What I'm Watching: "Blade" the trilogy

In this new line of blogs I'll be highlighting the movie (or movies) I've watched recently as sort of mini-reviews for those of you who wish to expand your home-viewing. Not all will be necessarily 'good' movies since I tend to watch anything I haven't seen. Hopefully these posts will be relatively consistent but since I don't do this for a living like some people and am in school, I can't promise anything.

Why I watched it: The "Blade" movies are one of those things you see part of on TV, you know exist, they look sort of cool, but it still takes you a while to get around to it. I didn't have much hope of a 'good' movie, but thought I'd be entertained by the action and Wesley Snipes being cool. That fact that Guillermo Del Toro directed the second film also sparked my interest and the general consensus of internet-movie buffs accept it as the best of the trilogy.

What I thought: It is what it is. "Blade" is based on a Marvel comic (which I have no familiarity with). From the beginning the tone is established as fun and dark. The first two are considerably gory and very bloody, but what else do you expect from a vampire movie? All the characters are one-dimensional and laughable in most cases. Vampires = sleazy and annoying apart from a few badasses, Humans = unintelligent and dumb, Blade = one cool MF. Snipes cannot act to save his life, but that doesn't mean he's not like-able as the half-vamp half-human vampire hunter. The second film is by far the best with the best screenplay and has the best comic book feel. The third has the worst dialogue and everyone is just annoying except Blade. I just think of Stephen Dorff and his portrayal of the stupid villain who isn't menacing AT ALL when I think of the first one.

Why should You watch it (if at all)?: Blade is cool and there's some pretty fun action. It's nice to watch a movie every now and then that just lets loose with the violence and cheesiness and "Blade" (primarily 1 and 2) is exactly that. The plots are comic-book in nature and don't really come off too well on screen, but they at least give you something to follow through the action. So if you have some free-space on your Netflix cue for some action-fun, I'd say you'll enjoy it alright.      

News/Rumor: Could Spielberg and Dreamworks take on Halo?

The rumor of a possible "Halo" movie has been circulating the internet (and the globe in general) for a number of years now. It's one of those topics that comes up in many conversations about movies I have since people know I know about news and the like. "So when's the Halo movie coming out?" "Uuuuuuuh, it's not. It's complicated." But unlike a lot of projects that get tossed around, half-written, etc, Halo is just too big for studios to ignore for long. And in that lies half the problem.

ABC News

Today I saw on Cinematical that Vulture broke the news that now the legendary "Jurassic", "Indiana Jones" man himself (too much?), Steven Spielberg, is interested in taking on the behemoth with his co-founded company, Dreamworks. Now it really isn't so simple as it sounds. Nothing in the film industry is when you have big studios involved who are quite concerned about money these days (wonder why). As Vulture explains, Halo has gone through a couple of trials already. First, screenwriter Alex Garland ("28 Days Later", "Sunshine") was independently funded to write a screenplay based on the books that was then sent out to 6 major studios. All passed on the daunting project except for Fox and Universal who decided to fund it together and began the very early stages of development. This is when Peter Jackson was hired to produce with newcomer at the time, Neil Blomkamp, came on to direct. However, the project never really took off and millions were being wasted so Fox and Universal dropped and Jackson and Blomkamp went on to make "District 9".

News: Directors for "The Hobbit" and the 4th "Bourne"

It should come as a surprise to no one by now that Peter Jackson will indeed be directing "The Hobbit". I'm not sure it's technically 'official' now since we've known for quite some time that Jackson was trying to get the job and that no one else was being really considered any longer. Still, we can now all rest in peace as The Wrap has reported that negotiations between Jackson and MGM are winding down. And supposedly the first part of "The Hobbit" (because it's split into two movies) has a planned release of December 19, 2012, and it'll be in 3D (of course). But the problem of MGM's bankruptcy is still getting in the way which is the reason why the "James Bond" movies haven't continued either. MGM owns half the rights to Tolkien's movies along with Warner Bros.'s New Line Cinemas and they're still trying to decide if a production cost of $400 million for both movies is a wise thing to do. 

