MySpace.com | rss | sign in | sign out

MovieDemon

Last Updated:
Apr 24, 2008

Send Message
Instant Message
Email to a Friend
Subscribe

Gender: Male
Status: Married
Age: 95
Sign: Scorpio

State: New York
Country: US

Signup Date: 01/13/07

Blog Archive
[ Older     Newer ]


Monday, September 22, 2008

Review: Child’s Play: Chucky’s 20th Birthday Edition
Category: Movies, TV, Celebrities

From the I SEE DEAD website

Child's Play: Chucky's 20th Birthday Edition
1988 / Color / 87 min.
 
 
The set-up is simple: Police shoot and kill the Lakeshore Strangler, Charles Lee Ray, after cornering him in a toy store. As the man is dying, he transfers his soul into a "Good Guy" doll by the use of voodoo. Soon, a 6-year-old boy (Alex Vincent) becomes the proud owner of this doll, and all hell breaks loose as Chucky (voiced by Brad Dourif) goes on a murder spree. The boy's mother (Catherine Hicks) and the eventual help of a police detective (Chris Sarandon), they become determined to end Chucky's reign of terror.
 
This 20th anniversary edition DVD looks spectacular, and the film itself – though conceptually silly – is an effective horror film with a heavy leaning of suspense and some witty (and crude) comic relief provided by Brad Dourif's Chucky. While the sequels have diluted the concept, this film is still able to stand on its own. It's stylishly handled by director Tom Holland ("Fright Night") who is suspiciously missing from the proceedings. Shameful. I See Dead's 2007 interview with Tom Holland, can be found HERE.
 
Like most special editions, horror fans are always interested by the bonus features. So, here is a breakdown of what the disc has to offer:
 
Audio Commentary I: Alex Vincent, Catherine Hicks, and 'Chucky' Designer Kevin Yagher
 
This rather ho-hum commentary track lacks punch, as Hicks and Yagher, who met on the set (and eventually married), hog the track with their snooze inducing reflections of the film. This begs the question; why didn't the more insightful and engaging Tom Holland not asked to do a commentary?
 
Audio Commentary II: Producer David Kirschner and Screenwriter Don Mancini
 
This commentary is much more lively and informative. Kirschner does state that ..:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Holland did a great job, but you get a sense that the two of them may have clashed heads on the set (which may be the reason why Holland is excluded from the disc). There are some interesting tidbits, and it was nice to hear moments when the two would recognize Holland's fine work, and were willing to give credit where credit is due.
 
Select Scene Chucky Commentary (24:07)
- Chucky's Thoughts (4:44)
- The Advantages of Being Chucky (5:33)
- Chucky on Filmmaking (3:30)
- Up Close & Personal with Chucky (11:00)
 
Brad Dourif returns as Chucky for a select scene commentary is an inventive and at times, humorous idea that is not fully realized, and initially Dourif's Chucky voice seemed a bit off. The final section "Up Close & Personal with Chucky" also includes Don Mancini who teases of some ideas of his planned (and entirely unnecessary) remake. The two actually work off one another pretty well, and is easily the best section of the four-part Chucky commentary.
 
Evil Comes In Small Package Featurette
- Play all (25:20)
- The Birth of Chucky (7:24)
- Creating the Horror (12:29)
- Unleashed (5:27)
 
These are well done featurettes that include some cool behind the scene segments and even a taste of rehearsal test footage. While we get comments from Tom Holland that was from a 1988 interview, he is sorely missed as it is evident he was the driving force behind the quality of the overall film. Mancini's original concept, called "Blood Buddy," was rather poor, which should concern everyone that he will be behind a remake of the film. It is truly bizarre that the main writer-director of the film would be excluded for a 20th anniversary DVD release.
 
Chucky: Building A Nightmare Featurette (10:04)
 
This featurette delves into the animatronic Chucky doll created by Kevin Yagher. It features loads of footage of the period and it's quite interesting to see the evolution of the process. This featurette also includes the thoughts of horror legend, Tom Savini.
 
A Monster Convention Featurette (5:26)
 
This is a well shot but far too short convention appearance from MonsterMania 2007 that featured actors Alex Vincent, Catherine Hicks and Chris Sarandon. Thankfully, all questions from the audience is miked and clearly audible. However, it is too short to be at all effective. This is the least of all the bonus features.
 
Introducing Chucky: The Making of "Child's Play" Featurette (6:10)
 
Decent "making of" featurette from 1988 is nostalgic but offers little else. Most of the footage had already been seen in the newly produced featurettes. The one plus side is that you do get a few more brief comments from writer-director Tom Holland here.
 
Theatrical Trailer (2:07)
Photo Gallery (75 pics)
Trailers (4:36)
- Mr. Brooks (2:23)
- Pathology (2:13)
 
Feature Film: *** (out of four)
Bonus Features: ***
 
Overall: For $9.99, you'll be hard pressed to find a better buy, but the shameful exclusion of Tom Holland really hampers this release for me. All in all, the sound and picture quality is quite good, and "Child's Play" is worth revisiting. ***
 
I would strongly recommend Icons of Fright's free "Child's Play" commentary download they recently did with writer-director Tom Holland (which is moderated by Tim Sullivan). Here's the link: http://iconsoffright.com/news/2008/0...olland_di.html
 
Theatrical Release Date: 11/11/88
 
DVD Release Date: 9/9/08
 
Director: Tom Holland
 
Genre: Horror
 
Runtime: 87 min,
 
Cast: Catherine Hicks, Chris Sarandon, Alex Vincent, Brad Dourif, Dinah Manoff, Tommy Swerdlow, Jack Colvin, Neil Giuntoli
 
Links to purchase: <font...

http://www.iseedead.com/showthread.php?t=9695

5:54 AM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

Wednesday, September 17, 2008

Article Backlash Begins: The Dark Plight
Category: Movies, TV, Celebrities

From the I See Dead horror website:
 
 
Backlash Begins: The Dark Plight
By MovieDemon


In 1997, the then unheard of $200 million budget of James Cameron's 3-hour and 14 minute historical (and not so historical) "Titanic" film was set to be released that July. The speculation from box office analysts was that the film would be an epic failure amid reports of production woes. Ultimately, the film was then pushed back nearly six months which only added fuel to the fire.

