WTF NEWS?: Magic 8 Ball being made into movie!

ALL POINTS LEAD TO NO!

It is true according to collider.com and imdb.com, Paramount Pictures is readying a film based on Mattel’s toy/novelty MAGIC EIGHT BALL.

Written by Jon Gunn & John Mann, the story is to be said an action/adventure film where the Magic 8 Ball decides the fates to the films heroes. I guess the writing duo met and served together as production assistants on 1996′s Space Jam. Their only other claim to fame was the Eric Roberts direct-to-video MERCY STREETS. Really seriously??

I guess after the board game BATTLESHIP is being turned into a film with Peter Berg directing and Taylor Kitsch starring.

I am just wondering what is next? Here are some of my pitches:

HUNGRY HUNGRY HIPPOS
Setting is 1940s Africa, a white game hunter is trying to seek an elusive purple hippo. It is also hippo mating season so the hippos are unruly when the hunter arrives.

WALL STREET 3: MONOPOLY

Gordon Gekko returns for a third time this time with a monocle, top hat and an extra sneer. Director Michael Mann takes real estate takeovers to new heights with pain-staking to boredom accuracy. Watch as everyone’s favorite corporate raider tries to snuff out the seaside town of Happy Hollows by expanding is monopoly with hotels and “Go to Jail” cards!

MY PET ROCK

Tells the tale of a insecure and bored teen who discovers a rather odd looking stone while on a family camping trip. Being a hardcore fan of science-fiction, the teen concocts a story that the rock is in fact an alien life form who will only talk to him and has come to Earth to scout out a new home. The teen realizes that people buy his story and the rock. Popularity ensues, etc, etc.

SIMON

The blinking, squeaking circle of wonder has been transformed into a WMD. Now in the hands of terrorists, SIMON has been set to go off now it is up ex-CIA weapons expert, Frank Smith (George Clooney) to stop SIMON.

I don’t know what they will think of next. But enough with the remakes, product movies and unnecessary sequels! Anyone got an original idea!

Movie Review: The Crazies

The movie opens with a friendly baseball game among some locals of a quaint Iowa town. The town sheriff (Timothy Olyphant) and his wife (Radha Mitchell) are in attendance. The prettiest girl at the local high school (Danielle Panabaker) has a crush on one of the team’s pitcher. It is basically a Norman Rockwell painting of the Heartland.

The game is interrupted when a man carrying a shotgun strolls onto the centre field. The sheriff tells everyone to flee to the dugouts while his deputy and him confront the gunman. The gunman isn’t himself. It turns out yes he maybe to the town drunk but his complexion is off as blood oozes from his nose. Also he has a look in his eye like something inside him is missing. When the man starts to raise his shotgun, the sheriff takes him out right in front of everyone. It is a gripping and disturbing scene done beautifully by the actors, director and cinematographer.

If the rest of the movie was as good as that scene then this would have been one hell of a movie.

Timothy Olyphant faces his worst nightmare. And no I am not talking unemployment.

The plot of the film is that a deadly virus sweeps the town turning people into homicidal maniacs. Hence the title, Crazies. The movie claims that the town folk get infected by the water supply. Then they change the rules in the third act of the film. So who knows.

Directed by ex-Disney chief Michael Eisner’s son Breck who also brought us Matthew McConaughey’s Sahara, The Crazies has a really strong start for the first 40 minutes this is a pretty solid movie. Then well it falls into repetition, misuse of logic and well a lack of sense. Plus the whole government angle has also been done to death. Oh yeah, and this is a remake. I had never seen the original so I really can’t compare.

Olyphant is the best thing about this film. If it wasn’t for his stalwart hero figure I probably wouldn’t have finished the movie. With his critically acclaimed turn on HBO’s Deadwood and the new series Justified, Olyphant still seems to bring a sort of panache and vigor to every hero he plays.

Radha Mitchell and Danielle Panabaker are completely wasted in this film. Radha’s character comes off as a smart intelligent woman, who is also the town’s doctor. Then she becomes this damsel in distress as the movie progresses. What gives?

