Did I miss something?

I recall my grandmother’s delicately placed porcelain figures arranged around a peaceful baby Jesus in a manger. I dont recall any violence.

Away in a manger, no crib for a bed,
The little Lord Jesus laid down His sweet head.
The stars in the sky looked down where He lay,
The little Lord Jesus, asleep on the hay.

The cattle are lowing, the Baby awakes,
The little Lord Jesus, ass kicking He makes;
I love Thee, Lord Jesus, you’ve killed the bad guys
Now pose menacingly till morning is nigh.

Who directed this? The Wachowski Brothers?

The title of Antonio Bandera’s new film is El Camino de los Ingleses which translated means The English Path. According to yahoo.com he is using the path that he took in English Hollywood to now help pay it forward to the next generation of actors from his home country of Spain. Here’s the news:

Antonio Banderas’ second turn as a director is a far cry from cinematic romps like “The Mask of Zorro,” “Spy Kids” or the other box-office hits which made him a household acting name.

Instead, he’s created a chronicle about the bewildering path to manhood in Spain. The Spanish language film tells the story of a group of teenage boys on the threshold of maturity, their loves and conflicts as they try to understand their transition to adults.

Banderas says the movie is an attempt to bring something more personal and risky to the big screen, but also to provide a springboard for a new generation of local actors in Malaga, his home city in southern Spain. Banderas said he did not expect anything more from the film besides the enjoyment he has already had from making a feature shot entirely in Andalusia.

“In a way I myself am the natural enemy of this film, the typical good-looking guy who’s done a lot of commercial cinema,” he said. “I’ve done it simply from my own curiosity regarding film-making. An exercise in honesty.”

Man he sounds like a nice guy. Sure he’s been in some crappy movies lately but doesn’t he sound like the kind of person that you would want to be neighbors with?

It is really nice to see a successful person giving back to the place that they have come from and trying to give a hand up to those still there, not through a hand out but with work that they can be proud of. He has certainly picked the right kind of genre for a successful movie, whether it is his intention or not, coming of age films are one type of movie that I never get sick of. Just this past year I saw two that blew me completely away, Whole New Thing and C.R.A.Z.Y., both fantastic surprises at the cinema.

It has been my experience that success follows those who are enjoying a creative process with good intention and inviting other people to do the same without being attached to the results.

But even if the above does have exceptions and Antonio’s movie fails miserably at least he can pull out a mask and wear it for a while because…he’s Zorro you know.

Well it’s that time of the year again, awards announcements time, Independent’s Spirit Awards have announced their nominations first. I picked up the list from monstersandcritics.com, here it is:

Nominations for the 2007 Film Independent’s Spirit Awards were announced November 28, including nominations for Best Feature, which are ‘American Gun;’ ‘The Dead Girl;’ ‘Half Nelson;’ ‘Little Miss Sunshine;’ and ‘Pan’s Labyrinth.’

Also announced were the finalists for the IFC/Acura Someone to Watch Award, the Axium Truer Than Fiction Award, the Axium Producers Award, and a Special Distinction Award given to David Lynch and Laura Dern for their collaborative work. “We are proud to spotlight this year’s eclectic mix of filmmakers and artists who are unafraid to take risks,” said Dawn Hudson, Executive Director of Film Independent. “The foundation of independent film has always been to push the envelope both in subject matter and filmmaking, and this year is no exception.”

This is one of the best organizations out there for film, the emphasis is all on creativity, they reward unique filmmaking, you can bet that no remakes made it onto their list of nominations. What I’m most impressed with is the nomination of Little Miss Sunshine, this is a great movie and it worries me that it might be overlooked because it’s a comedy, hopefully this nomination with spart a trend that the rest of the awards shows will continue on.

With Sarah Silverman as the host again this year and the emphasis on interesting folks like David Lynch this is one awards show I’m going to actually watch. How about everyone out there?

I guess I must be under a rock. I dont recall there being a Starship Troopers 2!

MovieHole quotes

“Looks like - fingers crossed - Sony is moving forward”, Neumeier, who will write & direct the film, tells Moviehole. “Plans are afoot to shoot next year. Casper Van Dien will be back as Colonel John Rico. There’ll be a new bug or two. Also draft riots. Religion makes a comeback. And the Federation has a new weapon.”

As silly as it was, I have to say I liked Starship Troopers. Sure it had NOTHING to do with the book, and it was more a movie about some friends facing their own very different futures than it was an action futuristic war movie.

I don’t really get it. I honestly liked the first movie, and like most movies that they make sequels out of, I dont see why they made more. From the trailers for this movie that I was able to find online Starship Troopers 2 was barely a hair’s width higher quality than a fanfilm. No wonder it was direct to video (hense me not knowing it existed). And none of the original cast is in part 2.

So to see a Starship Troopers 3 is either redemption for part 2, or its just going to be another layer of crap on the feces cake that this sequel appears to be. At least they are bringing back Rico. Maybe we will see Doogie Howser too!

Has anyone seen Starship Troopers 2? Is it as bad as the trailers imply?

The phenon that is Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan has hit its high and looks like its hitting its low. This might mean bad news for Cohen Fans.

Cinematical says:

You knew the love feast about Borat had to end. The film has grossed more than $100 million, and audiences seem to find entertaining the news stories about the non-actors who were deceived about the film in which they appeared. Lawsuits? Angry bystanders? It’s all part of the fun of the film, right? That Sacha Baron Cohen sure fooled those folks into revealing their inner prejudices. But the after-party hangover is starting to set in

The very quality that made Borat such a success almost appears to be its own downfall. Fortunately for Cohen this backlash hits long after the money has already been made.

The movie consists mostly of Borat stumbling blindly in broken english to insult people to their faces, and its funny. Incredibly funny. But what happens when all those people are suddenly offended by appearing in this film looking stupid.