I'd say heck yes it is. Do they even remember what happened with this little trilogy called THE LORD OF THE RINGS?? I'm thinking these two movies can easily earn back the $400 million and much more without too much trouble; especially with the added expense of 3D ticket costs. So sadly, our mission of hoping and praying for "The Hobbit" to finally get underway is not over yet, but we can now rest assured that Jackson is out there fighting to get it to us.

Today is just filled with exciting news about directors. I should've just waite for these two stories to arrive before posting the last one about Zack Snyder....oh well. Now you're getting the news that Tony Gilroy, the director of "Michael Clayton", has be granted the rights to direct the 4th Jason Bourne film. It's been three years since "The Bourne Ultimatum" and the temporary halt to the extremely popular and exciting series, and I think it's about time we got some more. 

The plot of "The Bourne Legacy", the 4th book by Robert Ludlum, is described like this on Amazon.com: "David Webb, a mild-mannered Georgetown professor, harbors his old Bourne identity deep within his psyche—except in moments of danger. A mysterious assassin, Khan, has targeted Webb." The summary goes on to reveal more information that is a bit too spoiler-ish so I'll just leave that out, but you get the idea. In my opinion, Gilroy is the perfect choice for this film. "Michael Clayton" was a fantastic movie and basically 'business' thriller. There was no gun fights or cool hand to hand combat like the Bourne movies but it was almost just as intense without it. Simply put, Gilroy knows how to handle intensity and have a smart, intricate plot to back it up. Let's all hope Matt Damon will reprise his role (I'm fairly certain he will) and that we all get to see Bourne back in action fairly soon.

News: new "Superman" director = Zack Snyder?

Info Addict

A mere second or two after opening the Cinematical homepage, I see this headline about Zack Snyder, the director of "300", "Watchmen", and "The Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'hool". And if the phrase "wtf" passed through your head at the owls movie, have no fear, you are NOT alone. It's hard to believe Snyder could make a kids movie about owls without having these said owls fly around shirtless with ripped bodies causing gratuitous violence (and sex) to abound everywhere. 

But that's beside the point which is REALLY?! I don't understand the obsession with Snyder and his slow-mo green-screen action/violence. OK, so it was sort of cool at first in "300" before you realized 'hey, this movie is racist, homoerotic, historically inaccurate, and generally terrible'. Then came "Watchmen" and you realized 'this movie sucks!' without much thought at all. There are some movie buffs out there who just love the creative, visual side of his movies. But that really isn't enough to cover for the poor dialogue, acting, and everything else in his movies. And now Warner Bros. wants him to tackle The Man of Steel?

According to Cinematical, Christopher Nolan was involved with choosing the director which makes me wonder why such an awesome director would pick Snyder? Someone as skilled as Nolan should no doubt realize Snyder's innate weaknesses thus far. Alas, it appears that didn't stop him, and now Snyder gets to take over an idea that Nolan and writer David S. Goyer ("Blade I, II, III", "The Dark Knight") came up with. A re-boot to the "Superman" franchise has been in the cooking pot ever since Bryan Singer's attempt with star Brandon Routh back in 2006 failed to garner any applause from critics across the map. And now with an idea for a script and a director on board, it looks as if another attempt will be made, and while I'm not the biggest fan of Snyder, I hope things can turn out alright. Now we just have to wait for casting news regarding the Superman himself, Lois Lane, and whoever the villain will be.  

Review: The Social Network

Overture Films

"The Social Network" is a big movie. It's garnering four-star and 10/10 reviews from all across the board. Some call it the "film of the century" or the "Citizen Kane of our time". They're all wildly positive and even going as far as to say it "defines our generation". Now I try to steer away from sweeping opinions like "best of the century" when talking about any movie. In fact, I believe it's hard to give the majority of movies a place in the 'best of all time' scale based on your opinion only. Personal opinion only goes so far and there are many situations where one is simply wrong about a movie when you can't come up with sufficient reasons as to why it's bad or good or if the rest of the world generally disagrees with you. 

