Category: Sci-Fi Movies (Page 89 of 93)

Box office mini-preview, part II: Weirded out Hollywood agrees: “Transformers” sequel smashes puny humanity (updated)

In the face of the death of Michael Jackson right after the very sad news of the passing of Farrah Fawcett, it’s a weird day in Hollywood — and just a bit weirder and louder in news-chopper infested Westwood, where I happen to be, perhaps just a few thousand yards from the hospital room where Mr. Jackson was pronounced dead.

But the box office goes on, not that there’s much more to report other than the boffo, all-time record breaking $60.6 million performance of “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen.” All this so far apparently impacted by the almost across the board negativity of critics, who, I remind you yet again, are also human beings and therefore perhaps reflective of something.

So, it’s safe to say that a new tearjerker starring Cameron Diaz and directed by Nick Cassavetes of “The Notebook” won’t be much of a threat. Even the counter-programming possibilities of “My Sister’s Keeper” seem limited by it’s mediocre Rotten Tomatoes rating of 46% “fresh.” This kind of movie attracts somewhat older filmgoers and that might actually have an impact. A film like this needs some kind of buzz behind it, and I don’t see it making much headway against the various behemoths already ensconced in our nation’s theaters. The Hollywood Reporter has it pegged for about $10 million. The title also, I think, won’t do it much good.

There is, however, a trio of films worth mentioning in the so-called “specialty market.” (Isn’t it special that there’s a market where quality might help a film’s performance?) THR thinks the timing of the Iran-set drama, “”The Stoning of Soraya M.,” might be helped by news of the upheavals from the nation. However, in an area where reviews mean something, a 45% RT rating isn’t hopeful. (And we all know who’s going to be dominating the news for the next several weeks.)

Far more promising, though opening only in four theaters in L.A. and New York, is the action drama “The Hurt Locker.” I’m not a particularly huge fan of director Kathryn Bigelow. I see what she’s trying to do, but even her best thought of pieces, like the vampire flick “Near Dark,” have never quite connected for me. However, this drama about soldiers deals with a topic that’s always been potent dramatic material: unexploded bombs. This time, of course, they are being faced by U.S. solidiers in Iraq. While this film’s only “names” are in smaller roles, this one could break out and the reviews, and that Pixar-esque 97% RT rating, are impressive. Iraq is supposed to be the kiss of death at the box office, but seeing how few people have actually liked any of the Iraq films made so far, maybe it’s not so much the topic as the particular films. [UPDATE: I should add that “Hurt Locker” was written by Mark Boal, a writer who was reportedly embedded with an actual bomb squad in Iraq. So often, when a director with a problematic filmography suddenly makes a really good or great film, it’s because they’ve finally hooked up with a well-written screenplay. How easy it is to forget that.]

Also, as a fan of both Michelle Pfeiffer and director Stephen Frears (“The Hit,” among many, many others), I have to point out the romantic/possibly sexy period drama “Cheri.” Okay, the reviews are not great for this one, but I’d rather watch even a bad movie involving Pfeiffer and Frears than a bunch of personality-free tins cans fighting.

“We Live in Public” and the arrival of the new flesh

First of all, my apologies for subjecting you to the picture above of “Luvvy,” the frightening Mrs. Thurston Howell III-inspired clown alter ego of dot-com millionaire turned visionary self-described artiste Josh Harris. However, it’s arguably one of the less disturbing images available from what is probably going to be the most newsworthy film I’ll see at the Los Angeles Film Festival, and maybe anywhere else for a while.

It seemed even more that way when I learned while writing this post that Michael Jackson, an early experiment in living in public, had passed away at UCLA Medical Center — less than a quarter mile from the coffee house I’m writing this from. There’s a weirdness floating over L.A. right at the moment (as well as what sounds like a thousand helicopters).