Opening on December 19th, Cameron's "Titanic" surprisingly opened to glowing reviews and topped the box office charts for 15 – yes, 15 – consecutive weekends. The film made $515 million before it even relinquished the top spot. In that historic run, the film was showered with audience adulation and an insane amount of critical accolades. It would win a total of 76 awards including 11 Oscars. It became the biggest grossing film of all time ($600.6 million domestically, and an additional $1.2 billion – yes, $1.2 billion – overseas).

On top of that, "Titanic" was being hailed as a cinematic masterpiece, as it would soon find its way on The Best Films of All Time lists. "Titanic" books were topping bestsellers lists, TV specials were making a killing in the Nielsen ratings, and commemorative merchandise were selling out at hefty price tags. There was no mountain too big for "Titanic" to climb. It achieved the pinnacle of what any property could possibly achieve.

Soon, however, the whispers began.

It started slowly, but gradually gained steam. Suddenly, negative articles were popping up about the romance angle of the film being too corny, and cliché. Historians started to chirp about all the inaccuracies of the film. It soon became a popular attack to say that "repeat viewings from 13 year old girls made 'Titanic' a hit". The critical darling started to get a tongue lashing. These days, "Titanic" has become a joke to many film goers and film aficionados who don't understand how the film could have made so much money, or how it even won Best Picture that year. Such criticism was unthinkable back in the late 90's. Now, that same film, can't even muster a successful 10th Anniversary Special Edition DVD launch.

The question is; could a similar fate befall "The Dark Knight"? The film has the stupendous reviews, the unconscionable box office success, and other multimedia accomplishments. Fans and critics were quick to hail it a masterpiece as it was declared by many to be one of the greatest films ever made. In fact, IMDB users once had the film listed at 1 as the best rated film of all time (currently, however, the film stands at 3). That said, there is an underbelly that is starting to feel as if it's not enough for Bat-fans that "The Dark Knight" is a very good movie or one of the best comic book films ever made. No, it has to be hailed as the greatest film ever. It has to be viewed as being greater than "The Godfather," "Citizen Kane" and every single Alfred Hitchcock film. "The Dark Knight" must be viewed as a flawless film, and the slightest criticism is attacked and quickly discredited. This sort of obsession and astronomical praise, however, has already begun to rub people the wrong way.

While "The Dark Knight" will not surpass "Titanic" (not in its initial run, anyway) – it's really not even in the same league when we discuss actual tickets sold. Nonetheless, the whispers seem to be popping up with blogs and youtube videos claiming the film is overrated. Some suggest that the success and adulation predominately stem from the untimely death of Heath Ledger, and not the merits of the actual film itself. Some are lashing out that the film is "bloated" and "convoluted". Some suggest that not only is "The Dark Knight" not the best comic film ever made, but its not even the best comic book film of the year. Many feel that honor goes to "Iron Man". Some claim "'Dark Knight' is good, but not great" and say "it could have been better". Is this just the minority or a growing voice that will one day ostracize the film simply because they feel its being overrated due to the death of Heath Ledger? Will this potential uprising hamper the film earning any credible Oscar nominations beyond the inevitable technical awards? Or better yet; does the film even deserve them?

It would appear that Ledger is a shoe-in for a best supporting actor nomination. Ledger died on ..:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />January 22nd 2008, the Academy Award nominations will be announced on January 22nd 2009. Would the Academy actually snub Ledger on the 1-year anniversary of his death? Um, I think not. Besides, throwing a nomination Ledger's way could be a great PR move for the Award show that is often maligned for being "out of touch" or "snobbish". Irregardless, is "The Dark Knight" simply a movie of its era or one that will stand the test of time? Can "The Dark Knight" fend off any and all backlash that it may have to face? This very notion may all seem unfathomable, but remember, people would have felt the same about "Titanic" in 1998. The biggest crime, unfortunately, is that "The Dark Knight" is a very good film that COULD someday get unjust backlash because some fans couldn't keep the film in its proper perspective. That's unfortunate ... but at least we have "Iron Man" hitting DVD shelves on September 30th.
 
 
Here's the link:

1:26 PM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

Thursday, September 04, 2008

Artilce: Disaster Duo
Category: Movies, TV, Celebrities

EXCLUSIVELY FROM WWW.ISEEDEAD.COM
 
Disaster Duo
By MovieDemon


"Beware of those who laugh at nothing or everything." - ..:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Arnold H. Glasgow

Let me just get right to the point. Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer stink. For those who don't know, this is the duo that is responsible for such crap infested films like, "Date Movie," "Epic Movie," "Meet the Spartans," and their latest "Disaster Movie". Oh, and of course, they are two of the six writers that brought you the first "Scary Movie," and two of the four writers that brought you 1996's "Spy Hard". Like I said, these guys stink.

Now before I get too ahead of myself, I do want to add that I do find these films deeply insulting. They're just awful movies that are literally thrown together in a very brief period of time, and rushed into theaters to earn a quick buck. They have no redeeming qualities whatsoever as they pander to those who may not know any better. As far as I'm concerned, forget Uwe Boll people, Friedberg and Seltzer is the true "poster child" of bad filmmaking.

In fact, it truly baffles me how often that media outlets will spend their time crapping all over the run-of-the-mill generic movies and/or filmmakers for being – as they call it – terrible, but yet these two hacks go unscathed by these same reputable media outlets. Why is that? Too easy of a target? It's not a controversial topic that will sell magazines or garner strong television ratings?

Seriously, why do some movies or filmmakers get dragged over hot coals in blogs, news reports, and Friedberg and Seltzer really go unnoticed. Beyond the die hard film geek, who really knows these guys names? Someone as bad as them should really be widely known for the ineptitude.