There are no shocks, no twists, just more brutal gore and patients who might as well be zombies with homicidal tendencies. I would say this is a skip or a cheap rental. Check out the new TV show Justified for a cooler and better Olyphant.

1.5 out of 5

So Says the Soothsayer

Retro Review: The Punisher (2004)

What happens when a man is pushed past the edge? What does he do when he has lost everything he has ever cared about? Well in the 1970s, he would have been Charles Bronson playing his infamous “Death Wish” anti-hero Paul Kersey, who returns to seek vengeance for the death of his wife and the rape of his daughter. Sound familiar?

In “The Punisher”, FBI Agent Frank Castle (Thomas Jane) becomes the target of a ruthless drug kingpin named Howard Saint (John Travolta) after Saint’s son dies during a drug sting.

Taking out just Castle isn’t good enough for Saint’s wife (Laura Harring) who instead wants his wife, young son and extended family wiped out at a giant family reunion.

After the word of the Saints is carried out, Castle resurrects himself as a skull adorning vigilante, The Punisher whose main purpose is to bring down the Saints at all costs.

When the comic version of the Punisher was conceived in the 70s, he was envisioned as a villain of the week for your friendly neighborhood web-slinger, Spider-man. But the power and draw of the anti-hero with the help of cinematic hits like the “Death Wish” series and the iconic “Dirty Harry” series helped boost the appeal of this skull-bond vigilante.

People loved grittier heroes who would become “judge, jury and executioner”. Many comic book heroes under-went darkened changes in the 1970s to embrace the new grittier anti-hero. In the 1980s, The Punisher became one of the biggest comic books at Marvel Studios.

As I watched the new version of the Punisher on the silver screen, I kept flashing back to those seemingly countless “Death Wish” sequels and how I used to laugh at how people would make fun each entry. “This time it is personal, they killed his dog. Everyone must die,” I heard in my head. Five films emerged from that series and “The Punisher” seems to have a throw back to them all.

Embracing the grit, grime and pugilism of those 70s anti-heroes is exactly what movie goers wanted from this film and they get it in spades.

I loved the fight sequence between Castle and the hitman known as the Russian.

I also enjoyed the goofy guitar-wielding hitman (who must be a throwback to “El Mariachi”).

I also really liked Harring as the Mafioso wife. She was perfect as the “evil-to-the-core” beauty. I did find Travolta a little wasted as the mob boss. He seemed very restrained in his performance.

What can one say about Thomas Jane’s portrayal of the anti-hero? He is the Punisher. There are no qualms about it. He is a perfect casting. I loved him once more as an action hero. (Anyone else remember him in “Deep Blue Sea”?)

I also liked the comedic characters back in Castle’s apartment building. They are direct from their comic incarnations and as priceless. I also liked that the filmmakers weren’t afraid of getting brutal with the violence. In a comic-adaptation there is always the worry about losing the PG-13 crowd. This goes to show why I am still waiting for my “director’s cut” of “Daredevil” to finally arrive.

The whole anti-hero may have been done to death but this incarnation is kind of fun. My only problems with the film were some of the really short and abrupt scene cuts. The beginning also had some problems where there is an exterior, cut, set piece, exterior, and then 2nd set. The cutting here almost reminded me of the goofy cutting in “Return of Swamp Thing”. There were some signs that the film was made by a first-time director. Let me know if you know what I mean.

On the upside is that I am sure that no one will be muttering, “Where’s Dolph?” at the end of
this one.

(3.5 out of 5)

So Says the Soothsayer.

Retro Review: Signs

Written: July 30, 2002

What is the actual secret behind crop circles? Is it genetic? Does it have a link to some alien language or symbology? Or is it some huge elaborate hoax?

In the new film “Signs”, farmer Graham Hess begins to witness the crop circle phenomenon occur to his crops. As the circles and symbols arrive strange things begin to happen to Hess, his daughter, son and younger brother (Joaquin Phoenix). The TV and radio reports start to scare his daughter so Hess tries to ignore the world.

