Wednesday, November 30, 2005

Fuck You, Mr Jackson!

Peter Jackson, you tubby, fatuous shit.
You just cannot sit still. Hollywood gave you power, and now you think you can go defecate anything you wish with your putrid feces. I know your type. A big fan of the 'Lord of the Rings' books? Why not make them into tiring, CGI-laden fuckin' borefest that turn into incredibly dated looking memories after about three years of release? Selfish, selfish, selfish.
King Kong is your favourite movie? Oh, well then, how about remaking it in such a renegade, cocky fashion that the whole premise of the film is lost in your splurge of budget and imagination? Does that seem like a good idea. Peter Jackson says: Yes.

Having an overworked imagination is encouragable, but there is always exceptions of this; in order to pay respect to the original source material you are basing your big ideas on. Merian. C. Cooper and Ernest. B. Shoedsack's King Kong is one of my favourite films of all-time. It's wonder and fantasy truly captured me as a little boy. I distinctly remember viewing the film not as a sucky, old, black-and-white relic, but as one of the most exciting things I'd seen. It helped me form the template of understanding of motion picture, of dialogue, of spectacle, of story and climax. The 1933 King Kong was the first film I recognised as more than a film, even as a child. I recognised the message, the beautiful moral of man's power struggle. That brandishing juxtaposing of man and beast, when, only after Kong has been slain in its last attempt at salvation, us humans realise the beast is us, those who would imprison and slaughter innocence.

The original King Kong is an anti-Hollywood movie at its core. Where so much destruction, intrusion, loss of innocence and downfall is all in the efforts of entertainment. Claiming Kong's kingdom as a movie set, capturing Kong as an international exhibit, Hollywood is the true blood-thirsty beast. Which is why I have such a dilemma with Jackson. Remaking and exploiting for means of entertainment is exactly the sort of issue King Kong represents. And the fact that Jackson has pushed his new rendition to more than three hours hurts. The original is a mere 100 minutes. How dare Jackson remake a film, whilst adding a senseless 80 minutes.

This is exactly the sort of behaviour I for one stand against. If Mr. Jackson truly was as passionate about the story of King Kong as he constantly states, than why, oh why, did he feel the need to remake the film in his overbearing, frosted video-game style. How does that show appreciation. Couldn't he have spent money on restoring and re-releasing the original to theatres?
I mean, I have a lot of respect for the late Fay Wray, who played Anne Darrow in the original Kong movie. But re-animating her corpse and covering her with cosmetics to look young and hip to suit the 21st Century would be the most indignifying thing ever. So why is it so fulfilling to treat a movie in the same way?
To you Mr. Jackson, I say: Fuck You.

Tuesday, November 29, 2005

Your Prayers Have Been Answered!

Hallelujah. Praise the lord. It's happened. All our petitioning has payed off, all our pleading to the heavens has been for a purpose. The powers that be smile upon us, and continue to bless us. Thank you, oh mighty Paramount Pictures.
Wait, we did all want a second sequel to Lara Croft in Tomb Raider.... right?

Ohhhh, that's right. Those movies suck. Stop! Stop praising the lord right now. He is an evil, tormenting lord who must have nothing but resentment for Hollywood and it's fanbase, what with the shenanigans He allows to take place.
Did he think Will Farrell was a better choice than James Caviezel to play His son in The Passion of the Christ? Did Morgan Freeman's happy-go-lucky portrayal of Him in Bruce Almighty not accurately capture His professionalism? Or perhaps Alien vs Predator just didn't live up to His admittedly high expectations.

Whatever the reason, He's no doubt pissed off at something. A third 'Tomb Raider' movie is in my opinion one of His most sadistic and treachorous punishments yet. Forget locusts and flash floods. This is worse.
Angelina Jolie has expressed interest in reprising the role of Lara Croft, which seems like an insane stunt given her new-found high profile. She's come a long way from exclusively being in movies that contain at least three nude scenes. I mean, I like her. But 'Tomb Raider' is something to do when you can't do anything else.
Look at Daniel Craig for instance. He was something of a no-name when he starred in the first film. Since then, he's worked with Guy Ritchie, Steven Spielberg and oh yeah, he's now James Bond. He'd never go back to trashy 'Tomb Raider' movies, it was merely a rung of his fairly fresh career ladder. Jolie should be looking at it in the same way.

Of course... I'm only saying that because if Jolie doesn't sign up, the movie would either get cancelled or end up with a recast B-Grade Croft in a direct-to-DVD release.
Time to start praying again.