Though you got to admit, it's strange that these bottom-of-the-barrel spoof movies do so well at the box office, but yet everyone seems to agree that these movies suck. So, are these films just being accepted for being the shit that they are? I suppose so. Because let's face it, if they are expected to be bad, why waste time writing about the obvious, right? But in honesty, do these guys really deserve such a free pass? Especially, considering when more talented filmmakers are endlessly bashed for making one misstep.

Now make no mistake; Friedberg and Seltzer have enjoyed loads of success with their films that look as if they cost twelve dollars and fifty-six cents to make. Of course, "Scary Movie" was a tremendous hit at nearly $160 million at the domestic box office and spawned three sequels. Plus, movies like "Date Movie" nearly scored $50 million, "Epic Movie" and "Meet The Spartans" garnered just shy of $40 million, and "Spy Hard" grossed a then-solid $26 million. Worldwide, their later films have all made around $85 million each. HOW???

Each time they make one of these unfunny train wrecks, it's always the same ("Disaster Movie" notwithstanding). They open well, perform similarly, and are trashed. "Scary Movie" aside, none of their films has earned higher than a 6% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Meanwhile, IMDB users list "Date Movie" at a 2.6, "Epic Movie" at a 2.2, "Meet the Spartans" a 2.4, and now, their latest, "Disaster Movie," is the worst rated film of all of IMDb listings with just over 8,200 votes and a 1.2 rating. Seriously, what filmmaker(s) have such a horrid track record as this, and yet are able to consistently make successful movies?

Now, I know many message board enthusiasts have rejoiced that "Disaster Movie" has opened poorly (in relation to their previous efforts) with less than $7 million over its 4-day holiday weekend, and, to date, it is the worst opening of any of their films. Even 1996's "Spy Hard" opened in double digits. But before we blow up the balloons, and crank the music, keep in mind that "Disaster Movie" was the product of LionsGate. This was uncharted territory for the duo that has seen success with such studios like Disney, Sony, and 20th Century Fox. Beyond the "Saw" franchise and those Tyler Perry movies, LionsGate generally don't have a knack for whipping out successful flicks on any sort of regularity. In fact, they are few and far between these days.

So, what's the deal? Is the audience strictly made up of 12 year olds who don't know any better? Or is it some hopped-up teenagers that yearn for these mind-numbingly stupid spoof films to help get their rocks off? And please, before I forget, what the hell is up with these movies spoofing comedies???? The idea of spoofing or parodying films is that you take serious-themed films or situations and turn them on their heads. You don't take "You Don't Mess With the Zohan," and recycle the joke. That's not funny, it's stupid. Point being, "Airplane!" was parodying the "Airport" franchise; they didn't go spoof "Blazing Saddles" in the process.

That aside, I looked closer at the breakdowns of these films on IMDb, and was pretty surprised by what I saw. Essentially, the biggest age demographic that turns out for these films are supposedly the 18 to 29 year-olds, and by a large margin. What the fuck? Is it on a dare these people are seeing these movies? Come on, people, you're killing me. With that said, it does appear that females under 18 are the ones who seem to rate these "comedies" the highest. So, make of that what you will.

Now, with "Disaster Movie" not performing up to its potential, an optimist may see this as a turning of the tides. A pessimist, however, may chalk this up as a failure on LionsGate behalf and not truly a sign of anything. For me, I will certainly keep a closer eye on the talentless duo's next project. God help us all.

In closing, I should make clear that I do not know the two men behind these films. My disdain is not personal nor do I necessarily wish them failure either. I just wish that they would step up their game. Perhaps try something different. Perhaps make something that's actually watch-able or mildly humorous. Until then, I say let the criticism fly.
 
 

2:54 PM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

Monday, September 01, 2008

Decline of a Studio?
Category: Movies, TV, Celebrities

Exclusively from www.IseeDead.com
 
Decline of a Studio?
By MovieDemon


Wow, what a difference a year makes. In 2007, 20th Century Fox unleashed mega-hits like "The Simpsons Movie," "Live Free or Die Hard," "..:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Alvin and the Chipmunks" and "Juno". This year has been a whole other story. The studio has now become synonymous with words like "cheesy," "bad" and now "failure". From bad horror films to the awful spoof movies to anything in between, Fox is badly in need of a makeover. Where's Oprah when you really need her.

Thus far, the studio has released over a dozen films this year, and of all those films, only one has received a "fresh rating" from the nation's critics on Rottentomatoes.com. Yes, just one. It also just happens to be the studio's biggest film of the year. It is the CGI animated family film, "Dr. Seuss' Horton Hears A Who," which has nearly grossed $300 million in worldwide box office. Though it could be argued that even that film did less than what was expected. It is, after all, a far cry from the studio's "Ice Age" films.

Since the release of 'Horton', however, it really has been downhill for the beleaguered studio. Fox has unleashed such box office duds like "Deception," "Meet Dave," "Space Chimps," "The X-Files: I Want to Believe," and now "The Rocker". There is no denying that this has been an absolutely horrid summer for the studio. In fact, their biggest film of their entire summer schedule (and the second biggest of the year) has been the $35 million budget romantic-comedy "What Happens in Vegas," which grossed $80.2 million domestically. With over $211 million in worldwide gross, it trails only behind the aforementioned 'Horton Hears A Who' and Anakin … um … Hayden Christensen's sci-fi action film, "Jumper".

Remarkably, Fox is the only major studio not to have a $100 million grossing film in the states this whole summer. Studios like Paramount, DreamWorks, Universal, Warner Bros., Disney, Sony, and even New Line have all had $100 million-plus grossing films. In most cases, they have garnered more than a couple.

Interestingly, it would seem that the studio has had a hard time bringing in the money when their precious "American Idol" is not on TV. It should come as no surprise that the studio's highest grossing films ("27 Dresses," "Jumper," "Dr Seuss' Horton Hears A Who," and "What Happens In Vegas") all happened while their hit show was in the midst of its seventh season. Meaning, when they can't bombard their "American Idol" viewers with trailers to their films during the commercial breaks, they end up with some shoddy box office performances.

