Even '80s nostalgia can't salvage this one
- Critic's Rating D+
- Readers' Rating n/a
"I miss 'Call Of Duty: Modern Warfare.'"
"Your life is 'Call Of Duty' now. And it sucks."
The original "Red Dawn" was released in 1984, and as much as any film of that decade, it is a product of its times. I was 14 that year, and like most school-aged kids, I had been completely and utterly indoctrinated to be terrified of the Russians. "Red Dawn" played expertly on that fear, and it helped that John Milius, the film's co-writer and director, is a glorious war-monger, a man who loves the way conflict defines a person. The movie featured a cast of some of the best-known young actors in the '80s, including Patrick Swayze, C. Thomas Howell, Lea Thompson, Charlie Sheen and Jennifer Grey, and even if you were able to avoid the film's politics, it worked as an action film. There was something about the film's invasion scenario that struck a very deep chord with young viewers at the time, and for many of them, it remains a nostalgic favorite.
With Emma Stone also in talks, could a Green Goblin announcement be far behind?
If you were a fan of "The Amazing Spider-Man," then you're probably pretty excited about the official news today that Marc Webb is now officially onboard to return for "The Amazing Spider-Man" sequel, along with Andrew Garfield.
The press release sent out this morning by Columbia Pictures also confirmed that Andrew Garfield will return as Peter Parker and Spider-Man and Emma Stone is in talks right now to come back as Gwen Stacy. I don't think anyone should be particularly shocked by any of this news. The first movie did very well, so of course they're bringing back as many of the creative elements as they can.
James Vanderbilt wrote the first draft of the script, with revisions by Alex Kurtzman & Roberto Orci and Jeff Pinkner, and so far, we have no concrete information about what they'll be doing in the film. If they announce the Green Goblin as the villain for this one, then it's pretty much a sure bet we can start preparing our farewells for Stone.
The series stumbles for the first time, but they can still correct their course
- Critic's Rating C+
- Readers' Rating A-
I think the "Paranormal Activity" series is fun. Not great. Not important. Not a redefining series of genre films. But fun. 2007's "Paranormal Activity" did not pick up a distributor right away, and it didn't hit theaters until September 2009, with Paramount treating it almost as an experiment. It caught fire and it quickly became evident that the studio was going to want a follow-up. Oren Peli, who wrote and directed the original, stepped into a more supervisory position, and as he started branching out with projects like "The River" and the still-unreleased "Area 51," he helped other people build out the mythology that he started.
Tod Williams directed the sequel, and Michael R. Perry and Christopher Landon and Tom Pabst all contributed to the script. It expanded the world a bit and started to try to make sense of what happened to Katie (Katie Featherston) and Michah (Micah Sloat) in the first film. It carefully built the big set pieces so it leaned on the exact same sort of scares that the first film did, but with a baby right there in the middle of things. The film ended with an upsetting cliffhanger of sorts with Katie making off with young Hunter (William Juan Pietro), and part three went back in time to the '80s to show Katie and her sister Kristi as kids, bringing in co-directors Henry Joost and Ariel Schulman to work with with Christopher Landon, who returned as the sole writer this time. I think the last fifteen minutes or so of "Paranormal Activity 3" is the scariest sustained sequence in any of the movies, and I thought it set up a really interesting broader canvass for the films. When I saw that Joost and Schulman were coming back to direct the fourth film, I thought the movie was in great hands, and I was excited to see what they came up with.
Becoming young Bruce Willis seems like it was a tremendous challenge
I am 100% convinced that Joseph Gordon-Levitt is going to be one of the biggest working movie stars of his generation.
He may not be there quite yet, but he's been acting since a very young age, and by now, it's clear that he's got charisma in spades and that he makes really great choices as an actor. That's both onscreen and offscreen, as it doesn't matter if you're giving the best performance in the world if it's in a movie that no one ends up seeing. He's certainly bet on some very small films like "Hesher" and "Mysterious Skin" and, of course, "Brick," but he's also been able to work in films that made much larger commercial splashes like "Inception" and "G.I. Joe: The Rise Of Cobra" and, of course, "The Dark Knight Rises."