Sunday, November 27, 2005

Farewell Pat Morita

(1932 - 2005)
The Hip Nip. That's what they would call him. How hip he really was is hard to gauge, I didn't know him after all, but for some reason beyond my grasp of understanding, I trust the nickname born of a racial slur holds much truth about the man the film industry most recently lost.
On the 24th of November, 2005, Pat Morita (born Noriyuki Morita) died of natural causes at the age of 73. He is survived by a wife and three children.

The role of an Asian-American in cinema has always been one of narrow purpose. According to the universe in which American movies take place, an Asian must always be knowledgeable in alternative medicines, or have trouble with English, or be a gang lord, or just be on screen for mere comedic ambitions. The American film industry truly does degrade our Mongoloid cousins in a terribly uncinematic way. But, to be fair, this role is very much mutual in the Asian film industry.

However, this never did stop The Hip Nip, Mr Pat Morita, from defying all odds and soaring to the pinnacle of American film. Diagnosed at the age of seven with spinal tuburculosis, Noriyuki "Pat" Morita was told he would never walk again. Ironically, his first bout of show business was that of a 'stand-up' comedian. It was here he was discovered, and made the leap from comedy clubs to sitcoms, landing roles on such huge television programs at the time as "Green Acres", "The Odd Couple", "M*A*S*H*", "Kung Fu" and "Starsky and Hutch". And remember Arnold from "Happy Days"? Then you remember Pat Morita! From this he formed a dwindling film career, in very minor roles showcasing his talent for presentation of an offball character.

Perhaps it was his success at playfulness on screen that led to the role of his lifetime in 1984, where he got to multiply his average screen time in a movie by about ten times. The movie was The Karate Kid. And he... was Mr Miyagi.
Oh, what fun it would have been for him to become this delightfully eccentric genius, catching flies with nothing but pure martial instinct and chopsticks. To don one of those now famous (and actually pretty useless) headbands with something very oriental embroided on them. He not only taught that pesky 'karate kid', he taught us, the audience, what it was to open our minds.

And open minds he did. For his performance in The Karate Kid, Pat earned himself an Oscar nomination (the very first Asian-American actor to do so) for Best Supporting Actor. He didn't win, sadly, but as all the losers say on the night, "It's an honour just to be nominated."
From here, Morita's story loses much momentum, and descends into very tragic territory. While doing some rather crafty small roles in films like Spy Hard (as a gay waiter) and providing a voice for Disney's Mulan, he clutched to the success he garnered from The Karate Kid, and signed on to do three sequels.... as well as a film entitled... (sigh) The Karate Dog.
It should also be noted that Pat was nominated for a Worst Supporting Actor award at 1989's Razzie Awards for once again portraying Mr Miyagi in The Karate Kid, Part III. Tsk tsk.

But, it is not in the sturdyness (or lack thereof) of his career that we remember him. We must remember him for the high points of his life, the characters he has created for us to become synonymous with and the cultural barriers that he removed for the Western world. We must know him for his triumphs, his dedication and his sense of humour towards himself. And there is no better method of immortalising these qualities than on film, a gift he has given to us, and a legacy he has created for himself.
Rest In Peace.

Saturday, November 26, 2005

'Royale'lly Confused

According to the director AND the writer's, the new James Bond film, Casino Royale, takes place before Dr. No.

Then why! WHY are they casting Dame fucking Judy Dench as M? How in the fuck is that supposed to work??? That will make the entire 'Bond meeting the new M scene' in Goldeneye completely disjointed. Not to mention the billion other inaccuracies throughout the series.

Which leads me to believe, oh god, this movie is going to be rife with flashbacks. Jesus Christ, am I going to have to wait another three and a half years for a CLASSIC Bond movie? And why did they need to show how Bond became Bond again? I've never wanted to know the fine threads of the tapestry that is James Bond. In fact, that may take a bit away from the stature that Sean Connery presented us with. Who cares how he was shaped, just thank god he was shaped in the first place.

I don't doubt Daniel Craig, but this movie seems to be getting faultier by the second. Can't they just continue the series, without chinking the chain of films. I mean, noone wants a bad film, but in 25 years, if Bond is still in production (which I doubt, producers will eventually give Bond a respective final film) we'll all look back at the string of films, and Casino Royale will be part of the 'weird era' where filmmakers did something different and played around with formula.

Now, I'm not one to diss innovation in Bond. On Her Majesty's Secret Service is one of the best of them all, using its tweaks to the formula and its bold use of originality to legitimise and justify the new casting of George Lazenby as Bond. And yes, I do believe that direct recompusure is in order after the veered direction Die Another Day took. But this is far beyond that. Bond functions by pattern. He grows. Its part of his nature. He rarely delves into his past, and when he does, he doesnt enjoy it. So why are we focusing on irrelevant forewords that have nothing to expand the series by. We want to see an evolution. James Bond as a rookie is not James Bond.

