Dec 18
AndrewMovies Movies, Superhero
Question: What’s the worst super hero movie adaptation of all time?
Answer: Yeah, it’s the Punisher. Not even the Dolph Lundgren version, which at least had some redemption value for its high camp and 80′s veneer. No, the worse offender was the Thomas Jane recast which was so unbelievably bad that we were laughing our way through it.
Maybe it’s because Punisher isn’t really a super hero (being a self-righteous marginal type that he is). Nothing in the movie worked, from the opening “origin” sequence where Frank Castle’s entire lineage in wiped out in about 20 seconds to shooting, the secret identity he takes on and lives in an apartment building with curious folk. It’s all turgid. I haven’t seen War Journal, but word on the street is they went for graphic violence in order to make the character palatable. Hopefully, Marvel will finally bury this franchise for good.
That said, when a super hero movie goes bad, it’s bad. Exhibit A: Elektra. Why take someone like Jennifer Garner and make her soulless and flat? Then fold in an almost completely non-existent plot (“back from the dead” isn’t much to work with, folks, though I guess Whedon milked it for half a season) and silly action ninja sequences that wouldn’t sully Kung Fu Hustle. The movie was so bland in every aspect, it’s not worth the effort to crown it the worst ever.
Exhibit B: Ghost Rider. An intricate plot that really just wasn’t interesting, casting Nicholas Cage in the role of the adult Johnny Blaze when they could have just stuck with Matt Long and the movie would have been at least as interesting, and a completely unexplained appearance by Carter Slade was just too much. Some nifty visuals and a wicked Blackheart played by Wes Bentley kept this movie from being the worst.
Dec 18
JeremyMovies brett ratner, bryan singer, hugh jackman, Ian McKellan, james marsden, patrick stewart, X-Men
Question: What is your favorite superhero movie adaptation?
Answer: Hands down, this is so much easier than the Harry Potter question where I actually had to think about my answer. This time, I can go on pure instinct: the first two X-Men movies (thought I think I’m gonna give a brief shout out to Iron Man as runner up!). It might be cheating, but I’m going with both because I really view them as a single adaptation.
The first movie revived the 90′s-moribund superhero genre, despite Storm’s bad hair and “Do you know what happens to a toad when it’s struck by lightning?”; up to that point, the movie superhero had been largely dormant for quite some time. I mean, seriously, those were people’s main quibbles with the first movie. Well, those and Magneto’s largely one-dimensional minions. But it brought us action, it brought us character development (for the good guys) and it was superbly cast. I mean, the brilliance of casting Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellan aside, Hugh Jackman is just delicious (and maybe James Marsden too).
Moving right into the second movie in a way that really advanced the plot and the relationships between the characters was superb. Anyone who has ever felt marginalized can really connect with these people who really would rather just be left alone to live their lives in peace. At the same time, it’s easy to understand how the experiences of someone like Magneto have shaped him in a way that has built up a burning hatred within. How often does Hollywood manage to give us good action with a moral (that doesn’t feel like a moral bludgeon) and still leave some ambiguity in how we’re supposed to feel? Rarely, but it was achieved with these two films.
Yup. That’s my pick.
And now, a moment of vituperation: Damn, damn Bryan Singer for bailing on us and letting Brett Ratner ruin the third! I find it entirely ironic that Singer jumped to Superman Returns and Ratner to X-3 and then no one liked either movie. Wouldn’t it be awesome if Twentieth Century Fox would be what Warner Bros is doing and just ignore the bad movie and move on with producing a replacement?
Alas and alack…at least I hear good things about X-Men Origins: Wolverine.
Dec 04
JeremyMovies Film, Harry Potter
Question: Which Harry Potter movie so far is the best adaptation of the book its based on?
Answer: Hmmmm. Tough choice. What does “best” mean? For my money, the first two were the most faithful to the source material, but I’m not sure that means “best.” The characterizations and plots were taken straight from the books with little change. I thought they did a good job with compressing the story down and relocating a scene here or there so that important material was still covered. But I don’t think they are the best entries in the series because the child actors simply weren’t mature enough to have any real level of craft yet.
