On First Look: Jake Gyllenhaal as the Prince of Persia! at 08/15/2008 02:46am

I agree with King Kracka, Jake will most likely be good in this role. His past sure shows that he's a competent actor. Considering Hollywood finds it nearly impossible to cast someone of the appropriate nationality for the role (which makes sense, financially speaking), he's a good visual replacement because he kind of looks like the damn character. Now it's up to the director and crew to churn out a good flick. Still, even if they cut a cinematic turd it would be much better than a Boll movie.

On Cruise and "Valkyrie" for Christmas Season at 08/15/2008 02:09am

Cause nothin' says Christmas like Nazis. Here's hoping Singer can overcome the barely decent Superman Returns and the presence of Cruise.

On Five reasons why TDK's success is surprising at 08/15/2008 02:05am

Yeah, this immense level is surprising considering those points. Ultimately, i think that the best thing going for it is that, for the majority of the viewing audience, the quality matched the hype. Awesome.

On Werewolves Suck... At Least As Movies at 08/13/2008 8:56pm

You clearly have no idea what I've been REPEATING forever now. Despite your down to the dictionary definition of settle, you know what i meant, unless you are a complete dolt. Which I'm not insinuating, by the way. We DO have to settle with what is made as "customers", doesn't mean we have to like it. If that were the case I'd be claiming that the hundreds of werewolf movies that definitely do suck are great just because they are made. Fact is, we see films on a trail basis, we don't always know that something will be a classic or not, right there you're already risking greasing the wheels of potentially bad filmmaking.

Making films is not a one man job, it's a compromise and the fact of the matter is that the results vary. We have to accept what is made because, guess what? It's already made and it's not your choice what gets made. After that, it's up to personal taste as a viewer, sure, but disregarding everything that is made by a certain system or in a certain style just because it is made that way or wasn't made in a way that is right on the money for you is a fool's errand. If you're going to judge films under that view then nothing will ever be good. We don't make the decisions but we sure as hell sit and watch to see if what is dished out is good or not, irregardless of whether it is good or not. We sit and judge and pay. If a movie is great and it makes cash, great it succeeds and the quality of movie making generally rises but if a steaming turd makes money (and they often do) then it's lowered again. It's a balancing act. Mostly, discerning viewers have a general idea of what they like and, thusly, stay away from the load of crap being dished out. Still, that doesn't stop millions of others from watching Fast and Furious 4000: How To Annoy People With Your Car.

I don't agree with the way Hollywood works 100 %, but a lot of the stuff they do is either necessary or expected. Short of raising your own millions to make a your own movie you have to accept that there will be some form of creativity at stake from the get-go. So you have to sometimes come up with a way to settle that creates a peace of mind as a creator but still satisfies producers and investors. The Hollywood, and even the indie, route is littered with continuing tales of trying to get by with your vision as intact as possible. You can fight it like a complete moron and get your movie scratched off the surface of a production schedule or you can learn to change things to satisfy not only your investors but yourself. It's a lost battle from the start, at times and tough decision must then be made, and at others you are blessed with producers that care about the vision, not just a quick buck. It varies, as do the results irregardless of conditions. Hell, I'll be the first to admit that the restrictions placed on you sometimes only force you to get even more creative, that ol' story. Life isn't black and white, it's gray buddy. Get used to it.

The customer is NOT always right and, frankly, nobody gives a shit about them deep down inside. The moment movies stop being selfish endeavors is the day when all real creativity will cease in films. It will be some bullshit Commie film agenda. A film isn't just a film, there is a story behind that film. Sometimes I'll see a film and see greatness behind a tarnished exterior. A film needn't be perfect or near perfect to be good. Sometimes the hurdles we have to put up with are worth it to see what the director or writer intended, but most likely was not allowed to fully achieve based on budget or restictions of some other sort. Doesn't make that film bad, just makes it a good, albeit flawed, flick. Sometimes it isn't worth it and the results are atrocious. Rare precious times we get classics that withstand all, or most, criticism. It's not clear cut.

Whatever the case, the original argument here has been abandoned. The fact is that, I was being critical of the article writer's logic behind discounting countless great films just because they violated a sometimes deluded sense of what SHOULD be made rather than viewing them as individual films to be judged on their own merits. I think his intentions were good, but the way it was phrased overall ended up making his argument seems like a ramble. I wasn't being an antagonistic a-hole. See my history with his editorials and you'll see. All I was stating was the need for careful consideration of the admittedly weak sub-genre.

On The Argonauts are coming! at 08/12/2008 6:39pm

Brett Ratner? Damn it. Peter Berg? Damn it.

On The ladies of "Bitch Slap" at 08/12/2008 6:35pm

I don't know what feasible reason there would be for anyone to wear those clothes other than to turn some tricks but I applaud the notion.

