Category Movies

Oct 22 2011

Too Scared To See Paranormal Activity 3

Call me a sissy, a punk, whatever, I don’t care. I refuse to watch Paranormal Activity 3.

It’s not to say I think this franchise sucks or is like all the other horror franchises that have been beaten to the ground like the Saw and Friday the 13th films. I think the first Paranormal Activity released two years ago, scared me so much that I just don’t think I can bear to watch the further hauntings/adventures of Katie. I had a hard time sleeping for weeks! That film just gets you scared because the hauntings happen when you’re at your most vulnerable point, when you are sleeping. How can you defend yourself when you’re in that state? For anyone who doesn’t know, the first film was about a series of video tapings of a young couple being haunted late at night by an unseen, demonic force that grows more and more malevolent as the film progresses. A real slow burn.

Sure, I know a lot of you may laugh this off and say it’s just a film, not even based on a supposedly true event like The Amittyville Horror but the implications the films bring up that by trying to contact the other side you not only invite the unwanted evil forces into your life but empower them as well. That’s just how good the first film was, and from what I’ve heard the second film is more or less the same thing but still effective. Now I’m learning that the newest film is just as scary.

As much as I wanted to see the second film I couldn’t even watch the trailer on a full screen. By chance I caught a quick clip of a commercial of Paranormal Activity 3 the other night and it shows a video taping of some lady being levitated off the ground. That was enough for me.  Sorry I like to sleep peacefully at night.

This is probably a testament as to how effective the first film was, which is arguably the best “found footage” movie since The Blair Witch Project (and Cloverfield). I don’t know maybe one of these days, I’ll steel myself enough to watch the other two films.

Lewis T. Grove

Oct 18 2011

Nice Werewolves Finish Last

This time of year, all you see are countless shows and movies featuring vampires and zombies. True Blood, The Vampire Diaries, Twilight, Dawn of the Dead and The Walking Dead for example. They’re very popular so why isn’t there a craving for werewolves?

Sure they pop up as supporting characters or villains in vampire productions (see True Blood, Being Human, Underworld and Twilight) but it seems like any attempt to have werewolves as the main draw falls flat.

The most recent example was last year’s film The Wolfman that came and went without much notice. In fact, I believe the last breakout films about them were The Howling and An American Werewolf in London (and their sequels were awful). That was back in the ’80s when their makeup was revolutionary. Maybe it has to do with the way they are usually shown nowadays. Often they use obvious CGI or actual wolves whereas vamps and zombies are done with makeup that still carries the day. Filmmakers need to perfect a new way of presenting werewolves that doesn’t look like CGI.

The Undead Reach New Heights

Some may argue that since the ’90s vampires have been portrayed as very sexual and alluring hence their popularity. That take on vampires actually began with Bela Lugosi’s portrayal of Dracula back in the ’30s. But it wasn’t until Anne Rice’s vampire books that the concept of sensual, tortured vampires truly took off then went to an entire different level of popularity when the Twilight phenomenon started. The result was that the vampire became the superstar of the monster world leaving werewolves and others biting the dust. In terms of novels, there are many werewolf romance novel but they have yet to capture the public’s eye like Twilight has.

For zombies, they appealed to those wanting pure horror soaked with blood and guts and a dash of the apocalypse. When it comes to gore, werewolves can’t compete with cannibalistic zombies in the ick factor. As everyone knows the modern zombie genre started with George Romero’s classic Night of the Living Dead film and its sequels. Zombies also gained a strong presence with other media like Max Brooks’ World War Z novel, Robert Kirkman’s comic book The Walking Dead and numerous video games such as Resident Evil and House of the Dead. How can a poor werewolf compete with hordes of the undead rampaging through the streets? It’s gotten so bad that a recent episode of Spike TV’s show Deadliest Warrior featured a matchup of vampires against zombies with hardly a mention of lycanthropes.

Sign Of The Times

Many say that the public’s fascination with creatures of the underworld has to do with the times. Modern zombies are seen as a statement about modern materialistic society. IOW we are the undead; mindless drones who only consume. They’re also the great equalizer in the so-called social class struggle. As they feed on the rich and poor alike without regard, zombies have shown that we are all equal when it comes to food. Werewolves aren’t associated with the end of civilization and the one thing they had over zombies, being fast and savage, has been co-opted by recent zombie films.

