Posted May 15th 2008 8:02PM by Eric D. Snider
Filed under: New Releases, Disney, Fan Rant
The MPAA's rating system is flawed and arbitrarily enforced, and the system itself is corrupt. I urge one and all to see the enlightening
This Film Is Not Yet Rated for ample evidence of this -- or, if you prefer, just watch
The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian and marvel at how such a violent movie magically got the kid-friendly PG rating.
I didn't know the rating before I watched it, and I didn't remember, off the top of my head, whether the first
Chronicles of Narnia was PG. (It was.) As
Prince Caspian unfolded, I noted that there was an awful lot of stabbing, throat-slitting, and other killing, though I also noted that it was almost entirely bloodless. I figured it was the lack of gore that had prevented the film from being rated R, and that it was instead a moderately violent PG-13.
So I was flabbergasted to discover afterward that it was rated PG. Mind you, I have nothing against wanton violence and destruction in film -- it just needs to be labeled properly.
Prince Caspian has (no spoilers here) several large-scale battle scenes, akin to
Lord of the Rings in size and scope, with people and magical creatures slaying one another right and left. In a scene of hand-to-hand combat, someone slices off someone else's head; in the next shot we see the head, still in its helmet, on the ground next to the body. Elsewhere, there's a massive slaughter while good guys are forced to look on, powerless to help.
Continue reading Fan Rant: The PG Rating for 'Prince Caspian' Is Ludicrous
Posted May 14th 2008 5:02PM by Scott Weinberg
Filed under: Action, Classics, Sci-Fi & Fantasy, Paramount, Home Entertainment, Comic/Superhero/Geek, Remakes and Sequels, Fan Rant
Like most mega-pathetic movie spazzes, I bought
this box set the day it came out. (Actually I bought
this version, got home, freaked out, and brought it back to the store to exchange for the correct one.) The first "Adventures of Indiana Jones" package came with a fourth disc that has a two-hour documentary on the whole series, plus a handful of brief featurettes on stunts, sounds, magic, and music. Definitely some good stuff, but the movie discs (
NOT sold separately) were entirely bare-bones affairs.
So there are two things that are welcomely different about the second
Indiana Jones box set: A) Now you CAN purchase the movies individually, and B) there's no extra disc: This time around the extra features are on the "main feature" discs. This sounded pretty good to me, as I've been hoping for more "flick-specific" supplements on the re-issue ... but here's where I get a little annoyed: Obviously the new goodies are of a very high quality (given that they were overseen by DVD magic-man Laurent Bouzereau), but ... why so skimpy? I'll offer a few nerdy gripes and then offer a theory as to why this stuff happens, followed by a complete list of all the new features found on the latest
Indy DVD set...
Continue reading Fan Rant: Indiana Jones and the Second Trip to the DVD Store
Posted May 8th 2008 12:02PM by Elisabeth Rappe
Filed under: Celebrities and Controversy, Fandom, Comic/Superhero/Geek, Fan Rant
You know, I have always had a dislike for the collectible business. Most children of the 70's and 80's probably do, as we were generally left crying because our
Transformers or
Star Wars collections were incomplete. My own bitterness arises from not being able to get a figure of April O'Neill, the redheaded reporter and best friend of
The Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. That was the first time I learned that
adults collected these things -- and not to play with, but to sell for ridiculously high prices. And I learned it courtesy of my dad, who knew guys hoarding April O'Neill figures, and who wouldn't cough one up to a fellow cop for his young, geeky daughter.
So, this story from
the New York Post reporting Heath Ledger's Joker figure selling out everywhere makes me sad and angry. It's not that kids are being denied a Joker figure (I really do not think young children should be anywhere near
The Dark Knight, and I'm pretty liberal about kids watching dark movies), but that Ledger's death is being shamelessly exploited on eBay. Because you know as well as I that those figures wouldn't be flying from the shelves if Ledger hadn't passed away earlier this year. I have no doubt it would be popular, but no one would be buying 30 of them. They wouldn't be going for $55.00 a pop. (Actually, it looks like that's some hyperbole, as a brief glance suggests it's more in the range of $30-$40, but it's still the principle of the thing. Sell enough and you've turned a tidy profit.)