Hess used to be a pastor until a crippling event forced him to question his faith. Hess’s brother came to help his brother and family when the event occurred. Throughout the whole events surrounding the circles, Hess not only must re-examine his faith inside himself but also finally face the changing world around him.

Director M. Night Shyamalan, who brought us “The Sixth Sense” and “Unbreakable” journeys into new territory with his new film. He brings forth a new look at the old science fiction stories of alien invasion. Instead of taking a “War of the Worlds” or “Independence Day” approach, Shyamalan focuses on what occurs in one man’s mind as this “other-worldly” event transpires.

In his new direction he pays homage to other films in some scenes. The television scenes reminded me somewhat of “Poltergeist”. The corn field scenes where they were using flashlights reminded me of “E.T.”. Basically Shyamalan revisits “Close Encounters of the Third Kind”.

There has to be some of the most interesting uses of light, camera angles and human psychology. Shyamalan is a master of these kinds of aspects of filmmaking but I really believe he has found new directions to hone his talent.

I loved Mel Gibson in this film. I loved Mel’s mellow and toned down approach to a conflicted preacher. There is one scene that almost brought me to tears. I could really connect with this character even if I didn’t agree with his logic half the time.

There is a new trend emerging in Hollywood as Hollywood A-list stars are taking on more resilient and conflicted characters. Mel takes on a preacher in this film. Tom Hanks played a conflicted father in “Road to Perdition”. And even Harrison Ford through his hat in the ring playing a conflicted submariner in the groaner “K-19″. I would have to say that Mel’s performance in “Signs” rivals Tom Hanks in “Road to Perdition”. But both of them blow Harrison Ford right out of the water. (No pun intended.) This new trend is an interesting one because as these faces become older they need more seasoned and deep roles. It seems they have found some.

“Signs” is a far cry better than the cryptic superhero-tale known as “Unbreakable” but the film also paves the way for more thought-provoking alien pictures. This is a very intelligent, original and nicely laid out film.

This maybe small and irrelevant but it was nice to see a film that didn’t need hundreds of cameos or characters to keep us guessing. I liked the fact that this film had fewer than ten characters. That was refreshing in itself.

My problem with this film goes to how the film ends. You see after sitting for nearly 2.5 hours you really want the plot to hit a supernova and envelope you. Instead the film drives a moral stake into the final thirty minutes that made me grunt rather than cheer. Then again I did feel the same way with “Unbreakable”.

I also really wanted to know more about this alien threat but the film skirts around that subplot. This is one of the world’s biggest events and you hide in the basement? I found it hard to believe that this is what an average-day man would do. Except for some minor points such as that, I liked “Signs”. It is very effective and creepy but I do wonder if it was only me who felt ripped-off by the ending.

(4 out of 5)

So Says the Soothsayer.

Retro Review: Stealing Harvard

Written: September 15, 2002

Hollywood pairs up two jokesters in hopes of landing a hit comedy.

The problem is someone forgot to tell Jason Lee that he is the straight man in the film.

“Stealing Harvard” is a goofball comedy about a guy named John Plummer (Jason Lee of “Chasing Amy”) who has to live up to a promise he made to his college-bound niece, Noreen (Tammy Blanchard). John promised Noreen that he would pay for her college education.

It was a blind promise but John’s trailer-park sister, Patty (Megan Mullally of TV’s “Will & Grace”), happens to catch it on videotape and confronts him with it. Now John has to come up with $30,000 extra dollars for Noreen.

John looks to his “dumb-as-a-post” friend, Duff (Tom Green of “Road Trip”) for help. John must also keep it all a secret from his fiancée (Leslie Mann of “George of the Jungle”) and her father (Dennis Farina of “Get Shorty”).