Drunken frat boys make asses of themselves, and then sue Borat for putting it in the movie. Cohen himself was struck by a man when he asked him in his Borat character’s signature verbage if he could have sex in the man’s suit. And daily reports of new lawsuits being brought against Cohen and the filmmakers for misleading people to appear in this movie. It was a gamble, and it paid off. But now the struggles begin to grow.

So what does this mean to Cohen films? Recently news of his Bruno character getting made into a movie hit the net. But will studios want to take a risk on a character that is likely to cause them grief? Will the Bruno movie be as entertaining if it doesnt feature the real reactions of unsuspecting citizens?

Is this experiment of Sasha Baron Cohen the last we will hear of him? I cant expect any other Ali G character to have nearly the same success?

There has been a lot of talk for a couple of years of various attempts to bring the Vertigo comic “Preacher” to the big screen. One of the most notable attempts was by Kevin Smith with X-Men’s James Marsden in the lead role (you know… I totally could have seen that work). But now word has come out that Preacher will NOT be heading to the big screen… instead… HBO is developing a TV series for the story. And come to think of it… that’s not a bad idea.

Not sure what Preacher is? Here’s a quick synopsis:

“Preacher,” which ran from 1995-2000, told the story of a down-and-out Texas preacher possessed by Genesis, a supernatural entity conceived by the unnatural coupling of an angel and a demon. Given immense powers, the preacher teamed with an old girlfriend and a hard-drinking Irish vampire and set out on a journey across America to find God — who apparently had abandoned his duties in heaven — and hold him accountable for his negligence.

With shows like Lost, Battlestar Galactica (greatest show in the history of television) and even now Heroes, it becoming clear that one of the advantages TV has over movies is TIME. Heroes can take 4, 8, or 14 hours to layout, set up and properly tell a complex and deep story. A movie doesn’t have that advantage or luxury. A movie has 2 hour (on average) to introduce the characters, set up the plot, get us attached to the primaries and draw it all to a close. All in two hours.

I was disappointed to hear Preacher wasn’t coming to a theater near me… but as I think about it… a property like Preacher is probably better suited for a TV series. More time equals more depth… and Preacher has a lot of depth. (Source: MovieHole)

I’m sorry… did that title just say “Open Water 2“??? Yep, it sure did. Now I know what you’re thinking. “How the hell do you do an Open Water 2?!?” And that my dear international friends is a very good question. If you’ve seen Open Water (based on a true story) you know damn well you CAN’T have an Open Water 2. You just can’t… the very notion is ridiculous right?

Well… as my friends over at Cinematical point out…. since when did ridiculous ever stop anyone who thought they could make a buck?:

Here’s what happens when you sell not only your movie, but your title: A distributor can take some completely unrelated flick and decide to slap that title in front of it and voila, you get a previously-reported, curious-looking direct-to-video title called Open Water 2: Adrift, which was actually known as simply Adrift before someone at Lionsgate realized, hey, both movies deal with shark attacks

Holy crap! If I understood the story right… they had a movie… the movie was called “Adrift”, and then out of nowhere the studio decides to rename it “Open Water 2: Adrift” even though the film has NOTHING to do with the first film other than the fact that it involves the same kind of circumstances? Seems dishonest to me.

So what is this Open Water 2: Adrift about? Well… the movie actually sounds kinda interesting:

A group of reunion-ing high-school pals decide to leap off the side of a yacht … but nobody remembered to lower that silly ladder! Which means they can’t get back on the boat … at all! And if that’s not weirdly tragic enough, one of the ill-fated bathers left a baby on board the boat! Alone!

You know what… ya… I’d see this. Why not? despite the stupid marketing move with the title. But hey… here we are… TALKING ABOUT IT… so I guess the marketing move worked. I still think it’s dishonest. Open Water 2: Adrift hits DVD shelves on February 20th.

I’ve said for some time that I believe the value of actors is overrated (not that they’re not very important… obviously they are) and the role of the writer is VASTLY underrated when considering what makes a movie good or not. I have a lot of empathy for writers in that sense. They’re the ones who create the stories, write the dialog the actors speak, conjure the characters that the actors portray and weave worlds that we inhabit for 2 hours. But what credit does the average film fan give the writers? Next to zero. We’d rather rush to credit the actors.

Well, the movie industry in general has undervalued these artists, these creators of worlds and myths, and it’s all coming to a head with a writers strike looming in the distance… and honestly, I don’t blame them.

You see, the current deal between Hollywood and the WGA (Writer’s Guild of America) has very little provisions in it for material streamed or downloaded. The writers want a share in that new revenue source as well (since it is taking away from the revenue they get from the more traditional media formats). The good folks over at Cinematical give us this:

While studios would like negotiations to begin between the two parties this January, the WGA doesn’t like that idea and would rather postpone talks till September, leaving only two months before the end of the world as we know it. Wait, writers aren’t that important, right? I mean, what’s the worst that can happen? It’s not like the entire industry will fumble about before being brought to its knees. Right?

This stalling technique is nothing new for the WGA; their current contract wasn’t finalized until five months after the previous one expired — and, with online streaming and movie downloading bombarding the industry, serving as yet another medium for which studios can use to screw writers, expect this one to go right down to the wire … as per usual.

I still do not like the idea of residual contracts. I think someone should be fairly paid for their work, and then not be owed more money later… but… it the film industry is going to do it for actors (which they shouldn’t) then they sure as hell better do it for the writers too. And if you’re going to do it for the writers, then it should definitely include revenue the studios make from streaming and downloading (since that also takes away from the writers in the other mediums).

Interesting times could be lying ahead… we’ll keep an eye on how this turns out.