Continue reading Fan Rant: The Selling Out of Heath Ledger
Posted May 6th 2008 5:32PM by Scott Weinberg
Filed under: Comedy, Disney, Family Films, Fan Rant
OK, first off: Whoever decided to call this movie
Beverly Hills Chihuahua needs to be fired really quick. I mean, seriously: Are we still cribbing titles off of
Beverly Hills Cop -- which came out 27 years ago? You want your new kiddie flick to be remembered as fondly as
Beverly Hills Ninja,
Beverly Hills Bodysnatchers,
Troop Beverly Hills, and
The Taking of Beverly Hills? With all due respect to
Down and Out in Beverly Hills and
Slums of Beverly Hills, the phrase is practically the kiss of death where movies are concerned. (Makes me wish Axel Foley's first adventure had had a more accurate title, like
A Detroit Cop in Beverly Hills or
The Cop Who Laughed Funny.)
But somehow I doubt it's the title that's going to irritate you most about
this trailer. Personally I couldn't get past the fact that the computer-generated canines look about as realistic as a bunch of Muppet puppies. And get this: I actually
own a half-chihuahua / half-terrier (it's actually my sister's freaky little dog), so I guess I'm part of the intended audience for this thing. Anyway, check out the mind-numbing
promo clip and then we'll talk blame.
Continue reading Fan Rant: Disney Actually Made a Movie Called 'Beverly Hills Chihuahua'
Posted May 5th 2008 12:02PM by Eric D. Snider
Filed under: Fandom, Fan Rant
Cranky Eric© sez ... Hey, people who make movies: Stop putting scenes after the closing credits. If you want me to watch it, put it IN THE MOVIE, not after it.
It has been well established that when a list of names starts scrolling up against a black screen, the movie is OVER. You're done. Whatever story you had to tell, you told it.
That's the way movies work.
You want to put something cute after the credits, fine. Knock yourself out. A lot of times that stuff is fun. But it doesn't count as an actual part of the story. If it's something we need to know,
tell us. Don't hide it after the list of gaffers and production assistants and humane society certifications.
Oh, what, at the end of the last
Pirates of the Caribbean -- after the 37 minutes of credits have rolled -- it turns out Elizabeth has a son and is standing around waiting for her once-in-a-decade evening of romance with Will? No she doesn't, and no she isn't. Because the movie ended 37 minutes earlier, when the closing credits started. Whatever happens after that is just you horsin' around. Doesn't count. It's not canon.
Continue reading Fan Rant: Quit Tossing in Extra Scenes After the Movie's Already Over
Posted Apr 30th 2008 10:32PM by Eugene Novikov
Filed under: Romance, New Releases, Sony, Fan Rant
Due to a snafu (my own fault), I did not have a seat at Tuesday night's
Iron Man screening in Philadelphia. So while everybody who is anybody hereabouts was giddily watching Tony Stark transform from an arms dealer to an ass-kicking, metal-suited superhero, I was in a different theater one block away watching
Patrick Dempsey be a bridesmaid in
Made of Honor. There'll be a
Cinematical review of the movie on Friday, but for now I'd like to ask a very specific question: what on earth could that title possibly mean?
Others who have seen the movie have referred to "Made of Honor" as
"a pun," or even an
"appalling pun." Okay, but a pun usually involves conflating two words or expressions that make sense in the same context and happen to sound alike. In this case, I only count one. Yes, I get it -- Dempsey plays the best friend of a woman who is getting married, and so she names him her
maid of honor. It's funny because he's a
guy, but he's the
maid of honor. Hahaha! Fantastic. But
made of honor? What, like
built of honor? Who? Patrick Dempsey? I'm not connecting the dots.
Continue reading Fan Rant: What Could "Made of Honor" Possibly Mean?