On Werewolves Suck... At Least As Movies at 08/12/2008 6:11pm

@ Jojo

Yes, we do have to settle, because ultimately we don't make the decisions for asshole producers that produce the crap you are ranting against. So irregardless of the sway we hold, we must indeed settle for what is ultimately produced, good OR bad. Unless suddenly you are making their decisions for them. This is why directors are constantly at odds with studios. Rarely do they get all they want or even a considerably fair fraction.

I realize what the article's writer was saying but the way he presented his point indicated that he'd never be satisfied unless he had it his way. I'm all for suggestions...if they are logical and make a bit of sense, which some of his do. I wasn't completely against his article, you'll notice that if you read my response, it was just so shoddily written that the points made were all in some form or another tearing apart the few good werewolf movies there are. Hollywood WILL get it very right sometime and , sad for you, that has very little to do with what we want. How many years have people been begging for countless things from Hollywood? Yeah, since it set roots. The way it mostly goes is "we don't care, we'll make what we feel is good", then in second place is "we'll make it eventually" , and, of course, there's "sure, we'll make it for you" way in the back.

Movies are, for the most part, a selfish enterprise. A creative one, sure, but selfish nonetheless. The audience is always on the creators mind, but it's mostly about one persons vision. Again, very little to do with what ticket buyers want. Hell, ask people that are truly creative, like Jodorowsky or Lynch and they'll tell you a variant version of what I'm saying. It's what THEY want on screen. Period. To suggest that Hollywood or independent filmmakers or anyone, for that matter, should completely have the audience on their mind at all times would be a great way to stifle their creativity. It has happened before, it will keep on happening.

One day when you are fighting the system like many countless directors, writers, etc, (myself included) do everyday to try to get as much of their vision across, then you can tell me about how easy it is to wheel and deal in Hollywood unless your Spielberg and just say what you want and have it.

Anyway, what I'm saying is that, yes, we should have more creative content but what is there isn't any less creative just cause it fell into some Hollywood mold. The really great stuff always sticks out, but that doesn't discount all the other good stuff already there, which this article seemed to be doing from the get-go.

On Werewolves Suck... At Least As Movies at 08/12/2008 02:24am

@Jojo

Trust me, I'm not complacent. I'm just not an idiot who thinks they are going to alter what is already there, but I'm not going to brush off every single film based on the fact that I can't be satisfied with the fact that things can't be made to cater to my every taste. Like I said, there is definite room for improvement and there is a need for MORE werewolf movies that are at least good BUT that doesn't mean that what few that are good should be discounted based on one or two things that are bad in them. It's ridiculous.

Now, I'm also not an idiot that goes around comparing a werewolf movie to, say, Citizen Kane. Some movies have to be seen in context to their subject and cannot be judge with the same ideals as one would a masterpiece. There are differing ways to enjoy movies, people need to wake up to the fact that not everything they watch is going to change their lives. Hell, they need to wake up and realize that most directors don't even come close to wanting to do that.

That being said, the issue here (as originally stated by the article) was HOLLYWOOD making a good werewolf movie. Got news for you Jojo: Hollywood is a business and because of that we must indeed, sometimes settle for what comes out of it. It's changed a lot over the years, so change is eventual and much needed so don't give me that tripe about holding onto conventions. You get what you get, sometimes it's good, sometimes it's bad, conventions aside. You can't imagine the glee when I see something glaringly original (and I use the term loosely) come out of Hollywood, it's refreshing and exhilirating. HOWEVER, it is rare and in the meantime many films come out that are great DESPITE the fact that they tread familiar ground. Think, man, think.

I'm perfectly aware of when something works or not, but sometimes a film merits notice based on what's good...just ask Tarantino who made a whole career out of it. Now before everyone says Tarantino copies everything he does...well, news again, so does everyone else. It's all in the delivery.

On Werewolves Suck... At Least As Movies at 08/08/2008 3:40pm

I think your digging your own grave, with this argument. It seems that not one movie regarding werewolves will ever please you. You gotta face facts, effects are effects and you can only do so much. Money isn't sunk into horror like crazy so they can only afford so much. Even if they did sink money into them like oil tycoons at best you'd get CGI wolves which STILL look fake.

Now, I agree that a variation in how the people turn into werewolves would be nice, but would it make a lot of sense to the audience? Not really. Eating flesh, while cool looking is kinda nonsensical. Putting on an enchanted wolf pelt to transform, would be neat but it borders on risky to achieve without inciting chuckles. Drinking water from a werewolf's track. I mean, come on. Really? Everything borders on ludicrous, tradition works best to translate the change. Can someone come up with an innovative way? Sure, we've just yet to see it.

When you mention Underworld's Lycans attack Selene one by one. Again, it's a movie and it's rare to see the variation in battle schemes, but still you got to think logically. If those werewolves did attack in a pack, Selene would be dead. And the movie is about her...so, yeah, it's easier if the filmmakers make it easier for her to survive. Plus, while largely animalistic, the interesting thing about werewolves is that they retain the evil nature of humans so they don't necessarily have to act completely like beasts.