Vampires not only explore themes of forbidden sexuality but of adapting to the new age while lamenting the old world and its more dignified culture. But the werewolf theme of man losing his humanity and giving in to his bestial nature is a compelling subject. Being Human explored this very well to the point that the werewolf protagonist is a well developed and sympathetic character. Other examples include The Wolfman, Marvel Comics’ Werewolf By Night and the American Werewolf films. There have been attempts to explore the sexual aspects of werewolves, most notably Neil Jordan’s film In The Company Of Wolves and Mike Nichols’ Wolf with mixed results. The gist of werewolf sexuality is the attraction to the rough, bestial nature of someone cursed as a werewolf. The ultimate good girl likes bad boy concept.

Nice Werewolves Finish Last?

Sookie Stackhouse in True Blood has a fascination with the werewolf Alcide that goes beyond her love for Bill and Eric. The attraction could be because Alcide comes off as more human and kinder than the vampires in the show and books. In many of these incarnations, the main character is shown to be a really nice, meek middle class person who uncontrollably releases the primal side. The film Wolf embraces this theme as Jack Nicholson’s character succeeds in life when he embraces his bestial side and stops letting others step all over him. Or take David Naughton’s character in An American Werewolf In London who is a comical, everyday kind of guy who transforms into a murderous lycanthrope with tragic results. The entire concept can be interpreted as an examination of how humanity is cut off from their true bestial selves that need expression.

It’s difficult to pinpoint why werewolves haven’t quite captured the general public’s eye like all the apocalyptic zombies and emo vampires. Perhaps it’s because werewolves aren’t the undead just specialized shape-shifters. Everyone is fascinated with death and the afterlife and zombies and vamps give us a glimpse of this in a way that werewolves cannot. Maybe it has to do with timing and frankly I wonder how much longer the vampire and zombie fascination will continue. To me it seems we’re oversaturated and the public’s attention will eventually shift to something else.

But the real reason for the lack of popularity probably has to do with the story itself. Recently there isn’t a truly captivating character or storyline that grabs the current zeitgeist. It can happen out of the blue; times and taste will change and the lycanthropes will capture the public eye with a crossover novel, game or film. They’ll get their moment in the moon before long.

Waldermann Rivera

Oct 15 2011

The Thing Continues To Chill Audiences

The cinemas may be flooded with prequels, sequels, remakes and reboots, but The Thing is a worthy companion to John Carpenter’s 1982 classic film of the same name. Both films follow the source material (John W. Campbells novella Who Goes There?) more closely than Howard Hawks’ film from the ’50s.

The storyline is fairly simple, American  paleontologist Kate Lloyd (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) joins a Norwegian research team in Antarctica when the Norwegians uncover a crashed alien craft frozen in the ice. They excavate the ship and bring back the icy remains of an extra-terrestrial that thaws out and displays the ability to genetically mimic any life form, including humans. Much like Carpenter’s film, this one plays a suspenseful and paranoid case of cat and mouse as the humans are picked off one by one by the Thing.

It was a wise move to place the movie in the Norwegian station since it helps make this film a good companion piece to Carpenter’s version. And equally wise to hire Dutch film director Matthijs van Heijningen, since portions of the film were filmed in Norwegian, and someone with equal Proto-Germanic language and cultural background would understand Norwegian characters, the movie cast and culture.  There are some good nuances with the Norwegians by having them converse among themselves in their native language since it helps make this film different while adding to the paranoia that pervades the humans.

Both versions deal with two reactions to our human situation; 1) the group paranoia of who is the enemy and 2) infectious diseases. The paraonid theme from the ’82 version reflects aspects of the Cold War of not knowing who is the spy. With the 2011 version, today’s identity theft problem is similar to what the Thing does. The difference is the Thing is a biological ID thief. Regarding diseases, back in 1982, AIDS was just emerging and most of the world was uninformed about the disease. Today we know AIDS spreads through bodily fluid contact which is how the Thing replicates and takes over humans in the 2011 film version.

But the real highlight was Winstead’s performance who has the same inner strength that Sigourney Weaver had in Alien. Much like Ripley, Lloyd at first doesn’t seem like a natural leader, but over the course of the film, her expertise helps the team to survive and more and more the leadership role is entrusted upon her. Her cleverness helps her in determining who is human or not just by observation and her quick theories of what the Thing is doing, proven right during the course of the movie.. Lloyd is a driving force which illustrates how this film is character driven.

Other standouts are the gorgeous cinematography which makes the scenes look like a National Geographic IMAX film and the music by Marco Beltrami. His score perfectly replicates the ’82 soundtrack. We also get to see the inside of the ship, we see a detailed autopsy and how on a cellular level the Thing replicates, and the effects were a fine blend of practical effects and CG.