“Stealing Harvard” is dumb, rudimentary and painful to sit through. The film is one of those films that make you wonder how it ever got made. There are a lot of subplots which sort of connect to the main premise but with half of them you really have to stretch it. The whole mourning judge (Richard Jenkins of TV’s “Six Feet Under”) was way overused and the joke was so painful. Why didn’t this film take any risks with typical comedy clichés?

Jason Lee has made a career over being a wise-cracking underachiever who always gets the best lines. Now it seems that Lee is playing second fiddle to Green.

For one thing Jason Lee should never be the straight guy. Teamed up with Green, Lee became a liquidized version of a John Cusack-esque character from those 80’s comedies. Also, why is it always law for a comedy to have the straight man have the fiancée?

I heard one guy when I left the theatre say that this movie was “a waste of film”. I have to agree but it is still far better than Green’s last film “Freddy Got Fingered”. Harvard tries even if it fails miserably.

I liked Dennis Farina and Leslie Mann but the film hardly even explores these characters. They are typical “stepford” comedy clichés. Poor Farina, that man can be so funny when given the right material.

I really am a big fan of Jason Lee but I am starting to see that he is only as funny as the material he is given.

(1.5 out of 5)

So Says the Soothsayer.

Retro Review: Four Feathers

Written: October 5, 2002

A choppy, sliced and diced version of the classic British novel “The Four Feathers” lands on the big screen with a young star-bound cast.

Based on the infamous British novel, “Four Feathers” has flown on to the big-screen in a variety of forms over the years. Hollywood revisits the epic struggle of Harry Faversham (Heath Ledger), who was given four white feathers after he left his post in the British militia.

A white feather is a symbol of cowardice and the event destroyed Harry. Adding salt to his wound, the fourth feather happened to be from his betrothed, Ethne (Kate Hudson), who he left the army to marry.

Struck with guilt and a passion to prove he can be a worthy soldier, Harry chases after his regiment is determined to make sure everyone of his militia brothers returns safely to England.

If you have seen any of the other versions of this novel on film or read the novel itself, then this condensed version of the epic story will highly disappoint you. For a new audience looking at this for the first time it may ring differently.

My biggest problems with this film were that the story was not told linearly and there some obviously bad cuts in the film that made it feel like an amateur spliced it together. You have scenes that abruptly end in the desert then all of a sudden you are in England looking at moody Kate Hudson. Hudson is so moody and such an adrenaline killer that she spoils a lot of the film. Every time the film goes back to England we are met by a dreary world with pompous nobles and pale as a ghost Kate. In some of the scenes I wasn’t sure if she was sad or seasick. I found it hard to understand why Harry would want her or a life back there.

The bad editing also made me wonder if this film had an original cut of three hours to three-and-a-half hours. If that is the case then I hope we see a director’s cut which restores the flow of the film. That conclusion really help me understand why the film has these obvious flaws.

I continue to enjoy Heath Ledger as a leading man. He has a strong presence and I liked how he evolved his character even if the movie as a whole didn’t support him. As I stated above I really didn’t like Hudson. I liked the effort of Wes Bentley, who plays Heath’s best friend in the film. I never for a moment believed that Heath and Kate were in love and that he really wanted to get back to her.

In today’s world it is hard for us to understand the concept of honor, country and glory.

Unless you are in the military, society’s dimensions of the “individual” make these concepts hard to understand. Most of us know what a coward is but it probably isn’t fully understood that being dubbed a coward back then was the equivalent of being banished. I could relate to Harry’s struggle with leaving the army. The thought of dodging bullets for a cause you don’t believe in would make me run to. It also makes you ask the question what would it take for you to die for “god and country”?

I loved the Sudanese scenes in this film because it reminded me a lot of the old epics starring Charlton Heston or Richard Chamberlain that I used to watch when I was a kid. Aside from those scenes and the editing I had a hard time becoming immersed in the “Four Feathers”.

(3 out of 5)

So Says the Soothsayer.

Retro Review: Glory Road

Probably one of the greatest or maybe the greatest sports films of all time was the legendary basketball film “Hoosiers” from 1986.

