Having just dealt with a friend who’s up in arms about a new movie based on the board game Clue, I’m inspired to write about my annoyance at people who get so upset about remakes.  (That said, this new Clue is not a remake, but a new movie inspired by the board game.  There’s a difference.)

Some people get so upset when a movie is remade.  They’ll rant and rave about how good the original is and how the studio is going to muck this one up.  I mean, seriously, people get upset!  It’s ridiculous.

I have absolutely no problems with remakes.  For one, the original movie doesn’t instantly disappear from the face of the earth.  It still exists.  If you, the viewer, prefer the original, THEN WATCH THE ORIGINAL and ignore the remake.  No one is forcing you to foresake the original and suddenly put your passion behind the remake.  You can completely ignore the fact that the remake even exists.  There is no reason to waste emotion energy on a remake.

For two, sometimes the remakes are better.  Technology is the main area in which this is true.  Go back and watch a horror movie from the 70’s or 80’s.  The thrill and scare may be there, but the blood and effects are laughable.  Today’s technology allows for a much more realistic look.  I’ll concede that remakes of horror films tend to lose some of the thrill and scare in favor of better effects, but that’s not always the case.  I think it worth the risk to remake a movie, with the chance it could be equally as good, script-wise, and undoubtedly better effects-wise.

“Clash of the Titans” is a great example.  The remake is in the works as I write this.  It’s such a classic, that some would say it’s untouchable.  In my opinion, no film is untouchable.  As for “Clash of the Titans”, I love the original.  It’s a great story and truly fantastic.  But, it’s dated.  The effects are not that good.  I’m quite anxious to see it with today’s movie technology.  This movie has the potential to top the original.

And, for three, it’s a movie.  Seriously.  IT’S A MOVIE!  Life, history, the universe is not changed in any way by the fact your favorite movie is getting a remake.  It’s not worth losing sleep over.  So, calm down and tell me what you love about the original.  There’s no need to work up a storm in your soul over a measily movie.

Posted: March 6th, 2009 under Film, Personal.
Comments: none

The competition’s show is on in the background.  I don’t get into that “us vs. them” mentality.  But, I am bothered by the fact they’re now running a movie review of a movie you and I can’t see in the Quad Cities.  “Crossing Over” starring Harrison Ford opens today, but in limited release and not in our area.  So, why run the review?

I’ve made the same mistake, though.  I prepared a review ahead of time only to discover the day of that it was also opening in limited release and not in our area.  But, once I discovered that, it was too late.  Graphics were made and there was no turning back, other than to not run the review at all.  In hindsight, I would have pulled it completely.  Live and learn.

Posted: February 27th, 2009 under Film, Personal, Television.
Comments: none

Wow.  Just wow.

I remember hearing reviews, both professional and through friends, about how good of a movie Seven Years in Tibet is, back when it was released in 1997.  Oddly, despite so many raves about it, I never got around to seeing it until this past weekend.  Wow.

Brad Pitt plays Heinrich Harrer, an Austrian mountain climber who is in the wrong place at the wrong time when World War II breaks out.  He ends up needing to escape to Tibet, where he eventually becomes friends with the Dalai Lama and China takes over the country.  It’s based on a true story and is exquisitely told.  Not only is it a strong story of friendships, but gives a bit of perspective as to why so many cry “Free Tibet”.

This movie is now in my top twenty list, if not top ten, it’s that good.  Truly moving. Truly stunning.  And, truly worth watching.

Posted: February 16th, 2009 under Film.
Comments: none

Last night, I had the pleasure of viewing one of Disney’s latest direct to video releases, Tinker Bell.  Now, I’m an unabashedly, unashamed fan of animation.  The colors, the detail and the artistry fascinate me.  That’s much of the reason I enjoy anime, as it’s usually beautiful to behold.  Such is the case with Tinker Bell.

The movie is the story of Tinker Bell, from birth to full fairiehood, which happens quite quickly, actually.  She has the gift of tinkering, but doesn’t want it and sets out to learn another fairie trade in order to go to the mainland to help ushed in Spring.  It’s a cute story, but it’s actually not the strongest part of the movie!

The strongest part would be the cleverness behind the animation.  I was distracted from the storyline, but because it’s dull, but because there’s so much to take in while watching the film.  So much thought went into the items the fairies use in their every day lives.  It’s fascinating.  And, on top of that, it’s animated.  Animation intrinsically adds a sense of magic, of wonder to any film.  Here, it’s married perfectly with the story and its characters, bringing this all too long silent Disney character into her full voice.

Posted: February 9th, 2009 under Film.
Comments: 1

I may forever be scarred by the movie Immortal Beloved.  It’s emotional impact was so deep, I’m choking up as I type this just remembering it.

The movie is the story of the women in Beethoven’s life, really.  Following his death, his secretary sets out to fulfill is last wishes by turning Beethoven’s fortunes over to his “other half”, his “immortal beloved”.  The problem is, no one knows to whom that refers.  What unfolds is a tale of several women Beethoven knew, but only one of which he loved.  Along the way, we’re also privvy to the loss of his hearing and subsequent public reception.

Gary Oldman stars as Beethoven, proving his acting talent.  He’s quite good.  His performance, alone, make the film worth seeing.

