)

The problem with it, for me, is that it didn't use the 'original' story enough.  Yes, I knew it would veer, and I had wanted it to, since it's a variation on a classic.  But it just veered way too far in that it didn't really do the original tale at all.  Yeah, the elements were there.  Grandma, her house in the woods, a wolf, a woodcutter, the red cloak/hood and a basket and such... but consider that Grandma is spry as hell and never sick at all, the basket doesn't contain goodies and the woodcutter is the same age as Red Riding Hood.  The quickest way of making my point is that this film did not require it to borrow the tale at all.  It would have worked just as well without any of those elements.  It just happened to have them thrown in, you see.

I also have to give it credit for keeping me guessing (i.e. the identity of the werewolf is unknown by the village) but then again, once it is revealed it didn't really feel satisfying.  Not an eye-roller, just a little [without sarcasm] "oh, sure, yeah, okay."

So it's a little bit of a shame.  It had the potential to be deeply rooted in the pyschological and sensual/coming of age metaphors inherent in the woods and a young girl and just went with an almost but not quite cheesy werewolf mystery.

Oh well, it's not like I expected a masterpiece.

Scott Pilgrim vs...Scott Pilgrim?

So, I finished the Scott Pilgrim series some time ago now.
I did stick to my “waiting simulation” described in this post.

Yes, I loved the actual/original series.  (How could one NOT?)  I enjoyed it for a few reasons. First, it’s just a HECK of a lot of fun. Second, it had been a delight to see how things became ‘translated’ to the movie screen.  Third, there had been plenty “additional” material so that it still seemed fresh.

One of the biggest differences, as I saw it, is that the film takes place with a degree of immediacy. For instance, meet the Evil Ex and BAM! the fight soon follows, with the exception of Roxie Richter. That imposed delay (by Scott), however, does happen in the books. But what I mean is the ‘novels’ take place over the course of a year or more. One of the volumes is all about the Summer. And when Scott does meet an Evil Ex in the books, there’s not an instant fight. The Katayanagi Twins, for example, he meets several times at various parties before he duels with them. Okay, granted, they start to send giant robots after Pilgrim to fight for them before he actually battles them. All of which, you see, is not in the movie at all. Plus, there’s plenty of backstory, side adventures and other characters that fell by the wayside...

All in all, I think the movie did a fantastic job of adapting the books. Yes, things are missing. Yes, events/tidbits are shifted from one character to another. Yes, dialogue/lines are moved.  Yes, there are general differences. But all of these are completely understandable and work incredibly well... as in they CAN be considered “extraneous” or are better suited where they are placed (for the film, not the books.) Plus, as I stated in another post, the movie allowed for quite a bit that the book could not do - sound effects, music, camera movement, etc. All of which served to enhance the delightful tale... one might say to the point of making up for whatever is lacking.

I must say, though, that every fight with an Evil Ex I liked better in the movie. Don’t get me wrong. I really liked the ‘real’ way, too. And the truth is that in most cases, the elements of the book are there... just expanded. And I prefer (perhaps too strong a word) how it turns out in the film. That is UNTIL... the FINAL Evil Ex. Folks, I adored the movie way fighting him. Pleased as punch. But... the book blows it away - and yet it has some of the same bits to make it all happen. I enjoy this “poetic justice” - that the movie improved each battle except for the ending. (Yes, I still like the movie way, too.)

I just have one complaint about the film now. One that I would never have had without reading the books. The film just did not play up “Subspace” nearly enough. In fact, it’s partly due to this loss that the ending is lacking (when compared to the books.) Yes, they do have it in the movie. [If you’ve seen it, it’s the “door” and the “’flying’ through blackness” (which is faithfully rendered to the screen.)] And it is, in fact, explained. Unfortunately, it’s just one line by Ramona and amid all the chaos and hilarity, it gets lost. Way lost. In the books, Ramona’s use of “Subspace” comes up rather frequently (ever so much more than movie.) Scott uses these “shortcut portals across space” on his own as well. Subspace plays a major role in the final battle. They also don’t explain that Ramona’s bag operates in Subspace, too. (Note that it has a star [book & film], like the doors.) No, Subspace is not completely made clear in the books. But it doesn’t need to be - it’s one of those things that work better with a degree of bewonderment. But the whole concept and use of it in the books is so terrific that it’s just a shame that this element of the story is downplayed in the film. But hey, at least it’s in it!

I am of course curious what my thoughts would be had I experienced the tale of Scott Pilgrim the other way around (i.e. the books first.) I’m willing to bet that the result would be just the same, though.  For the it's easy to love them both, for very different reasons.  Bravo to the filmmakers, all of those involved, for repackaging the story so magnificently.

Either way, I’m so happy to count Scott and his all his wackiness among my favorite characters.

Thanks, first and foremost, to Bryan Lee O’Malley! I must also give credit to Edgar Wright (director and screenplay) and Michael Bacall (screenplay) [as well as all the actors!]

I ♥ Scott Pilgrim!