This version also helps fill in the blanks and show how the aftermath that Carpenter’s characters discovered came to be. Be sure to stick around during the end credits to see how this film leads to the ’82 version.

Overall, this movie is on par with Carpenter’s classic thanks to Winstead’s character and her performance.

GEO as interviewed and written by Jose Soto

Sep 28 2011

Star Trek At 45

Star Trek, the original show, turned 45 years old this September. Meanwhile the tenth anniversary of the last Trek show Enterprise is also in September. The point is these milestones came and went largely unnoticed or celebrated. So we all wonder why the lack of enthusiasm?

Really, everyone lately is yakking about the Star Wars blu-rays, Back to the Future shoes, new super hero movies, Harry Potter and even a new Avatar attraction for Disney’s Animal Kingdom, but barely a peep out of the world of Trek. I clicked over to the Star Trek website and it seems like a slow week in January. An article reminiscing about Enterprise, IDW comics, Star Trek: The Exhibition coming to St. Louis and upcoming conventions.

You’d think that with all the hoopla over the last Star Trek movie and how it re-energized the franchise and started things fresh that Trek would remain in the public eye. Guess again. Maybe it didn’t help that J.J. Abrams and his crew are taking forever to get a new film going. Then more and more fans are complaining about Abrams’ take on Trek and how it ruined the franchise, nullifying over forty years of Trek lore and made the film seem like a Star Wars wannabe flick.

Another thing that isn’t helping is CBS Studios not wanting to make another Star Trek show while greenlighting junk like Person of Interest and other cop procedurals. For the average Trek fan (I refuse to call myself and fellow fans as trekkies, that’s too demeaning) this is a cause for alarm. In this crowded medium, Trek has to struggle to stay in the public eye. It can’t just rest on its laurels. That attitude of taking fandom and demand for granted is why the later shows declined in quality and ratings putting us in this situation.

No Trek isn’t going away, who knows maybe the new film, whenever they decide to make it, will stir things up. Maybe it will take the fiftieth anniversary when we’ll get the articles and such about how Trek gave us cell phones and tablets (but no holodecks but we’re getting there with the 3D TVs). But Trek is best known for being a TV show, that is its home medium, so a new show has to come out to keep up with the other franchises. Just do a cartoon for now until the right people are found who can put out a quality show. That way Trek stays in the public’s mind. It worked for Star Wars with The Clone Wars cartoon. Here’s an idea do a cartoon about Starfleet Academy. It won’t be that offensive to anyone who hates the thought of Star Trek 90210 since it will more geared toward younger viewers, who in turn may become tomorrow’s fans that keep the dream alive. Just do something already.

Waldermann Rivera

Sep 20 2011

Meet The Alternate Star Wars Saga Cast, Part II

As this imagining continues about who Lucas would cast in the Star Wars movies if they were filmed chronologically, there is one important thing to consider. Most likely the films would’ve been completely different to the point that characters would change or even be written out altogether. There isn’t any way to accurately factor in how different the films would be. This is pure speculation under the premise that if the storyline remained exactly the same then so would the characters for the most part. As stated previously, there isn’t any way to know if Lucas would’ve gone for these picks or if the actors would accept the offers.

The Original Trilogy: Star Wars Episodes IV-VI

Luke Skywalker: Supposedly, Ryan Phillippe was a thisclose runner-up to play Anakin. So he was in Lucas’ mind. He has the acting ability to add more pathos and angst to Luke as he grows from a simple farm boy to a seasoned warrior throughout the trilogy. Then again Lucas may have hired Hayden Christensen and who knows how that would have turned out. But one actor to consider seriously is Shawn Ashmore, who appeared as Bobby Drake/Iceman in the X-Men films.  True he might’ve been a bit young but Luke was supposed to be an innocent farm boy with big dreams.

Han Solo: Thomas Jane has the good looks with a rakish demeanor, plus he’s a talented, underrated actor that could easily play a swasbuckling, rogue spice smuggler who redeems himself and wins a princess’ heart. Of course, a fan-favorite alternative would be Firefly’s Nathan Fillion, his character of Malcolm Reynolds has many of Han’s qualities but Jane looks a bit tougher, the kind of scrappy guy you want on your side during a fight. Also another Firefly alumni that could’ve portrayed a deadlier version of Han is Adam Baldwin.