Posted Apr 29th 2008 9:02PM by Kim Voynar
Filed under: Celebrities and Controversy, Fandom, Images, Fan Rant
Oh my, oh Miley. Blogs around the internet are buzzing over these photos of 15-year-old Hannah Montana star Miley Cyrus, taken by famed photographer Annie Leibovitz for Vanity Fair. Movie City News' David Poland, writing about the pics on his Hot Blog, said, "People do know that 15-year-old breasts, while they really have no business being shown in public, do exist, whether covered in a sheet or a t-shirt, right?" (Poland has the full picture up on his website, I'm not going to put it up here. You can see it there or on Vanity Fair.)
Well, yes, we know that 15-year-old girls have 15-year-old breasts, but that does that make it appropriate for a magazine to publish photos of a half-naked teenager? Whether because the folks over at Disney, where Cyrus's show Hannah Montana is one of its biggest properties, pitched a bitch about the photos, or because she's genuinely mortified by the photos in retrospect, Cyrus issued a statement to fans that said, in part, "I took part in a photo shoot that was supposed to be 'artistic' and now, seeing the photographs and reading the story, I feel so embarrassed."
Continue reading Discuss: Are the Vanity Fair Miley Cyrus Photos Inappropriate?
Posted Apr 24th 2008 1:32PM by Erik Davis
Filed under: Fandom, Fan Rant
.jpg)
Here's something you may or may not know about me: I love
Will Smith. Huge fan of the guy; I've thoroughly enjoyed almost all of his movies (I said,
almost) and he always gives you a good performance. Obviously, I'm not alone -- if you put Smith in a movie, any movie, you're pretty much guaranteed $100 million at the box office ... and that's a low estimate. However, when it comes to a Will Smith film -- be it small or large -- one thing is always a given: He's gonna play the good guy. His good guy will have flaws, sure, but what protagonist doesn't have flaws?
So as much as I love Will Smith and enjoy shelling out money for his movies, I'm beginning to think the guy needs to change things up a bit -- ie: when will big Willy take on the role of villain? And I don't mean the guy who's not quite good and not quite bad -- kinda shady, what have you (
Six Degrees doesn't count either; too early in his career) -- I mean the guy you don't want to cross. The guy who'll crush your skull if you spell his name wrong. The guy you want to drop off a building five minutes into the movie. THAT'S who I want to see Will Smith play. The big question is, though, could he pull it off? Not only that, but would he ever consider such a role in the first place?
Continue reading Fan Rant: Will Smith Needs to Play a Villain
Posted Apr 21st 2008 10:02PM by Eugene Novikov
Filed under: Action, Horror, Thrillers, New Releases, MGM, Fan Rant
In an age ruled by wussy PG-13 horror and sterilized action, the world cried out for a hero. And behold, for it has found one; actually, it has found two. Their names are
Mark Neveldine and
Brian Taylor -- usually credited as just "Neveldine/Taylor" -- and they have come to rescue us from the
gutless,
joyless,
cynical genre films that seem to top the box-office more and more often with each passing year.
So far, Neveldine/Taylor have but two credits to their name: the deranged
Jason Statham actioner
Crank, and the screenplay for last weekend's twisted, frightening "medical" thriller
Pathology. (Here I must respectfully dissent from my co-blogger Jeffrey M. Anderson's thoughtful negative
review of the latter.) They've developed a clear m.o. -- gruesome, over-the-top violence, unhinged sexuality, frenetic plotting, a conscious disregard for plausibility -- and a certain contingent of filmgoers are eating it up with a spoon. I don't blame them: movies that don't pull their punches are pretty rare, and it's easy to love these two simply for having the fortitude to go balls-to-the-wall.