Here's the studio's Top 10 grossing films for Fox this year:

1. Dr. Seuss' Horton Hears A Who $154.5 million
2. What Happens In Vegas $80.2 million
3. Jumper $80.1 million
4. 27 Dresses $76.8 million
5. The Happening $64.4 million
6. Nim's Island $48 million
7. Meet The Spartans $38.2 million
8. Space Chimps $28.4 million
9. Street Kings $26.4 (released under Fox Searchlight)
10. Shutter $25.9 million

Can you say, "Ouch"? Though I must say it is fascinating that "The Happening" is the year's biggest horror film, and may not be topped. The R-rated $60 million budgeted horror film, which was critically panned, is one of the studio's more lucrative properties this year bringing in $160 million worldwide. Despite the film's accomplishments, however, it will go down as a dud in most people's minds. Both the critical drubbing and the severe drops after its $30 million opening has surely done the film in.

So, the studio that once brought us kick ass movies like "Star Wars" or "Alien" is now shoveling out crap like "Shutter" or "Meet the Spartans". It's sad the studio is belittling its own legacy with such Grade Z nonsense. They have really become a cheap, low rent studio this year. You can expect such drivel from smaller studios like LionsGate, but Fox? Remember, this is a major studio that's been in existence since 1935. Despite serious financial issues during the early part of the 1960's, they are a studio that has generally thrived for nearly 75 years. So the question remains; will Fox return to delivering more entertaining films any time soon? And beyond quality, will their box office drought be ending sooner rather than later?

Well, the studio certainly hopes to reverse their fortune later this year with such high profile releases like "Max Payne," "The Day the Earth Stood Still," and "Marley & Me". Not to mention their high profile lawsuit against the WB over "Watchmen". Time will certainly tell the tale of how all this pans out for Fox. If the lack of press screenings, and the director's negative comments about the upcoming film "Babylon A.D." is any indication, Fox may be in some serious trouble. Then again, season 8 of "American Idol" is just around the corner.

1:50 PM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

Thursday, August 21, 2008

Top 13 Worst Horror Remakes
Category: Movies, TV, Celebrities

 
TOP 13 WORST HORROR REMAKES
By MovieDemon

Here is my follow-up to my list of the Top 13 Worst Horror Sequels, the Top 13 Horror Remakes. Now this list of remakes does include reimaginings, reinterpretations, re-adaptations and whatever other phrase that seems to fit. However, I have two main rules for this list. 1: No direct-to-video releases are in contention for this list. Therefore, shit-fests like 2008's "Day of the Dead," and "April Fools Day" will not be included. In fact, this entire list is strictly based off of films released prior to 2008. No exceptions. 2: No made-for-TV remakes or re-interpretations or what have you. So, that would exclude some of the Stephen King re-duxes that have hit TV screens in the past 10 years. So, please read, enjoy and feel free to sound off and tell me what you think.

13. Village of the Damned (1995)
There are few filmmakers I can say that I am a big fan of, and that is certainly the case with legendary horror director, John Carpenter. Not only has the man given us "Halloween," "The Fog," "In the Mouth of Madness," but also a terrific reinterpretation of "The Thing From Another World," simply titled "The Thing". This time around, however, he tackles the classic 1960 film "Village of the Damned" for Universal Pictures. I, for one, have never seen the original, but irregardless, this remake lacks intrigue, suspense, and any sense of real tension. For me, this is clearly Carpenter's worst film. This one is so bad you even have the evil tykes breaking Christopher Reeve's imaginary walls. That has to be seen to be believed.

12. Night of the Living Dead (1990)
This may very well be one of the more controversial picks on the entire list due to the fact that this film seems to have a strong following. For me, I grew up on the far superior original film, and it wasn't until last year that I saw this remake. And essentially, a lot has remained the same from the original film's script. Unfortunately, this left the actors struggling to deliver some of the same lines in a different manner, giving their performance no fluidity. However, that may be least of the film's problems. We get rubbery-looking zombies, we get Barbara being turned into Rambo, and this time around the film's ending offers no real punch. With that said, an audience seeing this film before the original, may very well enjoy this colorized version, but for people who grew up on the original will find little-to-nothing of interest in this Columbia-produced remake.

11. The Hitcher (2007)
This is a remake of the 80's cult classic of the same name. Sadly, this Platinum Dunes/Rogue Pictures updating offers little change. Poor casting choices (Sean Bean is simply no Rutger Hauer, and Sophia Bush's best assets is her looks), the MTV-style direction, and some incredibly stupid additions make this one a dud. For my full review of the film, CLICK HERE.

10. The Haunting (1999)
In 1963, Robert Wise directed one of horror's best supernatural films. It was dark and subtle with much of the haunting left to one's imagination. It utilized sound, lighting, and a sense of unease to tell his ghost tale. In 1999, DreamWorks decided to remove the subtlety and imagination and replace it with a barrage of CGI effects. An actor like Liam Neeson, Catherine Zeta Jones, and Owen Wilson can not save this "horror tale" that was directed by action director Jan De Bont. This is the perfect example of bigger not equating to better.

9. House of Wax (2005)
Sometimes remakes fail because they too much mimic their original film. This here, however, is not the case. ..:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Dark Castle's update of the classic 1953 Vincent Price chiller is nothing at all like the original film. The screenwriters Chad and Carey Hayes, along with director Jaume Collet-Sera, opted to make more of a rip off of the 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre' remake than anything that the original film had to offer. Beyond being unfaithful to the concept of the story, this is a dull, contrived and silly film that is capped off by a dopey-looking CGI-inferno of the museum that is actually made of wax. Yes, it is as bad as it sounds. Despite what some may claim, Paris Hilton's demise is not worth the time to watch this one.