Leia Organa: Selma Blair has the looks and scrappiness to play the princess-in-distress who can take care of herself in a blaster fight. Perhaps audiences would’ve been spared that goofy hairdo in Episode IV, then again remember those outlandish outfits that Padme wore in Episode I.  A viable and spunky alternative is Kelly Macdonald who, like Ewan MacGregor, appeared in the cult classic Trainspotting, so Lucas would’ve still hired someone from that film. Or Morena Baccarin, yet another Firefly alumni, could’ve played a more sultry and exotic Princess Leia.

Obi-Wan “Ben” Kenobi: It’s likely that Perry King or any other actor who originated the role back in the ’70s and ’80s would have been able to reprise it with the new trilogy. With that stated here’s a curveball of an acting pick: Sean Connery. The man was a legend by 1999. He has that regal yet tough demeanor with a compassionate undercurrent to pull off the role of an old Obi-Wan. This role might’ve prolonged his acting career by a few more years since it wouldn’t have led to him retiring after feeling disgruntled with Hollywood.

Darth Vader: Kurt Russell, who might’ve been picked to play Anakin in the early films, could’ve been persuaded to don a full suit with face-concealing helmet and play Vader. Maybe Ron Pearlman could’ve worn the suit? Otherwise, some unknown, muscular and tall performer would fill in the role. James Earl Jones would’ve done the voice as in the real world. If he wasn’t available then Lucas could’ve gone with Avery Brooks who also has a rich, booming and distinctive voice.

Lando Calrissian: Solid acting ability is just one reason why Blair Underwood is a lock for this role. It calls for someone that is a charming, good-looking,  former con man who is forced to turn against Han before joining the rebels in the end. The guy just looks like a hero! Another outside possibility is Terrence Howard who has many of Underwood’s qualities to play Lando.

Grand Moff Tarkin: Christopher Lee should’ve been able to play this role nicely. As seen most recently with Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, Lee showed audiences why he makes a great villain with experience going back to the old Hammer films. Then again Lucas may have tapped Terrance Stamp for the role. He did appear as Chancellor Valorum in The Phantom Menace and could play cold, icy villain with his eyes closed.

Boba Fett: If Scott Glenn was cast as Jango then there’s no reason why he couldn’t play his offspring in the final films. That is if Boba had an expanded role in the final films. Otherwise, being that the character had a limited role, spoke a handful of lines and didn’t even remove his helmet, it’s probable that an unknown actor would’ve been cast instead.

Palpatine: Ian McDiarmid would reprise his role as the Emperor for the final two films. The makeup might be different. That of course depends on whether or not he originated the role with the Prequel Trilogy. Whoever else was chosen to play Palpatine could’ve continued playing him or John Noble, now seen on Fringe, could’ve done the part. That man can do twisted, calculating nemesis. Look no further than his role as Walternate in Fringe or Denethor in Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King.

 

Chewbacca: If that character made his debut in Episode III and Peter Mayhew played him then hopefully he would still play the Wookie in the later films. It’s hard to imagine someone else doing the part, maybe Brad Garrett? He is pretty tall, but he wouldn’t have any lines so who knows if he would’ve accepted. Perhaps Chewbacca would be played by some unknown actor. Then again Chewbacca and the Wookies may not have appeared in Episode III, meaning that he would be a CG creation. In that case only Andy Serkis or Doug Jones would be able to project their acting ability through the mo-cap process.

Wicket: Lucas probably would have the Ewoks rendered in CG and made them into a completely different race. Maybe a more formidable and believable a force to defeat the Empire’s stormtroopers. Otherwise Warwick Davis would play Wicket as he did in real life.

Yoda, C-3P0, and R2-D2: They would’ve been played by the performers who originally played them. Meaning Frank Oz, Anthony Daniels, and Kenny Baker, respectively. That’s because since all three characters appeared in the early films and in real life were performed in the ’70s and ’80s by these three men then logically they would continue doing the roles. One thing to note is that Yoda would have been a lot less active in the prequels due to f/x limitations. Hence, no crowd-pleasing lightsaber duels in the prequels. But Yoda may have survived long enough in the final film to confront Palpatine with a spectacular duel as he did in the final scenes of Episode III.

As for Jabba the Hutt, Admiral Ackbar, and Nien Numb, well they most likely would be CG creations instead of puppets or actors in heavy makeup. It would be interesting to see how they would’ve appeared in that case.

And just to goof around, let’s have Patrick Stewart  bridge the worlds of Star Trek and Star Wars and make a cameo appearance in Episode V as Lando’s aide Lobot!

José Soto