I can tell you right now that the fourth (Goblet of Fire) was the “worst” adaptation; there’s no question of that in my mind. A lot of the plot decisions were questionable in my mind. They kept Rita Skeeter in, but made zero use of her or her subsequent plotline, which I think they did solely because they announced Miranda Richardson’s casting before the script was even written. As a result, they cut Dobby who plays such an important role later on. And that was just the beginning of bad choices. To me, this film is the Star Trek: Generations of the Harry Potter movie world.
Accordingly that leaves me with two choices for the best adaptation: the third or the fifth. I think I shall have to choose the fifth (Order of the Phoenix) because such a long novel required so much adaptation to fit in two hours on screen. The script for this film showed the finesse that the fourth film did not. The important plot points were all met or exaggerated in a way that made them real visually. I mean, the wall of Umbridge edicts was just amusing and the visual effect of them smashing to bits was great. The production team chose to highlight all the right pieces and cut away the additional plotlines that didn’t serve the core of the film franchise. Yup, number five is definitely my choice so far. We’ll see about the coming attractions.
Nov 06
AndrewMovies Adaptations, comic book, Comic Book Adaptation, Comics, Films, Heroes, Marvel, Movies
Let’s face it, Hulk never translated on to the big screen (call it the Lou Ferrigno ® curse) and the Uncanny X-Men films were brilliant in the hands of Bryan Singer but lackluster in the hands of director Brett Ratner, despite cranking up the action quotient in the third installment. (It’s funny because among Ratner’s other directorial credits is Rush Hour and Madonna’s music video for Beautiful Stranger. Or is that just funny to me?) The Punisher? You couldn’t even decide which version was worse, Dolph Lundgren’s or Thomas Jane’s (who by the way, I love but even he couldn’t rise above this one.)
But for all the Marvel adaptations that have flopped (Daredevil, Ghost Rider, Elektra) or just been [shrug] (either Fantastic Four, Spider-Man 3, Howard the Duck) there have been some shining moments. Among them Spider-Man, X-Men and, of course, the most recent blockbuster Iron Man.
Iron Man is the news these days, along with the now-confirmed first Marvel team-up of Avengers headed for theaters in 2011. The first hero movie of any franchise is a bit of a hit or miss affair. For people not familiar with comic books, the director and screenwriters have to infuse enough of the legend for people to understand the characters without completely alienating the fanbase that have obsessed about them since elementary school. Singer managed to walk the fine line (though notably at the expense of the action sequences, as I mentioned and with judicious use of Professor Xavier voiceovers.) Iron Man, directed by Jon Favreau, did it too, and better.
So it’s understandable now that the Iron Man mythology is firmly established in the Hollywood milieu (and by that, I mean that it is profitable,) the buzz is building around the sequel and Iron Man’s eventual starring role in The Avengers.
It’s easy to conclude that a good film really lies in the hands of the director (I’ve already skewered Ghost Rider for such things if you care to revisit that travesty.) So for whichever installment Favreau signs on for, there is a good chance the film is going to be worthwhile. (He is currently slated to direct Iron Man II and executive produce The Avengers.) And given the studio’s track record of releasing three hero films a year (except for 2006 but that was obviously a glaring mistake in scheduling) whether the films are good or bad doesn’t make much of a dent in the future of Marvel hero films.
Coming Attractions
Punisher
First up is the Punisher reboot Punisher: War Zone. A reboot just means the first origin film flopped, so they are telling the origin story again with a different creative team. Marvel already tried this with The Incredible Hulk which flopped but established Edward Norton to play Bruce Banner/Hulk in The Avengers film (including a brief appearance by Iron Man’s alter ego Tony Stark hinting at an Avengers team.)
The Punisher has been done before, and not well. Lundgren’s Punisher was a product of decade it was made in (the film was released in 1989) but Jane’s Punisher was just painful to sit through from start to finish. The fact that movie sucked had little to do with Jane himself, but that’s not really a consolation for anyone who made the mistake of watching it.
Punisher: War Zone, as a comic book, was grittier storytelling than the mainstream Punisher comic, and we should expect about the same between The Punisher film and the upcoming War Zone. Sadly, the story is going to sound remarkably familiar to anyone who has ever seen a hero movie: Mob boss is disfigured by superhero vigilante, adopts a supervillain persona and seeks revenge against said superhero. There is little to no buzz about the film despite a December 5 release date (though the film was pushed back from its original release date on September 12.) But here’s the question? The plot sounds wholly unoriginal, what is going to distinguish this from the past Punisher flops or any other retread hero flick? My guess: not a damn thing.