8. Black Christmas (2006)
As you can see, with the exception of "The Hills Have Eyes" remake, 2006 was a rough year for horror remakes. The original 1974 film is no doubt an influential horror film, but a remake could have improved upon the concept. Instead writer/director Glen Morgan – who actually did a decent job with the "Willard" remake – delivers a silly, inconsistent and poorly paced remake. The young actresses are nice to look at, but offer nothing much else, and despite the gore, this one just can't deliver. For my full review of the film, CLICK HERE.

7. The Omen (2006)
Action director John Moore received the difficult task to remake the classic tale about the Anti-Christ. The 1976 script by David Seltzer is merely just photocopied with nothing remotely of interest added to the proceedings. The remake substitutes Jerry Goldsmith's classic score for a more generic composition while the film has zero sense of mystery, nuance or any real sense of anything really. We've seen this film before, and we've seen it done much, much better. For my full review of the film, CLICK HERE.

6. Thirteen Ghosts (2001)
Here's another Dark Castle stinker. This time, they remake the schlock-y William Castle flick that simply went by the title of "13 Ghosts". Poorly conceived, written, and directed remake offers no shocks despite its R-rating. Meanwhile the acting is below average despite familiar names like Tony Shalhoub, Mathew Lillard, Shannon Elizabeth and F. Murray Abraham. You know a film is bad when they don't even give us a shot of a naked Shannon Elizabeth when they clearly had the chance to do so. Ugh.

5. The Grudge (2004)
I'm not one of those horror fans that oppose remaking foreign films, and I'm certainly not one of those horror fans that think Japanese horror films are off limits even though all but "The Ring" has turned out poorly. With that said, "The Grudge": is a messy, incoherent, and scare-less CGI-craptacular that would have been best left unmade. I really struggle to even point out what wasn't bad in this one. This spawned what appeared to be an equally as bad sequel that I couldn't even get past the first half hour.

4. The Fog (2005)
This is 'Bizarro Fog'. While Carpenter's original is an effective atmospheric R-rated chiller, the remake is a PG-13 CGI-filled film with a pretty cast. So much is wrong with this remake that I'd need at least two days to spew it all out. Like most of Sony's horror remakes, this one is devoid of worth, and should be skipped.

3. The Wicker Man (2006)
This one may be too high on the list. While it's certainly a stinker, there is some unintentionally funny moments sprinkled throughout that gives it a level of entertainment value to it. Nicolas Cage tries hard – maybe a little too hard – to salvage this one, but all to no avail.

2. Psycho (1998)
I could see it now; Gus Van Sant, sitting with a Universal studio exec, pitches the idea, "hey, let's do a shot for shot remake of Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho, and we'll add some masturbating, surreal images during the shower sequence, Viggio Mortensen's ass, an out of place reference to a walkman, and we'll even make Norman look like a high-priced call girl in the climax. Oh, and we should completely change the look of the house." Studio exec is quiet. He ponders this. He soaks it all in. "A shot-for-shot remake? That's brilliant, Gus. I'll have the papers drawn up. I really think you got something here". As silly as that exchange may be, it's not as silly of doing a shot-for-shot remake of arguably horror's best film from cinema's greatest filmmaker. It's really one of those moments when you really need to ask, "What the hell were they thinking?"

1. Halloween (2007)
Awful, dreadful, atrocious … these are words that could best describe Rob Zombie's remake of the 1978 uber-classic by John Carpenter. This one, folks, is a really hard one to watch … at least not without your mouth wide open in shock. Bad filmmaking, bad writing with some equally bad performances makes this one of the worst theatrically released horror remakes ever made. You get dialogue of 'skull fucking,' you get "Love Hurts," you get mood masks, you get a gluttony of distracting cameos, you get Myers literally sniffing out his sister and a whole shitload more of 'you got to be kidding' moments. If you want more of a detailed perspective on this shockingly horrid remake, be sure to read my full review of it, HERE.

So that sums it up. That's my Top 13 Worst. What is yours?
 

5:19 PM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

Friday, August 15, 2008

Review: Star Wars: The Clone Wars
Category: Movies, TV, Celebrities

Star Wars: The Clone Wars
2008 / 98 min. / Rated PG



Let me make this clear; I am an unabashed Star Wars geek. I have seen all six films in the theater multiple times; I've also owned all those films multiple times on multiple formats over the years; I own the two volumes of the Cartoon Network's 'Clone Wars' DVDs and yes, I even own the two made-for-TV Ewok adventures. Not to mention, I own some magazines, books, T-shirts, some posters and a couple of toys here or there. Suffice it to say, I'm a big fan who knows more than they really should about a fictional universe. For me, the original Star Wars trilogy, Episodes IV through VI, is the epitome of film trilogies and will never be equaled or surpassed. Furthermore, as a six-part whole, it's undoubtedly my favorite movie franchise of all time. Yes, I'm not ashamed to admit it; I truly enjoy the prequels, as well. So, it should come as no surprise that if you slap Star Wars on something, I'm bound to give it a go, and Star Wars: The Clone Wars is no exception to the rule.

Heading in, I practically knew nothing about the film other than the fact that it takes place in between Episodes II and III. Essentially, this film is an introduction to the television series that will debut later this fall on TNT and the Cartoon Network. So, let me make this abundantly clear before I continue, this film doesn't add anything of any substance to the previous set of films nor is it essential viewing. However, with that said, the film does supply enough of a quick fix to pacify most Star Wars junkies.

First off, this film should in no way be compared to any of the much superior live-action films that preceded it. This film – which is essentially a glorified pilot episode for the upcoming TV series – is a whole new ball of wax. Directed by Dave Filoni, The Clone Wars predominately centers around Anakin Skywalker (Matt Lanter) and his new padawan learner Ahsoka Tano (Ashley Eckstein) who find themselves on a mission to save the son of Jabba the Hutt (Kevin Michael Richardson) and return him to the Tatooine crime lord. Count Dooku (Christopher Lee) and his sinister minions, including Asajj Ventress (Nika Futterman), will stop at nothing to ensure that Anakin and Ahsoka fail at their quest. Right off the bat, the one thing that instantly hits the viewer is the oddity that a Star Wars film begins with the Warner Bros. logo as opposed to the typical 20th Century Fox logo, as well as the lack of John Williams' famous musical score and the equally famous opening scroll. Being the geek that I am, I was surely a bit bummed, but I pressed on nonetheless.