I'm hoping that maybe, just maybe, Casino Royale is a traditional continuation on Die Another Day, in the fact that when we see and feel the security of those words "JAMES BOND WILL RETURN" in the closing credit reel, we know we'll see him where we left off. Not 30 years beforehand, green around the gills and learning the basics.
With Dench in this movie, I'm absolutely confused as to what is happening. Either someone is lying about the movie being a prequel, someone is lying about Dench returning as M, or this movie will be the first to disrupt the streamline effect of the series.

Audiences have known Bond in his varying forms for more than forty years. We don't need a rebirth, a recap, or a study of the past to tell us who Bond is. We know this already. Its James fucking Bond for Christ's sake. Three year old kids recognise who he is and what his character stands for.
Yet, they are still throwing more and more contradictory announcements out each week, frustrating and puzzling me more and more as to what shape or form the next film will take. It's gonna be an agonising wait till this gets released sometime in 2007, but that's something I'm well used to.

Friday, November 25, 2005

Question: Dead Or Alive? Answer: Dead!

Dead Or Alive. Are they my only options? Actually, after you witness the trailer, you won't even consider the will to live. This movie is what The Hollywood Slump is all about.

The trailer starts off sickeningly, and just gets worse from there on in. I'd say a lot of people are familiar with the title. 'Dead Or Alive' is the title of a largely successful series of 3D fighting video-games which pits a slew of unique characters against each other, requiring you to master the complex and strategic move-sets assigned to your specific character. The original 'DOA' game has so far spawned 3 official sequels, as well as spin-offs (including a beach volleyball game, taking advantage of the buxom ladies present in all the games).

So too does the movie version. Yes, that's right. Like most successful intellectual properties, the way of motion picture is a popular venture. The movie is basically about the women of the 'Dead Or Alive' games. There's Kasumi, played by Devon Aoki (who I really really liked in Sin City... not in that way, sicko), Tina, played by Jamie Pressley (yep, that girl from Not Another Teen Movie) and Christie, played by Holly Valance (who actually hasn't come that far from her days as Flick from "Neighbours" and those damned 1800-REVERSE commercials). And basically all they do is fight ugly ninja dudes, talk about their problems with men, break a few nails, fight in a bamboo forest, play a bit of volleyball, and fight some other dude. Oh, and all this is done with the three girls almost always nude, or semi-nude. (You don't see anything. Obviously)

THEY KNOW WHAT THEY LIKE
"Don't you think the guy in the second row is cute?" says one of the 5 female fighters, as she looks off-camera.
THEY GET WHAT THEY WANT
"Is there a guy in the world you don't have a crush on?" says Holly Valance, while terrible comical music drags us through hell.
AND GUYS ARE ALWAYS
Devon Aoki pipes up, looking like a melted Cabbage Patch Doll, "You can have him,"
FIGHTING OVER THEM
"but what about the other three hundred?"
Whoosh, zoom up and out to show hundreds of ninja guys running at full speed towards them. A pause to let the audience collect themselves after the elaborate workings of such a fine crafted gag. And just when we all thought it was over...
Tina, the cowboy/hooker/tranny woman delivers the last blow to my struggling tolerance for shitty trailers. "Why don't we just split 'em up evenly?"

And yes, that is basically the trailer. Is there hope for this movie yet? No. There actually isnt. Stanley Kubrick himself could not lift this giant lump of lead, which is destined to sink fast into the depths of our ashamed recollection.

Look for DOA: Dead Or Alive on IMDb's Bottom 100 sometime in 2006.

Let the 'Game-To-Film's Begin

As you all know, (actually no... you probably dont know) I'm have one particular interest in a genre of Hollywood creation. Actually, its much less an interest as it is a guilty pleasure. It is of course that largely disputable, never commended sub-genre of movies, the 'Game-to-Film'.

The 'Game-to-Film' category, which is a running genre yet to be acknowledged by the Acadamy, has rules that its adhering films must abide by. The first rule is: It must be a film based solely on a video-game franchise. Movies such as the dreaded 'Pokemon' films apply, as the franchise began in video-game form. Movies such as the announced 'Vampire: The Masquarade' film, whilst having a famous video-game series of its own, do not apply, as the franchise originated as a table-top board game (of the pen and paper variety, if my geek knowledge serves me).
And the second, and final rule is: The films but garner a theatrical release. This discludes all those straight to DVD Sonic the Hedgehog adventures, and any Street Fighter animes that have cropped up over time. This also alienates the recent Final Fantasy: Advent Children.
The entries to this niche category have been far from satisfactory, one might even say "unpleasant". I'm sure we are all familar with the level of quality of the most recent 'Game-to-Film' release, Doom. A critical and commercial letdown, Universal's tired attempt at breathing life into the 'Game-to-Film' genre failed quite significantly.