Now if you're talking about other were-creatures...well, they aren't werewolves anymore are they? You got to remember that Hollywood is a business and as such they are inclined to cater to an audience and, most people, wouldn't give a flying fuck about a "were-camel". Now you suggest that werewolves could fight other were-creatures. Well, yeah, but then not only would you have to come up with a innovative way to explain a werewolf but some reason why this completely different variation would come and fight it. Mind you possible, but highly likely that Hollywood would ever bother to harken back to the days of Dracula Vs. The Wolfman, if you know what I mean.

You're right, most times they try to make the characters sympathetic, especially during painful transformations, but that's to make the character likable, or at least somewhat palatable to the audience. When werewolves are bad guys they seem to mostly thrive on the pain and enjoy the kill. It's typical, sure, but it works. A fluid, non-painful transformation would suck. A transformation without physical changes would suck. I mean, what are you proposing in terms of the transformation, exactly?

There's werewolf movies that rock all over the place. You're right about one thing, there aren't many compared to, say, zombie movies or vampire movies, but they're out there. It just seems that the moment you find one thing you don't like you discount the whole picture.

American Werewolf in Paris, is a great take on the classic werewolf theme. The wolf looks different to the popular version, it seems largely animalistic but capable of some human thought. The movie is filled with dark humor and the wolf shots are downright well done. What's not to like? It's sequel, while more lowbrow can provide you with some fake ass wolf fights that you claim don't exist.

The Howling, has a serial killer werewolf...that's different than just some beastie going about growlin' and shit. The wolves have personalities, bent senses of humor, etc. Very different. The transformation is awesome, but still an effect...i don't get what miracles you expect out of effects.

Bad Moon answers your "blow off a wolf's head" question and is a great dramatic piece about the animal urge taking over human rationale.

Dog Soldiers is an ambush movie with werewolves. They look fantastic and different and they attack in packs. Awesome movie.

Ginger Snaps is a coming of age film with a dash of Cronenberg influence with it's theme of something alien changing your body. It rocks despite it's limitations.

Underworld, is a rock 'em, sock 'em action flick that has werewolves in it. Fun and cool, what more can you ask of it?

Others, while flawed are very watchable: Silver Bullet is little tale of a werewolf that happens to be a priest. Big Bad Wolf sometimes works (sometimes doesn't) with a detestable, talking werewolf with a sexual streak.

On Ten of the Kookiest, Most Ludicrous Comedies of All Time at 08/06/2008 00:13am

While we're nitpicking, I'd change Holy Grail to Life of Brian.

On Ten of the Kookiest, Most Ludicrous Comedies of All Time at 08/05/2008 7:17pm

Great list. Great flicks, one and all.

On New Terminator Salvation Photo at 08/04/2008 9:33pm

Hmm, that seems a bit to logical. You must be a robot...or a Vulcan. Or a Vulcan robot.

On Michael Bay Directs... at 08/04/2008 5:58pm

Is it sad that I would watch that? Twice!

On New Terminator Salvation Photo at 08/04/2008 5:57pm

So it's safe to say the movie will feature some staring.

On Javier Bardem will not play Pablo Escobar at 08/04/2008 5:55pm

I love the guy, but why are news about him always "he's not going to play (fill in the blank)"?

On Depp, Hoffman linked to next Batman at 08/02/2008 9:18pm

wow lordmaul, I love your idea.That whole angle you got there is a great way to link it all together. You could even add that the Joker had Scarecrow whip up those smoke bombs as a variation of his renown "Joker venom" only in the more realistic world of the new bat-series it would be just one of Scarecrow's fear inducing toxins customized to the Joker's taste. So, in essence, it would be the type of fear that would induce complete madness, just the thing that would break free the madman stewing in the banker...a calm, collected but psychotic madman.
Personally, I think Fichtner would be awesome. He would give Riddler the creepy, social outcast vibe. Plus, it would be about damn time the guy gets the spotlight, he's always stuck in supporting roles.
Point is, anything is better than the fuckin' Penguin.

On Depp, Hoffman linked to next Batman at 08/01/2008 10:04pm

The moment they decide to put Penguin in, I'll give up on the series (as will Nolan, thank god). The Penguin is a waste of a fuckin' villain. DeVito's role was the only time he was mildly acceptable, but even then it was a turd. I can't see Depp as a serious villain. I love the guy, but I'm so used to him always being some quirky fucker. Either way, I hope this story is BS.

On Marvin the Martian is getting his own movie at 08/01/2008 03:01am

WTF?

On Myers is working on Austin Powers 4 at 08/01/2008 03:00am

Liked part 1 and 2, three was a bit of overkill (although the "fake Austin Powers movie" intro and Michael Caine were awesome), but enough with the series already....although, that would potentially mean more Caine.

On Freddie Prinze, Jr. joins WWE team at 08/01/2008 02:58am

Wow, I guess I better start watching WWE now that it's got some quality behind it.



Yeah...totally sarcastic.