Continue reading Fan Rant: Why Neveldine/Taylor are Genre Film Saviors
Posted Apr 13th 2008 8:14PM by Scott Weinberg
Filed under: Horror, Fan Rant
It's kind of funny to think back and realize that the PG-13 rating was created because of a pair of Steven Spielberg flicks. Boiled down to its essence, the new rating was invented because of A) the heart-ripping sequence from
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom and B) the microwave oven explosion in
Gremlins. (Yes, I know Joe Dante directed
Gremlins, but it was a Spielberg production.) I remember thinking it was a very smart move: This way movies could get a little more violent / sexy / nasty -- without overdoing it -- and the youthful movie fans could still enjoy the mayhem. But we should have known something was out of whack from the very first flick: The debut of the PG-13 was on John Milius'
Red Dawn ... which quickly made its way into the record books as one of the most violent films ever made.
So what began as a simple warning for parents -- "This rating is not 'enforced' like the Restricted is, but we thought you'd want to know that this movie is just a little bit rougher than your typical PG fare" -- quickly became something else: an oasis of profitability wedged between the now-kiddified PG rating and the oh-so-alluring R. Basically, a new rating tailor-made for Hollywood's most coveted demographic: the teenager. (You tell a 15-year-old that this movie is too scary or too sexy for a 13-year old, but not for a 15-year-old, and you're halfway to getting that kid in the door, regardless of what the movie is.)
Continue reading Fan Rant: PG-13 Horror Sucks and I Can Prove It
Posted Apr 10th 2008 8:02PM by Scott Weinberg
Filed under: Horror, The Weinstein Co., Fan Rant
Man oh man do I love a good Killer Croc flick. Problem is ... there's maybe one true "classic" of the sub-genre (that'd be Lewis Teague's and John Sayles'
Alligator, of course), and the rest of 'em are pretty much floating crap. Over the past year or so we've seen a bit of a resurgence in the category:
Lake Placid 2 is mindless stupidity; Stewart Raffill's
Croc is slightly better than that; that
Primeval one is a passable enough time-waster; and the indie Aussie import
Black Water is actually quite good, although more of a slow-burn nature thriller than a chomp-'em-up horror flick -- but what of
Rogue?
Yes,
Rogue. Ring any bells? Sophomore effort from
Wolf Creek director
Greg Mclean,
Rogue looks to be a standard enough Killer Croc flick that stars
Michael Vartan,
Radha Mitchell and
Sam Worthington. The fact that the flick has been sitting on a shelf over at Weinstein Co. for over a year might seem like a red flag, but that's why the world needs horror geeks like me: So I can tell you that early reaction to the flick has been surprisingly positive! The flick came out in Australia last November, and while it didn't do a whole lot of business, I've been hearing rumblings from my horror colleagues that the movie's quite good!
Continue reading Fan Rant: When the HELL Can I See 'Rogue' Already?
Posted Apr 6th 2008 8:02PM by Scott Weinberg
Filed under: Horror, Fan Rant
My good pal
Eric Dee Snider and I were recently enjoying some Instant Messenger banter, and our main topic of conversation was this: Why are studios and distributors so damn scared of their own horror movies? Sure, I know the obvious answer: Of all the rotten movies released in one calendar year, a good portion of 'em will be horror movies -- because horror movies often represent the best low-overhead investment for a production company that's looking to earn a quick buck. Yes,
a lot more potentially profitable than a comedy, a drama or (dear god) a low-budget action flick.
So if you KNOW you just finished post-production on a real stinkeroo, of course you'll want to "hide" it from the press for as long as possible. But here's what annoys me: Nowadays the distributors don't seem to have even the slightest clue as to what they're looking at. Case in point: This weekend's
The Ruins, which (if measured on its own merits and its specific intentions) is a pretty damn effective horror movie -- so why did DreamWorks / Paramount refuse to screen it for the professional movie nerds? OK, to be fair, there
was a press/promo screening at 9pm on April 3 -- but that means they're screening the flick THREE HOURS before it opens?
Continue reading Fan Rant: Why Studios Hide Horror Flicks From the Press
Posted Apr 3rd 2008 3:02PM by Eugene Novikov
Filed under: Celebrities and Controversy, George Clooney, Fan Rant
Yesterday, Monika
asked if we were tired of
George Clooney, who has undeniably been everywhere since making his escape from
ER in the mid-1990s. I wanted to weigh in, because my answer is a curious one, and it sadly wasn't an option in Monika's poll: I used to be tired of him, but I'm not anymore.