Nothing has been able to touch that film and time after time it still shares its magic with movie-lovers. What makes that film so brilliant; is that it loves the game and understands the game.

When you make a film about basketball you have to remember not only its history but the fluidity of the game itself.

Passion, stamina and quickness are all signs of a great basketball player and so should be the same with a film. “Glory Road” has all those things.

“Glory Road” chronicles the turbulent story of coach Don Haskins (Josh Lucas) who in 1966 led the first all-black starting line-up in NCAA history to national basketball championship.

The film depicts Haskins as a passionate coach who will stop at nothing to put together the best basketball team he can afford with the limited recruiting funds given to him by his university. Unheard of in 1966, Haskins starts looking at black players from all walks of life to fill his squad.

The film shows what the team had to endure to get to their history making game. It is a brilliantly executed and thought out story. The film is fluid and never lets go of what it is trying to accomplish. Lucas is stoic as Haskins and once more you can see that this actor is going places. Jon Voight shows up as a heavily made-up idol and opposer to Lucas in the final game. Voight is pretty forgettable in his performance as Kentucky coach Adolph Rupp only because the film’s vision is such an overwhelming factor.

That is what makes “Glory Road” so impressive. No matter how many memorable moments, flawlessly executed sports action, and character development there is it is all about the film’s core mission.

Even though what is up there on the screen is brilliant, I still would have liked to have seen more character development and I also would have liked to have seen more conflict between the university and Haskins. The film drops clues that there was a lot of friction there but nothing is ever shown. I also felt we never got to know Haskins’ wife but instead got a silhouette of a support cushion.

What is up there on the screen is brilliant but now after seeing the film I just wanted more depth in such an amazing true story.

(3.5 out of 5)

So Says the Soothsayer.

Retro Review: Space Cowboys

Written: August 7, 2000

Can the pioneers who delivered us into the space age save us from a renegade relic from the Cold War? Clint thinks so.

“Space Cowboys” is for all those test pilots and early astronauts who never took the final flight into orbit.

In this story we focus on a man named Frank Corvin (Clint Eastwood), leader of Team Daedalus, who lost his chance for spaceflight back in 1958 when the space program was placed in the paws of a chimpanzee.

Humilated and disgraced Frank and his fellow test pilots were grounded and never got to feel the actual glory of spaceflight.

Well that was until a twist of fate occurred and a huge Russian communication satellite called IKON began crashing into the earth’s atmosphere.

A relic of the Cold War the satellite just happens to have the same navigation equipment as the now defunct Skylab and as NASA scrambles to find a guy low-tech enough to handle the problem they bump into Frank Corvin’s name. Frank just happened to have created the equipment used in the Skylab and in IKON.

Convinced that it will take all of his crew from the past to complete the assignment Frank negotiates with NASA to resurrect Team Daedalus so that his second chance can be felt with all his old teammates.

“Space Cowboys” reminded me a lot of the old film “Tough Guys” with Burt Lancaster and Kirk Douglas as we watch four guys from an era long gone trying to come to terms with the way life is today.

I liked the chemistry between the team and their tongue in cheek jokes. Their attitudes and grasping of life will enchant a lot of movie goers who really love someone to cheer for. I liked the friction between the old and new space programs even though it did at times make me wonder why they were portrayed to be stupid.

Sure “Cowboys” is a fantasy film but I liked how they tried so very hard to keep it down to earth in the first three quarters. It’s the last quarter I really had a problem with. The belief that these guys were so down to earth seems to be shattered as soon as they uncover the secret of their true mission.

Through that journey we seem to lose who they are as a team and their whole charisma. I liked the scene close to the end of Eastwood floating across the Earth and finally realizing he did make it. But after that the film seemed rushed and I never fully understood what they were actually doing to stop the eminent threat.

When you see “Cowboys” ask yourself one question was the crisis involved in Tommy Lee’s character really needed to reach the final result?

(4 out of 5)

So Says the Soothsayer.