So although I will not make a single, colossal statement, I will make a comparison. I have to say that "The Social Network" is the "Inception" of the drama genre so far this year. Every major feature of this movie is practically flawless. David Fincher ("Fight Club", "Seven") is a master director and sees to it that everything flows seamlessly together. The editing is quick and expertly paced and doesn't let up for one moment with the plot. It's quite possible for a movie like this to linger and try to draw the most from certain situations and/or characters. Here, each scene serves it's part and then we move on. Coupled with the cinematography and surprisingly good, electronic-ish soundtrack, the pacing and layout of the film is astounding.

Review: Let Me In

Overture Films

I am fairly confident that I'm not wrong in assuming that most of American audiences will see the trailers for "Let Me In" and shrug it off as another dumb vampire movie attempting to revive the spirit of this genre that "Twilight" has so mercilessly tarnished. And there have been many to support this feeling such as "30 Days of Night" and "Daybreakers" (although I know many horror buffs seriously disagree). I myself was tired of these trends that just got more and more creature-like and tried to draw their appeal from having the most shocking gore or vampire design/makeup. But my reaction to the news that Matt Reeves (director of "Cloverfield") was working on getting a remake of this movie going, I was intrigued and a bit skeptical.

Because as most Americans DO NOT know, "Let Me In" was originally a book that was adapted into "Let the Right One In", a Swedish film that came out back in 2008. The original became an instant favorite and marvel among film buffs in the US and abroad, but still unknown to a wider audience. I saw it before news of Reeves' remake plans and was surprised to find something that was definitely different than any other vampire movie. It has a mysterious heart to it with the relationship between the young boy and girl but also a darker, horror side in regards to the girls' secret (yes, she's also a vampire). 

Initially there was a huge outcry among film nerds when Reeves' announced "Let Me In", but I remained curious. And while Reeves promised in interviews to not disregard the first movie and stick to the book, I found "Let Me In" to be almost a complete copy of the Swedish version. It's really hard to go about reviewing this movie having seen the first one. I knew literally everything that was going to happen. I was almost bored because of the lack of surprise. There's no doubt this would be a completely different review if I hadn't seen "Let the Right One In". But as it stands, there's not much difference between the two, but I will say there's a few key differences and things that both could have benefited from.

News (that I care about): a potential "Great Gatsby" cast

While doing my routinely check on Cinematical for movie news, I saw this news about a possible remake of F. Scott Fitzgerald's "The Great Gatsby". It's a book that has constantly been used to define "the American Dream" and a portion of high school English class. In other words, it's a classic in all sense of the word and definitely one of my favorite books I read in high school. It has been made into a film twice before, once in 1926 and then again in 1974 with Robert Redford and Mia Farrow and written by Francis Ford Coppola.

Now the news is that Baz Luhrmaan ("Romeo + Juliet", "Moulin Rouge!", "Australia") is seeking to direct with a rumored cast of Leonardo Dicaprio (because he's in everything), Toby Maguire, and Amanda Seyfried. Obviously, Dicaprio  would be playing the titular Jay Gatsby while Maguire is the shy but curious Nick and Seyfried is the ditsy, naive Daisy.

It's a big stretch to see a guy like Luhrmaan take on a classic that is a clean cut drama with not many quirks. If you are familiar at all with Luhrmaan's movies, you know he has a lot of quirky moments with characters that are just so odd and weird and demonstrate the kind of behavior you'd expect from the drama kids at your high school."Gatsby" is really nothing like that. I can see all the actors fitting into their roles. We all know Dicaprio can be classy but also very anxious/angry/desperate which fits well for Gatsby. Maguire can do the shy but well meaning as seen in a little movie called "Spiderman". I'm not too familar with Seyfried although I'd say she could definitely look the part of a rich, air-head blond from the1920's with a little makeup and costume change.

But Luhrmaan? Definitely not my first choice. I'd say Sam Mendes who's definitely shown he can do period pieces well with "Road to Perdition" and "Revolutionary Road". Each also shows his great sense of drama from the subtle to the extreme. I guess we'll just have to see about this since it's still a "rumor", but I wouldn't mind seeing an updated version of this.