Much has been discussed about the look of the film and while the CGI animation is far from being on the level of Pixar or DreamWorks, the animation still had a fittingly – and charmingly – throwback type of feel to it. In fact, I ended up digging the look much more than I thought I would. The action scenes, in particular, are actually handled quite well, as they are plentiful and often exciting. It would have been even grander had it been accompanied by John Williams' musical score, but I digress...

Admittedly, after a bumpy intro, I was surprised the film started to click with me despite the empty and mostly juvenile dialogue exchanges between Skywalker and Ahsoka. So much more substantive dialogue could've been extracted from their unlikely pairing but alas, it was not meant to be – at least, not yet. Not to mention, I would've also liked to have seen more Yoda (Tom Kane), more Mace Windu (Samuel L. Jackson), and yes, even more Obi-Wan Kenobi. The latter is actually well-voiced by James Arnold Taylor who often sounds like Ewan McGregor! Thankfully, I'm sure I'll get much more of these characters later this year.

On a side note, I should mention that I did find it odd that there are certain elements of the film that certainly skew toward an older audience while other elements (mostly, the attempts at humor) try to cater to the kiddie crowd. That's always a tough balancing act, and The Clone Wars certainly struggles with that throughout the film. With that said, young boys will probably be the film's biggest fans, and despite the flaws, adults will – at worst – think its 'OK'.

For me – as a die hard Star Wars fan – this animated excursion frequently put a smile on my face with its lively action sequences; familiar characters and its sense of old school fun. Unexpectedly, the film did manage to conjure up some of that old Star Wars nostalgia… well, at least for me it did. Though I must admit, I would've loved to have heard "I got a bad feeling about this" uttered by one of the characters at some point in the film. Spotty dialogue and Ziro the Hutt notwithstanding, Star Wars: The Clone Wars is a pretty entertaining movie for what it is and it has certainly piqued my interest for the upcoming TV series --- which at the end of the day, was the whole point behind this film. So, overall, my admittedly biased rating is
*** (out of 4 stars)

By the way, be sure to stick around after the end credits.

8:42 PM - 1 Comments - 2 Kudos - Add Comment

Friday, August 01, 2008

Review: The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor
Category: Movies, TV, Celebrities

 
The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor
2008 / PG-13 / 113 min.


* MILD SPOILERS *

This series began back in May of 1999 with the thoroughly entertaining popcorn film by Stephen Sommers, simply called "The Mummy". Box office success ensured a sequel, 2001's disappointing – though more successful - "The Mummy Returns". Finally, 7 years later, Universal Pictures got around to making the third film in the franchise with a mouthful of a title, "The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor". A lot has changed however. First off, Rob Cohen ("XxX") took over directing duties while "Smallville" creators Alfred Gough and Miles Millar handled the clunky script. We also get a new Evey with Maria Bello ("A History of Violence") replacing Rachel Weisz, and of course, we get an entirely new location and a new central villain.

Once again, however, this 'Mummy' outing reveals its heavy Indiana Jones leanings. In fact, much like the latter Indy films, this 'Mummy' sequel centers around a father and son relationship that interestingly leaves itself open for a fourth sequel that could very well be set in Peru – which is where the central story of 'Kingdom of the Crystal Skull' takes place. That aside, it was nice to see the return of Brendan Fraser as the ever likeable Rick O'Connell. Unfortunately, the film's story – which I won't even bother to relay here – is pretty weak and at times, incoherent. Come on, did we really need to have a pack of friggin' yeti's? Oddly, despite such flaws, there is an intangible quality to this film that despite suffering from a wobbly screenplay, inconsistent editing and directing, it still managed to be mildly entertaining at times.

There are some creative bits strewn about even though the film generally under-utilizes nearly every good idea it has. The one sly addition is the introduction to ..:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Bello's Evey which pokes fun at the recasting of the role. Beyond that goof, I must say that the lack of Weisz in the film certainly left a gaping hole while the miscasting of the too old to be believable Luke Ford as Alex, the O'Connell's son, doesn't quite work either. The additions of Jet Li , Russell Wong and Michelle Yeoh were smart choices, but were not fleshed out to their full potential. 'Tomb of the Dragon Emperor' actually has too many characters with not enough time to properly introduce them. It really is a mishmash of ideas and moments that doesn't always flow all that well together despite the film's frantic pacing. One of the more unexpected scenes that worked out quite well is when Alex has a meaningful talk with his estranged father. It's an oddly moving scene for a film that is generally devoid of such emotion.

This third 'Mummy' movie, however, delivers with good costume, and set designs while boasting an edge of your seat musical score. The action scenes, as to be expected, are over the top and fun, especially during the film's climax. As for the CGI special effects … well, after the film concluded, my wife, daughter and I were getting up from our seats, and I asked "What did you think?" My daughter responded, "I thought they OD'd on the computer effects." Who could argue? With that said, this film's special effects are a vast improvement over some of the terribly embarrassing effects of the previous film.

All in all, I did found this entry to be better than "The Mummy Returns". It didn't live up to what it could have been, but for B-movie cheese that never takes itself too seriously, it's pretty decent summer escapism. Chuck your brain at the door, and you may be entertained. Otherwise, this is certainly not the type of film that could hold its own against critical scrutiny. Then again, anyone looking for highbrow entertainment from a movie called "The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor" has other issues all together.

**1/2 (out of 4)
 
 

6:30 PM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

Monday, August 04, 2008

The Dark Knight Curse?
Category: Movies, TV, Celebrities

http://iseedead.com/showthread.php?p=292148post292148

The Dark Knight Curse?
by: MovieDemon
 
There is no denying that The Dark Knight has garnered terrific reviews, and has shattered box office records. But I do wonder; has this all come with a price? More specifically; is there a 'Dark Knight' curse? Before you scoff, curses have been attributed to movies before, generally horror films. Movies like "The Exorcist," "The Omen," and "Poltergeist" have all laid claims that cast and crew have been cursed by working on such projects. How much validity is there to such a claim? Well, that I suppose would lay firmly with your own beliefs.
 