Mr. Bean is just a shell now of his former glory. His big screen stuff has sucked, and aside from his role in Rat Race, Rowan Atkinson’s film career has been a let down too. I’m not excited about Mr. Bean’s Holiday in the least. The trailer looks kinda cute, I’ll give it that… but nothing that made me laugh out loud. Check it out and decide for yourself.

The Good German was recently screened in New York for the Directors Guild of America to a very poor reception. There have also been some screenings in L.A. and everyone around town is taking about what a terrible disappointment it is. Here is what cinematical.com had to say:

the new Steven Soderbergh film was received pretty horribly at a recent DGA screening in NYC. And despite the director being present for a Q&A, members of the audience felt no need to be nice.

The writer claims that during the film there was some guffawing and loudly expressed commenting going on, and when the film ended, there was little applause. Then, when Soderbergh came out for questions, it got even worse. One person asked if the film was supposed to be a spoof or parody of The Third Man. Eventually, Soderbergh issued his own criticisms of the audience members but also had a little fun with the response.

This is a real shame. This movie has an all star cast including Cate Blanchett, George Clooney and Toby MaGuire,a strong director in Steven Soderbergh. And it had the great idea to shoot everything like a 1940’s movie.

So, what went wrong?

Well sometimes people rely too heavily on a high concept film, and if it’s all about the concept other things, like the story and the acting may fail. It sounds like maybe Soderbergh got too wrapped up in his vision and wasn’t open to any feedback on how things were going.

I think the industry folks are so upset about this movie because they had such high hopes. It’s not every day that people invest in a movie like this. This is a film made by a man who loves old school films, he remade Ocean’s Eleven, he helped produce Good Night and Good Luck which had an old movie feel to it. Sadly I think he just got carried away.

Maybe he wanted to do this idea ever since film school, now he has fulfilled his fantasy. Nothing wrong with that as long as he is willing to pay the price.

Poltergeist, great movie, scary, interesting, made me afraid of getting trapped in walls when I was a kid, now it will be remade, possibly frame by frame. Or says bloodydisgusting.com here:

I’ve just received official confirmation that the original idea for “Kayeri” will NOT be used for the remake, instead the new film will be a straight-up remake of the first film… pretty much frame-for-frame.

Although Clint Morris did write the original “Poltergeist Kayeri”, it’s not believed he is part of the new project. In addition, I can also confirm that Zelda Rubinstein, Craig T. Nelson and JoBeth Williams will not be part of the remake.

In the original, a young family are visited by ghosts in their home. At first the ghosts appear friendly, moving objects around the house to the amusement of everyone, then they turn nasty and start to terrorise the family before they “kidnap” the youngest daughter.

If there were such a thing as a film burial ground all of Hollywood would be haunted by ghosts for desecrating so many graves of good movies.

Remakes tend to work best when they have a lot of time in between the original and the imitator, or when the first one is from a different country.

The thing with this project is that the movie was only released twenty years ago and even worse is that the the television show Poltergeist, the Legacy just stopped airing in 1999.

I can see how this idea was sold though. The premise is still be interesting, I find ghosts endlessly fasinating and most people do I think, how long have people been telling ghost stories around campfires? Also it was a very successful movie series in the past. But I just cannot see audiences wanting to see this.

Bottom line it is just too soon. They need to let the daisies start pushing through the dirt before they get out the shovels.

Walmart is at it again. Setting the standards for video downloads they offer an exclusive deal you can’t get anywhere else. But you cant buy rabid flesh eating weasles either, so are they offering something unique, or something no one needs?

CNN says this about Walmart:

With the purchase of the “Superman Returns” physical DVD, Wal-Mart said customers can also choose from three video download format options — $1.97 for portable devices, $2.97 for PCs/laptops, and $3.97 for both portable players and PC/laptops.

The retailer said the physical/digital DVD bundle would offer customers the flexibility to watch the Warner Bros. movie on their TV, portable devices as well as their computers.

According to Wal-Mart, the Superman Returns physical DVD will come with a video download “feature sticker” on the cover. Customers will then have to log on to walmart.com/superman, enter the promotional code, and select their desired download format.

Am I the only one who sees this as kinda dumb?

I was impressed when Walmart announced the dvd burning kiosks in stores. I honestly think this is marketing genius. But to offer a download of a movie AFTER you just bought the actual DVD is kinda redundant. You have to offer one or the other. Or both, but make them an option instead of a package deal.

I see the benefit to downloading a movie for a fee. I don’t have to leave my home to get it, and I can burn it to a dvd and watch it in the same aforementioned home. But why would I want a downloaded version to bookend my store bought fancy cased dvd version? Everyone knows that cinematic masterpieces are best viewed on a 1.5 inch screen of your 30gig iPod Video.

It sounds like this downloadable version will not be able to be burned to dvd, which only serves Walmart’s desire to hold on to their 40% market share in dvd sales. They claim this bundle will make it possible for people to view the movie on TV as well as their portable devices and computers. But it sounds like this would only be possible since the bundle has the retail copy dvd that you can watch on your home theater.

If they offered it as a FREE download to tempt people into trying it then it may serve to illustrate how EASY it can be, so when they full out push their downloading service it will be welcomed. But they offer it at a fee. Any fee is going to be too high for people to really WANT to try downloading.

By far, my favourite type of films is Superhero films. I am a big comic book geek, and these guys get to have million dollar playgrounds re-enacting what me and my friends did when we were 8. That being said, the grandaddy of all superhero films, Xmen, has been my favourite franchise. So as far as I am concerned, they can keep making them and their spinoffs.

But wait True Believers, there may be trouble in the cinematic XMen movie world.

Movie Hole reports:

Though the studio has let it be known that they aren’t ruling out future “X-Men” films – referring to ensemble tag team efforts, not the spin-off films – recent disagreements between the comic troupe and the studio indicate that the partnership may be souring. As a result, Marvel may be taking the superheroes elsewhere.