It feels to me like "Looper" lands right in the middle between those two extremes. It's a studio release, but it's a film that feels intensely personal. It's a science-fiction film with some really remarkable moments of effects flourishes, but only in very specific moments and in service to the stories. It's a huge film in terms of ideas, but it's also very small-scale in terms of how many characters are involved. Much of the success (or failure, I suppose, depending on how you react to it) of the film is due to the confident and controlled lead performance by Joseph Gordon-Levitt.
Gory comedy is an interesting collision of style and taste
- Critic's Rating C+
- Readers' Rating n/a
I have no doubt that when Dimension kicks into overdrive to sell you "Aftershock" sometime in 2013, you're going to see Eli Roth's name used a whole lot. I understand it, too. Roth has been enormously good at turning his name into a brand, something that a certain group of young filmmakers have developed as an important skill set in the 21st century. After all, he's served as "Eli Roth presents" on several films, and he's part of the new Vegas venture, The Goretorium, which is a year-round horror-themed experience. The last feature film that Eli directed was in 2004, though, so when you see critics and marketing that will fall over themselves to heap both the flaws and the merits of "Aftershock" at his feet, that's because the branding worked, not because he's genuinely the key architect of this particular movie.
This is very much a collaboration, though, between Eli and Nicolas Lopez, a Chilean filmmaker who has had a fascinating career of ups and downs so far. His first film in 2004, "Promedio Rojo," is a rowdy teenage sex comedy, brash and funny and raw, and it got him some international attention. That led to the production of "Santos," his second film, which is a big sprawling glorious mess of a film, a narrative that ran away from him, filled with all sorts of big imagination. It was much too expensive for the sort of specialty niche film that it was, and it set him back a bit. It consumed four full years of his life, and I think it's not the film he set out to make.
The first Fantastic Fest secret screening is one of the year's most charming surprises
- Critic's Rating A-
- Readers' Rating n/a
Ben Wheatley has quietly turned into one of the most interesting voices in English film right now, a guy who seems fairly adept at bending his personal storytelling style to the material he's shooting instead of imposing one voice on everything he does. He is sly, with a jet black sense of humor, and he seems to take great pleasure from pushing his audiences to deeply uncomfortable places.
His breakthrough film was "Down Terrace," and I remember how excited Tim League was about that film. It's a very small-scale, well-observed film about a family scratching out a low-level criminal existence, and I liked it a lot. His next film, the genre-bending "Kill List," absolutely flattened me when I saw it at SXSW, and I felt like it marked a real step forward by him. With his third film, "Sightseers," he's made what could be his first cross-over hit, a film that still plays dark and that surrenders none of his personal voice, but that is universal in a way that "Kill List" was never going to be. It is little wonder it found a place in the Fantastic Fest 2012 line-up as Tuesday night's first secret screening.
Chris (Steve Oram) and Tina (Alice Lowe) have fallen in love, and they've decided to take a trip together. Chris has a caravan that he's decked out for the trip, and Tina's as excited as she could possibly be. She's been living with her demanding, angry mother her whole life and she's reached a point where she can't imagine doing it any longer. Chris isn't just a possible romance, he's an escape from a life that has become insufferable to her. She's got the trip idealized in her head before she even leaves the house, and if Wheatley just wanted to tell a story about how real life rarely meets our expectations, that could be potent material. He's got something much more sinister in mind, though, and we get hints of it from the early part of the film when we see hints of Chris's temper, particularly in response to what he sees as the coarse and the rude.
The young cast talks about how much the book means to them
The last time I saw Johnny Simmons and Mae Whitman in the same place at the same time, it was on the Toronto set of "Scott Pilgrim Versus The World." I have a sneaking suspicion I'm going to see members of that cast colliding over and over in the future, and that it's going to remain a very dear memory for them.
