Category: Action Movies (Page 123 of 165)

Harvey and Quentin, Oscar, Michael’s good night (and more bad reviews), Doug J., Guillermo, and Frankenstein

As I prepare to dive back into LAFF, I’ve got some quick items with a mostly geek-friendly bent to keep y’all satisified.

* Remember those reports that latter day mogul Harvey Weinstein was pressuring Quentin Tarantino to shorten “Inglourious Basterds”? Well, Harvey’s back to tell you they were all BS, and he’s not bothering with the initials.

* The Academy has surprised just about everyone by announcing that this year’s Best Picture category will double from the usual five nominees to ten, as it was in days very long past. Nikki Finke, aka the $14 million blogger, is displeased, and she might have a point. Personally, I love the Oscars, but anyone who thinks that awards are any particular indicator of absolute quality is, well, kinda dumb. It’s all wonderful hookum and self-promotion to me, though its possible this is too much of a good thing.

* Michael Bay’s “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen” had a fine opening midnight indeed. And IFC’s David Hudson shows how he’s allowing some critics a fine target, as well, including the fanboy film friendly folks at AICN.

* The very talented actor Doug Jones, a friend of a friend who I’ve had the pleasure of meeting a couple of times, is probably the most famous man in Hollywood who’s almost never recognized. That’s because most of his acting is done in heavy disguise, but the man behind the Silver Surfer, Hellboy’s pal Abe Sapien, and two of the funkiest monsters in film history from the fantasy-horror masterpiece “Pan’s Labyrinth” is being kept busy by his frequent boss, “Pan”/”Hellboy” director and all-around cool guy Guillermo del Toro. The latest from an interview with Sci-Fi Wire is that Jones is scheduled to play the monster in “Frankenstein” in a new version to come along in about five years, right after del Toro has a chance to finish his work on the two scheduled “Hobbit” films.

The voluble and often hilarious del Toro is easily the premier monster film maker of our time, and the fact that he is turning to Mary Shelley’s proto-monster tale with Jones is exciting news indeed. If anyone can step into James Whales’ shoes comfortably it’s the guy who once told Terry Gross that, much as Christians accept Jesus as their personal savior, at an early age he accepted monsters into his heart. And, anyone whose seen Jones’ work knows he’s perhaps the only human alive who can make those huge Frankenboots first inhabited by the great Boris Karloff his very own. This one could be a spiritual experience.

“Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen” mini-box office preview

While I personally seem utterly immune to the charms of Michael Bay’s battlebots or anything remotely relating to them, I am, alas, a lousy barometer of mass taste. Indeed, Gregg Killday of The Hollywood Reporter and Variety‘s Pamela McClintock are speaking in terms of past super-hit franchise films, including “Spider-Man 2” and “Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix,” as all signs seem to be pointing to a pretty huge five-day period for the loud epic.

All signs, except reviews, that is. Our own Dave Medsker‘s split decision is, if anything, towards the more positive side of the spectrum of reviews. Rotten Tomatoes has the sequel at a not so good 27%, down 30 points from the more acceptable 57% score the first film received. Indeed, the probably unsurprising amount of critical vituperation exhibited against the 2.5 hour flick is worth noting. The Guardian‘s Peter Bradshaw mirrors my reaction to the first film (the part I made it through, anyway) with his comparison to “watching paint dry while getting hit over the head with a frying pan.” Roger Ebert might be a gentler soul, but he is little kinder and offers the kind of observations that make his negative reviews such fun to read:

The human actors are in a witless sitcom part of the time, and lot of the rest of their time is spent running in slo-mo away from explosions, although–hello!–you can’t outrun an explosion. They also make speeches like this one by John Turturro: “Oh, no! The machine is buried in the pyramid! If they turn it on, it will destroy the sun! Not on my watch!” The humans, including lots of U.S. troops, shoot at the Transformers a lot, although never in the history of science fiction has an alien been harmed by gunfire.

Transformers: Revenge of the FallenOthers, like Luke Y. Thompson — an interesting guy I just had the pleasure of chatting with less than 48 hours back — defend the film as silly fun that doesn’t take itself too seriously. Cinematical’s Todd Gilchrist, though, goes to an entirely different place:

Michael Bay, condensing the cumulative total of the spectacle from all of his seven previous films into one unwieldy, gargantuan opus, has exceeded even the possibilities of sequel-driven “moreness,” combining his own muscular, high-gloss sensibility with the conventions of blockbusters past, present, and probably future to create a monolithic action masterpiece that feels destined to be the biggest movie of all time.

I’m not sure all the words mean exactly what he thinks they mean — I’m still getting my head around “monolithic action masterpiece” (“monolithic”?????) — but I guess the gist is people will be watching. Choose your poison.

“Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen” and stuff

I don’t care about the upcoming “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen,” which comes out one week from today. I’m a bit too old to have watched the original cartoons as a kid or played with the toys. I literally walked out of the 2007 movie, which I had used a hard earned frequent movie-watcher free ticket too see.

Nevertheless, I know a lot of you liked “Transformers” and are looking forward to “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen.” So, instead of raining on your parade, I’ll keep my personal critic hat mostly off and simply report that some of the early reviews are out already. Variety’s Jordan Mintzer has a fairly positive review up and, the word is, if you dug the first one, you’ll probably dig this one. THR’s Ray Bennett says somewhat the same thing, but on the negative side (and sounds a lot like what I said after I saw the first one). IGN UK’s Orlando Parfitt confesses to Michael Bay love, but thinks it may all just be a bit too much of a good thing. And so it goes at Rotten Tomatoes.