Whilst Marvel and Sony are ecstatic with their relationship – and as a result are said to be already planning a “Spider-Man 4” – Marvel aren’t so keen on working with Fox on another “X-Men” sequel.

“Marvel has an alternate plan for the future of these movies. One that Fox is reluctant to take seriously”, says the site. “However, they may have little choice in the matter because ultimately the X-Men are Marvel’s characters” and Marvel has been making “even bigger steps to control and have more say in the production of their movies”.

So it doesnt sound like Marvel is backing out (why would they?) but Fox might lose control of the franchise. Perhaps with their solid relationship with Sony, their “alternate plan” will have them moving the franchise to a different studio.

But it seems more like Fox is trying to control the franchise more than Marvel would like, and Marvel has their own ideas. Unfortunately this just means possible delays for XMen 4, and the only ones to suffer will be the fans. At least it seems the Wolverine and Magneto projects appear to still be moving forward.

Hey guys, John here with a quick update on the Films 4 Food Fest. Also, in the last point I have a question for you that I’d love for you to check into the comments section and answer for me. Ok, so here are your updates:

1) For those who don’t know, the Films 4 Food Fest is a 1 day event to raise money for family food services.

2) The Date is set! Saturday January 20th in Hamilton Ontario (about 40 minutes from Toronto)

3) There will be 3 or 4 movies (not yet set) with lots of time to yack about them in between films and meet all the folks there.

4) To keep over head costs down so as much money as possible can go right to the charity, this will be a no frills event. You buy your own food (available on site or in lots of places right around the venue)

5) A special Audio Edition will be recorded “live” with the audience.

6) Following the Audio Edition a special Panel discussion will take place with teh audience. On the panel will be the Movie Blog folks (Darren Conley, Doug Nagy, Bruxy Cavey, Rodney Brazeau, Jesse Bonner) as well as some special guests from other movie sites as well. All of it will be edited into the Audio Edition with all the questions and comments from the audience as well.

7) A Films 4 Food Fest page will be put up in the next week or so with a Paypal donations button for those of you too far away but who would like to donate anyway. OUR GOAL IS TO RAISE $5000 to help local families.

8) Doug Nagy and Jesse Bonner will each do a short stand up routine (oh god this could get me in trouble)

9) After the last movie of the night, there will be an optional group walk up to the local strip club with our special tour guide The Reverend Bruxy Cavey (please tell me you know I’m joking).

10) Cost - Ok, I need your input on this one guys. I’m thinking the “ticket” price for the event (actually, we’re calling it a “minimum donation” instead of an “admission price”) will be about $25 for the day. Is that reasonable? To high? Too low? Just right? We want to get at least 110 people in attendance… at $25 do you think we can do that?

Please please please leave your thoughts below. And thanks again guys… let’s do something good.

The Thai action film “Tears of the Black Tiger” which has been collecting dust on the Miramax shelves for 5 years is finally going to see the light of day in North America thanks to Magnolia Pictures in early 2007.

The good folks at Yahoo News give us this:

Filmmaker Wisit Sasanatieng’s spaghetti Western-style movie tracks Dum, a gunslinger who falls for a high-society woman but finds his gang and her father are set on keeping them apart.

The studio nabbed all domestic rights from Miramax, which bought the rights to the film in North America, Latin America and South America and other territories shortly after it became the first Thai film to appear in competition at the 2001 Cannes Film Festival.

The Weinsteins, who used to run Miramax had become notorious for getting the rights to great asian films… and then making them sit in a vault somewhere never letting them see the light of day until all the positive buzz for the films had long since passed… or edited and ruined them. It’s good that this one is finally getting out. Make sure to check it out.

The immeasurable height and width of the total incompetence and stupidity of the MPAA never ceases to amaze me. This organization has their heads shoved so far up their nether regions that they don’t even know it’s not summer anymore. Taking their fight to the US Copyright office, the MPAA has ensured that the current rules as enforced mean that YOU CAN NOT PUT A DVD YOU OWN ON YOUR IPOD TO WATCH.

Did you get that? A DVD you own, that you bought and paid for… yeah, you’re not allowed to watch it on you iPod Video (or any other portable video enabled device other than your laptop or portable DVD player. THESE ARE IDIOTS!

Good job you morons… well done. So now you’ve got all these millions of people who have video enabled devices… and you’re telling them they’re not allowed to put their legally purchased DVDs on them to watch. Hmmmmmm… gee wiz… I wonder what they’ll do now. Oh right… THEY’LL DOWNLOAD ILLEGAL MOVIES TO WATCH ON THEIR iPODS EVEN MORE!!!

When will these idiots wake up and realize that fighting, instead of working with technology, is only going to ENCOURAGE piracy?!?! Are they so stupid that they don’t get this???

These fools should be BRAGGING and advertising that purchasing a DVD means you can watch it on your iPod. They should be making this a selling feature on their dvds. They should make it easy for companies to develop software that rips the dvds to iPods. But they’re too blind to understand taking advantage of this technology for their gain is a better idea than trying to ban it. IDIOTS IDIOTS IDIOTS.

Dear folks at the MPAA. I will often try to defend you, and even back you up sometimes… but you are nothing but a conclave imbeciles and short sighted dimwits who are actually encouraging piracy instead of fighting it. I have no sympathy for you whatsoever.

We’ve been talking for some time about Guillermo del Toro’s newest flick Pan’s Labyrinth. The movie has been getting terrific reviews and buzz over the last couple of months which has only built the anticipation for it even more amongst rabid film fans.

Now, the good folks over at Bloody Disgusting have posted up 2 clips from the movie that add up to about 6 minutes. The tension and mood in the clips are palatable and eerie as hell. The cinematography is simple and allows the setting to speak for itself which I love. I can’t wait to see this.