This time, we were in Toronto to discuss the new movie "The Perks of Being A Wallflower," and they had three of the young actors who make up the ensemble grouped together for the chat, including Whitman and Simmons. I didn't meet Ezra Miller in Cannes when "We Need To Talk About Kevin" was playing there, and I'll admit that after I saw that film, I thought Hollywood was going to typecast him because of how completely effective he was in the part.
Instead, I think this film will introduce him to a much broader audience, and I think it's going to have a long shelf life. While I may not have known the book, I've come to realize that there's a big audience out there who read and really enjoyed the book, and it's important to them. This isn't just another teen movie to them. The book's characters are significant because they recognize themselves in them.
Her key role in the film pushed her in some interesting new ways
Pierce Gagnon is not a name most people know at this point, but after they see "Looper," it is a name they'll want to learn. Gagnon positively steals the film out from under the already-outstanding adult cast that includes Bruce Willis, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Garret Dillahunt, and Emily Blunt, who plays Sara, mother to Gagnon's character, Cid.
Gagnon was five years old when they shot his part in the film, and it's an amazing performance for an actor of any age. I think Rian Johnson and his cast did something very special in capturing his work, and that was one of the things I really wanted to discuss with her when we sat down during Toronto.
It feels like I interview Blunt about four times a year now, which is a perfectly lovely arrangement as far as I'm concerned. She's a smart performer, and she's been making great choices for the last few years, starring in a number of films that I've enjoyed, racking up one strong performance after another.
Do his 'Die Hard' and 'Total Recall' efforts qualify him for the gig?
Universal is, in many ways, the house that horror built, so it is little wonder they view their various famous monster properties as some of the key assets for them as a studio. I am not remotely shocked to learn that they are interested in rebooting "The Mummy." After all, the most recent incarnation has already spawned two sequels and at least two spinoff films, and at this point, it would be preposterously expensive for them to try to get Brendan Fraser and Rachel Weisz back to play their characters again.
Instead, it looks like they're headed in a very different direction with the film, and if they want to freak out film fans, they've certainly made the right choice. Len Wiseman is reportedly the choice the studio has made, and while I understand the reasoning on the level of "he's made films of a certain budget in the past and is capable of managing a big-budget movie," I would be hard-pressed to believe that there are any hardcore Wiseman fans. The "Underworld" series is profitable enough to support however many movies they've made so far, but I don't get the feeling they're particularly well-liked. A quick survey of audiences after the release of "Total Recall" this summer probably wouldn't yield many people able to mount more than a passing defense, and while I was kinder than most, I would also say that Wiseman has yet to really prove that he can develop a script to the point where it really lives and breathes. His movies feel like the description of a movie I should like, but there's something missing. He makes Real Doll movies. They're synthetic, and while they look like movies, they don't satisfy in the way a real film does. I'd love for him to prove me wrong, too.
Not much of a surprise, but a nice indicator that Jackman's ready to go
At this point, Hugh Jackman has been playing Wolverine longer than any motion picture actor has continuously played any superhero character. So far, at least as far as the big screen is concerned, Jackman is Wolverine. Period.
He's currently hard at work shooting "The Wolverine," the sixth film in which he'll play the character, and Fox finally released an official still of him on-set in the movie, which James Mangold is directing. I'm at Fantastic Fest in Austin this week, so of course in a setting where I'm surrounded by film geeks of all stripes, I asked around to see what people thought of the image.
Even now, this many years after he first played the character, I'm amazed how some people still get worked up about how different Jackman is from the typical renderings of the character in the comics. He's taller, he's leaner, and honestly, he doesn't really look like him. But Jackman's made the character his with the choices he's made, and he's absolutely willing to transform himself each time he returns to play the part, getting crazy ripped each time.