The bad fortune for "The Dark Knight" all began on April 24th 2007 when a fire broke out on the set of a Chicago post office building which was standing in as the Gotham National Bank. No injuries were reported.
 
Five months later, on September 24th 2007 a 'Dark Knight' special effects technician tragically died when he crashed into a tree while following a stunt vehicle. Sadly, this would only be the first such accident.
 
More troubling, however, was the accidental overdose of the 28-year-old, Heath Ledger on January 22nd 2008. Ledger's death is certainly the biggest misfortune to come to the film. Though ironically, most would claim that it was Ledger's death that made "The Dark Knight" the sensation it has become.
 
At the premiere, on July 14th, Maggie Gyllenhaal limped down the red carpet with a broken toe. She blamed the injury in part to her nerves she had for the film. Evidentially, she fractured her toe when she smacked it against some furniture at her home.
 
On July 22nd, while promoting "The Dark Knight" in London, Batman himself, Christian Bale, was arrested for allegations of assault that centered around an altercation he had with his mother.
 
Oscar winning actor, Morgan Freeman, would also be the victim of bad luck when on August 3rd he'd be involved in a serious automobile accident. Reportedly, his car left the road and flipped over several times. Hopefully, Mr. Freeman will pull through OK, and hopefully, no more misfortune befalls another 'Dark Knight' cast or crew member.
 

8:09 AM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

Sunday, July 13, 2008

Not So Incredible: Why ’Hulk’ Is Still No Smash
Category: Movies, TV, Celebrities

Exclusively From: www.IseeDead.com 

http://iseedead.com/showthread.php?p=284472post284472

Not So Incredible
Why 'Hulk' Is Still No Smash…
by MovieDemon

 

Fanboy expectations were pretty high for the return of Marvel's biggest comic book creation, The Incredible Hulk, and yet the film was unable to muster what the 2003 Ang Lee film was able to achieve.

Hulk, despite middling reviews, was able to earn over $62 million in its opening weekend which would account to roughly $73 million today. Yet The Incredible Hulk couldn't even top $55 million in its opening frame. What does this mean exactly? It means that over 2.5 million less people ventured off to see The Incredible Hulk on its opening weekend than Ang Lee's interpretation. Nonetheless, media circles were praising the $55.4 million opening of The Incredible Hulk. Media expectations were apparently low.

However, this "bigger and better" version was expected to have much better legs in subsequent weekends. 2003's Hulk dropped an astounding 69% in its second weekend. This, it would have seemed, was very unlikely to happen this time around. So, at a 60% drop in its second weekend from this new 'Hulk' outing, certainly took many by surprise.

It should also be noted that 2003's Hulk movie received 61% fresh reviews on Rotten Tomatoes while The Incredible Hulk is at 68%. By the industry's top critics, Hulk earned 53% while The Incredible Hulk garnered 59%. Do these numbers really qualify as a huge critical improvement as some media outlets want to suggest? It's certainly an upgrade, but not a significant one.

Furthermore, it has been kept rather quiet that the film is playing eerily similar to 2003's Hulk movie ... and no, that's not a good thing. As Box Office Guru pointed out that The Incredible Hulk "is a scant 1% ahead of Ang Lee's Hulk at the same point in its 2003 run. Factor in higher ticket prices and the new Hulk has actually attracted fewer fans than the old one did, and cost a bit more. Budgeted at $150M, The Incredible Hulk should end up with about $135M edging out the $132.2M gross of Hulk, but will sell 13% fewer tickets." Ouch.

That aside, the biggest question fans have is; what went wrong? Many have several theories. Some are logical, some not so much. There does seem to be three consistent responses, however.

1. CGI Hulk.

The makers of this latest entry state that they were patterning their film closer to the TV series. Stan Lee even went as far as to say that people associate the Hulk character more with the popular TV series than the comic books. If that's so; why the ten foot tall Hulk? Why a CGI Hulk? Valid questions given what the studio and creator have suggested. And then there are those who have no problems with a CGI Hulk, but wonder why he must look so unreal and cartoon-ish? At a hefty $150 million budget, that does seem to be a legitimate critique.

2. It was too soon, there was way too much baggage for this film to overcome.

Many think that the five year separation from the disappointing 2003 version was not enough of a gap. "It's too soon;" "it's still too fresh in people's minds," are the typical responses. In fact, many analysts felt the same about the disappointing opening of Batman Begins back in '05, attributing it to the baggage brought on by Batman & Robin. Unlike The Incredible Hulk, however, Begins had much, much stronger legs.

3. Unconvincing marketing.

This is often the excuse from the fan base for a big budget film that disappoints at the box office. It's no secret that Marvel/Universal took an aggressive marketing campaign that cost up to $100 million to go along with their $150 million budget of the film. They had high-profile tie-ins with 7-11, and Burger King. They stormed – and are still storming – the TV and radio airwaves. Toys and games filled store shelves everywhere. The Incredible Hulk received the works. On those fronts, the studio could not have reasonably been asked to do anything more. With that said, was there a good marketing strategy in place? For one, many moviegoers were left in the dark. Is it a sequel, a remake, a reboot? What exactly is this? In many articles, including this one, states that it's all three!! Plus, many suggest that the ads really should have focused more heavily on Abomination vs. Hulk instead of focusing on what was perceived to be more of the same. Others say that the marketing began too late. There was no Super Bowl ad, there were only sporadic teasers/trailers/clips thrown about with no viral marketing to gel it all together. In the age of films like Cloverfield and the upcoming soon-to-be mega-smash hit The Dark Knight, it is understandable why some would suggest such a marketing strategy was needed.