So go on over and take a look at the 2 Pan’s Labyrinth clips, and then come back and let us know what you thought of them.

I’ve been talking about “The Host” (also known as “Gwoemul”) for a while now. I still haven’t seen the film myself, but the stuff I”ve seen from it looks freaking amazing, and I have several friends who have seen it and swear by it. Well, it looks like they’re not the only ones who dig the Asian horror/monster flick.

The Host has just taken 6 awards at the Korean Film Awards, including Best Picture, Best Director, Best Sound Effects, Best Special Effects Best Lighting and Best Cinematography. Yup, that’s right… monster flick won best picture. Imagine that. Anyway, this is a film I’ve been salavating to see and I can’t wait to get my hands on it.

For those of you who haven’t heard of The Host yet, here’s the amazing trailer. Man this is so cool. Magnolia Pictures will release The Host in the United States in early 2007.

.
Thom Fitzgerald has created a movie worth watching, especially with Lucy Liu as the leading lady in his new movie 3 Needles. Liu was interviewed by comingsoon.net, here is the movie’s description:

The global widespread of AIDS is the main focus of the independent drama 3 Needles, in which the story is divided into three different parts of the world - South Africa, Canada and China. On each continent, there are various accounts as to why the disease is spreading and the film displays a social and cultural ignorance as to what’s happening in that country to prevent the disease from being contained. Lucy Liu plays Jin Ping in the China portion of the film.

The interview is quite good, you can see it by clicking here.

I have to say it is a delight to see Lucy Liu doing something with more substance for once. She is great to watch on screen and she always is an added bonus to whatever she may be in but she hasn’t had the chance to really show her acting chops in a movie with potential like this.

3 Needles is not only going to be a good movie for Liu but also for Fitzgerald who, although he has been making decent looking movies since the late nineties he has been missing larger success until this point.

.From what I am reading of the reviews and of the premise and Lucy’s interview this film is something that will be worth seeing.

The Wizard of Oz is a pure classic and the original should never be touched, however the movie is filled to the brim with take off possibilities and it looks like th Sci-Fi Channel is going to try and snatch some gold from the yellow brick road. The good people over at darkhorizons.com give us this on Sci Fi’s move toward OZ:

The network has given a green light to “Tin Man”, a six-hour original miniseries described as wild SF reimagining of “The Wizard of Oz” reports Sci-Fi Wire.

The story follows DG, a young woman plucked from her humdrum life and thrust into The Outer Zone (the O.Z.), a fantastical realm filled with wonder, but oppressed by dark magic. DG discovers her true identity, battles evil winged monkey-bats and attempts to fulfill her destiny. Ultimately, DG’s destiny leads her to a showdown with the wicked sorceress Azkadellia, whose ties to DG are closer than anyone could have imagined.

This project is written by Steven Long Mitchell and Craig Van Sickle, shooting is slated to begin early 2007 in Vancouver with a December 2007 release set.

There have actually been quite a few attempts, successful and otherwise of bringing Oz to television if you click here you can see them, my personal favorite is The Muppet’s do The Wizard of Oz where Miss Piggy played all four witches.

This sounds pretty good. I mean it could be completely terrible but at a first glance this gets me interested. A sci-fi take on OZ, I can dig it.

What might work well is if they involve aspects of OZ that always felt sci-fi anyway. Like the little people, to me they always seemed very alien having these little people among Dorothy. Or the ruby slippers don’t hold a spell they are actually made out of special crystals that could power a whole universe, and here Dorothy is walking around on them all day, getting them scuffed, having no real idea of what they are worth, only that people want them. Yep, there are some cool possibilities here.

What could go wrong though is in an attempt to have a fresh look at the concept of this magical story the creators could go so far away from the original and over the top with the sci-fi genre that the appeal of an OZ with a sci-fi twist would be lost.

To the best of my knowledge and research there has never been a sci-fi version of The Wizard of Oz. And as long as the commercials for it don’t look like Cleopatra 2525 meets Oz I will be open to seeing it.

Ralph Fiennes is one of the most giving actors to ever grace the silver screen. Even in the gag inducing Avengers, he was brilliant and he had a leather clad Uma Thurman to upstage.

Cinematical Reports:

Which brings us to Fiennes’ upcoming work. According to Production Weekly, the man has landed two more gigs to add to his already impressive list of credits. First off, Fiennes has been set to star for writer/director Jacob Aaron Estes in Gifted. The film, based on Ian Parker’s New Yorker article The Gift, tells the story of controversial philanthropist Zell Kravinsky, who made millions in real estate — but over the past six years has given nearly all of his $45 million estate away. And that’s not all — he even gave away one of his kidneys to a stranger who needed it. Fiennes will play the generous Kravinsky in the film. Production on Gifted is expected to start in the Spring in New York.

I mean come on, the guy plays the goodguy, and he plays the badguy and you still dont know which you like him as better! So to see him in a serious role like this isnt new, but the guy delivers, so we are likely going to be in for a good movie. Especially with such an intriguing story like that. Our culture inspires us to cling to what we have and not let go of any of it without something in return.

Also, not to rest on his laurels, after Fiennes reprises his role as Voldemort in Harry Potter and the Order of the Pheonix, he is taking the jump to directing with Snow Country. The film, based on the Japanese novel Yukiguni by Yasunari Kawabata and adapted by Nicholas Rohl. Snow country tells a love story set amid the desolate beauty of northern Canada, and chronicles the affair between a wealthy man and a 17 year-old Inuit girl being raised in a convent.

I dont know if its the sound of screaming victims that is driving this movie, but it seems Hostel is getting ahead of itself.