I think the peak of my tiredness came with the dreadful
Perfect Storm in 2000. I remember being so sick of seeing Clooney pop up as these boring, poker-faced, tediously noble action heroes. I hadn't seen his earlier B-movie efforts at the time, and the triple-threat of
Batman & Robin,
The Peacemaker and
The Perfect Storm made me wish he'd never been born. (I had seen
Three Kings, and honestly don't remember why that didn't change matters for me -- I think I wrote it off as a fluke, and was more impressed with
Ice Cube anyhow.) What an anodyne heartthrob, I thought, with no personality or real talent. Get him out of my sight.
Continue reading Fan Rant: Am I Sick of George Clooney? Not Anymore I'm Not
Posted Mar 31st 2008 10:32PM by Erik Davis
Filed under: Documentary, Celebrities and Controversy, Exhibition, DIY/Filmmaking, Movie Marketing, Fan Rant
One of the hotter sales at this year's Sundance Film Festival was a documentary called
Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired (check out
our review here). The doc, which chronicles the director's controversial rape case throughout the years, was sold to HBO Documentary Films for $1 million following the fest. Okay, so one sees that HBO picked it up -- figuring it's a documentary, they'd probably go straight to cable and DVD with it, right? Yes. Right. HBO is premiering the film on June 9. Ah, but they'd also like the film to qualify for an Oscar, which means it needs to play in a theater for a minimum of seven days in Los Angeles county and Manhattan. The problem with this rule is that it can play ANYWHERE and HBO is certainly taking advantage of that.
Defamer points out, via some random newspaper ad they were sent (see above), that
Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired is currently playing in one Manhattan theater on West 181st street. Yeah, that was
181st street,
not 18th street. No typo. Two afternoon screenings per day. Bet you didn't know about that one, huh? I don't blame you -- who the f*ck in their right mind WOULD know about that!? I don't know much about Los Angeles County, but apparently the same crap is being pulled there (two afternoon screenings at a theater called Laemmle's One Pasadena).
So why does HBO do this? If they have to screen it theatrically in order for it to be in the running for an Oscar, why don't they screen it at a reputable indie-centric theater in NYC, like Film Forum or the IFC Center. Sh*t, screen it at my apartment -- I bet more people would see it at my crib than on West 181st street.
[photo via Defamer]
Continue reading Fan Rant: Roman Polanski Doc and its Stupid Theatrical Release
Posted Mar 29th 2008 8:02PM by Eugene Novikov
Filed under: Comedy, New Releases, Fan Rant
As Scott pointed out in his review, you need not fear that this week's Superhero Movie is another brainchild of Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer, whose satanic perversions of the parody genre -- Date Movie, Epic Movie, Meet the Spartans -- have been terrorizing unsuspecting audiences every year since 2006. Superhero Movie was actually directed by Craig Mazin, a protégé of the Zucker-Abrahams-Zucker dream team responsible for Airplane! and The Naked Gun, and produced by David Zucker himself. But it, too, is plagued -- albeit to a much lesser degree -- by what's turning out to be the problem with the entire modern generation of spoofs going back to Scary Movie: relentless pop culture specificity.
The basest incarnations of this, of course, are the Friedberg-Seltzer monstrosities, which may be worthless as comedies but which could prove valuable to historians because they indicate precisely what dominated the American zeitgeist in the few months before their release. It's too generous to call these films' vulgar spasms "jokes," but to the extent that's what they are, they depend entirely on either audience members' awareness of US Weekly-type factoids such as Britney Spears' shaving her head or their recall of particular scenes and characters in recent box-office hits. That's not to say that these kinds of jokes can't be funny -- the problem with Friedberg and Seltzer, as others have pointed out, is that they think throwing something current on the screen ("Look, Paris Hilton!") constitutes humor. But they do limit comedies' universal appeal and staying power.
Continue reading Fan Rant: The Trouble With Today's Spoofs
Next Page >