Also, in the spirit of yesterday’s post on celebrity oddness, via Anne Thompson comes that Parade interview with “Transformers” star Shia LaBeouf you might have seen excerpted. Assuming he actually said everything he’s supposed to have said, this wasn’t a profile but a cry for help, which begs the question: If Steven Spielberg and company can’t find the right shrinks/clinics to get a talented young actor’s head on straight, who can? I suppose it’s like the old joke asking about how many psychologists it takes to change a light bulb. (Only one, but the light bulb really has to want to change.)

It’s a little weird considering he’s pretty much the hottest young actor in Hollywood, etc., but I actually feel sorry for the kid. That is not like me.

But forget all that, here’s a “Transformers” trailer. Stuff blows up good — but for some reason, not the Eiffel Tower.

Department of Retractions…Of Other People’s Mistakes

One benefit of being the kind of blogger who in no way makes news, but merely repeats and expands/bloviates upon it is that, as long as I get my ducks in a row through my links and don’t confabulate anything, if somebody reports something false, it’s theoretically not my fault. Of course, if I don’t follow-up and mention the correction, I suppose I am guilty of spreading a false rumor.

So, anyhow, according to Variety, the rumors I discussed on Friday about a supposed disastrous screening of “G.I. Joe” and some kind of firing or demotion of director Stephen Sommers are false. Of course, for all I know, Variety could be wrong, too.

In any event, I’m still expecting this one to kind of stink up the universe. Let’s call it a hunch.

Break out the Bloody Marys, “The Hangover” Lingers at #1

As I was too chicken to more than implicitly predict last time, “The Hangover” held on to its #1 spot with a cool $33.4 million. Variety reminds us that this is only a 26% drop, very rare in today’s opening-weekend-centric turn-’em-and-burn-’em movie world. The star-free ensemble farce is clearly benefiting from excellent word of mouth so that folks who might ordinarily avoid an R-rated comedy about a Vegas bachelor party gone off the rails are being attracted. Good work.

Also Pixar/Disney did fabulously with its unbeatable, yet rare, principle that if you work really hard and imaginatively to provide quality family entertainment with a heart and soul as well as a bit of show-biz razzle-dazzle, people will actually show — you should pardon the express — “Up.” The CGI 3-D animation-fest with a cranky elderly protagonist that no sane executive would ever have greenlit were it not for Pixar’s unprecedented track record, earned $30.5 million and dropped a low 31%.

Denzel Washington, Meanwhile, in star-driven product land, “The Taking of Pelham 123” met the rather modest expectations for a lavish, all-star, action-remake and hit $25 million, while the Eddie Murphy family flick, “Imagine That,” netted a sad $5.7 million for the #6 spot on its opening weekend at over 3000 screens.

Now, I want to add that, while trashing movies I haven’t personally seen is against my religion (for all I know, I’ll end up sorta liking Tony Scott’s “Pelham” — stranger things have happened, I’m the guy who liked “Domino”), even more against my religion is trashing the concept of remakes, though on the whole they tend to be less good than earlier successful versions.  True, it doesn’t exactly scream “originality” to take on a property that’s been previously successful, but no one says, “Oh God, not another remake of ‘Romeo and Juliet.'” There is absolutely nothing wrong with restaging an old concept, as long as you have something of your own to say with that property and are not simply going with something that looks likes a safe bet in a business where safe bets don’t exist. Lack of “originality” is not the problem; abject creative cowardice is.

Movie remakes go back to Hollywood’s youth. Probably my single favorite little-known Hollywood factoid is that the 1941 “The Maltese Falcon” starring Humphrey Bogart and directed by John Huston was actually the third adaptation of Dashiell Hammett’s great detective novel made over a period of about ten years. I also happen to think that Philip Kaufman’s 1978 version of “Invasion of the Body Snatchers” is arguably even better than the rather great original version directed by Don Siegel in 1956. And, moving to TV land for just a second, is there any human being on the planet who thinks the recently concluded “Battlestar Gallactica” (don’t tell me how it ends!) isn’t a million times better than the unbelievably awful original? As Roger Ebert likes to say, movies are not what they are about but how they are about it. If you have something fresh to say by revisiting an old story, by all means say it, just make sure you’re not kidding yourself.

Anyhow, returning to this weekend’s b.o., what I think harmed both “Pelham” and “Imagine That” was that, as far as was visible from either the marketing or the response to it, these were movies that offered not one thing fresh or exciting or in any way of a great deal of interest other than the services of its stars. That’s good for something — big stars are the closest thing on the planet to a certain level of guarantee of public interest and sometimes that’s all you really need. But if you really want to hit it big, you’ve got to gamble a little bit that the audience is more interested in being genuinely entertained than lulled by the presence of name entertainment brands.

On the other hand, “Terminator Salvation,” which nobody seems to like too much, is actually doing very well abroad and the very honestly entertaining “Drag Me to Hell” isn’t exactly burning up the U.S. box office. So, who knows?

« Older posts Newer posts »

© 2026 Premium Hollywood

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