HorrorMovies.ca says:

Ok everyone pretend your surprised. Ready? and… NOW. So Variety is reporting that a Hostel 3 is in the works, and we dont even have Hostel 2 yet. Why would they be in such a hurry? Why, they are pushing to start a new SAW franchise of course. HOSTEL was a great movie, I enjoyed it, but we will see whether it can hold water with a whack of sequels. Its a great premise, it just begs the question for me of how do you make it original doing the same story over in a different location?

Now we all know that its not the screams thats driving this, but the sound of the cash register. Ok, I know they dont make that cha-ching sound anymore, and the only sound really is the electronically printed reciept, so my analogy just went for a shit, but it is money that is going to make this happen.

They can rehash the same storyline with new locations and have different characters get hacked up in even more and more violent and disgusting ways, and they are convinced it will sell. Why else would they greenlight a third installment before the sequel even proves its worth?

I guess if the sequel is REALLY crappy they can still pull the plug, but they are trying to hit it while its hot.

As we mentioned before, the Horror genre seems to go in cycles (slasher, j-horror and now gore-or movies) so perhaps they want to get on the make with this before a new fad comes along.

A lot of people were both excited and dumbfounded at the same time when they heard news that The Smurfs were going to be getting a full length feature film. I think it’s a cute idea personally, although I do wonder how financial viable it’s going to be. We’ll have to wait and see.

Last year when we first talked about the buzz, there was word that they might be planning for more than one Smurfs film already. And guess what… it’s true. The Smurfs is being written as, and produced as… A TRILOGY. Yup, you read that right… we’re getting a Smurf’s trilogy that they’re comparing to Lord of the Rings. I kid you not! I’m not creative enough to make this stuff up.

The good folks over at Movie Hole give us this:

Kerner says he has been researching the popular 80s cartoon extensively. “Having seen all 234 episodes of the show, numerous times, Herb Ratner and I have been working really hard at looking where all the holes were in the episodes - ya’know, like all of a sudden another woman appears, it’s not just smurfette - and what we’ve done is we’ve plugged all those holes in a trilogy of three movies, and we reveal things as we go along”.

The “Smurfs” trilogy will be “the animated Lord of the Rings - through the world of these idiots. Because they’re sweet characters but they’re goofs. It’s a comic version, but still very heartfelt, version of Lord of the Rings - though not literally Lord of the Rings, but an epic story like that.”

So there you have it. All I can say is that they must have a HUGE amount of confidence in this property if they’re not even waiting to see how the first Smurfs movie does. To go ahead and plan for 3… well… that’s gutsy.

So what do you think. Looking forward to The Smurfs movie? Think it’s a stupid idea?

Denzel Washington’s new movie Deja Vu has opening in 3rd place behind 2 other movies already in theri second weeks. There was a time, not too long ago, when the next Denzel Washington movie got buzz just because Washington was in it. And suddenly, out of nowhere, Washington can’t seem to generate buzz while rubbing a balloon against his hair. Why is that? He certainly didn’t forget how to act… just about every performance you see him him he does a wonderful job. He didn’t get caught in some controversy or joined up with some cult. He hasn’t thrown any telephones at bell hop boys in hotels or went on any racial outbursts while doing stand up routines.

It seems like these days no one talks about Denzel anymore. And really… the only working theory I have as to why that is… and this sounds a bit far fetched I admit… but was that fateful night he won an Oscar for “Training Day” as Best Actor when everyone on the planet knew he didn’t deserve it. At least that particular year he didn’t. As a matter of fact, a lot of people to this day point to the Oscars that year as a farce that was pre-determined to be about race.

I personally do not subscribe to that theory, but, you have to at least acknowledge those people that do. You’d have to be a damn fool not to agree that Sidney Poitier deserved the honorary Oscar that night, so there is no discussion there. Halle Berry? Well, in all honesty I had no problem with her winning Best actress that year. Her performance was amazing. Yes, an argument could be made that any one of Nicole Kidman, Sissy Spacek or Judi Dench deserved it more than Berry that year… but it’s not so clear cut.

However… Denzel winning best actor that year was absurd. Man people, myself included, didn’t even think he should have been nominated… and he most CERTAINLY did NOT deserve to win over either Russell Crowe (Beautiful Mind. I didn’t LOVE the movie, but Crowe’s performance in it was easily the best of the year by a mile), or Sean Penn (I Am Sam).

Suddenly you had an Oscar with 3 winners of black heritage, 2 of whom were debatable, and one of which was a pure joke (Washington’s win). All most people could come up with was that the Academy felt like they owed Denzel one for all his previous brilliant work (I don’t disagree with that… Washington is a MASTER actor).

But after that night… it felt like a lot of people just suddenly stopped caring about Denzel Washington (and to a lesser degree Halle Berry). The shine was gone. No one suddenly hated Denzel… it just felt like there was a bit of a sour after taste in people’s mouths after that (which is a damn shame because it’s not Washington’s fault).

But look down the list of films Washington has done since. None of them have done exceedingly well… but more importantly, none of them had people talking before their release based on Denzel’s involvement. There was a time when just mentioning Denzel’s name got people bubbling over a film… but that’s gone now for the most part.

So I put it to you guys. Why is Denzel Washington not so… I dont know… “in” anymore? Why does his name not stir people like it used to? Was it the Oscar fiasco? Or am I way off and it’s something else? Leave your thoughts.

I’ve been looking forward to Aronofsky’s new film “The Fountain” for quite some time now… but I remember way back when the first trailer came out… it actually turned me off of it a little bit. It felt really self absorbed (just saying that’s how it felt to me) and a bit too trippy. But keep in mind… it was only a trailer.