Overall, comic book fans seem content with this outing if for no other reason than they feel it's better than the last one. Right now, The Incredible Hulk is at a 7.6 on IMDB (compared to Hulk's 5.8 rating). Good word-of-mouth from the niche fan base certainly did not help the film. Many questions will be posed for Marvel in the coming weeks and months ahead; can a CGI Hulk work for a mainstream audience? Is this property really worth moving forward with? What does this say for the Hulk's involvement in the future adaptation of The Avengers? Ah, so many questions with so little answers. As usual with Hollywood, time will tell.

 

4:02 PM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

Tuesday, July 08, 2008

Top 13 Movies That May Make Guys Cry
Category: Movies, TV, Celebrities

 
Top 13 Movies That May Make Guys Cry
by MovieDemon

Tearjerkers are often attributed to being "chick flicks" that generally feature cancer patients ("Terms of Endearment"), characters with some sort of disability ("Piano"), or of course, lost loves ("An Affair to Remember"). Stereotypically speaking, guys play up the machismo, and act as the shoulder to lean on for their vulnerable partner. Despite popular opinion, however, guys do have feelings, too. In fact, here is my top 13 list of movies that it's okay for guys to get all misty about. Keep in mind that many of my written summaries below will have spoilers so read at your own risk.

13. The Fly (1986)
Often sighted as being a vile and disgusting horror pic, the film also manages to have one of the saddest moments in a horror film when the hideous creature of Seth Brundle silently begs his girlfriend to shoot him. When she reluctantly complies, you'd wish there was an alternate Hollywood ending where Brundle finds his cure.

12. The Sixth Sense (1999)
This creepy thriller has a moment near the tail end that centers on Cole, played by Haley Joel Osment, relaying a message from beyond that grandma said "everyday" to an inquiry his mother had asked of her at burial. In tears his mother said, "Do I make her proud?" Goddamn, if that still doesn't choke me up. But it's okay; it's a movie about dead people.

11. Apollo 13 (1995)
No matter how many times I see it, this uplifting "tearjerker" is a true anomaly. It's based off a true story, and though we know how it will end, it still packs a wallop when the rescued crew splashes into the ocean.

10. Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991)
Yes, we're dealing with futuristic cyborgs battling it out in the 20th century, and yes we're dealing with a cinematic marvel in terms of special effects. But when the Terminator must be lowered to his own death, the manliness of men still gets misty with the corny finale.

9. Braveheart (1995)
There is so little in this film that could be confused with joyousness, but it is particularly touching when William Wallace is courageously tortured and beheaded while the ghost of his dead wife looms among the onlookers.

8. Rocky III (1982)
The Rocky franchise is actually filled with many emotional moments, but the death of Mickey may very well be the most emotionally moving moment. Stallone actually does a terrific job during that sequence, and it still puts a lump in my throat to this day.

7. Star Wars, Episode VI: Return of the Jedi (1983)
"Soon will I rest, yes, forever sleep. Earned it I have." I was particularly devastated as a kid when Yoda died after he finally confirms the mother of all twists of 'Empire' were true. Hell, I'm still devastated. That aside, 'Jedi' also has a touching death of Darth Vader and even a Ewok! You may even experience tears of joy when the Rebel Alliance defeats the evil empire, and we see the ghostly images of Obi Wan, Yoda and Anakin standing side-by-side during the closing festivities. Ah, movie magic at its finest.

6. Brian's Song (1971)
The moment when Gale Sayer addresses the team to the moment when Brian Piccolo receives the game ball on his death bed, "Brian's Song" is often hailed as the epitome of the tearjerker film for guys. Few could argue that. A box of Kleenex is certainly required for viewing.

5. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982)
From the death of Spock to Kirk's eulogy to the closing moments of Spock's rendition of the series' opening monologue, 'Wrath of Khan' is a ball of emotions. Spock's selfless act in the climax of the film is universally seen as one of the most moving moments to be found in a "popcorn flick". If the line, "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one" doesn't get to you, perhaps Spock's declaration to Admiral Kirk that "I have been, and always shall be... your friend" definitely will. And though Spock would ultimately return in the following sequel – and three further sequels –'Wrath of Khan" still makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up.

4. Paths of Glory (1957)
This is Stanley Kubrick's most underrated film. This World War I courtroom drama has one of the most poignant final moments in film history. After all the political back stabbings and bureaucratic nonsense, the film concludes with a rowdy crowd of French soldiers humiliating a teary-eyed German woman who is forced to "entertain" them. Her beautiful singing capture the hearts of the war-weary soldiers and life seems to be put in its proper context … at least for "a few minutes" until they must head out to the trenches again. Powerful stuff.

3. Born on the Fourth of July (1989)
This may very well be the saddest movie I have ever watched. Tom Cruise's portrayal of Ron Kovic, a Vietnam vet, who was paralyzed in the line of duty, is a powerful and moving experience. There's touching moments throughout, and it increasingly becomes emotionally unbearable as it goes along.

2. Field of Dreams (1989)
There are plenty of sports films that easily touch the heart of the common guy. Whether it be the aforementioned "Brian's Song" or the "Rocky" films, nothing may move a guy more than "Field of Dreams". Earlier in the film when Kevin Costner's character, Ray Kinsella, says that "By the time I was ten, playing baseball got to be like eating vegetables or taking out the garbage. So when I was 14, I started to refuse. Could you believe that? An American boy refusing to play catch with his father " So, when the moment presents itself to ask his deceased father to have a catch, fighting back the tears may be easier said than done.

1. It's A Wonderful Life (1946)
Right or wrong, I think most men at some point in their life can relate to the feelings of George Bailey. He's down on his luck in a dead-end job who feels saddled by the needs of friends and family. The emotional rollercoaster of George Bailey dealing with the alternate reality of Pottersville to the "richest man in town" finale, this one still moves me even after seeing it a million times. This is terrific film that I watch annually, and recommend you to do the same.

So, there you have it, my Top 13. Agree? Disagree? For all you guys out there, what are yours?
 
Be Sure To Visit the I See Dead website!!

5:51 PM - 2 Comments - 2 Kudos - Add Comment