Fortunately, there’s more that’s worth a viewing, like the emotional impact at the end.  I figured out who his immortal beloved is prior to the end, but it didn’t make the impact any less emotional.  Excuse me.  I have to grab a tissue.

Posted: February 6th, 2009 under Film.
Comments: none

Last night’s movie was Star Trek: Nemesis, which I now refer to as last night’s waste of an evening.  Okay, it’s not that bad, but it’s not that good, either.

Filled with the Next Generation cast, this film takes us to Romulus, where a military coup (which kills the Romulun senate) just took place.  The Remens, who live on the dark side of the planet, are now in charge, led by a human, who is actually a clone of Captain Picard.  And that sets up the conflict that carries the plot of the film.

Effects, great.  Cinematography, good.  Acting, at the same level as the TV show, so fans will be okay with it.  Plot, however, is not that good.  Nor was the Director’s take on this film.  It feels like a long episode of the TV show, but with more money and better effects.  That’s not good for a film.

Posted: February 4th, 2009 under Film.
Comments: none

I had the privilege of catching “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” for my first time over the weekend.  It’s a film I’ve long wanted to see, but never really got around to renting.

Steven Spielberg’s 1977 masterpiece is truly that, a masterpiece.  Aside from the hairstyles and clothing, the film stands up through time.  It’s well paced, which is typically the biggest problem in regard to the longevity of films.  They may be great, in their time and keeping that time in mind, but storytelling on film has evolved, particularly in pacing.  “Gone With the Wind” is a great film, but it’s slow and boring.  It’s not a perfect film, in that it’s great because it’s a classic, not because it’s universally great.  But, I digress.

Spielberg manages to create a true tension throughout “Close Encounters”.  As a viewer, I kept anticipating something terrible just around the next scene.  I was on edge, but anxious to know what’s coming next.

But, I can’t get over the pacing.  This film is more than three decades old, but doesn’t feel it.  It may look it, but I was so overwhelmed with the wonder of it all, the interweaving and separate storylines that strengthened the story and the tidbits that were a part of the film, but not blatantly hailed.  There are things left to discover that are not spoon-fed to us.  For instance, Amelia Earhart is among the missing people who exit the space ship when it lands.  Marvelous and exciting all at the same time!

As is “Close Encounters of the Third Kind”.  Truly a marvelous movie.

Posted: February 2nd, 2009 under Film.
Comments: none

“Bride Wars” stars Kate Hudson and Anne Hathaway as two best friends with dream weddings they’ve planned since childhood.  That is, until their dream weddings are booked on the same day.  Suddenly, these playful pals are bitter enemies, with bride against bride in the battle for holy matrimony.

Posted: January 9th, 2009 under Film.
Comments: none

There is only one new movie in theaters this weekend, but, does Bangkok Dangerous starring Nicolas Cage actually count?

Okay, it does, since it is new.  It’s just lucky there’s no new competition.

Cage stars as a hitman  in, of course, Bangkok, one night in which will make the tough guys tumble.  He’s working to take out the four enemies of the crime boss who hired him, while bonding with his own errand boy.  Can’t be too careful with your company, you know.  Is it an angel slide up to or a devil walking next to me?

Okay, enough with the early 80’s lyrics.  Bangkok Dangerous is the American remake of the Pang Brother’s 1999 Hong Kong action film.  And, there lies the problem.  While they’re wildly popular in their home country, the Pangs have yet to have a hit in their American remakes.  And they’ve had two goes at it — The Messengers and The Eye.  Throw in Nicolas Cage sporting a mullet, and you’re really working up hill for a hit.  In the original, Cage’s character is deaf and mute.  Not so, here, though it would’ve been more interesting.

Bangkok Dangerous, in my opinion, is completely passable.  But, if you’re a fan of the Pang Brothers or Nicolas Cage, it might be worth a go.  I’d recommend not going to the theater, however, but waiting for the DVD release.

Posted: September 4th, 2008 under Film.
Comments: none

I am a sucker for animated features and Jack Black, so “Kung Fu Panda” has me in movie viewing overload, hoping two positives don’t make a negative.

Black is the voice of Po, a panda bear working in a noodle restaurant, who may be the prophesied chosen one to protect the Valley of Peace.  It helps that Po is a Kung Fu fanatic.  It doesn’t help that he’s also the laziest animal in all of China.

The cast is quite impressive, actually, with actors you might not expect behind colorfully drawn characters.  Well, except for Jackie Chan, maybe.  But, there’s also Dustin Hoffman, Lucy Liu and Angelina Jolie.

Yes, it’s another tale of an unlikely hero.  And, yes, it’s another lesson in being yourself is the best.  But, it’s so much fun!  For both the kiddies and the adults.

And, it’s simple.  While it has action, humor and heart, it’s not a whirling dirvish of c-g created explosions and chases that leaves your heart pounding with the stress of the excitment.  It’s enjoyable entertainment at a comfortable, but satisfying pace.

It’s hard to go wrong with animated features these days.  “Kung Fu Panda” is worth a family trip to the theater.  It’s one you won’t mind watching along with your children.

And then there’s You Don’t Mess with the Zohan with Adam Sandler as an Israeli secret agent who fakes his own death in order to move to New York to become a hairstylist.  Skip it at the theater.  It’s a sign Judd Apatow isn’t a sure bet.  But, it’s funny enough to make it worth renting.

Posted: June 5th, 2008 under Film.
Comments: none