Well, then the booing came. Audiences at the Venice film festival booed and walked out of it. Many just wrote it off to Euro folk not getting it. Then there was a significant walk out at the Toronto Film Fest. Then, critics were totally split on it… some LOVING it… and others HATING it. Right now The Fountain has a very disappointing 50% on Rotten Tomatoes. But the news gets worse for The Fountain…

On it’s opening weekend, The Fountain came in 10th, only taking in a pathetic $3 million. Looks like the trailers didn’t impress anyone else either.

So I have 2 questions for you. Why do you think no one went to see this “highly anticipated” movie. Second… if you saw it… what did you think of it?

New sad news. This news has been floating around for a couple of days now, but I’ve not thrown in my two cents worth on it yet. It is yet another twist in the Peter Jackson / The Hobbit tale.. only this one disappoints me more. Looks like Peter Jackson doesn’t mind lying to his fans through his teeth.

Back when it was announced that Peter Jackson wouldn’t be doing The Hobbit, Jackson put out a letter to the fans where he tried to get us to believe that he had no idea that New Line, the only studio that was willing to take a chance on LOTR, had a limited period of time where they had to make The Hobbit or lose it’s rights. Jackson tried to tell us that he had no idea.

Guess what… Jackson flat out lied. The worst part is that he lied to the fans in his open letter. Because saying he didn’t know New Line had a limited period of time was PURE BULLSHIT. And Tolkien Enterprises confirms it. This is from Saul Zaentz of Tolkien Enterprises (The company that gets the rights to The Hobbit if New Line doesn’t make the film in time)… looks like Peter Jackson has been purposefully lying to fans and New Line in an attempt to get a “better deal” for himself from another company:

Peter will wait because he knows that he will make the best deal with us.

Jackson knew the whole time New Line had a limited time… and just trying to delay so that New Line lose their rights… and he lied to the fans directly about it.

New Line wanted to give the fans Peter Jackson to direct The Hobbit... but it’s been Peter Jackson, lying to fans and studios, that’s been holding it up… and now we see he’s been doing it on purpose. Doing it to get a “Better deal”. Not to give the fans what they wanted… because New Line tried that. But rather to screw the one company that gave him a chance to make his dream movies out of their rights while pulling the wool over the fans eyes at the same time.

To say I’m disappointed is an understatement.

I’m sure now Jackson worshippers (of which I was one until recently) will rush to their master’s defense, and continue to buy any lie the man hands out. Me, I’m sick of it.

Up till now I’ve been saying I wanted to see Jackson direct The Hobbit and that I’m still a big fan of his. Well… not anymore. So I’ll say it. Screw Peter Jackson. I’ve had enough of his bullshit. Comments aren’t open on this one… we’ve all wasted too much time with this already. Feel free to send me hate mail if you’d like. They entertain me. :)

Max was just kind enough to send me this picture of what I can only assume is Scorponok in the upcoming Transformers movie. This is the first image I’ve seen of 3D CGI Transformer in action. I… Freaking… LOVE IT!

When you think movie theater you don’t automatically think culture. But this holiday season you may just want to consider checking out some opera at one of the fifty theaters across the U.S. that will have The Magic Flute directed by Julie Taymore. I caught this news tidbit from a studio briefing over at imdb.com :

More than 50 theaters across the U.S. plan to screen a live performance of the New York Metropolitan Opera’s presentation of Mozart’s The Magic Flute on December 30.

The matinee performance, directed by Julie Taymor (The Lion King) and conducted by James Levine, is scheduled to begin at 1:30 p.m. ET and is the first of six such concerts due to be presented via satellite in high-definition and surround sound this season. Tickets have been priced at $18 for adults and $15 for children and are being sold at the theaters’ box offices or online at metoperafamily.org.

I think this is a great idea. It is priced well, timed perfectly and makes opera less daunting for kids if it’s in a movie theater space. It is certainly a good idea for getting the older generation back into the theaters, and since it is just a one day even they have a good chance of be able to drag their pierced and tatooed grandkids out for the occasion.

It’s very encouraging to see movie theaters embracing different forms of entertainment, besides commercials before the movie.

Clear and Present Danger , The Hunt for Red October and Patriot Games were very successful spy movies back in the day and apparently Paramount is looking for more of that sort of success, but they are going about it in a very strange way. Here’s what director Phillip Noyce had to say over at movieweb.com:

Phillip Noyce, who directed Jack Ryan films Patriot Games and Clear and Present Danger, tells Moviehole that he’s heard that the wheels are in motion to put C.I.A agent Ryan back on the big screen. But no, he won’t be involved and by the sounds of it, neither will the man who invented the popular literary character. Apparently there’s a legal loophole that enables the studio to make a film based on the character - without getting Clancy’s input.

According to Noyce, Paramount is looking to re-launch the Jack Ryan film series that began with 1990’s The Hunt for Red October … only this time, the film would not be based on one of Tom Clancy’s books. The studio has the right to make a film based on the character but not John Clark, a character that appears in his own set of Clancy novels without the permission of author, and so they’re going to come up with their own story for a new Ryan movie.

Wait a second. Ok. A movie studio is trying to make a movie based on a character from a book series but doesn’t take any of stories ever written about him, and may not even use him in the movie? Whaaaaat? Man, that is confusing. It also seems wrong.

I know they are apparently within their legal rights but it just smells a bit sour. If this is true then they are basically stealing a character and making up their own story to go along with it.

Why not hire the author to write something specifically to their requirements? If I was a fan of his books I’d be very excited to see a movie that was about a character I loved but done with a completely different take, if the author was involved. But if that was done without the creator’s permission I wouldn’t trust the product.

I liked The Hunt for Red October series, it was intelligent, well acted and well written. I’d even like it is Harrison Ford came back and reprised his role. But I think in any business ethical behavior should be upheld, and when it is not…well, the venture tends to sink faster than a submarine.