Ondi Timoner’s “We Live in Public” scored the grand jury prize at Sundance this year, and not for no reason. If there’s any doubt that, despite the lack of flying cars or commercial space travel, we live in a science-fiction world, this film’s look at Harris’s ethically questionable but fascinating experiments in weirder-living through ‘net-driven intrusion does the trick. Philip Dick would be quite comfortable here and the Marshall McLuhanesque nightmare envisioned by David Cronenberg 1986 science-fiction classic, “Videodrome,” with its talk of media-generated “new flesh” seems closer than ever. (Naturally, a remake is in the offing.)

After making a bundle by arriving very early at the commercial and entertainment possibilities of the webtubes, Harris spent a huge chunk of his earnings in 1999 and 2000 on “Quiet.” It was an ultra-“Big Brother” type experiment in which hoardes of NYC hipsters and artists were sequestered in a high-tech bunker and placed under constant Internet surveillance, subjected to Stasi-style interrogations, and otherwise robbed of their humanity with their full cooperation. People who heard about it were able to see everything, and that includes all the stuff you’re thinking of (though judging from the film, a few people at least resorted to the old PG-13 movie trick of making love underneath blankets). Since there was also quite a few guns around, for some reason, it’s no surprise that the NYPD finally broke the thing up, though the situation had already turned a bit ugly, though not gun-ugly.

Continue reading »

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.

“Branson” and the world outside LAFF

There’s an idea out there that documentary filmmakers require more good luck to make a successful project, and though Brent Meeske took some three and half years to complete his work after another film died aborning, he clearly made some remarkable luck for himself with “Branson.” It starts out somewhat slowly, but what emerges is a compelling chronicle of the ups-and-downs of several talented but far from famous performers trying to make a life in the small city in Missouri that could best be described as Las Vegas, but with a vastly lower budget and constructed to Ned Flanders specifications.

At times, the hugely corny but enthusiastic performances may make us feel we’re in Christopher Guest/”Waiting for Guffman” territory. The post screening discussion revealed that at least one of the performers chronicled, evangelical Christian and New York transplant Geoffrey Hastings Haberer, was more than aware of the Guffmanesque aspects of Branson performances. Still, though its connection with Jack Black might worry some, this is not a film that in any way condescends to its subjects. At the same time, I’m not sure I’d be writing so favorably about it were it not for the far more troubled, yet also incredibly talented, performer who walks away with the film, Johnny Cash impersonator Jackson Cash. His Olympian personal struggles and powerhouse performances have moved even relatives of the late legend of American music to marvel at the similarity.

As he proved in a remarkable live performance following the film, Jackson Cash is really not impersonating Johnny Cash at all in any normal sense of the world. He simply performs Cash’s material with such clarity, honesty, and with such a remarkably similar voice (the result, Cash says, of damage to his larynx delivered by an angry drug dealer), that the differences between this man in black and the earlier one dissolve.

He wowed the film festival audience at a post screening concerted, which included at least one clearly enthralled well-known director, so things may be looking up for this remarkable performer, whose personal demons (drugs, possible bipolar issues, etc.)  make up a significant portion of the more dramatic material in “Branson.” I hope real success and stability are in the offing for Cash, as a brief conversation with the man indicated that he is very much as advertised: the real deal.

***

A few brief items from more or less outside the world of the L.A. Film Festival:

* Den of Geek passes along a Reuters report of director Michael Bay critiquing the marketing of the “Transformers” sequel about to hit theaters. (Hint, he apparently doesn’t think it’s a sequel at all, but an “event.”)

* Nathaniel R. has sixty ways to celebrate Meryl Streep’s birthday. (Guess how old she is.)

* Box Office Mojo has the “actuals” from last weekend. No big surprises, but they report that “Star Trek” is now officially the most successful “Star Trek” film of all time, adjusted for inflation. For once, I agree with the masses. I might quarrel at times with the hyperactive visual style of the film and I wouldn’t make any particular claims to greatness for it, but nor would I for “The Wrath of Khan.” All in all, it couldn’t happen to a nicer little space opera.

« Older posts Newer posts »

© 2026 Premium Hollywood

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