Don't believe that every film in the genre have been getting increasingly worse, never better? Try them for yourself, I've tracked down every 'Game-to-Film' released in the Western world.

Super Mario Bros.
Lara Croft in Tomb Raider
Lara Croft in Tomb Raider 2: The Cradle of Life
House of the Dead
Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within
Resident Evil
Resident Evil: Apocalypse
Street Fighter
Mortal Kombat
Mortal Kombat: Annhilation
Double Dragon
Wing Commander
Pokemon The First Movie
Pokemon The Movie 2000
Pokemon The Movie 3
Pokemon 4Ever
Pokemon Heroes
Alone in the Dark
Doom

Mmmmm. They are fascinating, each and every one.
And one final note, here's a heads-up on an upcoming 'Game-to-Film' based on Tecmo's fighting game series 'Dead Or Alive'. The movie's called DOA: Dead Or Alive, and it looks to be keeping that 'Game-to-Film' curse close to itself, and holding on to it as if its life depended on it. I wish it well, but somehow I feel it has a very bad future.

Thursday, November 24, 2005

Radcliffe. Geek of the World?

Well, it seems that Harry Potter season is upon us. Well, for the US anyway. And with the movie comes a few announcements concerning the movie's main star:

Daniel Radcliffe has recently told the press that he plans to star in all the Harry Potter films made. That's seven films. That's seven seperate occasions where people are going to see him playing the same character. And nothing else.
I'm sorry, Daniel my lad, but when you sign to play Harry Potter three more times, you are signing on to become Harry Potter for the rest of your life. Of course, he's wise to this, and has made sure he's involved in other projects to prevent this sort of thing. Up next for him is an Australian film that noone is going to see. And then its ORDER OF THE PHOENIX!!!! Pretty soon, noone will even know the name Daniel Radcliffe. Just Harry Potter.
Because remember, we are dealing with a very young generation. They have a long time to go before they create a new generation, which means young 'arry is stuck with the same old kids knowing his face from the one place. It wasnt so bad for Stallone (he did 5 consecutive Rocky films, with another on the way) because he was dealing with a much more developed generation of people that wouldn't familiarize him with Mr Balboa for more than a decade. Radcliffe is dealing with about five decades of people knowing him as that kid from 'those movies with the flying brooms'.
Its not yet known if the rest of the cast will be so willing to support the continuity of the series. Poor Richard Harris never got the chance... But that isnt exactly of concern, because the other characters are merely supporting roles to the title character. When you acknowledge the movie, you are forced to acknowledge the Daniel Radcliffe's character. You can even see the character priority in the posters. Radcliffe's gigantic, spectacled mug looking off somewhere, while his friends and foes stand behind him, often cowering. Smaller, less important. Radcliffe is the one in trouble.

Another Radcliffe-esque announcement was also made. He is now the wealthiest tike in the UK. Correct. Officially recognised as the richest teenager in all of Britain, he outspends the junior members of the royal family. Of course... there are no junior member of the royal family anymore, which is probably why Dan shot up the ranks, but still. It was also revealed that he earnt $250, 000 for his role in the first film. Not bad. Yet for Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, he's raking in $14, 000, 000. Hefty. Which leaves me to ask? Is he even worth that much? I mean, he can't even act. All he does is look the part. And I see people that look the part of a freaking nerd fantasy buff every single day.

But, in a sense, I suppose there is a balance to the negative and positives of sticking to the big guns that made you. Sure, you lose your identity. But you get a shitload of cash. And in the end, isn't that what Harry Potter has always been about?

My Virgin Blogger Hands

My very first blog.
Never have I conveyed such senselessness to binary, next to certain noone will ever read it. But that is what blogging is all about, yes yes? Why do I consider it an achievement? Because, I am a man with a lot to say.
And who, among you tired, non-existant readers, will throw yourself at my cause and stop me? Hmm? I'd like ta see ya try! Trust me, for when I say this I merit the very solice of honesty, when I spit my venom I expect it to contaminate.

Don't know what I'm talking about? Merit of solice of what? Venom?
Shut up and listen. I'm the one with those witticisms you love to love, and that snarky commentary from the avenues of that sparkling ruby amongst the gravel they call Hollywood. Of course, I've never been there... but when Sean Penn personally tells me Hollywood is a terrible, unfortunable Sin City, I believe him. Of course, I've never spoken to Sean Penn, albeit met him.... but I did enjoy Mystic River. So in a sort of six degrees of seperation kind of sense, it kind of works out. My knowledge of Hollywood is legit. And I have a contract to prove it (also a lie).