Wolverine
The X-Men franchise was handed over to Wolverine, care of Hugh Jackman, which is a good thing if you ask me. Jackman personified Wolverine in a way that still sends chills down my spine. Oh, but this is an origin story and features a veritable who’s who in the Wolverine universe. So many characters that you might be tempted to ask, who is going to direct the menagerie to make it work? That would be Gavin Hood (who?) Yeah, he is virtually unknown, whose directorial credits barely warrant him an inclusion in the imdb database.
Jackman himself had a hand in the script and supposedly pushed to emphasize a character-driven storyline. My guess: Jackman pulls it off.
Thor/Captain America
So in order to launch an Avengers franchise (with Robert Downey Jr. and Edward Norton already on board) Marvel Studios is bouncing around ideas for films that establish Thor and Captain America in Hollywood. The Cap film was delayed because of the writer’s strike but has been tentatively slated for a May 2011 release, sans any real details (though it is supposedly set during World War II.)
There is no real information about the possibility of a Thor film except that it has been in pre-production for several years. My guess: It will be interesting, assuming both films are released, to see if setting up the characters in their own films helps or hurts The Avengers. I would love to see The Avengers spawn infinite sequels -- it was always one of my favorite comics -- but I’m not sure how long Marvel can keep cranking out films and keep people engaged (particularly when their success rate is generously 50%.)
Future Film Adaptations
Sequels for Iron Man and Spider-Man are confirmed. Iron Fist, Ghost Rider, Daredevil, Black Panther and…Ant Man? Confirmed in development at least. (There were reports a while back that Ghost Rider’s creator Gary Friedrich was appalled by the misuse of his creation -- though from the lawsuits that followed it may have been motivated more by money than anything else.) And there has been some spin around films for Nick Fury (inconceivably played by Samuel L. Jackson in the Iron Man flick) and Dr. Strange, in addition to spin-offs for Silver Surfer, Venom and Magneto. My guess: Good or bad, Marvel will keep the pace going for the foreseeable future. There is no way to run out of characters when you can always make a sequel or a reboot out of established film heroes or dig up some obscure character and try to make a bonafide box office hero out of him.
Sep 10
JeremyMovies Batman, Batman sequel, Johnny Depp, Michael Caine, Philip Seymour Hoffman, The Dark Knight
MTV.com is reporting that the next Batman sequel is already on the books at Warner Bros. At the Toronto Film Festival, Michael Caine spilled not only the villains, but the actors tapped to play them. Caine claims to have studio confirmation that Johnny Depp is onboard as The Riddler, while Philip Seymour Hoffman will portray The Penguin. Warner Bros. is pinning its hopes on this dynamic duo to top Heath Ledger’s Joker in The Dark Knight (which you may remember I loathed). Hoffman, of course, has already denied these reports.
So how do I know I will already hate the film? The answer is easy and likely just as shocking to you as my hatred of The Dark Knight: I detest Johnny Depp. I generally don’t enjoy a single moment of the time he spends on screen and Hollywood’s love affair with him makes me queasy to say the least. So if the last film used an actor that I actually quite liked as the villain and I still hated it, I cannot see how casting Depp is going to make like the next film any better. Ironically, I’m sure I will still see it anyway, picking at a scab that just wants to heal.
Sep 05
AndrewMovies Ghostbusters, Movies
Um, they may be old and they may be fat, but are the Ghostbusters back in town?
Apparently, according to a Variety report that simultaneously announced the development and then downplayed it in the same bit. Two writers, of The Office fame, Lee Eisenberg and Gene Stupnitsky have been tapped to hammer out a script. Who knows whether Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis would sign on again (but let’s face it, none them are exactly box office gold these days -- it might be their chance! In fact, do you remember when Bill Murray made waves as a “serious” actor in Lost in Translation? No, me neither.)
As proof positive of a new film in the works, a Ghostbusters video game voiced by Murray, Aykroyd and Ramis (hello, Ernie Hudson!) is actually moving forward, despite currently lacking a distributor. Note to Columbia: don’t play cagey. This has all the makings of a summer blockbuster like it was in 1984.
Older Entries Newer Entries
RSS