I really enjoyed Thank You For Smoking earlier this year. I mean come on… how can you have a movie where the main protagonist is the spin doctor FOR the tobacco industry and not at least be a little bit interested right? Aaron Eckhart gave the best performance I’ve ever seen in his career, and the film made you laugh pretty much the whole way through.

Well… I guess the folks over at NBC see a lot more potential out of the scenario. Our friends over at Film Junk give us the following:

After Jason Reitman adapted his novel into a fairly successful motion picture (released earlier this year), it looks like NBC is now interested in turning the book into a TV series as well. Rick Cleveland will be writing and producing the show, who has previously been a producer and writer for Six Feet Under and The West Wing. He’s certainly got some decent credentials there, so my interest has been piqued. According to Variety, the TV show will be a single camera comedy that picks up where the film left off.

I do like the idea of picking the show up where the movie left off… and I do think there are LOADS of great story possibilities with this fantastic character… however…

Today, when I hear about the idea of a sleeper hit movie getting turned into a TV show picking up where the movie left off… all I can think of is “My Big Fat Greek Life” (which obviously was the tv version of My Big Fat Greek Wedding. Oh man that show was HORRIBLE! I had to turn it off half way through the first episode and never watched it again. Let’s hope that doesn’t have to Thank You For Smoking.

I love catching little mistakes in movies. Not story mistakes… but little “cought on film” continutiy errors that were either missed by the editors, or that they just didn’t think was worth re-shooting or that many people would notice. I still remember the first time I cought a mistake… it was in Raiders of the Lost Ark… and there were 2 of them (that I cought at the time). The first on was the girl sitting in her Nepal pub alone, looking at the headpiece of the staff of Ra hanging on a chain around her neck. The camera angle changes and POOF! It’s not around her neck anymore. The other one was a fly walking into a guys mouth while he was giving a big speach about the ark… and he NEVER EVEN FLINCHED! That’s a pro.

Well… looks like Casino Royale has made it’s way onto the top 20 most mistakes already. The good folks over at Cinematical give us this:

Perhaps the filmmakers were too distracted by the uproar that Craig’s casting created to notice the flubs throughout the film. Starpulse has reported that Casino Royale is already in the Top-20 of mistake-filled films on MovieMistakes.com.

Moviemistakes.com is a really fun site. You start reading through all the crap and just count how many times you go “Oh yeah!” when you read about a mistake in one of your favorite films. You should go over and check it out. They also have this great little example video they’ve put together:

Here is the Spider-Man 3 stuff that aired on TV the other night. Thanks to Mitch for the heads up.

Sir Ian McKellan is saddened by the announcement that Peter Jackson will not be directing The Hobbit. I am too. But I will get over it.

Yahoo! News

Sir Ian McKellen, who played the wizard Gandalf in the smash hit “Lord of the Rings” movies, said on Wednesday he is sad director Peter Jackson may not make a film based on author J.R.R. Tolkien’s “The Hobbit.”

“I’m very sad as I should have relished revisiting middle Earth with Peter again as team-leader. It’s hard to imagine any other director matching his achievement in Tolkien country,” McKellen wrote in a posting on his Web site, mckellen.com.

Now just like everyone else has said, it would be WONDERFUL to have Jackson do the Hobbit. No arguement there. Even Ian says it.

But one thing to notice is what he DIDNT say. He didnt say he was OUT without Jackson. He sounds like he is still committed to the Hobbit to reprise his role as Gandalf the Gray. He is talking like he is going to do it no matter who is attached to the project, and says something to the tone of “too bad Peter isnt coming with us this time around”

Sir Ian McKellan sang pretty high praises about Singer who directed him as the iconic Magneto in the first two XMen. When Singer was announced to not do X3, Ian didnt have a problem with that either.

If he had put his foot down and said “Fuck it. No Peter? No Ian.” then there might have been an issue with a Jackson Free production. When those close to the project start voicing concerns or staging threats we might have bigger problems, but with this casual comment from McKellan I am inclined to think that its not a big deal.

I personally HOPE that whoever it is that does The Hobbit will do a good job. I dont think it MUST be Jackson, but that would be cool. Im still going to see it anyways.

Ok, file this one under “Probably not true at all”. But this morning the internet is all abuzz with this one. Apparently New Line has approached Spider-Man and Evil Dead director Sam Raimi to possibly step in and direct The Hobbit and the 2nd Lord of the Rings Prequel. This has, at least for the moment, stopped a lot of the short sighted bitching and moaning about Peter Jackson not returning for The Hobbit (Something that is every bit as much Jackson’s fault as it is New Line’s… make no mistake, they’re both to blame here, but blinded Jackson followers refuse to see any fault with their god).

I’ll repeat myself here. Would I like to see Jackson back to direct The Hobbit? HELL YES! He did a great job with LOTR (Remember, I called Return of the King the single greatest achievement in film history, and I stand by that), but to say ANY one director MUST direct a certain film is silly, naive and short sighted.

When they announced they were going to make The Lord of the Rings in the first place… no one said “Peter Jackson MUST direct them”. No one. But he did them and it turned out great. Another gifted director could just as ealisy (or not so easlily) step in and do just as well… or even better than Jackson (or almost as good). And let’s remember… The Hobbit is a different feel of a story than LOTR… another director could actually be a good idea.

Now back to Raimi.

If this rumor was true (and I don’t personally think it is) I’d like the idea. Raimi is a diverse director who can manage multiple styles. Army of Darkness and Spider-Man are TOTALLY different films, and he manages both genres well. For him to bring his creative mind to The Hobbit would be great, a fresh vision for Middle Earth and the new feel of The Hobbit.

So forget Peter Jackson for a moment… ok… just for a minute. If this rumor was true, what would you think of a Sam Raimi directing The Hobbit?