Movie Review: The Losers

The movie, based on DC’s Vertigo comic series, is about a group of mercenaries who are sent to Bolivia on a search-and-destroy mission. The objective a giant richman’s compound. It was to be a simple. Acquire the target, have the plane river bomb the hell out of the target and get out. One hang up: 25 school children are at the target site.

The mercs race in to save the children and let’s put it this way, it doesn’t work out and they are all left for dead. Betrayed by their boss, the mercs come from ashes to exact vengeance. They are THE LOSERS.

While I sat and watched THE LOSERS. I was reminded back to the days when action movies were funny, loud and one of the best times at the movies.

Lethal Weapon dynamic duo of Murtaugh and Riggs (like: C’mon Roger, dont be a kill joy! We’re back! You’re black and I am mad! Do I get a gun? No!) to Die Hard’s John McClane arguing with terrorist Hans Gruber (like: Who do you think you are John Wayne? I was always particular to Roy Rogers, myself. Yippee Kay Yay, Motherfucker!), hilarious banter is as much to a great action film as the stunts and set pieces.

THE LOSERS celebrates action-comedy banter and then some. Co-written by Peter Berg, this is one seriously hilarious piece of writing. The sarcastic and situational comedy is priceless here. Sure you have senseless violence, one of the craziest man-woman fights ever (disguised as foreplay) and one of the most callous bad guys ever but this is an action movie based on a comic book. The violence, however real it looks, is comedic and brilliantly executed.

I loved stars Jeffrey Dean Morgan (Watchmen), Zoe Saldana (Avatar) and Chris Evans (Fantastic Four) each in their own way owned their roles.

Morgan is the stoic hero and the polar opposite to what he was in Watchmen but shows why this guy is one of Hollywood’s quickest rising leading men.

Zoe is lovely and lethal in her role and who in their right mind doesnt want to watch this girl use a missle launcher and kick Morgan’s ass.

Chris Evans once more steals the show here as the funniest of the group of mercs. There is one scene where he disguises himself as a bike messenger that is so funny it has to be seen to be believed. I do love Chris Evans. Evans may have stole the show but he wasn’t the only one with great banter this time.

If Chris Evans is the funniest of the mercs. Jason Patric’s villain is definitely the funniest of the film. There hasn’t been a villain this funny and egotistical since well, Hans Gruber. Yes he is brutal, shooting a woman for messing up his umbrella, but it does reflect this world and the black humor being displayed here.

My only complaint about the film was the ending. We love these  characters and sure we want to see more of them but I hated the egotistical “let’s leave it open for a sequel ending!” Let’s say they never make one. Then we will never see an ending to any of the conflict in the film.

This is one great time at the movies if you are an action fan!

4 out of 5

So Says the Soothsayer.

WTF?: KRISTEN STEWART TO REPLACE ANGELINA IN WANTED 2

Source: eonline.com

It was reported today that KRISTEN STEWART is rumored to be in negotiations to star in WANTED 2 starring alongside James McAvoy.

She would become the new female lead following in the footsteps of Angelina’s character who died in the original. K.Stew’s character would be one of the “assassin’s in training” that McAvoy meets and supposedly his new love interest.

K.Stew dodging bullets, driving fast cars and playing with samurai swords??? WTF??

So is Angie out? Director Timbur Bekmambetov promised she would be back in some capacity before this story broke. But then Angie dropped out according to Entertainment Weekly back in Feburary. So could K.Stew save this sequel?

I for one am not convinced. I know that Kristen is a hot actress right now but she sure ain’t no new Angelina. If you could take K.S’s brain, put it in Megan Fox’s body and mix in some Rose McGowan sass then you might come close to Angelina.

Speaking of Rose, why not get her into this sequel? She was wicked in Planet Terror and she’s hot and has that butt-kicking girl assassin thing going.

Furthermore can anyone see K.Stew in an action movie? Holy makeover Batman. The closest thing I can imagine if that came to fruition would be Jamie King in “Bulletproof Monk.”

What do you think could K.Stew do it?

This is the first issue of WTF NEWS!

Peace out!